Russian Legal Order and the Legal Order of the Eurasian Economic Union: An Uneasy Relationship
Eurasian integration has created a new legal order – the so-called “Union law” of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). This legal order has its own narrative, principles, hierarchy of rules, and innovations such as the direct applicability of decisions of its regulatory body. Russian legal order is generally accommodating towards international law, which is equally applicable to Union law. However, the recent practice of the Russian Constitutional Court has claimed that Russia can set aside international obligations based on national constitution, which indirectly targets the viability of the EAEU legal order. This is further complicated by the Eurasian judiciary, which, as the main interpretative authority within the integration, has tried to take on an activist role, somewhat borrowing approaches from the European Union. In its turn, the Russian Constitutional Court has voiced its differences in certain approaches. This variability of practices and approaches clearly undermines the “unity” of the EAEU legal order and the interweaving of national and regional legal frameworks. This article analyses the relationship of the two legal orders to assess the possibilities for tensions between them. It points out the sources of such tensions, which lie in certain indeterminacies within the EAEU legal order, temptations to assert power, and recent far-reaching practices of the Russian Constitutional Court.
About the AuthorMaksim Karliuk
Research Fellow, HSE -Skolkovo Institute for
Law and Development
8/1 Pokrovsky Boulevard, Moscow, 109028
1. Craig P. & de Burca G. EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (5th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
2. Dawson M. et al. Judicial Activism at the European Court of Justice (Cheltenham and Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013).
3. De Witte B. Direct Effect, Primacy, and the Nature of the Legal Order in The Evolution of EU Law (P. Craig & G. de Burca (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
4. Evans A. The Enforcement Procedure of Article 169 EEC: Commission Discretion, 4 European Law Review (1979).
5. Kadi on Trial: A Multifaceted Analysis of the Kadi Trial (M. Avbelj et al. (eds.), London and New York: Routledge, 2014).
6. Karliuk M. The Limits of the Judiciary within the Eurasian Integration Process in The Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union: Moving toward a Greater Understanding (A. Di Gregorio & A. Angeli (eds.), The Hague: Eleven International Publishing, 2017).
7. Kelsen H. The Concept of the Legal Order, 27(1) American Journal of Jurisprudence (1982).
8. Martin Martinez M.M. National Sovereignty and International Organizations (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1996).
9. Orakhelashvili A. Peremptory Norms in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
10. Schermers H.G. & Blokker N. International Institutional Law: Unity within Diversity (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003).
11. Sweet A. & Brunell T. The European Court of Justice, State Noncompliance, and the Politics of Override, 106(1) American Political Science Review (2012).
12. The Impact of EU Accession on the Legal Orders of New EU Member States and (Pre-) Candidate Countries: Hopes and Fears (A.E. Kellermann et al. (eds.), The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2006).
13. Van der Loo G. & Van Elsuwege P. Competing Paths of Regional Economic Integration in the Post-Soviet Space, 37(4) Review of Central and East European Law (2012).
14. Weiler J.H.H. The Transformation of Europe, 100(8) Yale Law Journal (1991).
For citation: Karliuk M. Russian Legal Order and the Legal Order of the Eurasian Economic Union: An Uneasy Relationship. Russian Law Journal. 2017;5(2):33-52. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2017-5-2-33-52
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0.