Forms of public participation in the administration of justice in the Russian Empire in the 19th century: the case of volost’ courts and local self-government in Southern Ukraine

The article explores the forms of population participation in the administration of justice in the Russian Empire during the 19th century, focusing on volost courts and peasant self-governance bodies in Southern Ukraine. The study analyzes the historical prerequisites for the establishment of volost courts, their composition, formation procedures, and the legal culture and consciousness of judges within the context of reforms in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly the Peasant Reform of 1861. This reform, aimed at reorganizing serfdom institutions after emancipation, tasked the imperial government with creating an effective judicial model for peasant communities that required minimal financial resources. Volost courts emerged as a solution, filling the legal vacuum and providing accessible, prompt, and familiar justice by combining statutory and customary law. The author thoroughly examines the mechanisms of peasant involvement in the judicial process. The primary form of participation was the community’s right to elect judges at volost assemblies, where 4 to 12 judges were chosen to serve in rotation for up to a year. Volost assemblies, as the highest collegial body, included representatives from communities (one per ten households), village elders, clerks, and other officials. However, legislation allowed communities to impose additional restrictions, such as property, gender, or religious qualifications, which influenced the composition of assembly participants. For instance, in Muslim and Jewish communities of Southern Ukraine, only men had voting rights, whereas in Orthodox Ukrainian communities, women, particularly widows managing households, were often involved in assemblies. The study highlights the limited autonomy of volost courts due to state oversight and the influence of local customs. It examines judge requirements, including an age threshold (initially 25, later raised to 35 years) and the absence of mandatory literacy due to the low educational level of peasants, though literacy rates were higher in Southern Ukraine’s communities, especially among Mennonites, due to a developed primary education system. No formal property qualification was required, but wealth often influenced candidate selection, as communities funded judges. Judicial salaries were minimal (up to 50 rubles) and sometimes replaced by benefits, complicating candidate recruitment. Significant attention is given to extrajudicial dispute resolution, where influential community members, elders, or volost assemblies played key roles. Disputes were often settled before reaching the court, and judicial decisions frequently relied on the community’s interpretation of customs, occasionally leading to vigilante justice in cases of “unjust” verdicts. The ethnic and religious diversity of Southern Ukraine shaped a unique judicial process, with customary law legitimizing decisions. Drawing on archival sources, normative acts (notably the “General Regulation on Peasants” of 1861), and works by pre-revolutionary and modern scholars (M. Zagoskin, C. Frierson, G. Voloshkevych, etc.), the author concludes that volost courts were a vital component of grassroots justice. They blended state initiatives with folk traditions, ensuring fairness and legitimacy of decisions, particularly in the ethnically and religiously diverse context of Southern Ukraine.