It is one of the types of interstate integration, the main task of which is to implement a policy of collective protectionism beyond the boundaries of the association and liberalize economic relations within it. The SES is also designed to ensure “four freedoms” between the participating countries, the essence of which is intergovernmental coordination economic policy and free movement of labor, money, services and products.

Creating a Union

At the beginning of 2003, the top officials of Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus at one of the meetings announced their intentions to create the SES. Six months later, a list of documents that needed to be ratified first was approved, however, after Viktor Yushchenko came to power in Ukraine, the process of creating a new economic formation was frozen for several years, as the new Ukrainian leadership relied on the Euro-Atlantic integration of their country.

In December 2010, the presidents of the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan and Belarus signed agreements on the creation of an interstate economic space. A month later, these documents were ratified by the parliaments of the above countries. In 2011, the leadership of the SES member countries put their signatures on the agreements of the second stage of integration. In particular, during the trilateral meeting the following were approved:

• agreement on the creation of an economic commission and regulations for its work;
• Declaration on Economic Integration.

Concept

The concept of the formation of the SES is a provision that provides for the main nuances of creating an association and implementing its further activities. The following points deserve special attention:

• The main goals when creating the SES are to improve the well-being of the population of the participating countries and the growth of the economy of the latter.
• The activities of the SES are carried out taking into account all the norms and recommendations of the WTO.
• The functioning of the SES is based on the free movement of labor, capital, services and goods across the borders of the participating countries.
• The formation of the Common Economic Space is taking place gradually. Each stage is characterized by an increase in the degree of integration.
• The areas of activity of the SES are developed on the basis of decisions of the governing bodies of the association and intergovernmental agreements.
• The leadership structure of the SES varies depending on the level of integration.

Members

The first members of the association in 2012 were the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan and Belarus. Three years later, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan joined the SES.

Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have expressed a desire to join the ranks of the SES participating countries. The leadership of Abkhazia has repeatedly declared similar intentions, however, the entry of this state into the SES is hampered by the fact that its independence is not recognized by the majority of members of the association.

Management

Almost immediately after the signing of the agreements on the second level of integration of the SES member countries, the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) was created. At the moment, this governing body controls more than 170 functions of the association.

The EEC consists of a Collegium and a Council. To the first, all SES member countries delegate 3 of their representatives, while the second consists of deputy prime ministers of the states.

The formation of the Common Economic Space (CES) is the provision of the so-called “four freedoms”: the movement of goods, capital, services and labor within the territory of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space. Consequently, the main tasks of economic integration at the stage of “construction” of the SES are the creation of conditions for the implementation of the principle of freedom of movement of services, capital and labor, as well as the elimination of remaining exemptions in order to achieve freedom of movement of goods. An important area of ​​work at the stage of formation of the Common Economic Space also became the codification of international treaties forming the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space, in order to implement integration processes planned for the near future, in particular, preparations for signing by the Presidents of the member states of the draft Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

The SES is being formed gradually, by increasing the level of integration, through the synchronization of economic transformations carried out by participating states, joint measures to implement a coordinated economic policy, through the harmonization and unification of legislation in the fields of economics, trade and other areas, taking into account generally accepted norms and principles of international law , as well as the experience of the world's best legislative practices.

On December 19, 2010, by decision of the highest body of the Customs Union, an Action Plan for the formation of the Common Economic Space of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia was adopted, in accordance with which a package of relevant international treaties was signed. Exactly one year later, by decision of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, 17 basic international agreements forming the Common Economic Space. In 2013, another agreement was signed.

Extensive work to ensure the unhindered movement of goods was done at the stage of creating the Customs Union and logically continued during the formation of the Common Economic Space. In particular, work was continued, dictated by the economic logic of integration, to improve customs legislation and simplify customs operations, improve customs declarations, including electronic declarations and introduce the principle of priority of electronic information over paper media, and develop the “single window” system.

Complex, systematic work was carried out to identify and eliminate exceptions from the free trade regime, begun by the Eurasian Economic Commission in 2013 on behalf of the Heads of the CU and SES member states.

The removal of restrictions in mutual trade continued on the basis of the unification of customs tariffs, the formation of a common customs tariff established on the basis of a methodology agreed upon by the Member States, non-tariff regulation measures, and the use of tools to regulate trade in goods with third countries. To implement a targeted trade policy that promotes sustainable economic development of the countries of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space (EAEU), the Main Directions of Foreign Trade Policy of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space (Eurasian Economic Union) for the period until 2020 were developed.

The document will also contribute to the harmonization of the general economic and foreign trade policies of the member states of the CU and the Common Economic Space (EAEU), and the creation of a favorable environment for the development of business activity. Activities were consistently and systematically carried out in the field of technical regulation, sanitary, phytosanitary and veterinary measures to develop and adopt technical regulations and interstate standards. By the end of 2012, 24 technical regulations had been adopted. And by January 1, 2015, the list of adopted technical regulations of the Customs Union already included 35 documents, 32 of which came into force. By this time, the number of standards contained in the lists of standards for technical regulations of the Customs Union approached 8,000.

While at the stage of formation of the SES the work that prevailed at the CU stage continued within the areas of customs, trade and technical regulation, the area of ​​interaction between member states of the integration project on issues of ensuring full-fledged freedom of movement of services, capital and labor was also expanded.

In this regard, the formation of agreed (coordinated) policies has begun in the most important areas of the economy: macroeconomic, transport, energy, agro-industrial, currency, migration, as well as policies in such areas of the economy as financial markets, protection and protection of intellectual property.

Thus, in the field of macroeconomic policy, it was approved by the leaders of Belarus,

Kazakhstan and Russia's first program document - The main guidelines for the macroeconomic policy of the countries of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space for 2013–2014. The document was prepared on the basis of an analysis of social economic development member states of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space, main external risks and internal restrictions sustainable development economics It defines the key guidelines for the macroeconomic policy of the member states of the integration association for the short term, namely: maintaining macroeconomic stability, creating conditions for a stable economic growth through deepening cooperation in the real sector of the economy and developing the credit and financial system. The implementation of each of the guidelines includes areas that reveal the potential of Eurasian economic integration, the best practices used in the member states of the CU and the CES, as well as advanced international experience in these areas.

A draft Transport Policy Program for the Common Economic Space for the period up to 2020, a draft Concept of the Common Electricity Market, and a draft methodology for the formation of indicative balances of energy resources of the CU and CES member states have been developed. Thus, the formation of a coordinated (harmonized) transport policy of the member states of the CU and the Common Economic Space (EAEU) will make it possible to realize the transport and logistics potential of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia. The implementation of a coordinated (harmonized) energy policy will ensure sustainable growth of national economies and energy security of states, protect the interests of consumers and producers of energy resources, increase economic efficiency and reliability of the energy complex, optimize the use of primary energy resources and expand non-resource export potential.

Similar work was carried out in the field of industrial policy - in May 2013, the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council at the level of heads of government adopted the Decision “On the main directions of coordination of national industrial policies of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and Russian Federation" This document builds the concept of industrial policy within the framework of the SES, defines the main directions of industrial cooperation of the member states, as well as tracks for interaction with the Belarusian-Kazakh-Russian Business Dialogue and representatives of the business communities of the Parties. A list of priority economic sectors for industrial interaction within the CU and the Common Economic Space (EAEU) was also determined.

The result of an agreed (coordinated) agro-industrial policy should be: the formation of transparent conditions for mutual trade, increasing the self-sufficiency of the common market for agricultural products and food based on the coordinated development of its national segments, as well as strengthening the export potential of the agro-industrial complex. Supranational coordination, carried out by the Commission on the basis of interaction with the authorized bodies of the CU and SES member states, helps at this stage to stimulate the development of markets for agricultural products based on maintaining equal competitive conditions in the production and trade of agricultural and food products, the use of resources for agricultural production in order to increase income of commodity producers, economic accessibility of food to consumers.

The Eurasian Economic Commission, in close dialogue with business representatives and the expert community of the three member states of the integration association, worked to develop entrepreneurship in the CU and SES countries and create a full-fledged internal market for financial services in the banking, insurance and securities markets. Work was carried out to liberalize relations within the framework of the Eurasian project in the field of investment and to form a single market for services - these are those areas of the economy that are currently least integrated. Including in order to achieve freedom of movement of services, capital and labor, a number of basic agreements were developed in the field of protection and protection of rights intellectual property and labor migration. By May 2014, the date of signing the Treaty on the Establishment of the Eurasian Economic Union, dozens of agreements and decisions in these areas, including those of direct effect, were signed and adopted in furtherance of the agreements that entered into force.

At this stage of integration, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, the Commission was vested with the competence to monitor compliance with common rules of competition in cross-border markets in the territories of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space from January 1, 2014. The transfer of these powers is based on the adoption in October 2013 by the Presidents of the member states of the Model Law “On Competition”. It, in turn, determines uniform approaches to the main provisions of national legislation in the field of competition policy of states

Members of the integration project, being a guideline in the legislative

work in the field of competition policy in Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia.

The work to deepen integration between the participants of the Eurasian economic project, carried out at the stage of formation of the Common Economic Space, allowed the member states of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space to create conditions for the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which began to function on January 1, 2015.

On the formation of the Common Economic Space

LUKYANOVA Vlada Yurievna,

leading researcher of the department

administrative legislation

and IZIP process, Candidate of Philosophy

Modern stage development of the world economic system is determined by a number of factors: strengthening global competition, covering not only traditional markets for goods, capital, technology and labor, but also systems of national governance, support for innovation, human development, and the transition of leading countries to building an economy based primarily on the generation, dissemination and use of knowledge; overcoming energy barriers to economic growth and exhausting the potential of an extensive model of economic development based on the export of energy and other natural resources; expansion and intensification of economically determined globalization processes and the transition from a bipolar to a multipolar model of the world political system, accompanied by the emergence of new “centers of power.” The combination of these factors gives rise to challenges and threats of a long-term, systemic nature, as a result of which the vulnerability of all members of the international community significantly increases. This leads to a sharp intensification of the processes of interstate integration at the regional level, since the integration group, by collectively protecting its members from foreign competition, can contribute

each country making fuller use of its natural competitive advantages.

