CC BY
106
Comparative legal study on the activities of the Council for mutual economic assistance, the European economic union and the Eurasian economic union
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14420/en.2015.2.4
Anastasiya Loginova, PhD, Associate Professor of Constitutional and Administrative Law, National Research University Higher School of Economics Nizhny Novgorod, e-mail: pantera-cut84@mail.ru Liliya Travina, 4th year student of the Law Department, the head of the regional centre of the Student Law Bureau (Nizhny Novgorod, Moscow district), National Research University Higher School of Economics Nizhny Novgorod, e-mail: tlattv@mail.ru
This article presents a comparative legal study of the creation and functioning of international economic organizations that existed in different historical periods: the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, the European Union and the Eurasian Customs Union. The study determines the importance of international organizations in the economic growth of their member countries. An assessment will be made of the role of these organizations in the establishment and development of foreign economic relations and in the integration processes in the world economy. The need for this kind of comparative legal research is motivated by the lack of theoretical elaboration in this field. The concluding section of this study is a generalized judgement about the practicability and usefulness of the functioning of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, the European Union and the Eurasian Customs Union.
Eurasian Customs Union, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, the European Union, customs legislation, comparative legal research, integration, supranationalism, foreign economic activity.
Introduction
Comparative research may be conducted not only in respect of separate governmental and legal organizations which have existed throughout various historical periods in one country, but also in respect of intergovernmental organizations that were present in various epochs, having however, certain similar functions in common1.
The comparative legal study on three intergovernmental organizations:
Abstract:
Keywords:
DemchevA.A. Khronodisretnoye monogeograficheskoye provovedenie kak napravlenie sovremennoy yuridicheskoy nauki [Chronodiscrete monogeographical comparative jurisprudence as the direction of modern juridical science] // Istoriya gosudarstva i prava [History of state and law]. - 2010. - № 16. -P. 3.
The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (later in text- CMEA), European Economic Community and the currently existing Eurasian Customs Union (later in text - EACU), is stipulated by the fact that the above mentioned organizations, were during different historical time periods actively involved in the international economic integration process, with the aim of stabilizing and optimizing the economies of their participant countries1.
From the establishment of the League of Nations up to present day, it has become evident that governments all over the world are delegating their authority to different international organizations that are specialized in various fields of international relations2. Initially, such a delegation of authority was connected with the need to control common use territories. The first international organizations3 were established due to the need for shipping development on rivers4 that passed through the territory of several separate states. In present times, it is not possible to trace any sharp disagreements regarding the role, importance and place of intergovernmental organizations in international relations5, however there is no unified opinion regarding the functional practicability of such international organizations.
Main body
The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance is an intergovernmental organization, created as a result of the final outcomes of an economic meeting between the representatives of such countries as Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the USSR and Czechoslovakia in 1949. The member countries of CMEA were Albania, Bulgaria, the People's Republic of Hungary, the German Democratic Republic, the People's Republic of Poland, the People's Republic of Romania, the USSR and Czechoslovakia. The legal foundation of the CMEA and its activities was the Statute of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, approved by the Session of the Council in Sofia on the 14th of December 1959. The main objectives of the creation of the CMEA included economic, scientific and technical cooperation, acceleration of the economic, scientific and technical progress, social and economic integration, an increase in the level of industrialization, standard of living and labor productivity of socialist countries as well as the gradual development of their national economies.
The CMEA was to operate on the basis of the fundamental principles of sovereign equality of all member countries, respect of the sovereignty and national interests, mutual assistance and mutual gain. Common standards and
1Belousova O.M., Chibisova E.V. Institutional support of the state innovation policy in the system of Russian law // Law and modern states. - 2014. - № 3. - P. 11.
2Neshataeva T.N. Integratsiya i nadnatsionalizm [Integration and supranationalism] // Rossiiskoe pravo-sudie [Russian justice]. - 2014. - № 9 (101). - P. 8.
