As a manuscript
BONDAREV SERGEY ALEKSANDROVICH
INTEGRATION PROCESSES
IN THE POST-SOVIET SPACE
Specialty 08.00.14– World economy
dissertations for an academic degree
Candidate of Economic Sciences
Moscow - 2008
The work was carried out at the Department of World Economics
Russian State Trade and Economic University
The defense will take place on April 1, 2008 at 12 noon at a meeting of the dissertation council D 446.004.02 at the Russian State University of Trade and Economics at the address: 125993, Moscow, st. Smolnaya, 36, RGTEU, room. 127.
The dissertation can be found in the scientific library of the Russian State Trade and Economic University.
Scientific Secretary
dissertation council
Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor Krasyuk I.N.
- BASIC PROVISIONS OF THE WORK
Relevance of the research topic. Globalization processes covering world economy and politics are increasingly influencing the development of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) as a whole. The potential of the CIS can be successfully realized only if its markets timely adapt to geopolitical and geo-economic realities and coordinated participation in solving global economic problems.
At the same time, the processes observed in last years in the CIS are extremely contradictory. On the one hand, the vector of the pro-Russian policy of the majority of its participants has clearly emerged. On the other hand, contradictions in Russia’s relations with states oriented towards Western “centers of power” have deepened. While maintaining its strategic interests post-Soviet space, Russia pursues a differentiated policy towards the countries of the former republics Soviet Union, implementing an integration policy with Belarus and Kazakhstan, and a policy of interaction with all other countries.
The asynchrony in the implementation of economic reforms in the CIS countries seriously affects the behavior of economic entities, economic relations between which become a decisive element of liberalized foreign trade. An analysis of foreign trade statistics of the CIS countries shows that the share of mutual trade, with very few exceptions, is gradually declining. At the same time, trade and economic ties of all Commonwealth countries are expanding, including including and Russia, with the states of Europe and Southeast Asia. Thus, we observe in the post-Soviet space the predominance of disintegration processes over integration ones. The foreign economic policy of Western countries is also actively pursued in this direction.
The current direction of activity of the leaders of the Commonwealth countries is solving the problems of implementing integration cooperation programs, the benefit of which is due to the fact that, firstly, it is possible to use the previously created economic, based on the intra-industry division of labor, and cultural ties, and, secondly, regional associations that modern world are the generally accepted way of the “normal” existence of states.
We are talking about such structures as the Union State (Russia and Belarus), the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC - Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan), the Common Economic Space (SES - Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan), GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova). Political disagreements arise every now and then within integration associations, and their economic failures are due to reasons deeper than immediate interests.
A pressing issue in this regard is also the order of integration steps taken. To structure the CIS space, rather vague and initially very diverse configurations of cooperation at the macro and micro levels are possible (a unified approach to countries can destroy the entire structure). At the same time, production acquires a transnational character: economic ties are being established between Russian regions and regions of the CIS countries; large companies enter world markets.
The degree of development of the research topic. In his research, the author relied on the works of Russian scientists and specialists in the field of international economic integration groups, in particular: L.I. Abalkin, Barkovsky A.N., Bogomolov O.T., Bragina E.A., Vardomsky L.B., Vashanova V.A., Godin Yu.F., Grinberg R.S., Zevin L.Z., Ziyadullaeva N.S., Klotsvoga F.N., Kochetova E.G., Nekipelova A.D., Presnyakova V.Yu., Rybalkina V.E., Faminsky I.P., Khasbulatova R.I., Shishkova Yu .V., Shurubovicha A.V., Shchetinina V.D.
When conducting the study, the works of foreign economists were also used, who laid the theoretical foundations for the analysis of interstate integration processes that contributed to the study of the problems of the international division of labor, primarily B. Balazs, R. Couse, R. Lipsey, J. Mead, B. Olin, U Rostow, A. Smith, J. Stiglitz, P. Stritten, J. Tinbergen, E. Heckscher.
Purpose and objectives of the study. The purpose of the dissertation work is to develop a differentiated approach to the development economic cooperation Russia with the countries of the former Soviet Union in the format of multilateral integration relations, based on determining Russia’s position in relation to each of the existing integration associations in the post-Soviet space.
To achieve this goal, the following tasks were set and solved:
- analyze the dynamics and main directions of economic cooperation between Russia and the CIS countries;
- identify the causes and factors that determine the content of integration processes with the participation of Russia and the Commonwealth countries;
- conduct a comparative analysis of the economic development of existing integration associations and determine directions for expanding Russia’s position in them;
- identify differentiated approaches to the development of bilateral relations with the CIS countries in the main areas of cooperation and sectoral aspects of foreign economic relations, which will take into account the economic interests of Russia as much as possible;
- highlight the stages of formation of a single economic space within the framework of integration associations existing in the post-Soviet space for the medium term;
- outline prospects for the development of the integration process within the CIS.
Object of study are the international integration processes taking place in the post-Soviet space with the participation of Russia.
Subject of research The economic relations of Russia with the CIS countries are discussed, which are considered in the format of the development of multilateral and bilateral relations, taking into account the main areas of cooperation and integration aspects of foreign economic relations in the post-Soviet space.
Methodological and theoretical foundations of the study. The goals and objectives of the study involve the use of methods of system-structural and situational analysis, expert assessments, historical-chronological, monographic and statistical analysis, a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches to the study of the phenomena under consideration.
Methodological and theoretical basis The dissertation work includes the works of classics on the problems of the world economy and the international division of labor, research by Russian and foreign scientists on issues of international economic integration.
The information basis was the materials of the Interstate Statistical Committee of the CIS, the State Statistics Committee of Russia, official data from the national statistical services of the Commonwealth countries, customs statistics of Russia, analytical and statistical reviews of the CIS Executive Committee, as well as international organizations, publications in the domestic and foreign press.
The work uses the regulatory framework that defines the conditions for the creation of a free trade zone within the CIS, the formation of the union of Russia and Belarus, the EurAsEC and the Common Economic Space.
Scientific novelty of the dissertation research is that the possibility of multi-speed development of integration processes in the post-Soviet space in the format of bilateral and multilateral relations has been proven. The dissertation obtained the following results containing scientific novelty.
- A change in the balance of forces in the integration processes in the post-Soviet space has been revealed: Russia has ceased to be the only economically powerful power, the activity and scale of foreign economic and political influence in the post-Soviet space from, primarily the United States and European Union, in order to include certain CIS member countries in the sphere of their interests.
- It has been proven that the entry of the countries of the former USSR into the world economy requires further deepening of the economic integration of the states of the CIS region, since within the framework of integration associations there are prerequisites for eliminating parallel production and concentrating efforts on fundamental areas of joint development, for mastering the production of global high-tech products, for coordinating common positions and coordination of measures for countries' accession to the WTO.
- It has been established that the fragmentation of the post-Soviet space occurs in modes of multi-speed and multi-level integration, more deeply in the Union State, less so in the EurAsEC. At the same time, the current design of integration unions is difficult to manage and leads to duplication and dispersion of efforts.
- The need to take into account the speed of formation of sectoral markets in the post-Soviet space is substantiated. At the same time, the fastest markets are identified by importance and dynamics of development: energy and transport services; medium-speed commodity and capital markets; markets with a slow rate of development - financial and stock markets.
- The author has developed a differentiated approach to integration processes within the framework of integration associations - the Union State, EurAsEC and the Common Economic Space, which consists in the fact that the implementation of a coordinated macroeconomic policy is proposed as the main directions of economic cooperation between the union of Russia and Belarus; synchronization of institutional reforms, modernization processes, integration of the economies of both countries into the world economy; formation of a single customs, monetary, scientific, technological and information space, stock market and labor market; in relation to the EurAsEC, it was proposed to adjust actions regarding the different speed movement of the Community countries towards the formation of the Customs Union and subsequent stages of integration, as well as to strengthen interaction with other integration associations; for the CES, it is recommended to coordinate actions with the participating countries to create a Customs Union and develop a regulatory framework for a common economic space.
Practical significance of the study. The dissertation materials can be used in practical work federal and regional executive authorities, including the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, the Federal Customs Service in developing sectoral areas of cooperation within the CIS and Russia’s foreign economic strategy in relation to the Commonwealth countries; Russian research institutes engaged in economic research; educational institutions– in the development of basic and special courses on the world economy and international economic relations.
Approbation of work. The developed differentiated approach to the development of economic cooperation between Russia and the countries of the former Soviet Union and, above all, with Ukraine in the format of multilateral integration relations is used in the practical activities of the Trade Representation of the Russian Federation in Ukraine. The results of the study are used in the educational process when studying the disciplines: “World Economy”, “International Economic Relations”, “International Economic Organizations”. The results, provisions and conclusions of the dissertation research listed above were published in the author’s scientific works, including in the abstracts of reports and speeches at the International scientific-practical conference“Globalization and problems of development of the Russian Federation” MHS (Moscow, 2002), “Current issues in the development of the Russian economy: theory and practice” VGIPU (N. Novgorod, 2006), “ National traditions in trade, economics, politics and culture" within the framework of the Vasiliev readings of RGTEU (Moscow, 2006), in articles published in the magazines "Industrial Bulletin", "Vestnik RGTEU" and in collections scientific articles RGTEU and VGIPU.
Publications. The main provisions of the dissertation are presented in six printed works with a total volume of 1.9 pp.
Research structure. The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of references and appendices. The volume of the dissertation is 170 pages of typewritten text, contains 17 diagrams, 18 appendices.
In the introduction the relevance of the research topic is substantiated, the purpose, objectives, object and subject of research, as well as research methods are determined, its scientific novelty and practical significance are revealed.
In the first chapter“Trends in integration and regionalization in the CIS space” the author examines modern scientific approaches to the phenomenon of integration in modern economic literature and the analysis of its economic essence, examines various theories of integration processes that make it possible to substantiate that further development integration in the post-Soviet space, depending on the goals and timing of the integration process, can occur at different speeds.
In the second chapter“Processes of differentiated integration of markets in the CIS countries”, the author analyzed the different-speed development of sectoral markets in the CIS, examined the dynamics and main factors in the development of trade and economic relations between Russia and the Commonwealth countries.
In the third chapter“Integration associations in the CIS countries and problems of mutual cooperation,” the author examined the prospects for the formation and implementation of regional associations in the territory of the post-Soviet space, identified the main directions for the further development of economic relations within these organizations, and formulated the main provisions of the strategy for Russia’s participation in each of these associations.
In custody conclusions and proposals were formulated, substantiated by the author in the conducted dissertation research in accordance with its purpose and objectives.
- MAIN CONTENT OF THE DISSERTATION
The study of modifications of the concept of “integration” made it possible to establish that international economic integration is a process of economic and political unification of countries on the basis of deep stable relationships and division of labor between national economies, the interaction of their economies at various levels and in various forms.