The Russian Federation’s response to these threats should be active participation in international cooperation, development, and expansion of integration processes on the territory of the former Soviet Union, since, as emphasized in the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 20201, it is Russia that will strive to develop the potential of regional and subregional integration and coordination in the space of the CIS member states within the framework, first of all, of the CIS itself, as well as the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC), which have a stabilizing effect on the general situation in the regions bordering the CIS member states. The development of relations of bilateral and multilateral cooperation with the CIS member states is for Russia priority direction foreign policy. A significant area of ​​Russian foreign policy also includes strengthening the EurAsEC as the core of economic integration, a tool for facilitating the implementation of large water-energy, infrastructure, industrial and other joint projects, primarily of regional significance2. And here one of the primary tasks is the creation of a Unified Economy

1 Approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated

2 See National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020.

economic space (CES) - a space in which the same type of economic regulation mechanisms operate, based on market principles and the application of harmonized legal norms, there is a single infrastructure and coordinated tax, monetary, monetary, trade and customs policies are implemented, ensuring the free movement of goods, services, capital and labor3, and which is formed by states that have a common history, legal traditions, and most importantly - common economic goals and interests. The main goals of the formation of the SES are:

efficient functioning of the common (domestic) market for goods, services, capital and labor;

creating conditions for the stable development of structural restructuring of the economies of the parties in the interests of increasing the living standards of their population;

carrying out coordinated tax, monetary, monetary, financial, trade, customs and tariff policies;

development of unified transport, energy and information systems;

creation of a common system of measures state support development of priority sectors of the economy, industrial and scientific-technological cooperation.

In the future, the SES should transform into the Eurasian Union, which will be “a powerful supranational association capable of becoming one of the poles of the modern world and at the same time playing the role of an effective “link” between Europe and the dynamic Asia-Pacific region”4.

3 See Art. 1 of the Treaty on the Customs Union and Common Economic Space, signed in Moscow on February 26, 1999.

4 Putin V.V. A new integration project for Eurasia is the future, which

The legal framework of the SES today consists of 17 international treaties affecting various spheres of life of the integration association. In accordance with the decision of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council (SEEC) dated December 19, 2011 No. 9, most of them came into force on January 1, 2012, but in order for these basic agreements to be implemented within the established time frame, the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) 52 normative legal acts5 must be developed and adopted, and more than 70 mandatory measures must be carried out by the governments of states participating in the formation of the SES in accordance with the specific deadlines established therein. The SES should begin to function in full on January 1, 2016.

Attempts to form a common economic space in the post-Soviet space have been made repeatedly. For the first time, such a decision was recorded in the Treaty on the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space dated February 26, 19996, to which the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, and the Republic of Tajikistan became parties. In order to implement it, on October 26, 1999, these parties concluded an Agreement on the legal support for the formation of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space7. However, real steps to implement

swarm is born today // Izvestia. 2011.

URL: http://www.tsouz.ru.

6 Russia ratified the treaty Federal law dated May 22, 2001 No. 55-FZ. Came into force for Russia on July 2, 2001.

7 Russia ratified the Agreement

These international legal acts have not been implemented for a long time.

On September 19, 2003, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and Ukraine concluded an Agreement on the formation of a Common Economic Space8. And finally, in December 2009, at an informal summit in Almaty, the presidents of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation decided to create a Common Economic Space of the three countries. Thus, today the SES is an economic space that unites the customs territories of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation.

The creation of the SES “in a trilateral format” became possible due to the fact that both the 1999 Treaty and the 2003 Agreement assess integration as a multi-level and multi-speed process. So, in Art. 7 of the 1999 Treaty states that the SES is being formed in stages, and the transition from stage to stage will be conditioned by the actual achievement of the specific goals of this Treaty and the fulfillment by the parties of the obligations assumed under it. This means freedom for the state to determine the direction of development of integration and the integration activities in which it will participate, as well as the scope of such participation. In accordance with Art. 5 of the 2003 Agreement, multi-level and multi-speed integration means that each party independently determines in which areas of development of integration or individual integration activities it takes part and to what extent.

8 Russia ratified the Agreement by Federal Law No. 22-FZ of April 22, 2004. Came into force for Russia on May 20, 2004.

Commitment to this principle is also confirmed by the Declaration on Eurasian Economic Integration of November 18, 20119, according to which the CES at any stage of its formation and operation will be open to the accession of other states that share the goals and principles of the Customs Union and are ready to implement them. In accordance with this principle, on October 19, 2011, the Interstate Council of the EurAsEC at the level of heads of government (the highest body of the Customs Union) adopted positive decision on the issue of participation of the Kyrgyz Republic in the Customs Union of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation and in the formation of the Common Economic Space10.

It seems that the introduction of the principle of a phased formation of integration associations in the post-Soviet space is due to the peculiarities of the integration processes occurring here. These include:

a) the multidirectionality of the processes of regionalization of the post-Soviet space and the resulting multiplicity of interstate economic integration associations emerging and (or) functioning in the post-Soviet space. Moreover, the same state can be a member of several integration associations at once;

b) uneven flow of processes of transformation of the economic and legal systems of the former Soviet republics. A feature of the unification of the economy and law of the new independent states was that they moved from the general

9 URL: http: //www.evrazes.com.

2012 No. 23 “About working group on the issue of participation of the Kyrgyz Republic in the Customs Union of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation.” URL: http://www.tsouz.ru.

go to private, from a single national economic complex to independent economic systems, from unified system Soviet law to the national legislation of the former Soviet republics. Thus, in the private law sphere, the Fundamentals of Civil Legislation, common to all republics, which coexisted with the civil codes of the union republics, were replaced by civil codes sovereign states. In the field of ensuring product safety in the former Soviet republics, all relations were initially regulated by laws adopted in the USSR in the early 1990s, however, with the development of market relations, changes in the level of political, economic and social development of states, and the presence of membership in various kinds of interstate entities, they became new legislative acts are adopted. At the same time, there is a voluntary borrowing, or reception, of legal models of other states: if in some CIS countries (Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan) the standardization system established in the USSR developed and improved, in some others (Uzbekistan, Armenia) it was supplemented with new principles and types of legal acts and conformity assessment models, then in most countries (Kazakhstan, Belarus, Tajikistan, Moldova, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan) they began to implement European principles regulation of the turnover of products, works and services11. Similar processes are taking place in other branches of law. It can be stated that the update legal system new independent states, and above all economic legislation

11 See: Kalmykova A.V. Comparative analysis of technical regulation systems in Russia and the CIS countries // Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law. 2010. No. 4.

stavva, led to their serious disintegration;

c) the significance of subjective factors. Comparing the time frame for the passage of the main stages of convergence of the national legal systems of the member states of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space with the dynamics of the formation and development of other integration associations, for example the European Union (EU)12, we can conclude that integration processes within the EurAsEC are quite rapidly developing. This indicates both the presence of political will and the desire of states to develop within the framework of integration structures. At the same time, due to the extremely short deadlines for the creation of these integration associations, their legislative framework is not free from some “growing pains” - certain imperfections and insufficient balance of the measures included in it. In particular, even before the entry into force of the Customs Code of the Customs Union, changes were required to 152 of its 373 articles13. This is also indicated by the adoption of the Protocol “On Amendments and Additions to the Agreement on Certain Issues of Providing Payment of Customs Duties and Taxes in Respect to Goods Transported in accordance with the Customs Procedure of Customs Transit, Peculiarities of Collection of Customs Duties, Taxes and the Procedure for Transferring the Collected Amounts in Respect of Such goods dated May 21, 2010", which was signed at the final stage before the entry into force of the agreement

12 For more information about this, see: Stages of integration of the European Union and EurAsEC // Izvestia. Special EurAsEC band. 2011.

13 See Protocol of April 16, 2010 “On Amendments and Additions to the Agreement on the Customs Code of the Customs Union dated November 27, 2009.” The Protocol was ratified by Federal Law No. 11E-FZ of June 2, 2010.

thieves forming the Common Economic Space of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, a meeting of the Supreme Body of the Customs Union at the level of heads of state on December 19, 2011, and the ongoing process of revising the provisions of other international legal acts and approving new norms.

Speaking about the importance of the principle of stage-by-stage, multi-level and multi-speed integration, it should be noted that, as world experience shows, regional economic integration, economic ties of all types are most successfully developing between countries relative to a comparable level of development, while the unification within one integration entity of countries with different the level of economic development and social problems makes the entire interstate integration association vulnerable to global economic crises. In particular, the eurozone crisis, which began with the financial crisis of the “Celtic Tiger” (Ireland), significantly complicated the financial situation not only of Greece, Spain and Portugal, but also of the entire European Union as a supranational integration entity. Under these conditions, at the EU Summit held on December 8, 2011, the leaders of France and Germany openly announced their intention to make significant changes to the Treaty on the European Union, involving tightening control over spending budget funds and the volume of public debts of EU member states, or conclude a new agreement between the 17 eurozone countries and those who wish to join this union.

Therefore, in the Eurasian space, the key to the effective development of integration processes is the development of criteria that countries wishing to join the Customs Union must meet.

married union of the EurAsEC and join the SES. As the Chairman believes National Bank Republic of Kazakhstan G. Marchenko, “there can be any number of countries in the Customs Union, the main thing is that they all meet the criteria we have established. In general, we need to agree on much more positions than was the case with Europe, and the main thing is to more strictly adhere to all agreements... Our task is to make the Eurasian Union more stable, not to expose it to [political] risks”14.

A significant problem is the development of general principles and approaches to the strategies of socio-economic development of the states forming the SES. It is obvious that the coordination of national interests in the process of creating the SES will require the introduction of permanent mechanisms and procedures that have a high degree of political and psychological legitimacy from the point of view of subjects of international relations. Such a scheme for coordinating interests should be based on an effective system of international (communitarian) sanctions in case of violation of agreed provisions and rules, including:

procedures and mechanisms for agreeing on the most general and long-term goals of socio-economic development, as well as macroeconomic policy parameters adopted for the corresponding stage of development;

procedures and mechanisms for “translating” the regional (communitarian) general principles and strategies thus agreed upon into national programs of socio-economic development, which would provide for specific guidelines and obligations;

procedures and mechanisms for solving operational practical issues

owls, as well as tracking the progress of previously decisions made and the obligations taken, as well as the objective national and regional (community) results obtained;

procedures and mechanisms for appealing to dispute resolution bodies, as well as the consideration of disputes, recognition and execution of decisions taken by the body.

In general, the formation of a system for coordinating interests is a rather long process that will take place in intense political and economic struggle. However, without the creation of such a system, the effective functioning of the SES and its transformation into the Eurasian Union are impossible.

A significant role in solving this and other tasks of forming the SES will be played by the governing bodies of the SES: the Council of Heads of State, which coordinates and manages these processes at the interstate level and makes decisions in accordance with the principle of “one state - one vote”, and the permanent regulatory body of the SES - The Eurasian Economic Commission, which “replaced” the Customs Union Commission15. In accordance with Art. 1 of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Commission of November 18, 2011, its main function should be to ensure the conditions for the functioning and development of the Customs Union and the CES, as well as to develop proposals in the field of economic integration within the Customs Union and the CES16. The activities of the EEC are carried out on the basis of the following principles: ensuring mutual benefit, equality and taking into account the national interests of the member states of the Customs Union; economic feasibility of decisions made

ny; openness, transparency and objectivity.