3CadietL, International association of procedural law welcome note // Russian law journal. 2013. Vol.1. Nr.1 (1), p.7.
4Zaitseva O.P. Vozniknovenie i razvitie mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy [The emergence and development of international organizations] // Voposy istorii [Questions of history]. - 1976. - № 2. - P. 62.
5Ignatyeva I.A., The «green economy's» tools in Russian law: problems and prospects // Russian law: theory and practice. - 2014. - № 1. - PP. 71-77.
Anastasiya Loginova, Liliya Travina. Comparative legal study on the activities of the Council for mutual economic assistance, the European economic union and the Eurasian economic union
norms were also developed for the participant countries.
The main governing bodies of the CMEA were the Session of the Council, the Meeting of the country representatives in the Council, the Permanent Commission and the Secretariat. The CMEA bodies made decisions and gave recommendations regarding various economic, scientific and technological issues. The decisions made by CMEA bodies had no binding legal force, were only implemented if agreed on by the interested CMEA member countries and did not concern countries who declared to have no interest in the current matter. The headquarters of the CMEA were situated in Moscow. One of the key priorities within the framework of activities of the CMEA was the external trade cooperation between the USSR and the socialist countries of Easter Europe. However, the Statue of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance did not address the issues of taxation of goods and services within the participant countries, the common tariff policy and customs policy.
The activity of the CMEA gave a number of positive results on the economic growth of our country. In CMEA member countries, a well-developed industry was under creation, construction was realized, scientific and technological cooperation was conducted etc. The CMEA contributed to the integration of economic systems between the participating countries and to their economic and technological progress. According to the Statute of the CMEA, it was used to manage barter trade between the member countries and to negotiate and coordinate the mutual commitment to the national economic plans. During the entire existence of the CMEA and its functioning, the goods turnover increased by 8,7 times1.
In 1974, the CMEA received the status of an observer in the United Nations.
The experience in the mutual resolution of the questions of economic integrations and customs control, gained within the framework of the CMEA member countries, doubtlessly enriched both the theory and practice of the soviet customs affairs. The CMEA contributed to a clear codification and unification of the goods nomenclature, and brought the customs system of the USSR closer to the international model and order of customs clearance procedures. However, there were also negative results from the activities of the CMEA. The experience from trade and economic relations within the CMEA, showed that there were ruinous effects on the national economy of our state and its trade relations with third countries, since the creation of the CMEA was mainly motivated by the stand-off policy with the West. In whole, the CMEA and its system as an organizational base for international socialist national economies, was much more a "mechanism of high expenses" rather than of mutual gain. Goods delivered from socialist countries to the USSR were priced according to international rates, while goods delivered from the USSR to socialist countries were priced at lower rates. Effectively, the USSR ensured its political interests at the expense of its
Kislovskiy Y.G. Istoriya tamozhni gosudarstva Rossiyskogo (907-1995) [History of the Russian State Customs(907-1995)]. - M., 1995. - P. 174.
economic interests1.
Kislovskiy Y.G. argues that the activities of CMEA were affected by the unfavorable tendencies in international trade as well as coordination problems within the actual community. Yet the main deciding disadvantage was the weak penetration into the world market and the insufficient use of the scientific and productive potential. Apart from the discrimination from the capitalist world, the interconnection between the composition of the goods turnover and the requirements of the scientific and technological revolution, was not accounted for2. The CMEA was formally dissolved in 1991.
The government of the USSR attempted to create the CMEA as a type of socialist alternative to the European Economic Community (later in text- EEC), with activities aimed at economic integration, including the creation of a common market. The legal basis for the creation and functioning of the EEC was the Treaty on the establishment of an economic community, signed in Rome on the 25th of March in 1957. The EEC initially included 12 European states (Belgium, Great Britain, Greece, Denmark, West Germany, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Portugal and France)3[9]. The EEC was to operate on the basis of the following principals: the introduction of a common customs tariff and a common trade policy in relation to third countries; the removal of barriers between member states to allow free movement of goods, labor, services, entities and capital; the creation of a common and competitive market; the convergence and unification of the legislation regulating the common market between member states etc.
