You are currently viewing the old version of the website.
From December 5, 2019 the website is available at: http://ilpp.ru and http://academia.ilpp.ru/en
Follow Us
Contact

Institute for Law and Public Policy

Address: 129090, Moscow, Shchepkina str., 8

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 140, Moscow, 129090, Russia

Tel.: +7 (495) 608 6959, 608 6635; Fax: +7 (495) 608 6915

info@mail-ilpp.ru

Our location
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
       
“Meždunarodnoe pravosudie” (International Justice) Journal

№3 (27) 2018

From apology to apology: general problems arising from the activity of the Eurasian Economic Union Court

Vladislav Tolstykh - Doctor of Sciences in Law, Head of the International Law Department, Novosibirsk State University; Senior Researcher, Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia (e-mail: vlt73@mail.ru).

DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2018-3-66-76

Abstract. This article is an overview of political and technical problems arising from the activity of the EAEU Court. The main political problem is the predisposition of the Court in favor of the Commission and the states. It is not a question of bias or other malicious intent, but of the line of conduct chosen by the Court. This line of conduct is considered by the Court as appropriate and conforming to the law, but when placed under scrutiny it is characterized by a certain level of selectivity. Particular manifestations of this problem are the lack of a descriptive part in some decisions, dictated by the Court’s desire to reduce the actual conflict to an abstract issue, and the practice of accepting the withdrawals of the requests for interpretation at the last stages of the process. Among the technical problems are the defects in reasoning (deviations from the rules of formal logic, arbitrary use of methods of interpretation, non-use of modern methods of grammatical interpretation, failure to balance the ascending and descending arguments, and giving excessive weight to the practice of other international courts) and linguistic defects (complex and illiterate formulations, tautologies, etc.). A particular technical problem is the irrelevance of dissenting opinions, which opinions could be used as a platform for articulating purely theoretical concepts, proposals de lege ferenda, a war of words with other judges, and sophistical exercises. These problems hinder the implementation of the Court’s function and deprive it of the opportunity to seriously influence the development of the EAEU law. The main conclusion is that the general line of conduct of the Court, characterized by caution, predictability, and creative passivity, does not correspond to the requirements of the development of the legal system of the EAEU.

Keywords: international courts; international law; customs law; Eurasian integration.

Citation: Tolstykh V. (2018) Nekotorye obshchie problemy deyatel'nosti Suda Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo soyuza [From apology to apology: some general problems arising from the activity of the Eurasian Economic Union Court]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.8, no.3, pp.66–76. (In Russian).

References

Ispolinov A.S. (2013) Navyazannyy monolog: pervoe preyuditsial'noe za­klyuchenie Suda EvrAzES [An imposed monologue: the first preliminary ruling of the Eurasian Economic Community]. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.8, pp.21–30. (In Russian).

Ispolinov A.S. (2017) Reshenie Suda EAES po sporu Rossiyskaya Federatsiya protiv Respubliki Belarus': pravosudie posredi politicheskogo konflikta [Decision of the EAEU Court on the dispute between the Russian Federation and Belarus: justice in the midst of a political conflict]. Available at: https://zakon.ru/aispolinov/blogs (accessed: 01.09.2018). (In Russian).

Ispolinov A.S. (2018) Osobye mneniya v mezhdunarodnykh sudakh: doktrina i praktika [Dissenting opinions in international courts: doctrine and practice]. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, no.1, pp.218–233. (In Russian).

Neshataeva T.N. (2016) Sud EAES v deystvii: Interv'yu [The EAEU Court in action: Interview]. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.9, pp.11–14. (In Russian).

Smbatyan A.S. (2014) Resheniya Suda EvrAzES ne vyzyvayut nauchnogo interesa? [Why don't the decisions of the EurAsEC Court attract scientific interest?]. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.6, pp.63–68. (In Russian).

Tolstykh V.L. (2016) Razvitie praktiki Suda Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo soyuza (na primere dela «IP. Tarasik K.P. protiv Komissii») [Development of the practice of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union (a case study of IP Tarasik K.P. v. Commission]. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.3, pp.16–19. (In Russian).

Tolstykh V. (2016) Praktika Suda EAES / Suda EvrAzES: problemy pravoprimeneniya i nekotorye itogi [Jurisprudence of the Court of the EEU / Court of the EEC: problems of the application of law and some results]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.4, pp.114–128. (In Russian).

Tolstykh V. (2017) “Nebesnaya” i “zemnaya” zhizn' Suda Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo soyuza: Obzor Resheniya ot 21 fevralya 2017 goda po delu o soblyudenii Belorussiey Dogovora o EAES [The “heavenly” and “earthly” life of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union: A review of the Judgment of the Court in the case involving Belarus' adherence to the Treaty on the EEU]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.4, pp.18–25. (In Russian).

 
Stay in the Loop!
Periodicals
The Moot Court Competition on Constitutional Justice 'Crystal Themis'
The Moot Court Competition on Constitutional Justice
Gallery