It must be emphasized that the EEC is vested with significantly greater powers than the Customs Union Commission. The Supreme Eurasian Economic Council may grant the EEC the right to sign international treaties on issues within its competence. In addition, the EEC:

ensures the implementation of international treaties that form the legal framework of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space. In order to increase the efficiency of this activity, it has the right to request from the authorities of the states participating in the formation of the SES, legal entities and individuals, the information necessary to exercise their powers;

performs the functions of a depository of international treaties that make up the legal framework of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space, and decisions of the SEEC;

submits draft international treaties signed by the Commission for approval by the SEEC;

organizes work to improve the regulatory legal framework of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space;

submits for approval to the SEEC the main directions of integration within the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space;

considers the issue of canceling or changing decisions taken by the EEC Board in the manner prescribed by Art. 13 of the said Agreement;

considers the issue of monitoring and control over the implementation of international treaties that make up the legal framework of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space;

performs other functions and powers.

In order to ensure the effective functioning of the SES, the EEC has the right to create advisory bodies to conduct consultations on certain issues, decision-making on which relates to

to its competence17. The EEC consists of two chambers - the Council and the Collegium, approved by the SEEC at the level of heads of state in accordance with the Regulations of the EEC. Considering that the EEC Board, to which the states participating in the formation of the SES delegated their representatives, is the working body of the EEC, it includes 23 departments in the most important areas of cooperation18.

It should be noted that in the Customs Union Commission the votes were distributed between the parties as follows: Republic of Belarus - 21.5; Republic of Kazakhstan - 21.5; Russian Federation - 57.

Decisions were made by a majority of 2/3 votes, and only in cases provided for by international treaties that form the legal framework of the Customs Union, the decision was made by consensus. If one of the Parties did not agree with the decision of the said Commission, the issue was submitted to the highest body of the Customs Union at the level of heads of state, which made a decision by consensus. If the required number of votes was not obtained when making a decision, this Commission had the right to refer the issue to the highest body of the Customs Union.

Thus, within the framework of the Customs Union Commission, Russia could block the adoption of a particular decision if it considered it unfavorable for itself. Within the EEC, Russia does not have such an opportunity.

In the newly created supranational governing body, decisions and

17 The first stage of such bodies has already been created - advisory committees on trade, technical regulation, and tax policy have been formed.

18 List of EEC departments and their distribution

The division between the members of the Board was established by the EEC decision of January 25, 2012 No. 2. URL: http://www.tsouz.ru.

recommendations are adopted by the EEC Council and the EEC Board within the powers established by the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Commission of November 18, 2011, with the votes of the parties distributed as follows:

The EEC Board makes decisions and recommendations by consensus or a qualified majority of 2/3 votes of the total number of members of the Board; The EEC Council makes decisions by consensus. If consensus is not reached, the issue is referred to the SEEC for consideration at the proposal of any member of the EEC Council.

Decisions of the EEC are subject to publication on its official website on the Internet, with the exception of decisions provided for by the Regulations, and are sent to the parties no later than three calendar days from the date of the decision. The date of publication of the EEC decision on the official website is recognized as the date of its official publication, and from that moment the EEC decisions become binding on the territory of three countries.

An important factor characterizing any interstate integration association is the dispute resolution system established by its constituent acts. Article 7 of the Agreement on the Formation of the Common Economic Space of September 19, 2003 emphasizes that disputes and disagreements between the parties regarding the interpretation and (or) application of the provisions of this Agreement are resolved through consultations and negotiations. At the same time, for the construction of an integrated Eurasian economic space, the activities of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Community (hereinafter referred to as the Community Court), which

ensures uniform application by the EurAsEC member states of the Treaty on the Establishment of the EurAsEC and other treaties and decisions in force within the EurAsEC, including international treaties and other documents regulating the creation and functioning of the SES19. Currently, it is the Community Court, whose decisions are binding on the parties to the dispute, that, from a legal point of view, promotes the integration of the SES to a higher level, contributing to the intensification of integration processes in the post-Soviet space. At the same time, their further expansion may require improvement of the judicial system created within the EurAsEC. After all, if the task of resolving interstate disputes, including on issues of interpretation of international agreements and their compliance with general principles and norms of international law, can be (and is) successfully solved by the Community Court, then the question of which body should consider private law disputes remains open. It seems that these functions should be performed by a specialized international judicial authority having a special status - international commercial arbitration. A special status should also be given to a body for resolving disputes between a state and a person of another state, like the International Center for the Settlement of Disputes between a State and a Person of Another State, created on the basis of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Individuals or Legal Entities of Other States.

19 For more information about this, see: Lukyanova V. Yu, Kashirkina A. A., Kichigin N. V. and others. Problems of legal support of the Single Economic Space // Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law. 2011. No. 4. P. 73-80.

States, concluded in Washington in 1965 on the initiative of the International Bank. It should be noted that all members of the Customs Union are parties to this Convention. Russia signed it in 1992, but has not yet ratified it. Completion of the ratification procedure would solve the problem of improving control over the implementation of international agreements for this complex category of disputes and strengthen the integration mechanism for the purpose of creating the Eurasian Union.

In general, the existing institutional mechanism for the formation and functioning of the SES, when compared with the actual socio-economic and political situation in the post-Soviet space, allows us to give a positive assessment of the prospects for the development of this interstate integration association. However, we should not forget that the spectra of evolutionary paths to the future can be transformed due to changes in the intrinsic properties of the corresponding complex systems, opening up new opportunities for further development. Therefore, the formation of the Eurasian Union as an attractor structure for the development of the post-Soviet space requires the expedient structuring of social functions, the corresponding alignment of the life of society “to the goal.” Consequently, integration processes are inextricably linked with goal setting - a projective attitude towards the future state of the post-Soviet space, and with goal orientation - the organization of functioning to achieve an ideal goal. A key role in this process may belong to the Eurasian Parliament, which will perform both legislative functions20 and taking into account

20 See the speech of the Chairman of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation S. E. Naryshkin at the Interparliamentary

experience of the European Union as an advisory body.

In conclusion, we note that today Russia faces the task of transitioning to an innovative, socially oriented type of development. Considering that the solution to this problem largely depends on international political and economic relations, the goal of our country’s foreign economic policy is to create conditions for achieving a leading position in the global economy, which requires effective participation in the global division of labor. And the creation of the Common Economic Space is the first necessary step towards achieving this goal.

Bibliography

Speech by the Chairman of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation S. E. Naryshkin at the Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS countries on February 22, 2012 URL: http://duma.gov.ru.

Kalmykova A.V. Comparative analysis of technical regulation systems in Russia and the CIS countries // Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law. 2010. No. 4.

Lukyanova V. Yu., Kashirkina A. A., Kichi-gin N. V. and others. Problems of legal support of the Common Economic Space // Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law. 2011. No. 4.

Putin V.V. A new integration project for Eurasia - a future that is being born today // Izvestia. 2011. 3 Oct.

Stages of integration of the European Union and EurAsEC // Izvestia. Special EurAsEC band. 2011. 13 Dec. URL: http://www. evrazes.com.

1. The principle of a single economic space (Article 8 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) is connected, in our opinion, with the right of citizens to free economic activity and with the category of “state unity” used in the Preamble of the Constitution of Russia.

In the context of a federal state, such as Russia, the constitutional consolidation of the unity of the economic space is extremely necessary. Subjects of the Russian Federation have their own constituent acts (constitutions and charters) and legislation (Parts 1 and 2 of Article 5 of the Russian Constitution). That is why, by virtue of Part 1 of Art. 8 of the Constitution, a federal state must guarantee the unity of the economic space.

It is no coincidence that a number of constitutional provisions in Ch. 3 of the Constitution "Federal structure" establishes guarantees of the economic integrity of the country. In Part 2 of Art. Article 74 of the Constitution contains a special rule (in relation to the norm of Part 1 of Article 8) according to which the establishment of customs borders, duties, fees and any other obstacles to the free movement of goods, services and financial resources is not allowed on the territory of the Russian Federation.

Restrictions on the movement of goods and services may be introduced in accordance with federal law if this is necessary to ensure safety, protect the life and health of people, protect nature and cultural values ​​(Article 74, Part 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). An absolutely identical norm is contained in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Article 1, paragraph 3).

The constitutional principle of the unity of economic space is closely related to other, independent constitutional principles - the free movement of goods, services and financial resources and the inviolability of private property.

Any restriction on the movement of goods, services, or financial assets affects the unity of economic space and the inviolability of private property rights.

“Freedom of movement of goods consists in the fact,” states Yu.M. Bogomolov, “that goods produced within Russia can be transported in any quantity and sold anywhere else in the country without any restrictions. Freedom of movement of services is in the fact that services can be provided to anyone on the territory of Russia in any volume... Financial funds can move within the country without restrictions..." *(218) .

Restricting the movement of goods and financial assets is one of the restrictions on the right of private property for their owners. In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 55 of the Russian Constitution, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen may be limited by federal law only to the extent necessary in order to protect the foundations of the constitutional system, morality, health, rights and legitimate interests of other persons, ensuring the defense of the country and the security of the state.

Attention should be paid to the significant differences between the provisions of Art. 55 (part 3) and art. 74 (Part 2) of the Constitution.

In Art. 55 provides for the possibility of limiting the rights of a private owner by limiting the movement of goods and services only through the adoption of a federal law. Norm Art. 74 allows for such a restriction in accordance with federal law, i.e. the possibility of introducing restrictions with the help of regulations of the President of the Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian Federation or laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation opens up.

In addition, the goals in pursuit of which it is possible to introduce restrictions on the rights of private owners to move goods and services specified in Art. 74, do not coincide with the purposes provided for in Art. 55.

Does this mean that since in Art. 55 stipulates the possibility of restricting any fundamental rights, and the norm of Art. 74 is special in relation to the general rule of Art. 55, restrictions on the rights of private owners can be introduced only by federal law and only for: 1) ensuring safety, 2) protecting the life and health of people, 3) protecting nature and cultural values?

We believe that only such a conclusion will comply with the constitutional principle of the inviolability of private property (for more information about this principle, see § 6 this chapter).

As for restrictions on the movement of goods and services belonging to public owners, they can be introduced not only by federal law, but also in accordance with federal law.

It is difficult to explain why in Part 2 of Art. 74 regulates the constitutional and legal regime of restrictions on the movement of goods and services, but financial resources, which are also mentioned in Art. 8, and in part 1 of Art. 74. It is necessary to exclude, as contrary to the laws of logic, the explanation that boils down only to the fact that restrictions on the movement of financial resources are generally unacceptable.

Freedom of economic activity cannot be realized in the absence of a unified monetary system. In other words, the state must ensure the free movement of goods and services throughout its territory. That is why, specifying this duty of the state, Art. 71 of the Constitution, the exclusive powers of federal bodies include the establishment of the legal foundations of the single market: financial, currency, credit, customs regulation, money issue, principles of pricing policy, civil legislation, legal regulation of intellectual property.

