Defining treason in legal terms is an inherently political process, fraught with bitter contention, weight of history, suspicions of abuse, and no shortage of nationalist grandstanding.  But probably not for Russia, which this week introduced a new bill to the Duma asking for modifications to the legislation to make the criteria more open and arbitrary – which critics see as a naked weapon of repression for the executive to prosecute any national acting against their political interests.

We shouldn’t expect any kind of vigorous public debate.  It’s difficult to imagine that the new legislation will awaken any more public concern or conscience among citizens as the changes to extremism legislation a few years ago.  Beyond just a handful of can-you-believe-this-latest-Russian-outrage type articles in the Western media, the matter will quickly be forgotten and buried until the authorities choose to deploy the legislation.

The very introduction of theme of treason, for any country, carries a difficult implication for the judiciary, which includes a definition of the national interest and an splitting of sovereignty between the state, the people, and the individual.