There are several definitions of integration formulated by various scientific schools of modern economic thought: market, market-institutional, structural (structuralist) schools.
Within the framework of existing scientific schools, alternative concepts of international economic integration have emerged. They are differentiated depending on the goals and time of the integration process.
The domestic theory of integration focuses on the substantive side of this phenomenon: on the patterns of inter-industry and intra-industry division of labor, on the processes of international interweaving of capital and production, or even more broadly - on the interpenetration and interweaving of national production cycles as a whole. Integration is considered as a complex, multidimensional, self-developing historical phenomenon, which initially arose in the most developed, from a technical, economic and socio-political point of view, regions of the world and step by step drew more and more countries into this process as they “matured” to the necessary economic, political and legal conditions.
Since the mid-90s, the concept of multi-speed integration has prevailed in Russia and a number of other CIS countries. Different-speed integration implies that participating countries are moving towards the same goals, but economically weaker ones do it more slowly.
By implementing the concept of the multi-rate integration model, the CIS is entering into a qualitative new stage its development, which is characterized by a transition to real integration based on the coinciding interests of the participating countries. This happens in different formats, which is commonly called multi-level and multi-speed integration, and it corresponds to world experience, including European experience. Now, along with multi-speed integration, the concept of multi-format integration has appeared. Multi-format integration means that goals and forms of integration can be different countries different. Multi-level and multi-speed integration within the Commonwealth does not contradict the interests of its member states. The research conducted by the author proved that the main factor in the formation of this process is objective economic prerequisites.
A similar phenomenon (nowadays experts more often use the term “differentiated integration”) was also typical for the European Union in the 90s of the twentieth century, when EU member countries united into interest groups, and their policies deviated from the general line of development of the European Union.
The positive dynamics of foreign trade of the CIS countries in recent years indicates that the countries are actively increasing their export potential, both in mutual trade with each other and with other foreign countries. The analysis shows that, starting from 1999, the total volume of exports of the Commonwealth countries, while maintaining a positive growth trend, began to gradually increase. Average growth rate of total exports of the CIS countries in the period from 1999 to 2005. amounted to 23%, the average growth rate of imports was 21%.
The orientation of the CIS countries towards the primary development of economic ties with industrialized countries led to the fact that the share of highly processed products in the structure of the countries' exports in 2005 was extremely low. Thus, in Belarus the share of machinery, equipment and Vehicle is 23.2%, Ukraine - 17.3%, Georgia - 19%, and in Russia - only 7.8%. Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan practically do not export similar products. In the commodity structure of exports of most Commonwealth countries, both to the CIS countries and to others foreign countries more than half comes from raw materials.
For the period 1999 – 2005. Russia has managed to maintain fairly intensive trade ties with the CIS countries and maintain trade turnover at a fairly high level. The overall effectiveness of these trade relations for Russia increased - the growth rate of Russian exports to the CIS countries significantly exceeded the growth rate of Russian imports from these countries (the average growth rate of exports for this period was 15% per year, imports - 10.3% per year), increased absolute volumes of positive balance of foreign trade, the ratio of import coverage by exports increased.
Despite the absolute increase in trade turnover between Russia and other CIS countries over the past years, their trade and economic ties show a clear tendency to weaken, the reorientation of most CIS member countries (primarily Russia itself) to other foreign countries, a sharp decline in Russia’s share in trade turnover countries of the CIS, as well as the preservation in the trade structure of exports of the CIS countries mainly of raw materials and products of a low degree of industrial processing.
Based on the study of the main changes that occurred between 1991 and 2006 in the structure of industrial sectors of the Commonwealth states, it was concluded that the main way to promote economic cooperation seems to be the activation of forms of interaction leading to deepening the integration of states.
In the analyzed period, it was revealed that the unstructured economic space of the CIS was unable to respond to the challenges of globalization. Weak interaction between integration associations, slow progress of the integration process in them, and at times rollback and stagnation, elements of rivalry sharply reduce the economic and technological potential of the CIS. Disunity does not allow either Russia or other Commonwealth countries to compete on equal terms with economically powerful powers and integration associations, or to mitigate adverse external influences (price shocks, uncontrolled capital flows, illegal migration, drug trafficking, smuggling, etc.).
A comprehensive analysis of world economic relations led to the conclusion that the new scientific and technological basis for the development of the world economy has changed the view of comparative advantages in international trade. Once they were mainly cheap labor and raw materials, now they are the novelty of products, their information richness, manufacturability and knowledge intensity. All this requires large-scale capital investments, which can be formed and paid off, first of all, by pooling investment funds and the presence of large markets that tend to expand. Thus, investments should determine the prospects for expanded reproduction and innovative development of the economies of all CIS countries. In the medium term, in our opinion, the main focus should be on overcoming the technological gap with developed countries and providing the Community countries with highly qualified personnel.
One of the most important factors in the transition to a new stage - the period economic growth and fundamental structural restructuring of the economies of the CIS member states, their effective interaction during the period of recovery from the economic crisis, stabilization and recovery of national economies - this is the development of interstate investment activity. These issues are strategic and common to all states of the Commonwealth, despite the fact that each of them has its own characteristics that require tactical specification.
It is necessary to objectively assess not only current, but also geopolitical realities, which is especially important in conditions when the CIS is a Euro-Asian association with its own socio-economic characteristics. It is impossible not to take into account the long-term practice of traditional good neighborly relations between the peoples living on the territory of the former Union, their economic and cultural ties. All this creates real prerequisites for the establishment of a sustainable integrated union of states, the formation of a single space without internal borders, and the gradual equalization of the levels of economic development of the Commonwealth states.
Despite all the objective and subjective difficulties of trade and economic relations between the CIS countries on the path of their integration rapprochement and adaptation to new conditions of cooperation, they have invaluable experience of close economic interaction in a single economic space.
Having analyzed a large amount of factual material, the author concluded that multi-format and multi-speed integration is one of the models acceptable for all CIS countries, which confirms their freedom of action and coexistence within the Commonwealth.
The study established that this integration model is based on two main prerequisites: the presence of a single integration goal and the impossibility of its simultaneous achievement by all CIS member states due to political, economic and other reasons.
Today, six integration political and economic associations have been created or are being formed in the post-Soviet space, five of which the Russian Federation participates in - the CIS, the Union State, the EurAsEC, the SES. The only regional organization in the post-Soviet space in which Russia does not participate is GUAM, which unites Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova.
It seems that the Union State and the EurAsEC have the most realistic prospects among the integration associations of the Commonwealth countries.
The Union of Russia and Belarus is an integration association with the phased organization of a single political, economic, economic, military, customs, currency, legal, humanitarian and cultural space. To financially support the tasks and functions of the Union State, a budget is adopted annually, which in 2007 amounted to 3.78 billion rubles, while the budget of the CIS and EurAsEC was 350 and 250 million rubles.
The Eurasian Economic Community is an international economic organization of a number of post-Soviet states, engaged in the formation of common external customs borders, the development of a unified foreign economic policy, tariffs, prices and other components of the functioning of the common market.
Within the framework of the EurAsEC, positive results have been achieved in the field of trade and economic cooperation and in the field of liberalization of mutual trade. To date, important steps have been taken to form a single customs territory, to harmonize and unify the national foreign economic legislation of the EurAsEC member states. In trade between the countries of the Community, existing restrictions have been practically eliminated and a free trade regime operates without exceptions .
By the SES, the participating states understand the economic space that unites the customs territories of the participating states, in which mechanisms for regulating economies operate, based on common principles that ensure the free movement of goods, services, capital and labor, and a unified foreign trade and coordinated, to the extent and to the extent necessary to ensure fair competition and maintain macroeconomic stability, fiscal, monetary and monetary policy.
The design of the SES provides a potential opportunity to realize a deeper level of integration of Russia with its main partners in the CIS. In the near future, the “project content” of the SES Agreement is becoming an extremely pressing problem.
One of the conditions for increasing the efficiency of economic integration of the CIS countries is the process of forming “sectoral” common markets in areas where there is a common interest: the fuel and energy complex (FEC), industrial cooperation, investment and trade and economic cooperation.
The study notes that in the integration cooperation of the member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the highest rates of development are observed in sectoral structure economics of the fuel and energy complex, are reflected in the field of electric power.
Now, within the framework of a single energy space, an agreement has been concluded on the parallel operation of the energy systems of the CIS member states. Armenia and Tajikistan interact with their leading regional partner, played by Iran .
At the moment, a single energy market of the CIS countries has not yet been created, therefore it seems appropriate to develop priority areas for the development of the Commonwealth’s energy sector in order to increase the role of the energy component in sectoral integration in various formats in the post-Soviet space.
The development of investment activity in the Commonwealth states is a complex, multifactorial process of implementing real economic integration. Interstate investment in the CIS economy is at an early stage and is currently not enough to give this process a high-speed character. Therefore, the author in his dissertation research proposed a number of evolutionary economic measures to intensify further development and increase the efficiency of investment processes between the CIS member states.
According to the author, the proposed system of measures will provide optimal conditions for creating an attractive investment image of the Commonwealth states for domestic and foreign investors, as well as intensify interstate investment and leasing activities for the purpose of real integration and effective development of the CIS economy.
The development of the CIS region meets, first of all, the economic interests of Russia: its leadership role is strengthened, the search for appropriate positions in the world market is facilitated, the opportunity arises to almost double the market and expand the expansion of Russian capital into countries with familiar conditions, traditions and historical ties, including through joint actions with regional partners.
The Action Program of the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation for the implementation of the provisions of the Treaty on the Establishment of the Union State defines the directions of work for the construction of the Union State, according to which the formation of a single economic space will be continued on the basis of annually developed annual and medium-term forecasts of the socio-economic development of the Union State, forecast balances of demand and proposals for the most important species products, as well as balances of fuel and energy resources of the Union State; implementation of a unified trade and customs tariff policy; coordination of actions to join the World trade organization; formation of a single customs space; unification of customs tariffs.
The practice of Russian-Belarusian interaction has shown that integration processes in relations between the two countries are developing quite contradictorily and unevenly, and face serious difficulties. The enormous potential opportunities for integration remain largely unrealized, and in some areas there is a “rollback.”
The formation of the EurAsEC is taking place with the decisive role of Russia both from an economic (the Community's GDP in 2005 was 89.3%) and from a political point of view. It seems that Russia, for historical reasons, cannot lose its role as a leader in the Community, and it must remain a leader in the EurAsEC.
The practical result of economic integration in the region is the opportunity to use the experience of the European Union, which in practice actively applies the principle of multi-speed integration for countries with different levels of economic development and political interest to participate in mature forms of integration cooperation.