As for state unity, the category of “single economic space” acts as its economic basis.

The Preamble of the Russian Constitution proclaims the need to preserve the historically established state unity. State unity is ensured by the unity of power, the unity of territory and the unity of law.

In subsequent chapters of the Constitution, the provision on the unity of state power is specified in relation to all three branches of government.

The chapter on the federal structure of the Russian Federation (Article 77) determines that in the areas of jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, the joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the subjects of the Federation, the federal executive bodies and the executive bodies of the subjects of the Federation form a unified system of executive power. At the same time, executive authorities are connected by relationships of various types and are united into various subsystems.

An important theoretical problem, which, in our opinion, has not yet received a solution, is the regulation and consolidation of various legal models of relations between the executive authorities of the Russian Federation and its subjects.

In accordance with paragraph "e" of Art. 71 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of federal bodies includes federal programs in the field of state, economic, environmental, social, cultural and national development, which indicates a rejection of centralized directive planning of the national economy. At the same time, the Constitution focuses on the widespread use of the benefits of program-target planning. The development of such programs with the involvement of financial and material resources of both federal bodies and bodies of the constituent entities of the Federation can also be carried out on the basis of agreements.

Due to the fact that in the course of the development and implementation of programs in the field of economic and environmental development, equal relations (in fact, contractual relations) arise between federal bodies and state bodies of the constituent entities of the Federation, the question arises about the nature of the relationship between the relevant executive authorities. Can the Federal Government be considered as a superior executive body in relation to the government of a republic within the Russian Federation or to a regional or regional administration?

Constitutional norms do not allow us to conclude that, say, the government of the republic is subordinate to the Government of the Russian Federation when resolving issues within the scope of federal powers. The conclusion about the subordination-subordinate nature of the relationship could be allowed, given that the system of executive power is “unified” (Part 2 of Article 77 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). However, such an assumption contradicts the principle of separation of powers, on the basis of which the system of state power in the republics is built. After all, if in a hypothetical situation of failure to comply with any instructions of the Government of the Russian Federation, even those related to the sphere of federal powers, the need arises to punish the head of the executive branch of the republic, this cannot be done without violating the principles of separation of powers and delimitation of powers in the federal system.

Consequently, the concept of a unified system of executive power has a different meaning. The unity of the executive bodies of the federal level and the executive bodies of the constituent entities of the Federation is the unity of interaction.

Since this is a completely new nature of relationships between government bodies for Russia, it is necessary, in our opinion, to develop a law on federal programs, on the procedure for their preparation and implementation.

The unity of the law is also fixed. The Constitution establishes that federal laws apply throughout the entire territory of the Russian Federation (Articles 4 and 76). In the event of a conflict between a federal law and another act issued in the Russian Federation, the federal law shall apply.

2. The category “single economic space”, formulated in the chapter on the fundamentals of the constitutional system, serves as the basis for the formation of a number of specific constitutional norms in the chapter of the Basic Law on the federal structure. In particular, as a guarantee of the existence of a single economic space, the rule that the establishment of customs borders, duties, fees and any other obstacles to the free movement of goods, services and financial resources is not allowed.

The common economic space is also guaranteed by art. 75 of the Constitution of the ruble as a single monetary unit and the fact that money issue is carried out exclusively by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, and the introduction and issue of other money in Russia is not allowed. The single economic space is also consolidated by the norm according to which the system of taxes levied into the federal budget, the general principles of taxation and fees in the Russian Federation are established by federal law (Part 3 of Article 75).

The provisions of the fundamentals of the constitutional system, despite the extremely high abstractness of their legal content, can be used as the basis for specific law enforcement decisions. For example, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Karelia considered the case on the constitutionality of the Law of the Republic of Karelia “On the procedure for exporting roundwood outside the Republic of Karelia,” which introduced a duty on roundwood exported outside the republic in the amount of 400% of market (contractual) prices. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Karelia, by decision of April 19, 1995, recognized that this Law contradicts “the basic economic principles of the development of society, enshrined in the foundations of the constitutional system of the Republic of Karelia and the Russian Federation..., leads to restriction of competition, freedom of economic activity and entrepreneurship” due to whereby the challenged provisions “are unconstitutional.”

The Constitution of Russia (Part 1, Article 67) enshrines the provision that the territory of the Russian Federation includes the territories of its subjects, i.e. republics, territories, regions, cities of federal significance, autonomous regions and autonomous districts, which means consolidating the principle of territorial unity.

In connection with the development of the draft Federal Law "On Free Economic Zones", uncertainty has emerged as to whether Art. 3 of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation, Part 1, Art. 74 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

In its concept, the bill was based on the provisions of Art. 3 of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation, according to which a free customs zone, under the customs regime of which free economic zones should also fall, is considered as being outside the customs territory of the Russian Federation. This provision complies with the generally recognized norms of international law in the field of trade and economic cooperation and customs affairs, which are reflected, in particular, in the International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures, and according to Part 4 of Art. 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, generally recognized norms of international law are an integral part of the legal system of the Russian Federation. Thus, the concept of customs territory and the concept of state territory in world practice do not coincide. A free customs zone is part of the state territory, but not part of the customs territory from the point of view of collection of customs duties and taxes and customs control.

Consequently, Art. 3 of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation does not contradict Part 1 of Art. 8 and part 1 art. 74 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Domestic and foreign researchers call the beginning of the functioning of the Common Economic Space of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Kazakhstan one of the key and largest geopolitical events of 2012, capable of radically changing the world economy on the Eurasian continent.
By May 2012, skepticism regarding the success of the next regional economic integration project in the post-Soviet space gave way to balanced, cautious forecasts and assessments of the impact of the Common Economic Space on the economies of other states, including those included in other, “older” and “mature” integration associations - World Trade Organization and European Union.
The content of international agreements concluded by Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan over the past 5 years is assessed by experts in the context of the perception of almost 20 years of experience in the functioning of the WTO and 40 years of experience in the formation of the European Union, which made it possible to select the best contractual models of economic interaction and abandon the use of ineffective ones, clearly rank tasks and assess risks, and from the point of view of successful finding by new regional partners more progressive solutions to various economic problems, taking into account new challenges and threats.
Against the backdrop of an abundance of domestic news and loud statements, in the minds of the overwhelming majority of entrepreneurs and ordinary citizens of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, the new integration project is not associated with specific legal consequences - states have not started the formation of “customs unions”, “common” and “common economic spaces” once and in different configurations, which by the end of 2011 to a certain extent devalued the public value of this kind of international treaty achievements. The idea that the single economic space was “launched” on January 1, 2012 is based more on statements by the presidents of the three countries than on specific international treaties.
At the same time, it is the entry into force of 17 international treaties (including direct regulation) from this date that marks the beginning of the real functioning of the Common Economic Space of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan - a space consisting of the territories of states in which the same type of economic regulation mechanisms operate, based on market principles and the application of harmonized legal norms, there is a unified infrastructure and coordinated tax, monetary, monetary, trade and customs policies are implemented to ensure the free movement of goods, services, capital and labor.
However, the sources of international legal regulation of the Common Economic Space are not limited to these agreements - the new integration project is based on a vast array of international agreements concluded in different configurations, in different years and in different formats for the purpose of implementing sequentially, in parallel or discretely the same or differing in some nuances integration projects.
For most domestic law enforcers, this system of international treaties seems to be something abstract and incomprehensible, existing in isolation from the real economy and the law-making process, which indicates the need for additional explanatory work regarding the concluded international treaties that form the Common Economic Space, and high-quality elaboration of future international treaties ensuring the functioning of the Common Economic Space (hereinafter also referred to as the CES).

The conclusion of international treaties forming the Common Economic Space was preceded by difficult work to find compromise and balanced solutions that take into account the interests of all states and ensure the fulfillment of obligations previously assumed by the parties in accordance with an even more extensive package of other international treaties, including constituent treaties on the creation of the Economic Union and the Eurasian Economic Community. It is through the provisions of previous international treaties that the legal content of the concept of “common economic space” as an integration project currently being implemented by Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan is comprehended. It is these international treaties that link 17 international treaties adopted on various economic issues with special legal connections that give this complex the character of a system.

Single economic space as a form, type and stage of international economic integration

The processes taking place in the world - financial and economic crises, armed conflicts, changes in political regimes, man-made disasters, which most directly affect the economies of states, encourage them to initiate processes of economic integration or to become involved in such processes by joining established integration associations and concluding relevant international treaties .
The use of the concept of “integration” in interstate relations dates back to the middle of the 19th century - “when the problem of integrity, according to S.A. Voitovich, began to turn into one of the central ones in scientific knowledge and a synthetic idea of ​​the whole, taken in its divisions, began to take shape and connections." The scientific understanding of the content of this concept, which is formed as we comprehend the types and forms of unification or restoration (from the Latin intergratio - restoration, replenishment), studying the hierarchy of levels of such unification, begins to take shape in the 20th century and is introduced into political use.

In the field of international relations, the term “integration” begins to be used in Western Europe in the middle of the last century and, as international lawyers believe, it is borrowed from the American Marshall Plan Act of 1948, Article 102 of which stated that one of the main goals of the plan is integration Europe.

In economic theory and the doctrine of international economic law, many definitions of economic integration have been given. Constructing them from the point of view of understanding integration as different economic phenomena and legal categories, most scientists use as a basis the formula formulated by a major scientist in the field of economic integration E.T. Usenko theory of integration and integration processes. He defines the integration process as the formation of a common international law for all existing states, and he calls the emergence of “general international law” a general integration process. At the same time, the legal forms of integration relationships between states in the modern world are both traditional (universal) forms of international law - international treaty and international custom, and the latest (mainly organizational) forms of international legal associations of states - international intergovernmental organizations and other international institutions (commissions, committees, bureaus, etc.).

The complex and multidimensional nature of the phenomenon of international economic integration, as rightly noted in scientific research, determines the existence of many interpretations and a plurality of points of view, explained, in addition, by the different angles from which international economic integration is interpreted.

Taking this into account, it seems quite natural to have different approaches to the study of its genesis, evolution and the structure formed as a result at a specific moment in the study.
The single economic space as a phenomenon of international integration stood out in the theory of international law in independent object research and formal definition only two decades ago, mainly in the post-Soviet space. In Western European doctrine and international practice this category is studied as a consequence, a “product” of one of the forms (types) of international economic integration, but not as an independent integration process. According to classical Western European theory, largely based on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of October 30, 1947, there are five forms of economic integration:
1) free trade zone - an association of countries with the aim of eliminating customs duties and quantitative restrictions in mutual trade, but maintaining autonomy in pursuing foreign trade policy in relation to non-participating countries;
2) - a grouping of countries in which there are barriers to mutual trade and a common foreign trade policy is pursued on the basis of a common customs tariff in relation to non-participating countries;
3) the common market or the principle of four freedoms - achieving the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons;
4) economic and monetary union - free movement of four factors; pursuing a unified economic and social policy, including in the areas of industry, agriculture, transport, energy, and monetary and financial areas; the introduction of a common currency with a single monetary policy and a single emission center;
5) full integration - the formation of a single monetary, economic and political union, including the implementation of a common foreign policy and policy in the field of justice and internal affairs, the introduction of a single citizenship, etc.

