There was a certain inevitability that the Constitutional Court, the notional supreme arbiter in the power struggle between President Boris Yeltsin and his legislature, would refuse at the first fence.


But unsurprising as it was, it was nonetheless regrettable that when the court was confronted with the task of determining the validity of a presidential decree that appeared directly to contravene the constitution, its immediate response was to duck out.


The argument used by the court to defer any decision was that the decree in question, which allowed Krasnoyarsky Krai to import foreign nuclear waste for disposal in direct violation of a constitutional clause specifically forbidding such imports, was specific rather than "normative" and therefore did not fall within its jurisdiction.


In other words, only if the decree had allowed the import of nuclear waste in general, rather than specifically to the Krasnoyarsky Krai could the court have considered it.


This may well be true. But it does not alter the fact that what is at stake here is far more than the survival of one nuclear processing plant, or even the wellbeing of the nuclear industry.


Ever since Yeltsin dissolved the old constitutional court in the wake of the parliamentary crisis of October 1993, there has in effect been no legislative brake on his exercise of power. And with the State Duma too choked by rivalry and infighting to provide any alternative, the president has resorted more and more frequently to rule by decree.


The reestablishment of the Constitutional Court in February was supposed to inhibit the president from exercising this power with such abandon. While no one seriously expected Yeltsin to stop legislating by decree, there would be a mechanism in place to make him accountable.


For this to work, it was vital that the court showed itself at least willing to address the issue when put to the test. If anyone was to have any faith in the court, it had to be seen to be willing to grapple with the issue -- and if necessary the president. By passing the matter to arbitration, rather than making a decision one way or the other, it has instead revealed itself to be toothless.


Defenders of the court argue that the real fault lies with the constitution, which defines and limits its powers and area of jurisdiction. Be that as it may, the inescapable conclusion that most people will have reached is that the Constitutional Court has taken the option favored by so many high offices in this country -- passing the buck. If the Constitutional Court cannot carry out its single most important function, namely upholding the constitution, one can only wonder what point there is in having it at all.