Different speed and different levels of integration in the EurAsEC region are objectively due to significant differences between the two groups of countries in the level of their economic development, the degree of maturity of national financial markets, the convertibility of national currencies, the direction and intensity of foreign economic relations and payments.
An important direction in the development of integration processes in the CIS is the formation of a Common Economic Space. The emergence of a new integration project is brought to life by the dissatisfaction of the participating countries with the real economic returns from the activities of existing regional associations within the CIS and their slow progress towards integration.
Currently, a regulatory framework is being formed, which in the future will ensure the practical “launch” of the project. The current stage of legislative work on the formation of the SES is faced with serious difficulties, which are based on fundamental differences in the views of the parties on the prospects for integration in the proposed format, and, above all, of Ukraine.
Economic cooperation in the CIS is carried out at different levels: along with interstate relations and, accordingly, existing interests at the national-state level, there are corporate and interregional levels of interaction, and, consequently, there are interests of individual industries, companies, regions.
The study notes that cooperation with the CIS countries has a strategic priority in the foreign policy of the Russian Federation.
The strategy for economic cooperation with the CIS countries should be considered in the format of developing multilateral and bilateral relations, taking into account the main areas of cooperation and sectoral aspects of foreign economic relations.
The main objective of the strategy is to develop such approaches in the development of external relations that will take into account the economic interests of Russia as much as possible, promote the growth of export volumes, primarily machinery and equipment, and expand investment cooperation. Solving this problem is possible only if Russia’s strategy takes into account the fundamental interests of each of the Commonwealth states and contains mutually beneficial options for cooperation.
3. MAIN PUBLICATIONS ON THE TOPIC OF THE DISSERTATION
- Bondarev S.A. On the issue of the formation of a single energy space in the CIS countries // Bulletin of the Russian State Trade and Economic University. 2007. No. 2(18). 0.4 p.l.
Publications in other publications
Prerequisites for the development of integration processes in the CIS countries
The prerequisites for the development of integration interaction between states in the CIS format include:
absence objectivecontradictions between the development of multilateral cooperation and the tasks of strengthening the sovereignty of member states;
similarity of paths economictransformation member states towards market economy, approximately the same level of development of productive forces, similar technical and consumer standards;
presence in the post-Soviet territory of a hugeresource potential , developed science and rich culture: The CIS accounts for 18% of planetary oil reserves, 40% natural gas and 10% of world electricity production (with a one and a half percent share of the region in the world product);
preservationinterdependence and complementarity national economies due to the commonality of their historical evolution, the functioning of integrated networks of transport communications and power lines, as well as the absence of certain types natural resources in some states with their abundance in others;
profitablegeographical location of the region , significant transit potential, a developed telecommunications network, the presence of real and new potential transport corridors for the transport of goods between Europe and Asia.
However, there are currently a number of objective factors , much complicating the development of integration between CIS countries:
countries are participating in integration in the post-Soviet space, noticeablydifferent apart from each otherby economic potential, economic structure, level of economic development . For example, Russia accounts for 80% of total GDP, the share of Ukraine is 8%, Kazakhstan - 3.7%, Belarus - 2.3%, Uzbekistan - 2.6%, other republics - at the level of tenths of a percent;
integration into the CIS was carried out in conditions of deepeconomic crisis , which created a shortage of material and financial resources, widened the gap between countries in the levels of development and living standards of the population;
in CIS countriesmarket transformations have not been completed and it has already become clear that there isdifferences in approachesto the pace and ways of their implementation, which has created differences in national economic mechanisms and prevents the formation of a single market space;
there is a certainopposition leading world powers to the integration processes of the CIS countries : they do not need a single strong competitor in international markets, including in the post-Soviet space;
rowsubjective factors obstacles to integration: regional interests of national elites, nationalist separatism.
CIS as a regional union of states
The CIS was created in 1991 as a regional union of states in accordance with the agreement signed in Minsk Agreement on the creation of the CIS And Alma-Ata Declaration in order to carry out cooperation in the political, economic, environmental, humanitarian and cultural fields, promote the economic and social development of member states within the framework of a common economic space, as well as interstate cooperation and integration.
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) – is a voluntary association of independent states as independent and equal subjects of international law in order to regulate by international legal means, interstate treaties and agreements the political, economic, humanitarian, cultural, environmental and other cooperation of the participating states, of which they are members12 countries (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan)
The headquarters of the CIS is located inMinsk .
In January 1993, participating countries adoptedCIS Charter , fixing the principles, areas, legal framework and organizational forms of activity of this organization, taking into account the practical experience of the functioning of the CIS since its creation.
CISdoes not have supranational powers.The institutional structure of the CIS includes:
Council of Heads of State - higher a CIS body established to discuss and resolve strategic issues of the activities of member states in areas of their common interests;
Council of Heads of Government - body implementingcoordination cooperation between the executive authorities of the participating states;
CIS Executive Secretariat - an organ createdfor organizational and technical preparation of activities the said Councils and the implementation of certain other organizational and representative functions;
Interstate Economic Committee;
Council of Foreign Ministers;
Council of Defense Ministers;
Supreme Command of the United Armed Forces of the CIS;
Council of Commanders of Border Troops;
Interstate Bank.
Among the key tasks facing the CIS in the economic sphere at the present stage are the following:
coordination of efforts in solving regional problemseconomy , ecology , education , culture , politicians and nationalsecurity ;
developmentreal sector of the economy and technical re-equipment of production based on expanding trade and economic cooperation;
sustainable and progressive socio-economic development, growth of nationalwelfare .
Within the CIS it has already been possible to solve some problems:
completeditprocesses of economic and state demarcation(division of assets and liabilities of the former USSR, property, establishment of state borders and an agreed regime on them, etc.).
Thanks to the CIS institutions, it was possible to avoid serious conflicts during the division of property of the former USSR. To date, this process has been largely completed.The main principle in dividing the property of the former union was "zero option";
, providing for the division of property according to its territorial location. As for the assets and liabilities of the former USSR, Russia became the successor to its international obligations, which accordingly received foreign union property develop a mechanism mutual trade and economic relations on a fundamentally new;
market and sovereign basis restore within economically justifiable limits, interrepublican interrepublican ones destroyed as a result of the collapse of the USSR;
economic and production-technological connections civilized resolve humanitarian issues (guarantees of human rights, labor rights
, migration, etc.); provide systematic interstate on economic, political, military-strategic and humanitarian issues.
According to estimates by the Interstate Economic Committee of the Economic Union, the CIS countries currently account for about 10% of the world's industrial potential and about 25% of the reserves of the main types of natural resources. In terms of electricity production, the Commonwealth countries are in fourth place in the world (10% of the world's volume).
An important indicator characterizing the place of a region in the world economy is scale of trade. Despite the fact that, with the acquisition of independence, the CIS states significantly intensified their foreign economic relations with “third” countries, the share of the CIS countries in world trade is only 2%, and in world exports - 4.5%.
Unfavorable trends are intensifying in trade turnover structure: The predominant export item is raw materials and fuel and energy resources; mainly products from manufacturing industries and consumer products are imported.
Mutual trade between CIS countries is characterized by:
the predominance of mineral raw materials, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, products of the chemical, petrochemical and food industries in the commodity structure mutual export. The main export items of the CIS countries to other countries of the world are fuel and energy resources, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, mineral fertilizers, lumber, chemical industry products, while the share of engineering products and electronics is small, and its range is very limited;
features of the geographical focus of trade, consisting in a clearly expressedpredominance of Russia as the main trading partner and locallylimitation trade relationstwo or three neighboring countries . Thus, in the export-import operations of Belarus, Ukraine, and Moldova in recent years, the share of other states has significantly decreased due to an increase in the share of Russia;
a decrease in mutual trade volumes due to factors such aslong distances and high railway transportation tariffs. For example, currently products from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan or Uzbekistan are 1.4-1.6 times more expensive for Belarus than similar ones from Poland or Germany.
Stages of formation of integration forms of cooperation within the CIS
Analysis of the economic evolution of the CIS allows us to distinguish 3 stages in the process of development of integration of post-Soviet countries:
1991-1993 which was characterized by the collapse of the unified national economic complex of the USSR, the division of its national wealth, competition for obtaining external loans, refusal to pay the debts of the Soviet Union, a sharp reduction in mutual trade, which led to economic crisis throughout the post-Soviet space;
1994-1995- stage of formation of the legal space , which was associated with the intensive creation of a regulatory framework for interstate relations. The basis for the formation of the appropriate legal field can be considered the adoption Charter CIS. Attempts to unite the efforts of all participants of the Commonwealth to achieve common goals were realized in the signing of a number of documents, including Agreement on the establishment Economic Union (September 24, 1993), and Agreements on the creation of a free trade zone
(April 15, 1994);.1996, -present tensewhich is associated with the emergence subregional formations. A characteristic feature of this is the conclusion of bilateral agreements: in the post-Soviet space the following subregional groupings of the EurAsEC, the Union State of Belarus and Russia (USBR), GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova), the Central Asian Community (CAC: Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan), as well as the “Caucasian Four” (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Russia). Regional associations of countries within the CIS have different shares in the main macroeconomic indicators for the Commonwealth as a whole. The most significant among them is
EurAsEC.1993 In SeptemberG.was signed in Moscow at the level of heads of state and government Agreement on the creation of an economic union of the CIS countries8 , which originally included states
(Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova and Ukraine as an associate member).
Objectives of the Economic Union:
creating conditions for the stable development of the economies of member countries in the interests of improving the living standards of their population;
gradual creation of a common economic space based on market relations;
creation of equal opportunities and guarantees for all business entities;
joint implementation of economic projects of common interest;
solving environmental problems through joint efforts, as well as eliminating the consequences of natural disasters and catastrophes. Agreement establishing an Economic Union
provides:
implementation of coordinated policies in such areas as monetary relations, budgets, prices and taxation, foreign exchange issues and customs duties;
encouraging free enterprise and investment; support for industrial cooperation and the creation of direct connections between enterprises and industries;
harmonization of economic legislation.
Member countries of the Economic Union are guided by the following international legal principles:
non-intervention into each other's internal affairs, respect for human rights and freedoms;
peaceful resolution of disputes and non-use of any types of economic pressure in relations with each other;
responsibility for accepted obligations;
exception anydiscrimination on national and other grounds in relation to each other's legal entities and individuals;
holding consultations for the purpose of coordinating positions and taking measures in the event of economic aggression by one state or several states not participating in this treaty against any of the contracting parties.
April 151994 leaders12 states CIS was signedAgreement on the creation of a free trade zone (A ratified his only 6 countries). The FTA agreement was considered as a transitional stage towards the formation of a customs union. A customs union can be created by states that comply with the conditions of the FTA.