The fact that in the Western Hemisphere “they try not to use the term “single economic space”, although similar integration processes here began in the late 50s of the last century, and the creation of the Common Economic Space in the Western Hemisphere from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego has long been an “American dream” "S.N. Yaryshev draws attention in his work.

In the above classification, a single economic space is not named as a form or type of international economic integration, however, as will be shown below, it correlates with both the common market and the elements of an economic union, forming a new composition.
Not all representatives of the domestic school of international economic law find grounds for identifying a single economic space as an evolutionary or organizational phenomenon of international economic integration.
In particular, G.M. Velyaminov identifies the following “staged” (or “self-sufficient”) types as organizational and legal forms of building interstate integration that are consistently implemented:
1) a free trade zone (association), which is the first step and the simplest form of movement towards integration, which involves the abolition of customs and other restrictions on trade in goods between the countries participating in the zone, but with them maintaining their independent trade policy and their national customs tariffs in relation to third countries;
2) a customs union, which is a higher form of progress towards integration. Customs unions mean the free, within the union, elimination of national tariffs of the participating countries, their implementation of a common trade policy, the establishment of a single customs tariff for trade with third countries for the entire association of states and, thus, the formation of a single customs space with a common customs tariff and non-tariff protection in relation to other countries;
3) a common market, the construction of which between individual countries usually involves the implementation of four “freedoms”: freedom of trade in goods, services, capital movement and, finally, freedom of labor migration. As G.M. emphasizes Velyaminov, the common market can only be conditionally considered a special legal integration form, since its formation is usually associated with other integration measures carried out within the framework of the creation of an economic community or union;
4) an economic union, which is the highest form of integration, including, in addition to building a common market, also: in-depth harmonization of the entire economy of the participating countries, including the sphere of production, the introduction of a common settlement and then a real single currency, harmonization of social conditions of life, education, internal civil, administrative procedures, up to the implementation of a common budget, tax and foreign (not only trade) policy and joint defense.
Other scientists, whose research forms the domestic doctrine of international economic law, identify a single economic space as a form of international economic integration, moreover, as part of classifications on different grounds.
In particular, in the classification by organizational and legal content, the single economic space is highlighted as the highest form of interstate economic integration, following the free trade area (1), the customs union (2) and the common market (3).

In the classification of integration associations by state-legal (organizational-legal) forms proposed by V.M. Shumilov, a single economic space is defined as a form of such an association along with the generally recognized free trade area (a), customs union (b), common market (c), monetary union (e), economic union (f). As noted, in the case of the formation of a single economic space, the corresponding political superstructure grows, a single currency appears, and the tendencies of a confederal structure and federalization intensify. The Common Economic Space is defined as “a kind of economic confederation, which, according to the logic of development, begins to strive for a political union, federalization of relations between member states, and deep harmonization of internal legal systems.”

The creation of a single economic space is also highlighted as a stage of the integration process, following such stages as the creation of a free trade zone (1), the construction of a customs union (2) and preceding the creation of an economic union, including a monetary union (3).

Failure to include the concept of “single economic space” in the list of forms of international economic integration G.M. Velyaminov explained that this concept is quite vague and does not yet have a clear legal meaning.

Note. Despite the fact that the content of the Agreement on the Creation of the Common Economic Space of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine of 2003 G.M. Velyaminov explores this in the same work, which at the time of publication of the work (2004), in our opinion, is explained by a certain skepticism of the author regarding his full implementation of this international treaty.

It seems that at this stage of development of the world economy, ignoring such a phenomenon in international economic integration as a single economic space, which has gone beyond the declarative and formally creative stage and, in addition, has received international treaty consolidation and specification, is unfounded. The first attempt at interstate economic integration in the form of a single economic space, made more than 10 years ago, was assessed as ineffective, and often “utopian” and “pastoral” - until 2009-2011.

Over the previous two years, the customs union, as a precursor to a single economic space, came out of the “sleeping state” and at high speed passed through the creative stage and entered the real one - economic entities of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan) began to carry out their activities in accordance with new international treaties, regulatory legal acts, technical regulations and other acts of technical regulation. The introduction of a package of international treaties forming a single economic space of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, with the beginning of the functioning of supranational regulatory and executive bodies, lowered the level of skepticism by one more step.

Taking into account the above, as well as the fact that Russia is participating in this process, we can draw the following conclusion: in the domestic science of international economic law, a single economic space should take its place as an object of study in the lists of stages and processes of international economic integration (when studying the genesis and evolution of interstate economic associations), types of international economic integration (when studying the results of integration processes) and forms of international economic integration (when studying goals and tools, procedures that ensure their achievement, etc.), even if it does not fit into the “classical” model of international economic integration due to various improvements and modifications, in turn, caused by complex processes of finding a balance of interests of different states, taking into account various political and economic challenges.

Legal content of the concept of “single economic space”, its modification and transformation as an object of international treaties

In international law, the concept of “single economic space” does not have a single general definition that is equally applicable to the corresponding form of economic integration, regardless of the composition of participants, the nature of interstate integration and the territory (region) of such integration.
The concepts of “single economic space”, “unity of economic space” and “common economic space” are used in some international treaties as equivalent, in others - as separate and not identical. As already noted, the terms “single economic space”, “European economic space”, “common market”, “single market”, etc., used in international practice, are considered in the theory of international law to be undefined and not have a clear legal meaning.

At the same time, the difference in these concepts is far from linguistic and not only theoretical in nature - without their correct separation and understanding of the actual legal content (and not only in the Russian language, but also in the languages ​​of the states parties to the international treaty), ensuring the authenticity of the provisions of the international treaties, the practical application of the system of international treaties operating with these concepts in regulating international economic relations can be complicated. Especially taking into account the fact that as a result of diverse and multidirectional integration by the Russian Federation in the period from 1992 to 2011, hundreds of international treaties were concluded in which the parties set themselves the task of forming a single or common (and in some at the same time, a single and common) economic space. Despite the transition of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan to the practical implementation of the formation of a single economic space, a whole series of international agreements with other states on the construction of a predominantly common economic space continues to exist (in particular, bilateral agreements between Russia and the same states, as well as other states of the post-Soviet space - Treaty on the foundations of interstate relations, friendship and cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Uzbekistan dated May 30, 1992 (Ratified by Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation dated October 9, 1992 N 3606-1), Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and Turkmenistan dated 31 July 1992 (Ratified by Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation dated October 21, 1992 N 3696-1), Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Tajikistan dated May 25, 1993 (Ratified by Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation dated 15 July 1993 N 5442-1), etc.).

The fact that most of these agreements are framework, framework-declarative and do not imply that the parties assume obligations, the failure of which is ensured by legal measures, does not exclude future conflicts due to the “overlapping” of different conceptually and territorially economic spaces established by different international treaties.
The absence of such conflicts at this point in time indicates either that most of these agreements in this part are not being implemented, since they are of a moral and political nature, or that their provisions are mutually ignored by the parties, and therefore mutual claims and demands for the fulfillment of assumed obligations do not move forward.

Note. Notable in this regard, for example, is the fact that in accordance with Article 66 of the Treaty on the Customs Union and Common Economic Space of February 26, 1999, the provisions of which are examined in this article, it is stipulated that the parties will enter into an “agreement on the responsibility of the Parties for failure to comply accepted obligations arising from this Treaty", however, to date this agreement has not been concluded in the form of an international treaty.

It is noteworthy that in the national Russian legislation the concept of “single economic space” does not have a normative definition that steadily and consistently reveals its legal content, despite the fact that it is used to designate the strategic goals and objectives of the state, the principles of making management decisions in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, dozens of program and political documents, federal laws and subordinate regulatory legal acts.
In the legal literature on Russian constitutional and civil law, in Russian law enforcement and judicial practice, the concept of “single economic space” is considered as a derivative of the concept of “unity of economic space” enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, developing and explaining it.

An analysis of the regulatory framework establishing the foundations of federalism and economics in the Russian Federation indicates the opposite nature of its emergence - the concept of “single economic space” preceded the introduction into legal circulation of the concept of “unity of economic space” and was first applied in the legislative acts of the USSR adopted in the development proclaimed change economic course. Thus, the USSR Law of July 10, 1991 N 2326-1 “On the limitation of monopolistic activities in the USSR” stipulated that the legal and organizational basis for preventing and limiting the monopolistic activities of business entities are determined within the single economic space of the USSR.

In the acts of Soviet legislation adopted before 1991, economic space is neither an object nor an instrument of public administration, and therefore is not used for the legal regulation of relations, despite the fact that in the Soviet Union a single economic space was de facto created and existed until its collapse. a space that covers the entire territory of the country without any exceptions. The basis of such a geopolitical continuum was first formed by the norms of the Constitution (Basic Law) of the USSR of 1936 (Article 4: " Economic basis The USSR consists of a socialist economic system and socialist ownership of tools and means of production, established as a result of the liquidation of the capitalist economic system, the abolition of private ownership of tools and means of production and the abolition of the exploitation of man by man"), and then the Constitution (Basic Law) of the USSR of 1977 (Article 16: “The economy of the USSR constitutes a single national economic complex, covering all links of social production, distribution and exchange on the territory of the country.”

On December 8, 1991, Russia (RSFSR), Belarus and Ukraine, as the founding states of the USSR that concluded the Union Treaty of 1922, concluded an Agreement on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the preamble of which states that the USSR as a subject of international law and geopolitical reality , ceases to exist and, consequently, the category “single economic space of the USSR” loses its legal basis. In this regard, the President of the RSFSR, on the day the said Agreement entered into force for Russia (Resolution of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR dated December 12, 1991 N 2014-1 “On the Ratification of the Agreement on the Creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States”) adopted a Decree dated December 12, 1991. N 269 "On the single economic space of the RSFSR". In the said act, which is considered the first source of legal guarantees of the unity of the economic space of Russia, the concept of “single economic space” is present only in the name. Its content is revealed in the operative part without the use of norms-definitions, which traditionally accompany new concepts introduced into legal practice and new regulation of social relations.

The meaning of the concept of “single economic space” in the said Decree is comprehended through the concepts established in law - “freedom”, “movement”, “goods”, “work”, “services”, “capital”, “financial resources” and their various compositions - “free movement of goods, services and financial resources”, “free sale or acquisition of goods, works, services”, “free and unhindered movement of capital” and detailing. Subsequently, the same concepts in more stringent legal structures of norms and guarantees are reproduced in the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Articles 8, 71, 74, 75). At the same time, however, the free movement of goods, services and financial resources, freedom of economic activity, used in the Decree of the President of the RSFSR as signs and elements of a single economic space, in the Constitution of the Russian Federation are separated from the unity of the economic space: they are used as independent and one-order legal categories, but not as species concepts in relation to generic ones.

