I.R. Sultanov, PhD in Political Science
Bashkir
Academy of State Service and Management under the President
of
the Republic of Bashkortostan
Ufa, Bashkortostan, Russia Federation
The
influence of the integration associations on the rapprochement and unification
of domestic legislation
The
article is devoted to the current issues of the international law.
International integration organizations are currently playing a more
significant role in the development of the international law. The integration
of new institutes of the international law is occurring more rapidly due to the
development of the integration organizations. The research looks at the issue
of the international cooperation prospects in the context of the influence of
the integration associations upon it.
The
process of the parity of norms of the international and national legal systems
involves recently more and more steadfast attention of jurists. It, first of
all, is defined by the objective process of the international cooperation of
the states where relations of subjects are regulated by the international law,
amplifying influence of the internal law on economic, sociopolitical relations
in the country. It is important to notice that this problem is not thus in
purely theoretical space.
An important
role in this process is played by the international integration associations
and the international organizations. As experience shows, the most essential
progress in this question was achieved in this sphere of economic cooperation.
Mainly, it occurs due to the unity of economic principles («values») introduced
by the integration alliances, in particular, those on which the GATT agreement
of 1947 and the WTO of 1994 is based. It must be recalled that their
participants are the majority (nearby 150) of the world states. Therefore it is
a legal duty of all or the majority of integrated groupings. It is possible to
consider the second major factor for their effectiveness, in our opinion, to be
the innovation in the legal methods used for regulation of the inner-union life
[1].
Among
them is a general principle of market-base of the national economies, meaning
reduction of a role and participation of the governments (those of public
level) in the regulation of private legal relations – business. The principle
of a free competition, i.e. an antimonopoly policy and management of the state
help. It is expressed in economy demonopolization, mainly in such natural
monopolies, as railway transportation, telecommunications, electric power and
gas industries; as well as an interdiction for rendering of the state help and assuming
leading position in a commodity or services market [2]. In these conditions,
the traditional interstate cooperation (interstate trade, mutual aid) gives way
to cooperation of private persons – corporations and other enterprises (the
investment, bank, insurance business, private trade). Finally, the introduction
of the "national treatment" for foreign enterprises, facilitating
business management in other state. In some directions preferential relations
are possible also.
Due to
the flexibility [8] peculiar to the integration communities, dynamism and high legal
capacity, as well as not in the last instance, thanks to the mass use of the
soft legal regulations, do the integration associations get that locomotive
role, which they use for the advancement of these economic values and the unification
on their basis of the national legal systems and orders. It will be logical to
raise the question – why these values and not others. The answer lies, as we have
already marked, in the international obligations that follow the states’ memberships
in GATT/WTO, which currently amounts to about 150 states. The GATT agreement of
1947 provides an introduction of market rules into the international trading
practice, replacing the traditional interstate trade that is based on the
sovereignty of the states. Thus, the established interstate unions are also not
able to deviate from the GATT/WTO norms and determine their distribution and
introduction as their main task. It may be heard sometimes that if Russia joins
the WTO, the necessity in a special Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with
EU (which is being prepared currently, since June, 2008) will disappear by
itself. We will note that today both processes are developed simultaneously –
negotiations about the introduction of the Russian Federation into the WTO and
negotiations about the new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with EU (URF-2).
Both of these contain the same financial and legal imperatives (both the
agreement with the WTO and the agreement with EU). It may be noted that the
hindering in one is accompanied by parallel hindering in the other. Likewise,
the progress in the negotiations with the WTO coincides with the progress in
the negotiations with the Union of Right Forces. This “coincidence” could be
observed repeatedly during the two expired years, which suggests the idea of
their basic and target unity.
The Liberalization
of national economies of member states is that requirement which derive from
the specified GATT/WTO agreements, the members of which are all countries of
the EU, NAFTA, central Africa or, say, the OPEC. However, in the EU the
legitimacy of the GATT imperatives has not come along without fluctuations. As was
marked by the professor U.M.Yumashev, «in the early nineteen sixties, the Court
considered that the obligations emerge from the GATT agreement, concluded
earlier by the member states, does not operate concerning the Community» [9, p.195].
However, «in the early seventies, after the completion of the transition
period, the Court in its decisions underlined that obligations of member states
in GATT devolve upon the Community in the process of the expansion of its
external competence» [9, p.195].