The main administrating bodies of the EEC were the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and Court. The fundamental base of the ECC is the Customs Union. The EEC Customs Union regulated all the trading activities and ensured the abolition of all import and export customs duties and fees between member states. Within its operating framework, the EEC Customs Union installed a common customs tariff in relation to third countries, however did not account for the creation of a common customs territory for the EEC Customs Union member states. The procedure for internal taxation of the produce of EEC member countries was likewise unified. Not one member country could tax the produce of other member states, directly or indirectly, at a higher tax rate than for the national produce. Moreover, Treaty on the establishment of the EEC stipulated that it was prohibited for the member states to internally tax the produce of other member states for the purpose of indirectly protecting other produce. The EEC existed from 1957 to 1993. After the creation of the European Union, the EEC was renamed to the European Community and became one of the main
1 Vasin A.M., Chekin A.N. Nekotorye aspekty razvitiya mezhdunarodnogo ekonomicheskogo prava v epokhy globalizatsii [Some aspects of the development of international economic law in the era of globalization] // Mezhdunarodnoe publichnoe i chastnoe pravo [The international public and private law]. - 2007. - № 1. - P. 15.
2Kislovskiy Y.G. Istoriya tamozhennogo dela i tamozhennoy politiki Rossii [The history of customs affairs and customs policy of Russia]. - M., 2004. - P. 323.
3Sharkova A.V., Alieva I.Z., Monakhova V.S., Development of socio-economic cooperation between Russia and the USA // Law and modern states. - 2014. - № 1. - PP. 30-39.
Anastasiya Loginova, Liliya Travina. Comparative legal study on the activities of the Council for mutual economic assistance, the European economic union
and the Eurasian economic union 45
communities as one of the three main pillars of the European Union, while the institutions of the community instead became the institutions of the Union.
Within the framework in which the EEC was functioning, there was an improvement in the currency, customs and tax1 policy between EEC member countries; a transition of their economy from an extensive to intensive development path; a stimulation of development in the fields of science and biotechnology; an improvement in the position of the EEC in the world economy. The experience, which the EEC accumulated in the field of legal unification during the actual realization of the corresponding provisions of the Treaty, was in many aspects unique. Within its framework, the EEC achieved a higher level of economic integration and thereby a higher level of legal integration compared to other economic unions.
The history of legal unification within the EEC framework is 30 years long and permits to trace how the first and very general ideas about this unification, written into the Treaty text, were put into practice, got transformed into a real mechanism for implementing the unification as well as into a whole set of unified norms significant by their volume. The unification of the legal system conducted within the EEC affected states with different legal systems and significant differences in their legal norms. In being a part of the global unification process, the legal unification conducted within the EEC framework, was not only affected by this process, but also had a colossal effect on that process. Presently, many European states which are not members of the EEC, develop new legislation with the account of legal norms that were earlier adopted in the EEC.
For the modern EACU, the history of its formation dates back to the middle of the 90s in the previous century. In 1995, Russia and Belorussia signed a treaty about the creation of a Customs union. By the middle of year 1996, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan also joined the Union, followed by Tajikistan in August 1998.
The formation of the Customs Union was to occur in two phases. The first phase was largely completed in 1995, and already by the middle of year 1996, a program of measures was prepared with the aim of finalizing the Union formation, whereby it was intended to sign the relevant documents, but which was never executed due to varying economic interests between the participant countries in the Union, which even further complicated the regulations concerning common trade.