In the normative legal acts adopted after the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the concept of “unity of economic space” is steadily replaced by the concept of “single economic space”.
Despite the enshrinement in the Constitution of the Russian Federation of the guarantee of the unity of the economic space and the absence of establishing norms on the creation (functioning) of a single economic space on the territory of Russia, since 1996, the task of creating a single economic space has been enshrined in program and strategic documents, which in fact means recognition by the state of the absence of such or , at a minimum, the non-identity of the concepts of the territory of Russia and the economic space of Russia existing within its borders.
Since the mid-nineties of the last century, the creation of economic space has been designated as a goal or task of the state. Thus, in 1996, the main goals of regional policy in the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of June 3, 1996 N 803, determined the creation of a single economic space. Until 2000, the messages of the President of the Russian Federation and the concepts of national security noted that government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation were taking actions that destroyed the single legal and economic space of the country, that state power remained passive in creating a single economic space, that the separatist aspirations of a number of constituent entities of the Russian Federation cause the weakening of the single economic space of Russia and its most important components - production, technological and transport connections, financial, banking, credit and tax systems (Concept of National Security of the Russian Federation. Approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 17, 1997 N 1300).

In the Program of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the medium term (2002 - 2004), approved by order of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 10, 2001 N 910-r, the state assessment of the state of the economic space is adjusted: a single economic space is stated to be created and, in connection with with this, the task is proclaimed to strengthen it.

If until 2005 - 2006, the tasks of forming, strengthening and developing the internal unity of the economic space in the political and program documents of the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation compete with the tasks of forming an external single economic space with different states and their associations (the European Union, Belarus, the Commonwealth of Independent States ( Further in the text - CIS)), then since 2006 the state’s attention has switched strictly to the external single economic space (Program of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the medium term (2006 - 2008), approved by order of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 19, 2006 N 38-r). Taking this into account, from the general concept of “single economic space” the concept of “single economic space of the Russian Federation” (“single economic space within the borders of the Russian Federation”) is distinguished, which is enshrined in federal laws, but at the same time does not receive legal certainty in the form of a normative (legal) definition.

The lack of a unified approach to the fundamentals of the theory of economic space in science, as rightly noted by economists, does not allow us to begin solving a number of practical problems formation of a single economic space of the country. In the legal system, most of the definitions of a single economic space formulated by economic theory within the framework of geographical and geopolitical concepts, neoclassical and neo-institutional theory are of little use, since this concept has already been applied in regulatory legal acts, program and strategic documents in its own special context: in some - as a territory, determined geographical boundaries, on which certain economic processes and phenomena occur, arise, exist and cease economic relations, in others - as the principle of the emergence, existence and termination of these relations in a developed economy (Agreement on relations between the Governments of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) on economic issues dated March 31, 1992), in others - as an integration association (Program socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the medium term (2006 - 2008). Approved by Order of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 19, 2006 No. 38-r).

In international practice, there is a similar situation - the concept of “common economic space” is used along with the concept of “common economic space”, and not only in different international treaties, but also in one international treaty. If in international treaties concluded by states belonging to different groups of languages ​​(for example, Romance and Germanic, Slavic and Celtic, etc.), the use of those formed as a result of translation into English language generally inauthentic concepts "Common economic zone" (In this combination, the common economic space is indicated in the title of the Treaty on the Customs Union and Common Economic Space of February 26, 1999, registered with the UN Secretariat), "Common economic space", "Single economic space", "Common economic area", etc., can be explained by the heterogeneity of foreign languages, legal systems and legal traditions, then in an international treaty concluded between the states of one group of Slavic languages ​​- in particular Russian and Belarusian, the use of both concepts, in our opinion, reflects haste or carelessness in working with the text of an international treaty, rather than a conscious distinction between these concepts. We are talking about the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus on friendship, good neighborliness and cooperation of February 21, 1995 (Ratified by Federal Law of May 29, 1995 N 84-FZ), the text of which in Russian in the preamble indicates that the parties are convinced of the need to “promote in every possible way the creation of a common economic space,” and in Article 9 they undertake obligations to “create conditions for the formation of a common economic space in accordance with the obligations arising from bilateral and multilateral treaties signed within the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States.”

In the first international treaties concluded by the Russian Federation with other states after the collapse of the USSR, the term “single economic space” is also used without definitions and, since its content in national legal systems differs, but by general norms of international law explaining what is meant by a single economic space in interstate relations, no, then the norms of these international treaties remain declarative.
And this is evidence that the parties are aware of the declarative nature of the agreements reached regarding future international economic integration. The declarative stage, as noted by G.M. Velyaminov, is the most common: “when two or more states, often for purely political reasons, enter into a framework and declarative agreement on the intention to build an integration community, which often does not go further.” Creative integration here means integration that is gradually and consistently actually organized on the legal basis of a pre-agreed schedule of measures to bring together the economic conditions of individual participating countries on the basis of common outlined parameters. Finally, the third stage of international economic integration is real, when the parties begin to carry out the specified activities.

The creation and development of a single economic space is consistently proclaimed in a series of bilateral international treaties concluded with a number of CIS member states, with the aim of using the powerful economic potential of the post-Soviet space, due to more than 70 years of formation of a truly general economy, albeit of an administrative and planning nature.
Thus, a single economic space with Kazakhstan is established as the basis for trade and economic relations between Russia and Kazakhstan (Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan on the lifting of restrictions on economic activity of January 17, 1992).

Trade and economic relations between Russia and Belarus are based on a different, already united economic space with Belarus (Agreement between the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation on the lifting of restrictions on economic activity of January 27, 1992).

The third single economic space for the implementation of trade and economic relations is proclaimed between Russia and Kyrgyzstan (Agreement between the Republic of Kyrgyzstan and the Russian Federation on the lifting of restrictions on economic activity of February 24, 1992).

At the same time, in the bilateral agreements concluded during the same period between Russia and the post-Soviet states on friendship and cooperation, including with the above-mentioned ones (Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan), the concept of “common economic space” is used: the contracting parties declare that they will contribute to the formation of a “common economic space" (the above-mentioned Treaty on the Fundamentals of Interstate Relations, Friendship and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Uzbekistan dated May 30, 1992, Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan dated May 25, 1992 (Ratified by Resolution Supreme Council of the Russian Federation dated July 16, 1992 N 3319-1), Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kyrgyzstan dated June 10, 1992 (Ratified by Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation dated October 9, 1992 N 3607- 1) and other agreements).

By 1993, Russia and the majority of CIS member states came to the conclusion that it was necessary to replace bilateral agreements with multilateral treaties, and bilateral interaction with a more representative and broader economic integration from the point of view of the global economy, which led to the conclusion of the Treaty on the Establishment of the Economic Union from September 24, 1993 (Ratified by Federal Law dated November 2, 1994 N 32-FZ). Signed initially by the heads of 9 Commonwealth states (Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan), which was later joined by 3 more countries (Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Georgia), it is higher in the hierarchy of international treaties on compared with treaties of friendship and cooperation in the trade sphere.

Note. As of May 2012, the Agreement on Ukraine's accession to the Economic Union as an associate member dated April 15, 1994 did not come into force due to incomplete implementation of internal procedures by the member states of the Economic Union. In the database of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the status of “Proposal for the annexation of Ukraine to the Economic Union with the rights of an associated member” is designated as uncertain.

Note. In connection with Georgia’s withdrawal from the CIS, in accordance with the decision of the Council of Heads of State of the CIS dated October 9, 2009 “On Georgia’s participation in international treaties and decisions of bodies of the Commonwealth of Independent States,” the Treaty on the Establishment of the Economic Union was declared terminated for Georgia from August 18 2009

This Treaty also operates with the concept of “common economic space” without a definition formulated in the form of a classical definition. However, unlike the above international treaties, its content is revealed through the listing of general economic categories in its provisions - “free movement”, “goods”, “services”, “labor”, “capital”, and such normative certainty indicates more specific and serious intentions of the parties to the international treaty to accept and in the future fulfill the relevant legal obligations.
In our opinion, the concepts of “common economic space” and “single economic space” are not identical, despite the fact that in legal theory they are revealed through the same structural elements - the free movement of goods, services, labor and capital.
The semantics of the words “common” and “united” are so close that they are often used as synonyms to reveal their content in the modern Russian language - the word “common” is used to comprehend the meaning of the word “united” and vice versa. In non-loop interpretations of these words, the words “single”, “one”, “integral”, “joint” are equally used as a defining feature, which from a linguistic point of view practically coincide in volume and the differences between them are hardly noticeable. However, it is precisely these differences, nuances and semantic shades of commonly used concepts that jurisprudence often relies on when selecting them to designate one or another legal category.

In our opinion, the choice of the word “common” to describe the economic space in the Treaty on the Establishment of the Economic Union is justified. The semantic subtlety of the concept of “common economic space” formed as a result of goal setting is that it should be understood as a joint space, indivisible by certain boundaries, in which the same collective economic process of movement of goods, services, capital and labor resources, ensured, again, by joint legal regulation of economic relations emerging and occurring as part of this process. With a common economic space, it is incorrect to talk about access to it by states located within this space, since the internal boundaries of such a space, based on the essence of the word “common,” are absent.
As a legal category, a common economic space, provided by common - joint normative regulations, existed on the territory of the USSR. In this context, the use of the concept of “common economic space” in the Treaty establishing the Economic Union of 1993 is logical, since in fact the creation of this integration entity is expected to reuse the potential of the previously common economy and remaining infrastructure within the borders of the USSR, which is noted by many researchers of integration processes in the post-Soviet space .

Semantic analysis of the word “single” - “one”, “identical”, “integral”, etc. (Dal V.I. Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language) allows us to find in the concept of “single economic space” the semantic connotation that became the basis for replacement of the concept of “common economic space” in the international treaty relations of Russia with Belarus and Kazakhstan. The acquisition of the “unity” attribute by objects is possible not only as a result of replacing all structural elements of these objects with one single one, but also as a result of giving such elements the same, uniform form, volume or content.