Therefore,
if the European power charter, as well as the 1994ã. Agreement to it
[10] are to be mentioned, they already are the documents that demand
from the "Contracting parties", those that are not the GATT/WTO members,
reorganization of their internal economic relations systems on the liberal
model. The integration unions collectively achieve these purposes easier. EU
though and through bills of a smaller, than GATT scale (on a circle of
participants), suggests to introduce the same economic rules that we have
specified above. It is natural that the states, which have only recently left
the socialist forms of state system, quite often experience problems of the
incompatibility of their economic and legal systems. Some enjoy the priority of
state, while others – a private-corporative approach. As the result, the incompatibility
of the legal and economic traditions leads to an ineffective or simply inert
agreement. For example, F.Lukyanov quite truly writes concerning Russia that «the
dialogue about the expansion of the Russia’s deliveries in EU was beyond the utilitarian
frameworks «goods – money – goods» and has turned into a basic discussion about
the future of Russia’s economy» [11].
Indeed,
if we are to compare the Agreement to the European power charter of 1994 and the
GATT agreement, is evident that it only somewhat elaborates the GATT provisions,
but does not add anything conceptually new to those principles, that the states
groupings are to follow according to the 1947 and 1994 agreements. The latter,
by the way, in the stated agreement are mentioned time and again as primary
[10]. Let us compare: it is the freedom of competition, the principle of non-discrimination,
the allegiance to the union market, as well as to the Eurocommunity itself, and
the preservation of the environment with its own principle (the pollutant
pays). All these general provisions on ECT market liberalization only concretize
them with reference to the energy sector, addressing them to specific states.
New in the specified Charter and the Agreement to it is only one - involving into
the sphere of the convention not just 27 EU states, but 51 state, including Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Mongolia, Japan, Ukraine and many other not European states by far.
And, the second is a requirement of access of the West European managers to
gas-transport networks of all states, noy excluding those, which are not a part
of this integration structure.
As to
the sources, private contracts, which are regulated by civil law, unfairly join
their number. However, this can hardly be considered as innovative approaches
of established integration structures, for even at the dawn of occurrence of
this enterprise, some authors have already declared that the international law will
never be able to play a really important role in the international affairs
until it includes some of questions which nowadays enter into the jurisdiction
of specific states into its own sphere of competence [12].
Such
discrepancy gives evidence of an aspiration to achieve particular purposes of the
integration "at any cost". It is not infrequent that the states show
discontent with the pressure of the integration structures and the rates of
reforms initiated from above. However, supposedly, a number of other factors
force the governments to reconcile and moderate the skepticism, making common
cause with the majority. The EU experience testifies that collectivity has a significant
integrating influence on the members of the grouping.
Nevertheless, the pressure, rates with which the integration is
conducted in the past years, in particular, in Europe, causes discomfort among the
states and the aspiration of their own position. Solidarity suffers. The states
periodically recall their sovereignty. It may be seen that the voting on
referendums gives one failure after another. So, in 2007, the absence of
solidarity was most obvious in an oppositional stand of Poland and Estonia.
There is also a group of traditional eurosceptics, which in EU are considered
to be Denmark, Ireland and Great Britain. Since 2005, France and the
Netherlands have joined their number. Euroscepticism is already considered by
the West European authors as a system, and completely not passing phenomenon
[12].
The list of the used sources:
1.
The consolidated version of the European Union Agreement and the Agreement
establishing the European community. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the EC, 1997.
2.
EU promotes strengthening of a competition of the free market in
Russia//the Press release. Moscow, Representative office of the European
Commission in Russia.15th of September, 2003. //http:// www.eur.ru
3.
Koretsky V.M. «The general principles of the law» in international law. Kiev,
1957.
4.
Gerchikova I.N. The international economic organizations:
regulation of inter-economic relations and enterprise activity. The manual – Moscow,
JSC "Konsultbankir" Publishing house, 2000. 23p.
6.
Yumashev U.Ì. Chapter 7
«Sources of the law of the EU»//the European law, policy and integration:
Actual problems// Under. scientific edit. of L.H.Mingazov. Kazan. 2005.
7.
Lukyanov F. The cooperation of the EU and the Russian Federation in
energy sector is built upon a strong base//Europe, No.5 (28), May, 2003.p.IX.
8.
Zhjujar Karro// Quote from the work of Shumilov V.M. The International
public economic law. The manual. Ìoscow: NIMP, 2001.
9.
Brierly J. The Law of Nations.-4 ed. London, 1949.-P.142 ff.; Op.cit.-5 Åd.-London, 1955. P.75 ff.
10.
Carlos Flores Huberias. «Antieuropeism» and «euroscepticism»: the
analysis of the situation after the expansion of the European union to the East//Europe:
Journal of the Polish institute of the international affairs. Volume 7, No.2(23),
2007.
11.
Carlos Flores Huberias – the Essays //http:// europa.eu.int8comm
12.
Muljun V.N. Features of the parity of the international and the internal
law in activities of the World Trade Organization, the International currency
fund and the World bank group//Dissertation. Ph.D. in legal sciences. Moscow.
2009.