The practice of interstate economic relations within the CIS has shown that the integration foundations will develop gradually, with varying intensity and depth in individual CIS subregions. In other words, integration processes within the CIS are developing at “different speeds”. In favor“multi-speed” integration models is evidenced by the fact that the following subregional associations have emerged within the CIS:
so-called"deuce" (Russia and Belarus) , the main goal of which iscombining the material and intellectual potential of both states and creating equal conditions for improving the standard of living of the people and the spiritual development of the individual;
"troika" (CAC , which in March 1998 after the accession of Tajikistan became"four" );
Customs Union (“Quartet” plus Tajikistan);
regional associationGUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova).
In fact, all CIS countries, with the exception of Turkmenistan, were divided into a number of regional economic groupings.
March 291996signedAgreement on deepening integration in the economic and humanitarian fields between the Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, main goals which are:
consistent improvement of living conditions, protection of individual rights and freedoms, achievement of social progress;
the formation of a single economic space, providing for the effective functioning of a common market for goods, services, capital, labor, the development of unified transport, energy, and information systems;
development of minimum standards for social protection of citizens;
creating equal opportunities for education and access to scientific and cultural achievements;
harmonization of legislation;
coordinating the foreign policy course, ensuring a worthy place in the international arena;
joint protection of the external borders of the parties, the fight against crime and terrorism.
In May2000 at the Interstate CouncilCustoms Union it was decided to turn it intointernational economicorganization with international status . As a result, members of the Customs Union in Astana signed an agreement on the creation of a new international organizationEuropean Economic Community (EurAsEC) . This organization is intended as a means of transition to large-scale economic integration of the CIS countries that are most strongly attracted to each other and to Russia in the image and likeness of the EU. This level of interaction presupposes a high degree of unification of the economic, including foreign trade, customs and tariff policies of the member countries.
That.,integration processes in the CIS are simultaneously developing at 3 levels:
throughout the CIS (Economic Union);
on a subregional basis (troika, quadruple, customs union);
through a system of bilateral agreements (two).
The formation of a system of bilateral relations between the CIS states is carried out in two main directions:
agreements regulating the development of cooperation betweenRussia , On the one side,and other states CIS - on the other;
decorbilateral relationsCIS countries among themselves .
A special place in the system of organizing mutual cooperation at the current stage and in the future is occupied by bilateral relations based on the interests that each of the CIS countries has in relation to other individual members of the Commonwealth. The most important function bilateral relations between the states of the Commonwealth is that through their mechanisms, the practical implementation of multilateral agreements is carried out and, ultimately, concrete, materially significant results of cooperation are achieved. This is a significant specificity CIS in comparison with other integration associations of the world.
Currently, a whole package of multilateral agreements is being implemented, providing for a significant deepening of integration in the field of material production. These are agreements on cooperation in the field of mechanical engineering, construction, chemistry and petrochemicals, on trade turnover and industrial cooperation in the field of mechanical engineering on an interconnected basis.
The main problems in the development of integration processes within the CIS are:
imperfection of the norms and rules laid down in the CIS Charter, which largely determined the emergence of a number of impracticable interstate agreements;
imperfection of the consensus decision-making method : Half of the CIS members have acceded to only 40-70% of signed multilateral agreements (mainly on economic issues), which indicates that member countries prefer to refrain from making firm commitments. The voluntariness of participation in a particular agreement, as laid down in the CIS Charter, blocks the full implementation of all signed multilateral agreements;
weakness of the execution mechanism decisions taken and lack of accountability system for the fulfillment of accepted obligations on an interstate basis, the “restrained” attitude of states towards giving supranational functions to the bodies of the Commonwealth. For example, the main goals of the Economic Union reflect the main stages that any integrating state goes through: a free trade area, a customs union, a common market for goods, services, capital and labor, a monetary union, etc. But the achievement of these goals is not ensured either by agreeing on specific deadlines for the implementation of certain activities, or by creating a structure of governing bodies (endowed with clearly defined powers to make strictly binding decisions), or by an agreed upon mechanism for their implementation.
inefficiency of the existing payment system, based on the use of American dollars and Russian rubles, as a result of which 40-50% trade operations are carried out by barter;
lack of effective regulation of imports of products from third countries, the implementation of trends in the autarkic closure of domestic markets and the implementation of destructive policies of blocking integration processes have a negative impact on the development of national economies. Restrictions have not been developed on the import from third countries of those types of products whose production volumes within the CIS (for example, grain harvesters in Russia, large-diameter pipes in Ukraine, mining dump trucks in Belarus) fully allow them to satisfy the corresponding domestic needs. In addition, members of the Commonwealth often, to their detriment,compete on a number of commodity markets (including the metal products market);
disagreed comprehensive accession policy CIS countries to the WTO : the uncoordinated opening of markets for goods, services and capital by countries participating in the WTO can cause significant damage to the economies of other CIS members. The differences in the terms and conditions of this accession are obvious: Georgia, Moldova and Kyrgyzstan have already acquired the status of members of this organization, seven CIS countries are negotiating accession, and Tajikistan and Turkmenistan have not even started them;
illegal migration and differences in living standards : the imperfection of the legal framework for regulating migration policy leads to an increase in illegal migration to countries with a higher level of prosperity, which conflicts with the interests of the national security of states.
The main task at this stage of development of integration processes within the CIS is to bridge the gap between institutional and real integration, which is possible in several areas:
deepening economic policy coordination , as well as measures to regulate the national economy, incl. in investment, currency and foreign economic spheres;
sequentialrapprochement economic mechanisms of the CIS countries throughunification of legislation relating primarily to tax and customs systems, the budget process, control by central banks over the activities of commercial banks;
financial integration , which involves regional currency convertibility, a branch banking network, improvement of financial institutions serving the economic relations of countries, the establishment of a unified legal framework for the functioning of financial markets and their gradual unification.
Ukraine has quite significant trade and production relations with more than 160 countries of the world. Most of the foreign trade turnover (export and import operations) falls on Russia and countries EU. In the total volume of trade turnover, 50.8% is occupied by import operations, and 49.2% by export operations, of which a significant portion is accounted for by products of low-tech industries. Due to the application of double standards, Ukrainian exports are limited by the introduction of increased import duty rates on products from so-called sensitive industries ( Agriculture, fishing, metallurgical industry). The application of the status to it significantly reduces Ukraine's trade opportunities countries with non-market economics.
Ukraine is a member of the following regional integration associations formed in the post-Soviet space:
TOW;
GUAM.
EurAsEC;
Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) – subregional grouping within the CIS, formed in 2000. based on an agreement between5 countries (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Ukraine) with the aim of creating a single customs territory, harmonizing tax legislation, forming a payment union and applying an agreed pricing system and economic restructuring mechanism.
Common Economic Space (SES) – a more complex integration structure formed in 2003. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine with the aim of creating a full-fledged free trade zone.
IN1992 in Istanbul chapters11 states and governments (Azerbaijan, Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, Greece, Georgia, Moldova, Russia, Romania, Turkey and Ukraine) signedDeclaration on the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) , which determined the main goals of the organization: closer economic cooperation of the participating countries, free movement of goods, capital, services and labor, integration of their economies into the world economic system.
Observer status in the BS are: Poland, the BS Business Council, Tunisia, Israel, Egypt, Slovakia, Italy, Austria, France and Germany.
GUUAM – informal association in 19975 states (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova), which since 2001. is an official international organization, and since 2003 – an observer in the UN General Assembly. In 2005, Uzbekistan left GUUAM and GUUAM was transformed intoGUAM
The development of the national economy of the Republic of Belarus is largely determined by integration processes within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In December 1991, the leaders of three states - the Republic of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine - signed the Agreement on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, which announced the end of the existence of the USSR. At the first stage of its existence (1991-1994), the CIS countries were dominated by their own national interests , which led to a significant weakening of mutual foreign economic relations, their significant reorientation towards other countries, which was one of the main reasons for the deep economic crisis throughout the post-Soviet space. The formation of the CIS from the very beginning was of a declarative nature and was not supported by relevant regulatory documents ensuring the development of integration processes. The objective basis for the formation of the CIS were: deep integration ties formed over the years of the existence of the USSR, country specialization of production, extensive cooperation at the level of enterprises and industries, and common infrastructure.
The CIS has great natural, human and economic potential, which gives it significant competitive advantages and allows it to take its rightful place in the world. The CIS countries account for 16.3% of the territory globe, 5 - population, 10% of industrial production. On the territory of the Commonwealth countries there are large reserves natural resources that are in demand on world markets. The shortest land and sea (via the Arctic Ocean) route from Europe to Southeast Asia passes through the territory of the CIS. The competitive resources of the CIS countries are also cheap labor and energy resources, which are important potential conditions to boost the economy
The strategic goals of economic integration of the CIS countries are: maximum use of the international division of labor; specialization and cooperation of production to ensure sustainable socio-economic development; improving the level and quality of life of the population of all Commonwealth states.
At the first stage of the Commonwealth’s functioning, the main attention was paid to solving social problems - a visa-free regime for the movement of citizens, recording work experience, paying social benefits, mutual recognition of documents on education and qualifications, pensions, labor migration and protection of the rights of migrants, etc.
At the same time, issues of cooperation in the production sector, customs clearance and control, transit of natural gas, oil and petroleum products, coordination of tariff policy in railway transport, resolution of economic disputes, etc. were resolved.
The economic potential of individual CIS countries varies. In terms of economic parameters, Russia stands out sharply among the CIS countries. Most of the Commonwealth countries, having become sovereign, intensified their foreign economic activity, as evidenced by the increase in the share of exports of goods and services in relation to the GDP of each country. Belarus has the highest share of exports - 70% of GDP
The Republic of Belarus has the closest integration ties with the Russian Federation.
The main reasons holding back the integration processes of the Commonwealth states are:
Various models of socio-economic development of individual states;
Different degrees of market transformations and different scenarios and approaches to the selection of priorities, stages and means of their implementation;
Insolvency of enterprises, imperfection of payment and settlement relations; inconvertibility of national currencies;
Inconsistency of customs and tax policies pursued by individual countries;
Application of strict tariff and non-tariff restrictions in mutual trade;
Long distances and high tariffs for cargo transportation and transport services.
The development of integration processes in the CIS is associated with the organization of subregional entities and the conclusion of bilateral agreements. The Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation signed in April 1996 the Treaty on the Formation of the Community of Belarus and Russia, in April 1997 - the Treaty on the Formation of the Union of Belarus and Russia and in December 1999 - the Treaty on the Formation of the Union State.
In October 2000, the Treaty establishing the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) was signed, the members of which are Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation and Tajikistan. The main goals of the EurAsEC in accordance with the Treaty are the formation of a customs union and a Common Economic Space, coordinating the approaches of states to integration into the world economy and the international trading system, ensuring the dynamic development of participating countries by coordinating the policy of socio-economic transformations to improve the living standards of peoples. The basis of interstate relations within the EurAsEC are trade and economic ties.