In the context of economic space, this means that unity can be ensured not only by uniting spaces into one, common and more indivisible, but also as a result of creating conditions in several individual economic spaces under which the boundaries of these spaces lose their meaning and are thus “eliminated.” “, since the same conditions apply in the neighboring economic space, ensuring the same result (outcome) from an economic point of view. This second semantic connotation of the word “single” seems to have predetermined the choice of the concept “single economic space” to designate a new stage and process of international economic integration.
The use of the concepts of “common economic space” and “common economic space” is not distinguished by legal consistency and systematicity until 1999 - even in international treaties concluded in development of the Treaty on the Establishment of the Economic Union, the concepts of “common economic space” and “common economic space” are used " are used interchangeably.
The first international treaty in which the concept of “common economic space” receives a definition, albeit a highly specialized one (exclusively for the purposes of this treaty), is the Treaty on the Customs Union and Common Economic Space of February 26, 1999 (Ratified by Federal Law of May 22, 2001 N 55-FZ). In Article 1 of the agreement concluded by 5 states (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan), for the purposes of this agreement, a single economic space (received the abbreviation “SES-5” - based on the number of participants) is defined as a space consisting of the territories of the parties in which they operate uniform mechanisms for regulating the economy, based on market principles and the application of harmonized legal norms, there is a unified infrastructure and coordinated tax, monetary, financial, trade and customs policies are implemented, ensuring the free movement of goods, services, capital and labor.

According to G.M. Velyaminov, the emergence of a definition of the concept of “common economic space” in an international treaty clearly demonstrates the transition from declarative integration, based on international treaties of a framework and declarative nature, to creative integration, formalized by international treaties that define specific actions to bring together the economic conditions of countries, the obligations of which states take over.

In the second international treaty containing the definition of a common economic space - the Agreement on the formation of a Common Economic Space of September 19, 2003 (Ratified by Federal Law of April 22, 2004 N 22-FZ), the parties to which are already 4 states (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine), the common economic space (received the abbreviation “SES-4”) is understood as an economic space that unites the customs territories of the parties, in which economic regulation mechanisms operate, based on common principles that ensure the free movement of goods, services, capital and labor and a unified foreign trade and coordinated tax, monetary and monetary policy is carried out to the extent necessary to ensure fair competition and maintain macroeconomic stability. Thus, the definition of a single economic space is undergoing a certain transformation.

The modification of the concept of “common economic space” is illustrated by the following comparative table 1.

Table 1

Agreement on the Customs Union and the Single Economic space 1999

Formation agreement Single Economic space 2003

A space consisting of territories of the parties in which the same type of mechanisms function economic regulation based on market principles and application harmonized legal norms, there is a unified infrastructure and coordinated taxation is carried out, monetary, currency financial, trade and customs policies that ensure free work force

A space that unites customs territory of the parties on which regulatory mechanisms are functioning economies based on common principles ensuring free movement of goods, services, capital and labor force and a unified foreign trade and agreed upon, in that to the extent and to the extent that it necessary to ensure fair competition and maintaining macroeconomic stability, tax, monetary and foreign exchange financial policy

A comparative analysis of concepts indicates that by 2003, Russia and its international partners had seriously overestimated the direction and content of economic integration.
If the 1999 Agreement talks about “the economy,” then the 2003 Agreement talks about economies. Thus, the economy in a certain space is not generalized and the parties recognize the autonomy of economic processes in each territory.
“Market” principles are giving way to “uniform” ones.
If in 1999 the parties determine that the economic space consists of the territories of the parties, then by 2003 it becomes clear that as a result of the conclusion of an international treaty, the territories of states do not become a single economic space - this requires a number of joint, reciprocal and coordinated actions of a unifying nature, which, as practice has shown, were never committed by states due to disagreements on a number of issues.
Due to the same disagreements, which revealed the complexity, and in some aspects - the impossibility of agreement between the parties on tax, monetary and monetary and financial policies, identified back in 1999 and demonstrating the unwillingness of the parties to make the transition to a single tax, monetary and monetary and financial policy, in 2003 is accompanied by a list of “nodal” parameters on which these types of policies must be agreed upon - “to the extent and to the extent necessary to ensure fair competition and maintain macroeconomic stability.”

Finally, if in 1999 these types of policies are defined as an instrument that ensures the free movement of goods, services, capital and labor, then in 2003 there is no connection between these types of policies and the free movement of goods, services, capital and labor - free movement of goods provide mechanisms for regulating economies based on uniform and, as already noted, not necessarily market principles.
The set of features included in the definition of a single economic space in the 1999 Treaty predetermined the system of international treaties designed to complete the formation of the legal framework of the customs union and mark the formation of a single economic space.

Constituent international treaties of integration economic associations of states with the participation of the Russian Federation as the legal basis for the formation of the SES

In the Treaty on the Customs Union and Common Economic Space of 1999, the signatories undertake obligations to complete the formation of the Customs Union and create a Common Economic Space on its basis, “based on the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Charter of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Treaty establishing the Economic Union of September 24, 1993, norms and principles of international law."
In the history of international economic integration in the post-Soviet space, the conclusion of the Treaty on the Establishment of the Economic Union is considered a turning point from scattered agreements in the field of regulation of mutual economic ties CIS countries to cooperate within the framework of a universal organization similar to the European Union. The constituent nature of this Treaty ensured its more specific structure and clear content of the obligations of the parties, however, due to the fact that most of these obligations consist of the adoption of additional agreements, it predetermined its framework format regarding economic integration.

As noted earlier, the common economic space is not mentioned in the Treaty - the goals of the Economic Union include the gradual creation of a common economic space (Article 2). The formation of a common economic space is not mentioned in the list of forms of integration - according to Article 4 of the Treaty, the Economic Union is created through a gradual deepening of integration, coordination of actions in the implementation economic reforms through:
1) interstate (multilateral) free trade association;
2) customs union;
3) a common market for goods, services, capital and labor;
4) currency (monetary) union.
However, the concept of the Economic Union (Article 3) lists the elements of international integration, which in 1999 are used in designing the “framework” of a single economic space:
- free movement of goods, services, capital and labor;
- coordinated monetary, budget, tax, price, foreign economic, customs and currency policies.
Progress compared to previously concluded agreements between the states of the post-Soviet space is that for each form of integration a set of interrelated measures is provided that must be adopted or implemented by the parties (Parties to the agreement are 11 CIS member states (Ukraine does not participate)) in accordance with separate agreements (part two of Article 4 of the Treaty).

At the first stage - the stage of formation of an interstate free trade association - the parties, in accordance with Article 4 of the Treaty, agreed in their relations to:
1) consistent reduction and abolition of customs duties, taxes and fees, as well as quantitative and all other restrictions equivalent to them in their consequences;
2) harmonization of customs legislation, mechanisms of tariff and non-tariff regulation;
3) simplification of customs procedures;
4) unification of customs documentation forms for maintaining customs statistics;
5) gradual convergence of tariffs for the transportation of goods and passengers, transit tariffs while observing the principle of freedom of transit;
6) prevention of unauthorized re-export to third countries.
At the next stage - when creating a customs union - the parties, in accordance with Article 6 of the Treaty, along with the complete abolition of tariff and non-tariff regulation of the movement of goods, works and services, agreed to:
a) establishment of a common customs tariff in relations with states not participating in this Treaty;
b) coordination of foreign trade policy in relation to states not participating in this Treaty.
Finally, when moving to general market The contracting parties, in accordance with Article 7 of the Treaty, assumed the following obligations:
- create the necessary legal, economic and organizational conditions for the free movement of capital and labor;
- create conditions for fair competition, including a mechanism of antimonopoly regulation;
- pursue a coordinated policy in the field of development of transport and communications aimed at implementing efficient transportation of goods and passengers;
- ensure equal economic conditions for mutual investment of capital in the development of economies and create an effective mechanism for protecting the rights and interests of investors.
To “activate” the instruments and mechanisms provided for by the Treaty, the member states of the Economic Union concluded an Agreement on the creation of a free trade zone on April 15, 1994 (All 12 CIS member states are parties to the Agreement. However, the Agreement has not entered into force for the Russian Federation) , and in its development - a series of intergovernmental agreements ensuring the implementation of the first stage of integration (in particular, the Agreement on the Unified Commodity Nomenclature for Foreign Economic Activity of the Commonwealth of Independent States of November 3, 1995, the Agreement on the procedure for customs clearance and customs control of goods moved between states - parties to the Agreement on the creation of a free trade zone of October 8, 1999, etc.).

Taking into account the low speed of integration processes, even under bilateral international treaties, in order to form and ensure the effective operation of the Economic Union in accordance with the Agreement on the establishment of the Interstate Economic Committee concluded on October 21, 1994 (Ratified by Federal Law of July 8, 1996 N 90-FZ) Economic Union, the Interstate Economic Committee of the Economic Union is created.

Note. It is noteworthy that if the Agreement on the creation of the Economic Union was concluded without the participation of Ukraine, then the Agreement on the creation of the Interstate Economic Committee of the Economic Union was concluded with the participation of Ukraine, but without the participation of Turkmenistan, which is a member of the Economic Union.

The Interstate Economic Committee of the Economic Union, according to Appendix 1 to the Agreement, is a permanent coordinating and executive body of the Economic Union; it exercises control and administrative functions within the limits of powers voluntarily delegated to it by the states parties to the Treaty on the Establishment of the Economic Union. Its functioning at the initial stage gives the process dynamics, however, as the integration plan progresses, the authority of the supranational coordinating body decreases and by 1999 the Agreement on its creation actually ceases to apply, including in connection with the reorganization of the Interstate Economic Committee of the Economic Union into the Executive Committee CIS (decision of the Council of Heads of Government of the CIS dated October 8, 1999, which, in turn, ceased to be valid in accordance with the decision of the Council of Heads of Government of the CIS dated September 15, 2004).

Since the first stage of economic integration provided for by the Treaty on the Establishment of the Economic Union was not completed in full, the approval of draft necessary agreements was openly delayed, including in connection with the correction of the foreign policy courses of the member states of the Economic Union as a result of the change of leaders of states, the division of the participants of the Economic Union into two camps that saw diametrically opposed ways of developing interstate integration (the first - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan - through in-depth integration, the starting stage of which is the customs union, the second - Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, which consider a free trade zone sufficient), by the mid-nineties years of the last century, the practice of multi-format and multi-speed integration begins to take shape, reflecting the search by states for optimal configurations and methods of interaction.

Thus, expressing their intentions to continue implementing the provisions of the Treaty on the Establishment of the Economic Union by moving to the phased formation of a customs union, Russia and Belarus on January 6, 1995 concluded an Agreement on the Customs Union between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus (Ratified by Federal Law of November 4, 1995 N 164-FZ).

On January 20, 1995, the Agreement on the Customs Union was concluded between Russia and Belarus, on the one hand, and Kazakhstan, on the other (Ratified by Federal Law No. 21-FZ of January 29, 1997). A year and 2 months later (March 29, 1996), the states party to the said Agreements on the Customs Union of January 6 and 20, 1995 - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan on the one hand, and Kyrgyzstan on the other, signed the Treaty of Accession of the Kyrgyz Republic to the Agreement on the Customs Union.

Thus, in the opinion of S.A. Grigoryan and A.S. Grigoryan, there is a regionalization of the post-Soviet space and a transition to interaction in the format of “regional unions plus bilateral ties.”