The formation of the EAEU was finalized by 2010 however in October 2015 Armenia joins the Customs Union, followed by Kyrgyzstan on the 8th of May in 2015(Tajikistan, Syria, Tunisia and India declared their intention to join the EAEU). It must be noted that on the 1st of January 2015, the treaty about the Eurasian Economic Community entered into force and the EAEU began its activities on the basis of the rules of the WTO. At the moment, it is difficult to fully assess the
1Grigoryan M. Armeniya pytaetsya izbavitsya ot ekonomicheskoy zavisimosti ot Rossii? [Is Armenia trying to get rid of economic dependence on Russia?]. URL: http://russian.eurasianet.org/node/62121 (accessed: 21.05.2015).
future perspectives of Armenia and the Kyrgyz Republic(later in text - KR) joining the EAEU, yet it is worth to mention some risks for member countries that have recently joined.
Armenia's addition to the EAEU will undoubtedly lower the country's administrative and trade barriers with EAEU member countries, but in relation to third countries who are not members of the EAEU, a whole range of problems may emerge, including: the impossibility to have agreements on free trade as well as on trade and economic cooperation, since a common trade policy is applied within the EAEU framework. It is necessary to take into account the fact that Armenia's trade turnover with the European Union is many times greater than with CIS countries(30% of Armenia's trade turnover constitutes trade with EU countries; 24% with Russia; 26% with CIS countries1). Another danger for Armenia is the growth of russian capital, which could in turn lead to an increase in the dependence of Armenia on Russia2. The addition of the Kyrgyz Republic to the EAEU has, in a similar way, a number of negative impacts on the Kyrgyz economy, such as for example: the loss of attractiveness of the KR as a base for the re-export of chinese goods to EAEU territory and thereby a lower flow of goods through KR territory, leading to redundancies for the population groups who work in this sector. There are, however, also positive impacts. The scientists and politologists of Kyrgyzstan, are of the opinion that the addition of the KR to the EAEU will lead to an increase in the growth of export of textile and agricultural produce as well as construction materials; opening the possibility for long term investments in the Kyrgyz economy.
In turn, it is also worth to mention that the addition of Armenia and Kyrgyzstan will have no significant effect on the major macroeconomic indicators of the EAEU member states(Russian Federation, Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan), due to the relatively small share of the Armenia and Kyrgyz economies in the common indicators of the Customs Union, while in order to assess the economic efficiency from the addition of Armenia and Kyrgyzstan to the Customs Union, it is necessary to make an integrated assessment of the long-term macroeconomic effect resulting from the addition of the above mentioned countries.
The activities of the EAEU are determined and regulated by the Treaty on the establishment of the Eurasian Economic Community, the Decisions of the Commission of the Customs Union, the Customs Code of the Customs Union,
1 Ayrapetyan A. Otsenka perspektiv prisoedineniya Armenii k tamozhennomu soyuzu [Assessment of the prospects of the addition of Armenia to the Customs Union] // Sbornik nauchnykh statei po materialam Mezhdunarodnoy zaochnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii. Laboratoriya prikladnykh ekonomi-cheskikh issledovaniy imeni Keynsa [Collection of scientific articles based on the correspondence of the International scientific and practical conference. Laboratory of Applied Economic Research named after Keynes]. 2014. P. 6.
2PavlovA.N. Otsenka ekonomicheskogo effecta prisoedineniya Kirgizskoy respubliki k Tamozhennomu soyuzu [Assessment of the economic effect of the addition of the Kyrgyz Republic to the Customs Union] //Evraziyskaya ekonomicheskaya integratsiya [Eurasian Economic Integration]. - 2011. - №4 (13). - P. 23.
Anastasiya Loginova, Liliya Travina. Comparative legal study on the activities of the Council for mutual economic assistance, the European economic union
and the Eurasian economic union 47
international treaties, the Memorandum of the Eurasian Economic Community and the Decisions of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Community.
According to the Customs Code of the Customs Union (later in text - CCU) the Customs union is defined as "a form of trade and economic integration of the parties, that share a unified customs territory, in the boundaries of which mutually traded goods, originating from territory, which constitutes the customs territory of the parties, and also originating from third countries and released into free circulation on this territory, are exempt from customs duties and restrictions of economic character, with the exception of special protective, anti-dumping and countervailing measures"1. This definition effectively implies that the Customs Union has more of an economic character than a legal one.