In September 2003, an Agreement was signed on the creation of a Common Economic Space (SES) on the territory of Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, which in turn should become the basis for a possible future interstate association - the Regional Integration Organization (RIO).
These four states (“the Quartet”) intend to create within their territories a single economic space for the free movement of goods, services, capital and labor. At the same time, the SES is seen as a higher level of integration compared to a free trade area and a customs union. To implement the Agreement, a set of basic measures for the formation of the SES was developed and agreed upon, including measures: on customs tariff policy, development of rules for the application of quantitative restrictions and administrative measures, special protective and anti-dumping measures in foreign trade; regulation of technical barriers to trade, including sanitary and phytosanitary measures; the procedure for transit of goods from third countries (to third countries); competition policy; policy in the field of natural monopolies, in the field of subsidies and public procurement; tax, budget, monetary and exchange rate policies; on the convergence of economic indicators; investment cooperation; trade in services, movement individuals.
Concluding bilateral agreements and by creating a regional grouping within the CIS, individual countries of the Commonwealth are searching for the most optimal forms of combining their potentials to ensure sustainable development and increase the competitiveness of national economies, since integration processes in the Commonwealth as a whole are not active enough.
When implementing multilateral treaties and agreements adopted in the CIS, the principle of expediency prevails; member states implement them within the limits beneficial to themselves. One of the main obstacles to economic integration is the imperfection of the organizational and legal framework and mechanisms of interaction between members of the Commonwealth.
The possibilities of integration in the Commonwealth countries are significantly limited by the economic and social conditions of individual states, the uneven distribution of economic potential, aggravated by the lack of fuel and energy resources and food, contradictions between the goals of national policy and the interests of the IMF, the World Bank, and the lack of unification of national legal frameworks.
The member states of the Commonwealth face a complex interconnected task of overcoming the threat of its disunity and taking advantage of the development of individual groupings that can speed up the solution of practical issues of interaction and serve as an example of integration for other CIS countries.
Further development of integration ties of the CIS member countries can be accelerated with the consistent and phased formation of a common economic space based on the creation and development of a free trade zone, payment union, communication and information spaces, and improvement of scientific, technical and technological cooperation. An important problem is the integration of the investment potential of the participating countries and the optimization of the flow of capital within the Community.
The process of implementing a coordinated economic policy within the framework of the effective use of the integrated transport and energy systems, the common agricultural market, as well as the labor market must be carried out while respecting the sovereignty and protection of the national interests of states, taking into account generally accepted principles international law. This requires the convergence of national legislation, legal and economic conditions for the functioning of business entities, the creation of a system state support priority areas of interstate cooperation.
On December 8, 1991, not far from Minsk, in the Belarusian government residence “Belovezhskaya Pushcha”, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus B. N. Yeltsin, L. M. Kravchuk And S. S. Shushkevich signed "Agreement on the Establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States" (CIS), while announcing the abolition of the USSR as a subject of international law and political reality. The collapse of the Soviet Union contributed not only to changing the balance of power in the modern world, but also to the formation of new Large Spaces. One of these spaces was the post-Soviet space, formed by the former union republics of the USSR (with the exception of the Baltic countries). Its development in the last decade was determined by several factors: 1) the construction of new states (albeit not always successful); 2) the nature of relations between these states; 3) ongoing processes of regionalization and globalization in this territory.
The formation of new states in the CIS was accompanied by numerous conflicts and crises. First of all, these were conflicts between states over disputed territories (Armenia - Azerbaijan); conflicts related to non-recognition of the legitimacy of the new government (such are the conflicts between Abkhazia, Adjara, South Ossetia and the center of Georgia, Transnistria and the leadership of Moldova, etc.); identity conflicts. The peculiarity of these conflicts was that they seemed to “overlap”, “projected” onto each other, inhibiting the formation of centralized states.
The nature of relations between the new states was largely determined by both economic factors and the policies of the new post-Soviet elites, as well as the identity that the former Soviet republics developed. Economic factors influencing relations between the CIS countries should include, first of all, the pace and nature of economic reforms. Kyrgyzstan, Moldova and Russia followed the path of radical reforms. A more gradual path of transformation was chosen by Belarus, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, which retained a high degree of state intervention in the economy. These different methods of development became one of the reasons that predetermined differences in the standard of living and level of economic development, which, in turn, affect the emerging national interests and relationships of the former republics of the USSR. Specific feature The economy of the post-Soviet states was its repeated decline, the simplification of its structure, the reduction in the share of high-tech industries while simultaneously strengthening the raw materials-extracting industries. The CIS states act as competitors in the global commodity and energy markets. The positions of almost all CIS countries in terms of economic indicators were characterized in the 90s. significant weakening. In addition, differences in socio-economic status between countries continued to widen. Russian scientist L. B. Vardomsky notes that “in general, over the last 10 years after the disappearance of the USSR, the post-Soviet space has become more differentiated, contrasting and conflict-ridden, poor and at the same time less safe. The space... has lost its economic and social unity.” He also emphasizes that integration between the CIS countries is limited by the differences between post-Soviet countries in terms of the level of socio-economic development, power structures, economic practices, forms of economy and foreign policy guidelines. As a result, economic underdevelopment and financial difficulties prevent countries from pursuing either coherent economic and social policies or any effective economic and social policies separately.
The policies of individual national elites, which were characterized by an anti-Russian orientation, also slowed down the integration processes. This direction of policy was seen both as a way to ensure the internal legitimacy of the new elites, and as a way to quickly solve internal problems and, first of all, integrate society.
The development of the CIS countries is associated with the strengthening of civilizational differences between them. Therefore, each of them is concerned with the choice of their own civilizational partners both within the post-Soviet space and beyond. This choice is complicated by the struggle between external centers of power for influence in the post-Soviet space.
In their foreign policy, most post-Soviet countries did not strive for regional unification, but to use the opportunities provided by globalization. Therefore, each of the CIS countries is characterized by the desire to fit into the global economy, focusing on international cooperation, first of all, and not on “neighboring” countries. Each country sought to independently join the process of globalization, which is shown, in particular, by the reorientation of foreign economic relations of the Commonwealth countries to countries of the “far abroad”.
Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have the greatest potential in terms of “fitting in” into the global economy. But their globalization potential depends on the fuel and energy complex and the export of raw materials. It was in the fuel and energy complex of these countries that the main investments of foreign partners were directed. Thus, the inclusion of post-Soviet countries in the globalization process has not undergone significant changes compared to Soviet period. The international profile of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan is also determined by the oil and gas complex. Many countries, such as Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, are experiencing severe difficulties in entering the global economy, because the structure of their economies does not have industries with a pronounced international specialization. In the era of globalization, each CIS country pursues its own multi-vector policy, carried out separately from other countries. The desire to take their own place in a globalizing world is also manifested in the relations of the CIS member countries to international and global institutions, such as NATO, the UN, the WTO, the IMF, etc.
Priority orientations towards globalism are manifested in:
1) active penetration of TNCs into the economy of post-Soviet states;
2) the strong influence of the IMF on the process of reforming the economies of the CIS countries;
3) dollarization of the economy;
4) significant borrowings on foreign markets;
5) active formation of transport and telecommunications structures.
However, despite the desire to develop and implement their own foreign policy and “fit” into the processes of globalization, the CIS countries remain “connected” to each other by the Soviet “legacy”. The relationship between them is largely determined by transport communications, pipelines and oil pipelines, and energy transmission lines inherited from the Soviet Union. Countries with transit communications can influence states that depend on these communications. Therefore, a monopoly on transit communications is considered as a means of geopolitical and geo-economic pressure on partners. At the beginning of the formation of the CIS, regionalization was considered by national elites as a way to restore Russian hegemony in the post-Soviet space. Therefore, and also due to the formation of different economic conditions, there were no prerequisites for the formation of regional groupings on a market basis.
The relationship between the processes of regionalization and globalization in the post-Soviet space is clearly visible from Table 3.
Table 3. Manifestation of regionalism and globalism in the post-Soviet space
The political actors of globalization are the ruling national elites of the CIS countries. TNCs operating in the fuel and energy sector and seeking to obtain sustainable profits and expand their shares in world markets have become economic actors in the processes of globalization.
The political actors of regionalization were the regional elites of the border zones of the CIS member countries, as well as the population interested in freedom of movement, expansion of economic, trade and cultural ties. The economic actors of regionalization are TNCs associated with the production of consumer goods and therefore interested in overcoming customs barriers between CIS participants and expanding the sales area for products in the post-Soviet space. The participation of economic structures in regionalization began only in the late 90s. and now there is a steady increase in this trend. One of its manifestations is the creation of an international gas consortium by Russia and Ukraine. Another example is the participation of the Russian oil company LUKOIL in the development of Azerbaijani oil fields (Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli, Shah Deniz, Zykh-Govsan, D-222), which invested more than half a billion dollars in the development of oil fields in Azerbaijan. LUKOIL also proposes to create a link from the CPC through Makhachkala to Baku. It was the interests of the largest oil companies that contributed to the signing of an agreement between Russia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan on dividing the bottom of the Caspian Sea. Most Russian large companies that acquire the features of TNCs become not only actors of globalization, but also regionalization in the CIS.
The economic, political, and military threats that emerged after the collapse of the USSR and the outbreak of interethnic conflicts forced the ruling elites of post-Soviet states to look for ways to integrate. Since mid-1993, various initiatives to consolidate the newly independent states began to take shape in the CIS. Initially, it was believed that the reintegration of the former republics would occur on its own based on close economic and cultural ties. Thus, it would be possible to avoid significant costs for border development*.
Attempts to implement integration can be divided into several periods.
The first period begins with the formation of the CIS and continues until the second half of 1993. During this period, the reintegration of the post-Soviet space was conceived on the basis of maintaining a single monetary unit - the ruble. Since this concept did not stand the test of time and the test of practice, it was replaced by a more realistic one, the goal of which was the gradual creation of an Economic Union based on the formation of a free trade zone, a common market for goods and services, capital and labor, and the introduction of a common currency.
The second period begins with the signing of the agreement on the creation of the Economic Union on September 24, 1993, when the new political elites began to realize the weak legitimacy of the CIS. The situation did not require mutual accusations, but a joint resolution of numerous issues related to the need to ensure their safety. In April 1994, an agreement on the Free Trade Area of the CIS countries was signed, and a month later - an agreement on the CIS Customs and Payments Union. But the difference in the pace of economic development undermined these agreements and left them only on paper. Not all countries were ready to implement the agreements signed under pressure from Moscow.