In an effort to change the quality of integration processes, in accordance with the Treaty on the Establishment of the Economic Union and the Agreements on the Customs Union, on March 29, 1996, the participants of the latter concluded an Agreement (Ratified by Federal Law of May 21, 1996 N 44-FZ) between the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, The Republic of Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic on deepening integration in the economic and humanitarian fields.

As noted by Zh.M. Kembayev, despite the high-profile tasks and proclamations of these treaties and agreements, “the progress made by these states towards building a customs union was, however, insignificant”, “even the little that was achieved could not withstand the first serious test - the world financial crisis 1998, when the CU member states saw the only sure way to solve their economic problems in building protective barriers from each other."

The division of the states of the post-Soviet space that occurred by 1997, not yet into antagonistic, but already polar blocs regarding the need for economic integration, as well as the economic crisis of 1998, pushed the bloc of optimistic states that took independent and autonomous steps to implement the tasks set in the format of the Economic Union and clarified within the framework of the Customs Union, to the definition of a new “road map” of international integration, the contours of which are enshrined in the Treaty on the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space of 1999, in which the parties undertake obligations to complete the formation of the Customs Union and create a Common Economic Space on its basis.
Thus, in our opinion, the new international treaty has become an incentive for the “four” fifth member of the Economic Union, Tajikistan, to join the Customs Union (Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of Tajikistan to the Agreements on the Customs Union dated February 26, 1999 (Ratified by Federal Law dated April 16, 1999) .2001 N 46-FZ)).

The Treaty on the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space of 1999 defines the main goals of the formation of the Common Economic Space (Article 3), the principles of the formation of the Common Economic Space (Article 4), integration management bodies (Article 5), mechanisms for coordinating economic policies to achieve these goals by the above-mentioned the Treaty between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan (Article 6) and the stages of the formation of a single economic space - the first of which is aimed at completing the formation of the Customs Union and a single customs territory, and the second involves the creation of a Single Economic Space, including the formation of a common (domestic) market for goods, services, capital and labor, pursuing a common economic policy and creating a unified infrastructure, completing the harmonization of the legislation of the parties to ensure the functioning of the Common Economic Space (Article 7). Chapter III of this Treaty provides for obligations to complete the formation of the Customs Union, and its Chapter IV provides for the creation of a Common Economic Space.
By the beginning of the 2000s, the inertia of some members of the Economic Union, the opportunism of others, the nonconformism of others, prompted the active “five” to look for new means of enhancing interstate economic integration: by 2000, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan came to an agreement on the establishment of a new international organization " Eurasian Economic Community" and concluded the Treaty on the Establishment of the Eurasian Economic Community of October 10, 2000 (Ratified by Federal Law of May 22, 2001 N 56-FZ).

In the historical aspect, the emergence of a new international organization, briefly called “EurAsEC”, and the signing of the said Treaty N.A. Vorontsova assessed it as “the apotheosis of the unifying trend in part of the post-Soviet space”: “In no way replacing the Customs Union, the Eurasian Economic Community is a new form of interaction and evidence of the unity of political will of the leaders of the five states to move even more decisively along the path of mutual multifaceted cooperation in the field of unification national legislation and coordinated restructuring of their economies."

As of 2008, the EurAsEC is assessed as the most promising regional integration association in the post-Soviet space.

The legal basis for the conclusion of the Treaty on the Establishment of the Eurasian Economic Community (hereinafter referred to as the Treaty on the Establishment of the EurAsEC) is a set of previously concluded agreements with the participation of the same states:

Note. A notable feature of the subject composition of these international treaties is the fact that the Republic of Tajikistan did not take part in the conclusion of the Treaty on Deepening Integration in the Economic and Humanitarian Fields of 1996. There is no data on the accession of this state to this Treaty either in the database on multilateral international treaties with the participation of the Russian Federation on the publicly available resources of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, or in similar resources of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Tajikistan. At the same time, according to the Table on the entry into force of international treaties of the Eurasian Economic Community (as of February 26, 2008), posted in the information and reference system "ConsultantPlus" on the basis of Information on ratifications and implementation of internal procedures received from the Interstate Council of the EurAsEC, it is indicated that the procedures ensuring the entry into force of this Agreement have been completed by the Republic of Tajikistan.

1) Agreement on the Customs Union between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus dated January 6, 1995;
2) Agreement on the Customs Union of January 20, 1995;
3) Agreement on Deepening Integration in the Economic and Humanitarian Fields of March 29, 1996;
4) Agreement on the Customs Union and Common Economic Space of February 26, 1999.
According to Article 2 of the Treaty, the EurAsEC is created to effectively promote the process of formation by the parties of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space, as well as the implementation of other goals and objectives defined in the above-mentioned Agreements on the Customs Union, the Treaty on Deepening Integration in the Economic and Humanitarian Fields and the Treaty on the Customs Union and Common economic space, in accordance with the stages outlined in the specified documents.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we can draw the following conclusion: the “five”, without leaving the Economic Union, guided by Article 29 of the Treaty establishing the Economic Union, according to which membership in the Economic Union is not an obstacle to the implementation of economic ties with states that are not members it, as well as economic groups and communities, if this does not contradict the interests of the Economic Union, creates a new international organization to jointly and autonomously relative to the other members of the Economic Union achieve the goal declared as common to all members of the Economic Union - the formation of a single economic space.
The founding international treaties of integration economic associations of states with the participation of Russia, the Economic Union and the EurAsEC, which have entered into force for Russia, have laid the foundation for the formation of the Common Economic Space in its considered meaning, in accordance with Article 15 (Part 4) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 5 (Clause 1) Federal Law of July 15, 1995 N 101-FZ “On International Treaties of the Russian Federation” became an integral part of its legal system.

Since the provisions of the said constituent agreements (officially published in in the prescribed manner) did not require the publication of internal acts for application due to their constituent nature (clause 3 of Article 5 of the Federal Law “On International Treaties of the Russian Federation”), both of them are directly in force in Russia.

Comparing the Russian practice of applying both founding Treaties from the point of view of providing conditions for the formation of a single economic space through an appropriate inventory of national law governing economic relations and harmonization of state legislation, it should be noted that the Treaty on the Establishment of the Economic Union had a truly practical application in reforming the Russian customs , civil (economic) legislation.
In accordance with the Concept of mutual legal regulation of economic relations and equalization of conditions for economic activity of the member states of the Economic Union, approved by the decision of the Council of Heads of Government of the CIS of February 10, 1995, the Government of the Russian Federation of April 28, 1995 N 439 approved the Program of the Government of the Russian Federation " Reforms and development Russian economy in 1995 - 1997." It determined the main directions of Russia's economic policy towards neighboring countries in 1995 - 1997 and set a course for the creation of uniform mechanisms for regulating the economy, based on market principles of management, as well as the unification of customs, monetary and financial, price, tax and other economic legislation for the purpose of free development of production relations, unimpeded movement of goods, services, capital and labor, effective interaction of business entities of all forms of ownership and in all areas of their activities.

Among the basic principles of mutual legal regulation of economic relations and equalization of conditions for economic activity, it was envisaged to conduct a joint analysis of the state of the economy and the progress of economic reforms in each state, coordinated measures in the most important areas of interstate activity: transport, communications, energy supply, environmental protection, prevention and elimination consequences of emergency situations, foreign economic activity, scientific and technological progress, state standardization and protection of intellectual property rights.
However, a very small part of the legislative acts (federal laws) of Russia in the field of regulation of customs and economic relations was adopted taking into account these principles. Moreover, they were not taken into account when developing draft federal laws; their financial, economic and legal justifications (explanatory notes) were not based on the above-mentioned economic and legal analysis of the regulation of similar relations on the territory of other members of the Economic Union. National civil legislation and customs legislation at that moment are formed independently of international treaties. The “spike” of appeals from Russian legislators when developing concepts for draft federal laws in the field of civil, business, and customs legislation of Russia to the Treaty on the Establishment of the Economic Union, which took place in 1999, has not been repeated since the beginning of the two thousandths, despite the fact that, in accordance with Article 26 The parties agreed to coordinate the adoption of new national legislative acts on economic issues.

Note. The need to ensure compliance with interstate approval procedures in accordance with the Treaty on the Establishment of the Economic Union The Legal Department of the State Duma of the Russian Federation points in its conclusions to the draft Federal Laws “On a temporary ban on the import of ethyl alcohol” (Conclusion dated February 15, 1999 N 2.2-15 /4340), "About the free economic zones"(Conclusion dated June 10, 1999 N 2.2-15/295), "On introducing amendments and additions to the Customs Code of the Russian Federation" (Conclusion dated June 25, 1999 N 2.2-15/4039).

Law enforcement practice in this sense has shown a higher legal culture of Russian entrepreneurs in terms of knowledge and compliance with this international treaty - when resolving economic, trade, customs and tax disputes in Russian arbitration courts, entrepreneurs turned to its provisions and thus forced arbitration courts to evaluate acts of national legislation and non-normative decisions of law enforcement authorities from the point of view of international obligations accepted by Russia.
The legislator refers even less to the Treaty on the Establishment of the EurAsEC when regulating the economic sphere at the legislative level. An exception, perhaps, is the draft Federal Law “On Customs Regulation in the Russian Federation”, the concept of which was initially based on the provisions of the said Treaty. The provisions of the Treaty on the Establishment of the EurAsEC are applied in Russian arbitration courts both directly and in connection with decisions of the CIS Economic Court adopted on the basis of this Treaty, however, much less frequently than in the case of the Treaty on the Establishment of the Economic Union.

Note. The most interesting from this point of view are the decisions of federal arbitration courts in cases challenging decisions of Russian customs authorities on the collection of customs duties on goods exported from the Russian Federation to the Republic of Belarus (see, for example, the Resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District of October 18 2010 in case A46-6333/2010).

Thus, these founding treaties did not have much influence on the formation of the Russian legal system.
It should be noted that the attempt to adjust the Russian legislative process in the field of customs and civil legislation, which took place in 1999, is explained by circumstances related to the Treaty establishing the Economic Union, but still occurring without reference to it.
On February 26, 1999, the Interstate Council of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Tajikistan, by its decision No. 52, approved the Program for the harmonization of national legislative and other regulatory legal acts of the states parties to the Treaty on the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space.

On the same day, the parties to the Treaty on the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space of 1999 concluded an Agreement on the legal support for the formation of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space (Ratified by Federal Law of June 5, 2003 N 64-FZ), which, however, is also not particularly was taken into account when forming the national legal system of Russia.

The result of Russia ignoring the obligations of these international treaties is obvious - customs and foreign trade legislation was relatively harmonized with the laws of international partners only during the actual creation of the Customs Union in 2008 - 2010, and civil, business, migration and other legislation as of 2012 continues to remain original , “native” and “original” relative to the legislation of each other state.

September 2012