According to Article 2 of the CCU, the territories of the EAEU member states comprise the unified customs territory. The customs regulation and legal regulation is related to the movement of goods through the customs borders, and the customs control is carried out within the boundaries of the unified customs territories, which could lower the quality of the customs control for imported goods.
The creation and functioning of the Customs Union is still a disputable matter today, and some theorists argue that the activities of the Customs Union have a lot of negative aspects and that it will ultimately share the same fate and consequences as the CMEA. Analogous to the activities of the CMEA, the activities of the Custom Union had a positive influence on the growth dynamics of the goods turnover within the framework of the Customs Union, which is possible to conclude from the table presented below, unified the norms of the customs legislation [16] and enriched the practice of customs affairs.
Table No.1
Total trade of the members states of the Customs Union2
Period Russian Federation Republic of Belarus Republic of Kazakhstan
y.2011 40615.2 bn. USD. 14316,5 bn. USD. 7341,3 bn. USD.
y.2012 837,2 bn. USD. 214,4 bn. USD. 240,7 bn. USD.
y.2013 844,2 bn. USD. 186,8 bn. USD. 243,9 bn. USD.
y.2014 782,9 bn. USD. 77180 bn. USD. 11589 bn. USD.
Nevertheless, within the framework in which the EAEU (previously the Customs Union) is active, certain risks emerged for the economy of the Russian Federation. According to theoretical scientists, politologists and practitioners, the
1Razumov Yu.A. Metody i sposoby natsionalno-pravovoy implenetatsii v zakonodatelstve Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Methods and techniques of national and legislative implementation into the legal system of the Russian Federation] // Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii [International law and international organizations]. - 2013. - № 1. - P. 126.
2Statistics are taken from official site of the State customs committee of Republic of Belarus, Federal customs service of Russia, the Committee of customs of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
domestic producer is, within the framework in which the EAEU functions, less protected from foreign competition, which could potentially lead to a decrease in Russia's economic potential.
Yaroshchuk A.B. identifies 4 groups of risks in the development of the EAEU integration project1:
-An increased distancing of the integration-orientated intergovernmental political superstructure and the treaty legislation base from the material integration factors and the actual levels of trade and economic interaction between the parties;
- A "freezing" of the integration on one of the transitional phases may lead to a growth devaluation in the economies of EAEU member countries, a worsening in the business and investment climate;
- A destabilization in the development of the supranational regulatory system within the EAEU framework (increased complications in the enforcement of legal practice as well as in the ensuring of national interests in economic affairs);
An "economic glut", in the same way as for the CMEA, in the economic development of EAEU member countries as well as a worsening in the economic cycle.
It is reasonable to believe, that the main purpose of the creation of the EAEU, was the recreation of a significant part of the economic area of the former USSR as a unified organism, the unification of the customs legislation, the removal of customs barriers and the increase in goods turnover. The CMEA and the EAEU are similar in the way that both organizations are international, orientated at the liberalization of foreign trade, regulation of the trade and political relations between the member states as well as the unification of the customs affairs.
Based on the above mentioned, it is evident that the activities of the EAEU bring with certain risks, which could become an obstacle for the continued economic and social integration, however the activity of the EAEU also has positive aspects. For instance, the increase in the goods turnover, the simplification of the customs clearance procedures and the creation of an attractive investment climate(In 2010, 70 packages of documents from investors were considered for the construction of customs and logistics terminals in frontier regions; materials from 37 investors, were approved in accordance with the Conception of customs clearance and customs control in areas close to the state border of the Russian Federation).
Conclusion
To conclude the study, we can construct a generalized table of the three researched international intergovernmental organizations.
1 Yaroshchuk A.B. Tamozhennyy soyuz kak forma razvitiya ekonomicheskoy i sotsial'noy integratsii na prostranstva evropeyskogo ekonomicheskogo soobshchestva [The Customs Union as a way of developing the economic and social integration within the European Economic Community] // Gumanizatsiya obrazovaniya [Humanization of education]. - 2011. - № 5. - P. 85.