The third period covers the time period from the beginning of 1995 to 1997. During this period, integration between individual CIS countries begins to develop. Thus, initially an agreement was concluded on the Customs Union between Russia and Belarus, which was later joined by Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The fourth period lasted from 1997 to 1998. and is associated with the emergence of individual alternative regional associations. In April 1997, an agreement on the Union of Russia and Belarus was signed. In the summer of 1997, four CIS states - Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova signed a Memorandum in Strasbourg on the creation of a new organization (GUUAM), one of the goals of which was to expand cooperation and create a transport corridor Europe - Caucasus - Asia (i.e. bypassing Russia). Currently, Ukraine is vying for the role of leader in this organization. A year after the formation of GUUAM, the Central Asian Economic Community (CAEC) was established, which included Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
The main actors of integration in the CIS space during this period were both political and regional elites of the CIS member countries.
The fifth period of CIS integration dates back to December 1999. Its content is the desire to improve the mechanisms of activity of the created associations. In December of the same year, the Treaty on the Creation of a Union State was signed between Russia and Belarus, and in October 2000 the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) was formed. In June 2001, the GUUAM charter was signed, regulating the activities of this organization and determining its international status.
During this period, actors in the integration of the CIS countries became not only state institutions Commonwealth member countries, but large companies interested in reducing costs when moving capital, goods and labor across borders. However, despite the development of integration ties, disintegration processes also made themselves felt. Trade turnover between the CIS countries has declined more than threefold in eight years, and trade ties have weakened. The reasons for its reduction are: lack of normal credit collateral, high risks of non-payments, supplies of low-quality goods, fluctuations in national currency rates.
There remain major problems associated with the unification of the external tariff within the EurAsEC. The member countries of this union managed to agree on approximately 2/3 of the import range of goods. However, membership in international organizations of members of a regional union becomes an obstacle to its development. Thus, Kyrgyzstan, being a member of the WTO since 1998, cannot change its import tariff, adjusting it to the requirements of the Customs Union.
In practice, some participating countries, despite agreements reached on the removal of customs barriers, practice the introduction of tariff and non-tariff restrictions to protect their domestic markets. The contradictions between Russia and Belarus related to the creation of a single emission center and the formation of a homogeneous economic regime in both countries remain insoluble.
In the near future, the development of regionalism in the CIS space will be determined by the countries' accession to the WTO. In connection with the desire to join the WTO by the majority of CIS member states, great problems will face the prospects for the existence of EurASE, GUUM and CAES, which were created mainly for political reasons, which have weakened recently. It is unlikely that these associations will be able to evolve into a free trade zone in the foreseeable future.
It is worth keeping in mind that WTO membership can have exactly the opposite consequences: it can both help expand opportunities for business integration in Commonwealth countries and slow down integration initiatives. The main condition for regionalization will remain the activities of TNCs in the post-Soviet space. Exactly economic activity banks, industrial, raw materials and energy companies can become a “locomotive” for strengthening interactions between the CIS countries. Economic entities can become the most active parties in bilateral and multilateral cooperation.
In the medium term, the development of cooperation will depend on relations with the EU. This will primarily concern Russia, Ukraine, and Moldova. Ukraine and Moldova are already expressing their wishes for EU membership in the long term. It is obvious that both the desire for EU membership and the development of deeper cooperation with European structures will have a differentiating impact on the post-Soviet space, both in national legal and passport and visa regimes. It can be assumed that those seeking membership and partnership with the EU will be more and more at odds with the rest of the CIS states.
International legal models of the European Union and the Customs Union: a comparative analysis Morozov Andrey Nikolaevich
§ 4. Development of integration processes in the post-Soviet space
Integration processes occur especially intensively during the period of globalization. The essence of integration can be seen more and more clearly in the content of international treaties, which reflect not only the main features of contact between states, but also the specifics of such interaction.
Since the beginning of the 90s. XX century regional economic integration is getting its due active development. This is due not only to the fact that the European Union has achieved significant success in its development, which, as scientists note, serves in many ways as a guide for new interstate associations, but because states are increasingly aware of the benefits of integration and the possible benefits for national economies.
For example, K. Hoffmann notes that in recent decades, regional organizations have spread from the Western Hemisphere and are already considered as an important and integral element of international cooperation. While regional organizations are seen as instruments of integration, very few organizations follow the model of deep integration exemplified by the European Union. Thus, in the post-Soviet space, integration organizations have not yet achieved visible success, and the degree of effectiveness of the implementation of international agreements remains at a low level.
The influence of globalization on integration processes became especially noticeable at the end of the twentieth century, including through international treaties concluded between states. However, already “in the 19th century, significant changes took place in the field of the law of international treaties. The number of concluded agreements is growing. An idea is emerging that the principle “contracts must be respected” obliges the state, and not just its head. The basis of the contract is the consent of the parties...”
At the same time, the forms of participation of states in integration processes significantly influence the content and essence of the international treaties they conclude. As I. I. Lukashuk noted, “finding out who is participating in the agreement and who is not participating is of paramount importance for determining the nature of the agreement. On the other hand, the state’s participation in some treaties and non-participation in others characterizes its policy and attitude towards international law.”
XX century has become a new milestone in global integration processes, European Communities are being formed on the European continent, which have now become in many aspects a model of communitarian law; at the same time, the cessation of the existence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics led to the emergence of new forms of integrative interaction between the former union republics, primarily the Commonwealth of Independent States, EurAsEC, and the Customs Union.
After the collapse of the USSR, the main vector of political integration became the interaction of a number of former Soviet republics within the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States. However, the diversity and complexity of political and economic processes served as an impetus for the regional unification of the CIS member states, whose interests in terms of economic integration turned out to be the closest and mutually acceptable in the conditions of the “transition period” of the 90s. The first steps in this direction were taken back in 1993, when 12 CIS countries signed the Treaty on the Establishment of an Economic Union on September 24. Unfortunately, due to a number of objective and subjective reasons, it was not possible to create such a union. In 1995, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia took the path to actually creating a Customs Union, which were later joined by Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. In February 1999, five of these countries signed the Treaty establishing the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space. After this it became clear that within the framework of the old organizational structures it will not be possible to achieve any serious success. It was necessary to create a new structure. And she appeared. On October 10, 2000, the Treaty establishing the Eurasian Economic Community was signed.
In 2007–2009 The EurAsEC is actively working to actually create a single customs space. The Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, in accordance with the Treaty on the Creation of a Single Customs Territory and the Formation of a Customs Union dated October 6, 2007, established the Customs Union Commission - a single permanent body of the Customs Union. At the same time, it should be noted that the creation of the Customs Union and EurAsEC has become an additional vector for the development of integration of states in the post-Soviet space, complementing the Commonwealth of Independent States. At the same time, when creating the EurAsEC and the Customs Union, choosing their international legal models, the experience of not only the previous Customs Unions, which in the 90s. never turned out to be implemented in practice, but also the peculiarity of the international legal model of the CIS, its strengths and weaknesses. In this regard, we believe that it is necessary to briefly dwell on the general approaches to assessing the international legal model of the CIS, which most scientists evaluate as an international intergovernmental organization of regional integration.
It is noted that the Commonwealth of Independent States has a specific nature. Thus, in particular, there is a widespread opinion that “there are sufficient grounds to determine the legal nature of the CIS as a regional international organization, as a subject of international law." At the same time, there are opponents of this assessment.
Thus, in some scientific studies, the Commonwealth of Independent States is considered not as an institution of regional cooperation, but as an instrument of the civilized collapse of the former USSR. In this regard, it was initially not known whether the CIS would function sufficiently for a long time on a permanent basis or is destined for the role of temporary international education. As very often happens, the transition between the complex federations and international unions of the CIS structure arose as a result of the transformation of the governing bodies of the Soviet Union. The fundamental difference between the EurAsEC and the CIS lies in the decision-making procedure, institutional structure, and efficiency of bodies, which allows integration within the EurAsEC at a higher level.
Foreign sources often note that the Commonwealth of Independent States is nothing more than a regional forum, and real integration takes place outside its borders, in particular between Russia and Belarus, as well as within the EurAsEC.
There are also quite original approaches to the legal nature of the Commonwealth of Independent States, which is defined as a confederation of independent states of the former republics of the Soviet Union.
However, not all features of an international organization fully correspond to the legal personality of the CIS. Thus, according to E.G. Moiseev, “The CIS does not exercise on its own behalf the international rights and obligations of an international organization. Of course, this to some extent does not allow the CIS to be recognized as an international organization.” The specific nature of many aspects of the creation and functioning of the CIS is noted by Yu. A. Tikhomirov, emphasizing that the Commonwealth of Independent States is unique as a new integration entity in terms of its legal nature and creates its own “law of the Commonwealth”.
According to V. G. Vishnyakov, “the general pattern of integration processes in all countries is their consistent ascent from a free trade zone through a customs union and a single internal market to a monetary and economic union. The following directions and stages of this movement can be identified, with a certain degree of schematics: 1) creation of a free trade zone (intraregional barriers to the promotion of goods and services are eliminated); 2) the formation of a customs union (agreed external tariffs are introduced to protect the economic interests of the united countries); 3) formation of a single market (intraregional barriers are eliminated when using production factors); 4) organization of a monetary union (monetary tax and currency spheres are harmonized); 5) creation of an Economic Union (supranational bodies of economic coordination are formed with a single monetary system, a common central bank, a unified tax and common economic policy).”
The same goals were the basis for the adoption of interstate and intergovernmental agreements concluded by the CIS member states. At the same time, the specification of the assigned tasks is carried out, among other things, with the help of international treaties concluded by the ministries and departments of the member states of the Commonwealth. However, largely due to the low efficiency of implementation of international obligations, the potential of the CIS has not been fully used. At the same time, the potential capabilities of the CIS legal instruments allow for effective integration, since the range of legal instruments is quite wide: from international treaties at various levels to model laws of a recommendatory nature. In addition, one cannot fail to note the influence political factors, which negatively affected the development of integration within the CIS.
Zh. D. Busurmanov rightly notes that major changes in the process of interstate integration in the post-Soviet space are associated with the entry of Kazakhstan (together with Russia and Belarus) into the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space. First of all, the question arose about accelerating codification in the named states with overcoming difficulties of two kinds.
Firstly, one cannot ignore the fact that the level of deployment of codification on the republican scale is still insufficient. In particular, the stabilizing effect of codification on the development of all national law is not sufficiently felt.
Secondly, codification of law at the interstate level (and this will be codification on the scale of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space) is much more complex and larger-scale than intrastate codification. It is impossible to begin it without a lot of preparatory work to establish proper order in the “legal economy” of the country and to rebuild it in accordance with generally recognized international standards of lawmaking and legal formation. At the same time, the domestic codification body of law will be, as it were, “turned” towards solving the problems facing the “international” sections of codified law. Without such a demarcation within national law and related sections of international law, solving problems of codification on the scale of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space will, in our opinion, be a little difficult.
