Legal Aspects of Transparency in the Eurasian Economic Union

  • Daria BOKLAN National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation
  • Ilya LIFSHITS Russian Foreign Trade Academy, Lomonosov Moscow State University, EDAS Law Firm, Moscow, Russian Federation

Abstract

The transparency principle has a particularly vital role in international economic integration organizations because states delegate their sovereign powers to such organizations. Legal instruments applicable within such organizations display an evident deficiency of democratic legitimacy, as they have extensive power to affect human rights, while in contrast, many bodies representing the people are granted only limited participation in decision-making processes or are not involved in them at all. These characteristics place particular importance on the transparency principle, and the implementation of this standard is in the majority of cases a pre-condition of civil society’s effective control over international economic organizations, their accountability, and ultimately good governance. The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is a newly created regional and international organization, which aims at fostering economic cooperation between post-soviet states, managing a customs union and creating a single economic space in the territory of its members. Several questions arise in relation to EAEU activities: Is the EAEU a purely intergovernmental organization focused solely on trade issues, or could it be a real union that can support the ideas of accountability, good governance and the rule of law? What is the role of the transparency principle in building such an institution? This article tries to answer these questions.

References

[1] Agreement between the European Parliament and the European Commission on the transparency register for organisations and self-employed individuals engaged in EU policy-making and policy implementation. 2014. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014Q0919%2801%29 (accessed January 20, 2018).
[2] Agreement on Preshipment Inspection. 2010. http://wtocenter.vn/wto/legal-documents/agreement-preshipment-inspection (accessed February 20, 2018).
[3] Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/15sps_01_e.htm (accessed December 18, 2017).
[4] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. https://www.wto.org/englIsh/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf (accessed February 25, 2018).
[5] Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures. 2010. http://wtocenter.vn/wto/legal-documents/agreement-trade-related-investment-measures (accessed February 20, 2018).
[6] Bartsits, I. 2008. Global administrative law as a challenge and a threat to the international law order. Moscow Journal of International Law, 2, 5-19.
[7] Brummer, C. 2012. Why soft law dominates international finance – and not trade. In T. Cottier, J. Jackson, and R. Lastra (Eds.). International Law in Financial Regulation and Monetary Affairs: 95-113. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[8] Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. 1998. Aarhus. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e (accessed March 25, 2016).
[9] Costa v ENEL. 1964. 6/64 ECR 585.
[10] Court of the Eurasian Economic Community. 2013. Judgment of 24 June 2013. Minsk. http://www.eurasiancommission.org/docs/Download.aspx?IsDlg=0andprint=1andID=4499 (accessed December 21, 2017).
[11] Crawford, J. 2014. Chance, order, change: The course of international law. The Hague: Hague Academy of International Law.
[12] Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 ‘On the harmonization of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC. 2004. http://www.cssf.lu/fileadmin/files/Lois_reglements/Legislation/Directives/D_EC_2004_109.pdf (accessed March 5, 2018).
[13] Eurasian Economic Commission. 2014. Eurasian Economic Union. Questions and Answers. Numbers and Facts. Moscow. http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/Documents/eaes_voprosy_otvety.pdf (accessed January 21, 2018).
[14] Eurasian Economic Union. 2018. https://docs.eaeunion.org/en-us/ (accessed January 21, 2018).
[15] Eurasian Economic Union Court. 2016. Judgment of 3 March 2016. http://courteurasian.org/page-24161 (accessed March 2, 2018).
[16] Gadinis, S. 2015. Three pathways to global standards: private, regulator, and ministry networks. American Journal of International Law, 109(1), 1-57.
[17] General Agreement on Trade in Services. https://www.wto.org/ENGLISH/DOCS_E/LEGAL_E/26-gats.pdf (accessed March 26, 2018).
[18] Handbook on Promoting Good Governance in EC Development and Cooperation. 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/handbook-promoting-good-governance-ec-development-and-co-operation_en (accessed January 21, 2018).
[19] Jovanovic, M.N. 2011. International Handbook on the Economics of Integration: General Issues and Regional Groups. Volume I. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
[20] Kembayev, Z. 2016. Regional integration in Eurasia: The legal and political framework. Review of Central and East European Law, 41, 157-194.
[21] Klofat, A. 2017. Regulatory competition within the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union: A comparative legal analysis. Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 44(2), 173-196.
[22] Krisch, N., and Kingsbury, B. 2006. Introduction: Global governance and global administrative law in the international legal order. European Journal of International Law, 17(1), 1-13.
[23] Kuo, M.-S. 2012. Inter-public legality or postpublic legitimacy? Global governance and the curious case of global administrative law as a new paradigm of law. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 10(4), 1050-1075.