The integrative rapprochement of the Russian Federation with the states that are members of the Customs Union, created and functioning on the basis of the Eurasian Economic Community, is one of the priority areas of the foreign policy of the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Kazakhstan are quite effectively achieving rapprochement in a number of strategic areas, primarily in the economic sphere, which is reflected in international legal acts adopted under the auspices of the Customs Union. One of the main directions of the Concept of long-term socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020, approved by order of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 17, 2008 No. 1662-r, is the formation of a Customs Union with the member states of the EurAsEC, including the harmonization of legislation and law enforcement practice , as well as ensuring the full-scale functioning of the Customs Union and the formation of a single economic space within the EurAsEC.
The development of interstate integration associations can be characteristically observed in the post-Soviet space, however, proceeding contradictorily and spasmodically, integration processes within the framework of such interstate associations provide certain ground for scientific research, analysis of factors, conditions and mechanisms for the rapprochement of states. First of all, when analyzing integration processes in the post-Soviet space, the emphasis is on multi-speed integration, which involves the creation of an integration “core” of states that are ready to carry out deeper cooperation in a wide range of areas. In addition, integration within the EurAsEC is due to close ties between political circles and business communities, which is one of the characteristic features integration interaction between states.
The creation of the Eurasian Economic Community was an important milestone in the development of geo-economic and geopolitical processes in the territory of the former Soviet Union. Thus, a certain group of member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States decided to develop accelerated integration in the post-Soviet space.
As noted above, the EurAsEC is a unique international organization that has the necessary legal and organizational basis for carrying out large-scale integration in the post-Soviet space. At the same time, the opinion is expressed that the dynamic development of integration within the EurAsEC may neutralize the importance of the CIS in the future. At present, the reasons for the difficulty of integration in the post-Soviet space largely lie on the legal plane, one of which is the intersecting international legal acts of the EurAsEC and the Customs Union. Among other things, the question arises of coordinated rule-making activities within the framework of the Common Economic Space and the EurAsEC.
Using the example of the EurAsEC, one can notice how this organization is evolving from an interstate to a suprastate association, with an ascent from “soft” legal regulators, such as model laws, to “hard” legal forms expressed in the Fundamentals of EurAsEC Legislation, which are expected to be adopted in various areas, and also in the current Customs Code of the Customs Union, which is adopted as an annex to the international treaty. At the same time, along with “hard”, unified regulation, there are model acts, standard projects, i.e., “softer” levers of regulatory influence.
The legal problems facing the EurAsEC as an international organization, or, more precisely, an interstate integration association, are among the most urgently in need of timely resolution to promote the effective integration of states within this integration association and eliminate legal conflicts, such as between the regulatory legal acts of the EurAsEC , as well as regulatory legal acts of the EurAsEC and national legislation, which complicate the mutually beneficial rapprochement of the EurAsEC member states. It should be especially emphasized that the EurAsEC is not just an international organization, but interstate integration association. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the interstate integration association is not built “overnight”, with the signing of the corresponding constituent agreements, but goes through a long, multi-stage, and sometimes thorny path before the qualitative characteristics of real integration find their real embodiment.
Thus, the first step towards the formation of the Eurasian Economic Community was the signing on January 6, 1995 of the Agreement on the Customs Union between Russia and Belarus, which was then joined by Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. An important stage in the development of cooperation between these countries was their conclusion on March 29, 1996 of the Treaty on Deepening Integration in the Economic and Humanitarian Fields. On February 26, 1999, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan signed the Treaty on the Customs Union and Common Economic Space. However, the experience of developing multilateral cooperation has shown that without a clear organizational and legal structure that ensures, first of all, the mandatory implementation of decisions made, progress along the intended path is difficult. In order to solve this problem, on October 10, 2000, in Astana, the presidents of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan signed the Treaty establishing the Eurasian Economic Community.
The Eurasian Economic Community was created to effectively promote the process of forming the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space, as well as the implementation of other goals and objectives defined in the Agreements on the Customs Union, the Treaty on Deepening Integration in the Economic and Humanitarian Fields and the Treaty on the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space, in accordance with the stages outlined in these documents (Article 2 of the Treaty establishing the Eurasian Economic Community).
According to the Treaty on the Establishment of the Eurasian Economic Community, this interstate association has powers voluntarily transferred to it by the Contracting Parties (Article 1). The Treaty on the Establishment of the Eurasian Economic Community establishes the system of bodies of this interstate association and establishes their competence. At the same time, a legal analysis of the Treaty on the Establishment of the Eurasian Economic Community and the development trends of this association shows that it cannot remain static and “frozen” in its content and in the legal objectification of relations between the member states of the EurAsEC. Therefore, the further development of integration objectively highlighted the need to improve the basic international treaty - the Treaty on the Establishment of the Eurasian Economic Community. In this regard, the Protocol dated January 25, 2006 on amendments and additions to the Treaty on the Establishment of the Eurasian Economic Community dated October 10, 2000 and the Protocol dated October 6, 2007 on amendments to the Treaty on the Establishment of the Eurasian Economic Community dated October 10, 2000
The 2006 Protocol is devoted to the issues of financing by member states of the activities of the EurAsEC and, accordingly, the number of votes of each member of the EurAsEC when making decisions. The said Protocol, as provided for in Art. 2, is an integral part of the Treaty establishing the Eurasian Economic Community. Thus, in accordance with the changed quotas for budget contributions and distribution of votes, the votes of the EurAsEC member states are redistributed mainly between the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The Republic of Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic, according to the Decision of November 26, 2008 No. 959 of the EurAsEC Integration Committee “On the suspension of participation of the Republic of Uzbekistan in the work of the bodies of the Eurasian Economic Community,” each have 5% of the votes in accordance with the budget quota assumed by these states, arising from membership in the EurAsEC. In turn, the states that are the main bearers of the “burden” for the maintenance of the interstate organization of the EurAsEC and, accordingly, having a predominant majority of votes in it when making decisions, as established by the acts of the EurAsEC, entered a new “round” of integration, forming the Customs Union in accordance with the Treaty on creation of a single customs territory and the formation of the Customs Union on October 6, 2007.
Thus, two-vector processes took place within the EurAsEC: on the one hand, three member states of the EurAsEC - the Republic of Uzbekistan (which suspended membership in the EurAsEC), the Republic of Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic (which reduced their quotas in the EurAsEC budget and, accordingly, reduced their votes in the Interstate Council ) – somewhat weakened their ties to the EurAsEC due to national economic reasons, while at the same time maintaining their interest and membership in this international organization for the future. On the other hand, three more economically developed states - the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Kazakhstan, which managed to counter the global economic crisis with the “survival” of national economies and managed not to curtail the program for priority membership in international organizations, which is the EurAsEC for Russia, further deepened their integrative cooperation, reaching new indicators of integration in the real sector - the formation of a single customs territory with all the ensuing consequences of this process.
This process of multi-vector integration indicators is also typical for other interstate associations, including the European Union, with the only difference that the flexibility of states’ approaches to the problems of the organization allows it to be deepened without compromising the national interests of states and taking into account their characteristics, “weak” and "strong" places. In this regard, we agree with the opinion of G. R. Shaikhutdinova that in any interstate integration, as the European Union demonstrates in its practice, “it is necessary, on the one hand, to give the opportunity to member states... who wish and are able to integrate further and deeper, to do so , and on the other hand, to ensure the rights and interests of member states that are unable, for objective reasons, or do not want to do so.” In this sense, in relation to the EurAsEC, the states aimed at and capable of deepening and promoting integration, including in the context of globalization and the global financial and economic crisis, are the “troika”: Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan. At the same time, the Customs Union, in our opinion, cannot be considered as a highly specialized international organization; on the contrary, the “spectrum” and range of international legal regulation of issues that will be transferred by member states to the Customs Union will be steadily expanding. Statements by political leaders of states also reflect a similar position.
A customs union, at least in the format of the EurAsEC troika, will mean a completely different freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and labor. Naturally, we do not need the Customs Union for the sake of simply unifying the customs tariff. This is, of course, very important, but it is even more important that, as a result of the development of the Customs Union, preparations are made for the transition to the Common Economic Space. But this is already fundamental new form integration of our economies.
Such a “pulsating” development of interstate integration in different periods, sometimes “compressing” the legal circle of participants and their interaction, sometimes expanding and deepening cooperation between member states of an international organization, is a natural process. Moreover, as N.A. Cherkasov rightly notes, “transformations in individual countries and transformations under integration programs are naturally interdependent.” At the same time, critical remarks are often made regarding integration processes in the post-Soviet space, especially from foreign researchers. Thus, R. Waitz writes that at the national level, the governments of the CIS member states widely use export subsidies and preferences for public procurement, which, in turn, violates the principles of free trade. As a result, economic relations in the post-Soviet space are regulated by separate bilateral international treaties, and not by more effective international treaties within the framework of integration education.
In our opinion, such criticism is to some extent fair in relation to the CIS. As for the EurAsEC and especially the Customs Union, under the auspices of these interstate integration associations special multilateral international treaties have been concluded that establish international obligations for all participating states.
This example points to one of the important differences between more perfect and advanced, and therefore more effective integration within the Eurasian Economic Community and the Customs Union compared to the level of integration that has been achieved in the CIS.
An important result of the real achievement of integrative rapprochement between the member states of the Customs Union, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, was the adoption on November 27, 2009 of the Customs Code of the Customs Union. The Customs Code of the Customs Union is designed according to the model of constructing this act in the form of an “international treaty within the framework of an international organization”, where the Customs Code itself is an Annex to the international Treaty on the Customs Code of the Customs Union, adopted on November 27, 2009, i.e. it is of a generally binding nature , like the Treaty itself (Article 1 of the Treaty). Moreover, in Art. 1 of the Treaty also establishes the essential rule that “the provisions of this Code take precedence over other provisions of the customs legislation of the Customs Union.” Thus, there is an international legal consolidation of the priority of application of the Customs Code of the Customs Union under consideration over other acts of the Customs Union.
The adoption of a codified international legal act is complemented by the development of the contractual framework of the Customs Union on specific issues. At the same time, undoubtedly, a positive thing in building an integrated Eurasian economic space is that within the framework of the EurAsEC, interrelated international treaties are being developed and concluded, which, in essence, constitute the system of international treaties of the EurAsEC. At the same time, systemic regulation, in addition to international treaties, should include decisions of the Interstate Council of the EurAsEC and the Integration Committee. Recommendatory acts adopted by the Interparliamentary Assembly of the EurAsEC should not diverge from the rules provided for in the legally binding decisions of the EurAsEC bodies.
These legal positions, of course, are only a “reflection” of those political, and primarily economic, processes that have been taking place in the world recently. However, it should be noted that legal regulators are the most effective and most important mechanisms for cooperation between states, including overcoming the consequences of the global economic crisis on a mutually beneficial basis for partner states. In this regard, it seems appropriate to highlight several significant points that may be certain results of the study undertaken in this chapter of the dynamics of development of integration of the EurAsEC member states.
Multi-vector integration is a justified and most acceptable legal mechanism for rapprochement for the states of the post-Soviet space. In modern conditions, the Eurasian Economic Community is an international organization that has a powerful potential for long-term development and cooperation among member states. At the same time, we cannot agree with the opinion of S.N. Yaryshev that the “multi-speed” and “multi-level” approach can hardly be called constructive. “It is rather similar to the obligations of the participants to integrate with other participants in the future, but for now everyone has the right to independently, separately build their external relations on the issue under consideration.”
This approach to the integration of states within the framework of a new interstate association in the post-Soviet space, which is the EurAsEC, obviously does not take into account that different speed and different level integration processes, firstly, are objectively determined, and therefore inevitable in such periods when the problems of global economy. Secondly, the need of sovereign states for integrative rapprochement cannot be viewed through the prism of “separation”, since the freedom of internal and external forms expression of state policy and sovereignty does not at all prevent membership in an international organization precisely to the extent and on those conditions that are determined by the state itself, taking into account the rules of membership in this organization. At the same time, any state does not diminish its sovereignty, does not “sacrifice” its sovereign rights, and especially does not undertake “obligations to integrate with other participants in the future.”
At the same time, it is necessary to take into account that real world processes (for example, the global financial and economic crisis) at some time may weaken or, conversely, strengthen the interest of states in integrative rapprochement. These are objective and natural processes for the development of any phenomenon, including the functioning of an international organization, where the activities of the Eurasian Economic Community are no exception.
As noted in the Recommendations following the meeting of the Expert Council on the topic “The Eurasian Economic Community: Coordinated Approaches to Overcoming the Consequences of the Global Financial and Economic Crisis,” held on April 16, 2009 in the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly, “during this period, the features of crisis phenomena became especially clear in the EurAsEC countries, associated with structural imbalances in their economies, undeveloped mechanisms of interaction in the monetary, financial and credit and banking spheres. Already at the initial stage of the crisis in the EurAsEC countries, Negative consequences high dependence of the economy on the export of natural resources and on external borrowing, uncompetitiveness of the processing sector of the economy. There was a sharp drop in the level of socio-economic development of the Community states in terms of many macroeconomic indicators, including in the area of their foreign economic activity. Russia's trade turnover with these countries decreased in January–February 2009 by 42% compared to the same period last year. Russia’s relations with the main EurAsEC partner, Belarus, suffered to a greater extent, trade with which decreased by almost 44%.”
Therefore, the above legal changes in part relating to the membership of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Republic of Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic in the EurAsEC, should be considered as caused by objective processes. Along with certain difficulties, these states retain their interest in the EurAsEC and, as a consequence, membership in this international organization. In such conditions, the redistribution of financial shares in the formation of the EurAsEC budget from “weaker” to economically “stronger” states, without expelling the former from the organization, is a very important legal mechanism for preserving almost half of the members of the EurAsEC, and, consequently, preserving its “core” in the conditions , when the state budgets of almost all states are experiencing acute deficits. At the same time, the creation of the Eurasian Economic Commission within Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, endowed with supranational powers, simultaneously indicates a different trend in the development of international cooperation of a number of states. Their essence, according to the fair opinion of E. A. Yurtaeva, is that “international regional cooperation organizations with their branched structure of permanent bodies acquire the character and powers of supranational power: participating states consciously limit their own power prerogatives in favor of a supranational body called upon carry out the integration function."
Such legal steps, despite serious problems, which the EurAsEC experiences in crisis situations, allow this most important international organization of the post-Soviet space not only to “survive”, retaining all its members, but also to continue to develop integration – within the framework of a “narrower”, but most “advanced”, in the language of European law , Customs Union of EurAsEC member states: Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Moreover, in our opinion, if there is a favorable political and economic situation, work should be intensified to include new members in the EurAsEC.
It should also be noted that in order to effectively overcome the crisis and ensure long-term sustainable development, the EurAsEC member states need not only to seek internal sources of growth, but also to simultaneously develop integrative ties that complement the sustainability of state development through international cooperation. And in this sense, the member states of the EurAsEC have all the necessary potential for mutually beneficial development and overcoming the crisis, since most of them have similar problems that impede internal growth, including the raw material orientation of their economies and the urgent need for diversification of production. Adding to this historical community and territorial proximity, we will receive irrefutable arguments in favor of the comprehensive development of the Eurasian Economic Community as a new type of interstate association.
Thus, it can be noted that the development of integration in the post-Soviet space is carried out as a complex formation, when within the framework of one interstate association another interstate association is created and functions. At the same time, the limits of interaction between the acts of the EurAsEC and the Customs Union have a kind of “crossing” character and specific mutual penetration: on the one hand, the international legal acts of the EurAsEC (international treaties, decisions of the Interstate Council of the EurAsEC, etc.) retain their regulatory influence for the Customs Union. , and on the other hand, acts adopted within the framework of the Customs Union, in particular by the Eurasian Economic Commission (and previously by the Customs Union Commission), which are not binding for the remaining member states of the EurAsEC that are not part of the Customs Union.
In this regard, it is necessary to note the fact that after the collapse of the USSR, the force of international disunity of the newly formed sovereign states was so great that the Commonwealth of Independent States, formed on the basis of the former republics of the USSR, was unable to “bind” the member states with unified international legal acts, which were divided in the course of coordinating the positions of states, and without receiving international legal recognition, they turned into model acts, recommendations, etc. And only after the formation of the EurAsEC and then on its basis the Customs Union within the framework of the “troika” of states, it was possible to create a truly functioning a body vested with broad supranational powers - first the Customs Union Commission, which was subsequently transformed into the Eurasian Economic Commission in accordance with the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Commission.
Thus, we can generalize that the integration of the states - republics of the former USSR does not develop linearly in different periods, but experiences certain correlations taking into account both political, economic and other factors. Now we can state that integration within three states - the Russian Federation, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Republic of Belarus - is the most “dense” and is characterized by the greatest degree of “convergence”, mainly currently within the Customs Union.
From the book Contract Law. Book one. General provisions author Braginsky Mikhail Isaakovich9. The effect of norms on contracts in the space Legislation on contracts, as part of civil legislation as a whole, by virtue of paragraph “o” of Art. 71 of the Constitution is the subject of jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. Based on the specified norm, paragraph 1 of Art. 3 of the Civil Code provided: in accordance
From the book Legal Forms of Participation legal entities in international commercial circulation author Asoskov Anton VladimirovichCHAPTER 7. Legal regulation foreign legal entities within the Commonwealth independent states and other integration associations of the former Soviet republics 1. Legal basis integration of the CIS member countries. The collapse of the USSR and education in the former Soviet
From the book Collection of current decisions of the plenums of the Supreme Courts of the USSR, RSFSR and the Russian Federation on criminal cases author Mikhlin A S3. Legal regulation of the status of foreign legal entities at the level of closer integration associations of the former Soviet republics In our opinion, if at the CIS level the creation of an organizational and legal mechanism with supranational elements similar to the EU,
From the book Social Emergencies and Protection from Them author Gubanov Vyacheslav Mikhailovich1.5. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On improving the organization trials and improving the culture of their implementation" dated February 7, 1967 No. 35 (as amended by decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 20, 1983 No. 10, dated December 21, 1993 No. 11, dated October 25, 1996 No. 10, dated February 6, 2007
From the book Inheritance Law author Gushchina Ksenia Olegovna11.5 Human security in the information space 0 The seriousness of the situation in the sphere of influence on the individual in the information space is evidenced by the widespread use of almost military terminology to describe this process: information war,
From the book Cheat sheet on metrology, standardization, certification author Klochkova Maria Sergeevna5. Effect of legislation on inheritance in space, in time Legal relations arising in the field of inheritance law are of a continuing nature and arose both under the old legislation on inheritance law and after the adoption of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Changes when
From the book Roman Law: Cheat Sheet author author unknown84. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT MONITORING AND PROCESS MEASUREMENT. PRINCIPLES OF MONITORING. MONITORING METHODS Monitoring is a continuous process of collecting, processing, evaluating and preparing decisions aimed at achieving the goals and objectives of the organization. Monitoring processes
From book Criminal law(General and Special parts): Cheat sheet author author unknown7. The concept of formulary and extraordinary processes The legislative Roman civil process was a fairly pure example of an adversarial (accusatory) process. Over time, the praetor gained freedom in formulating the essence of the dispute (“formula”) before the judge, which
From the book Theory of State and Law author Morozova Lyudmila Alexandrovna6. The action of criminal law in space The action of criminal law in space is its application in a certain territory and in relation to certain persons who have committed a crime. The principles of the action of criminal law in space: principle
From the book A Reader of Alternative Dispute Resolution author Team of authors6.5 The influence of globalization processes on the functions of the state The concept of “globalization” is given different meaning. But most often globalization is understood as modern stage global integration of peoples, societies and states. It leads to the establishment of a new world order,
From the book Course of Criminal Law in five volumes. Volume 1. General part: The doctrine of crime author Team of authorsStudent competitions in the form of gaming trials as effective remedy education in the field of ADR Annual competition in the field of international commercial arbitration in Vienna R. O. ZYKOV, senior lawyer at the international law firm Hennes Snellman, candidate
From the book Standards of Fair Justice (International and National Practices) author Team of authorsStudent competitions in the form of game trials I. D. SERGEEVA, lawyer at the Moscow office of the international law firm "Clifford Chance", teacher at the Institute of Humanitarian Education and Information Technologies, Master of Laws, judge of national and
From the book International Legal Models of the European Union and the Customs Union: Comparative Analysis author Morozov Andrey NikolaevichCompetitions in the form of game trials as a form of students learning the basics of ADR: the experience of St. Petersburg State University S. V. USOSKIN, lawyer of the St. Petersburg law office "Egorov, Puginsky, Afanasiev and Partners", team coach
From the author's book§ 2. The action of criminal law in space The action of criminal law in space is based on five principles: territorial, citizenship, protective (special regime), universal and real. In accordance with the territorial principle,
From the author's book1. Media coverage of the activities of the judicial system, individual courts or judges, individual trials Media coverage mass media activities of the judicial system and individual processes - in order to increase confidence in courts and judges, as well as as
From the author's book§ 4. Doctrinal approaches to the implementation of international treaties concluded within the framework of interstate integration associations As already indicated in previous sections, international treaties are the fundamental sources regulating issues