[24] Lockhart, N.J.S., and Mitchell, A.D. 2005. Regional Trade Agreements under GATT 1994: an exception and its limits. In A.D. Mitchell (Ed.). Challenges and Prospects for the WTO: 217. London, UK: Cameron May.
[25] May, J.R., and Daly, E. 2013. Global constitutional environmental rights. In A. Shawkat, M.J.H. Bhuiyan, T.M.R. Chowdhury, and E.J. Techera (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of International Environmental Law. New York: Routledge.
[26] Neshataeva, T. (Ed.). 2015. Eurasian integration: court role. Moscow: Statut.
[27] Neuwirth, R.J. 2015. Global market integration and the creative economy: The paradox of industry convergence and regulatory divergence. Journal of International Economic Law, 18(1), 21-50.
[28] Pauwelyn, J. 2004. The puzzle of WTO safeguards and regional trade agreements. Journal of International Economic Law, 7(1), 109-142.
[29] Petrov, R., and Kalinichenko, P. 2016. On similarities and differences of the European Union and Eurasian Economic Union legal orders: Is there the ‘Eurasian Economic Union Acquis’? Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 43(3), 295-308.
[30] Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union. http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/protocols-annexed-to-the-treaties/656-protocol-on-the-role-of-national-parliaments-in-the-european-union.html (accessed March 6, 2018).
[31] Report of the Working Party on the Accession of the Russian Federation to the World Trade Organization. 2011. http://uchebana5.ru/cont/1636625.html (accessed January 16, 2018).
[32] Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. 1992. http://www.un-documents.net/rio-dec.htm (accessed May 3, 2018).
[33] Shaffer, G. 2012. International law and global public goods in a legal pluralist world. European Journal of International Law, 23(3), 669-693.
[34] Shashkina, E. 2013. «Agenda for the XXI century» and human rights: the right to participate. Eurasian Law Journal, 1(56), 116-119.
[35] Shumilov, V. 2014. On periodization of international law in the context of the civilization approach: Russia and West. Eurasian Law Journal, 10, 44-50.
[36] Shumilov, V., Boklan, D., Lifshits, I. 2015. Novel legal agreement on the Eurasian Economic Union. Russian Foreign Economic Journal, 4, 88-100.
[37] Supreme Eurasian Economic Council. 2014a. Decision No. 78 ‘On approval of the Regulation on the Symbols of the Eurasian Economic Union’. Minsk. https://docs.eaeunion.org/docs/en-us/0143562/scd_13102014_78 (accessed March 10, 2018).
[38] Supreme Eurasian Economic Council. 2014b. Decision No. 99 ‘On approval procedure for international cooperation of the Eurasian Economic Union’. Moscow. https://docs.eaeunion.org/docs/en-us/0147032/scd_25122014_99 (accessed January 21, 2018).
[39] Supreme Eurasian Economic Council. 2014c. Decision No. 101 ‘On approval of regulations of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union’. Moscow. https://docs.eaeunion.org/docs/en-us/0147026/scd_25122014_101(accessed January 21, 2018).
[40] Supreme Eurasian Economic Council. 2015a. Decision No. 14 ‘On Free Trade Agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union and its Member States on the one part and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on the other part’. Moscow. https://docs.eaeunion.org/docs/en-us/0147681/scd_12052015_14 (accessed January 25, 2018).
[41] Supreme Eurasian Economic Council. 2015b. Decision No. 26 ‘On the main directions of international activity of the Eurasian Economic Union in 2015-2016’. Burabay. https://docs.eaeunion.org/docs/en-us/0148761/scd_19102015_26 (accessed January 17, 2018).
[42] Supreme Eurasian Economic Council. 2015c. Decision No. 28 ‘On the main directions of economic development of the Eurasian Economic Union’. Burabay. https://docs.eaeunion.org/docs/en-us/0148763/scd_19102015_28 (accessed January 21, 2018).
[43] Supreme Eurasian Economic Council. 2015d. Decision No. 29 ‘On the start of negotiations with the State of Israel on conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement’. Burabay. https://docs.eaeunion.org/docs/en-us/0148765/scd_19102015_29 (accessed January 22, 2018).
[44] The Declaration of the high-level meeting of the General Assembly on the rule of law at the national and international levels. 2012. 67th Sess., Agenda item 83, A/RES/67/1. http://undocs.org/A/RES/67/1 accessed 21 January 2018 (accessed January 21, 2018).
[45] Transparency and the EU. 2018. http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do?redir=falseandlocale=en (accessed February 20, 2018).
[46] Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union. 2014. https://docs.eaeunion.org/ru-ru/Pages/DisplayDocument.aspx?s=bef9c798-3978-42f3-9ef2-d0fb3d53b75fandw=632c7868-4ee2-4b21-bc64-1995328e6ef3andl=540294ae-c3c9-4511-9bf8-aaf5d6e0d169andEntityID=3610 (accessed January 6, 2018).
[47] Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 2012. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXTandfrom=EN (accessed February 23, 2018).
[48] Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen. 1963. 26/62 ECR 1.
[49] Warner, R., and Marsden, S. (Eds.). 2012. Transboundary environmental governance. Inland, coastal and marine perspectives. Farnham: Ashgate.
[50] Weber, R.W. 2015. Does financial law suffer from systematic failure? A study of the fragmentation of legal sources. In C.I. Lim, and B. Mercurio (Eds.). International Economic Law after the Global Crisis: a Tale of Fragmented Disciplines (pp. 33-45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Published
2018-12-21
How to Cite
BOKLAN, Daria; LIFSHITS, Ilya. Legal Aspects of Transparency in the Eurasian Economic Union. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 9, n. 3(33), p. 917-928, dec. 2018. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <https://journals.aserspublishing.eu/jarle/article/view/2533>. Date accessed: 21 mar. 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.14505//jarle.v9 3(33).15.