Anastasiya Loginova, Liliya Travina. Comparative legal study on the activities of the Council for mutual economic assistance, the European economic union and the Eurasian economic union
Table No.2
Comparative analysis of international organizations, the CMEA, EEC
and EAEU
Council for Mutual Economic Assistance European Union Eurasian Economic Community
Legal basis for activities Statute of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, approved by the Session of the Council in Sofia on the 14th of December 1959 The legal basis for the creation and functioning of the EEC was the Treaty on the establishment of an economic community, signed in Rome on the 25th of March in 1957 - A common Customs Code; - A common Customs Tariff; - international treaties between member states which are engaged in legal customs relations.
Purposes of creation - economic, scientific and technical cooperation; -acceleration of economic, scientific and technological progress; -social and economic integration; - an increase in the level of industrialization, standard of living and labor productivity of socialist countries; - gradual development of the national economies. -economic integration; - creation of a common market. - comprehensive modernization, cooperation and increase in the competitiveness of the national economies; - creation of conditions for the stable development, in the interest of increasing the standard of living of the population in member states.
Governing bodies - Session of the -European - Supreme
Council; Parliament; Eurasian
- Meeting of - Council of the Economic
the country EEC; Council;
representatives in -Commission of - Eurasian Inter-
the Council; the EEC; governmental
-Permanent - Court of the Council;
Commission; EEC. - Eurasian
- Secretariat. Economic Commission; - Court of the Eurasian Economic Community
Results from - creation of -European - Supreme
activities a developed Parliament; Eurasian
infrastructure in - Council of the Economic
CMEA member EEC; Council;
countries; -Commission of - Eurasian Inter-
- scientific and the EEC; governmental
technological - Court of the Council;
cooperation; EEC. - Eurasian
- an increase Economic
in the goods Commission;
turnover by 8,7%; - Court of
- enrichment the Eurasian
of theory and Economic
practice of Community
customs affairs;
- unification of
the customs
legislation;
- the customs
system of the
USSR was
brought closer to
the international
model;
- stagnation in
the economies of
CMEA member
countries,
due to a weak
penetration
into the world
market and
insufficient use
of the scientific
and productive
potential.
Anastasiya Loginova, Liliya Travina. Comparative legal study on the activities of the Council for mutual economic assistance, the European economic union
and the Eurasian economic union 51
After conducting a comparative legal study of the activities of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, the European Economic Community and the Eurasian Economic Community, it is possible to conclude, that these organizations are international organizations for regional economic integration, with international legal capacity. The goals for creating these three organizations are in many ways similar and are aimed at the strengthening of international economic ties. The mentioned international organizations all have a legal basis for their activities and collegiate governing bodies. For the EAEU member countries, it would be appropriate for them to utilize the experience from the activities of the CMEA in order to avoid economic stagnation. It is reasonable to believe, that the experience of the EEC in the field of organizing a common tax, credit and monetary policy, would also be of use to the EAEU. Presently, there are controversies in the tax relations between the EAEU member countries. For example, in Kazakhstan there is a more favorable tax regime compared to the Russian tax regime, making Russian entrepreneurs more prone open their representative offices on the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan, leading to a reduction in tax collections on the territory of Russia. It is also worth to mention, that the experience gathered from the functioning of the EEC, showed more successful results compared to the experience from the CMEA, and the EAEU should therefore carefully consider this experience when forming new trade and economic relations with countries that have recently joined.
References:
1. Ayrapetyan, A. Otsenka perspektiv prisoedineniya Armenii k tamozhennomu soyuzu [Assessment of the prospects of the addition of Armenia to the Customs Union] // Sbornik nauchnykh statei po materialam Mezhdunarodnoy zaochnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii. Laboratoriya prikladnykh ekonomicheskikh issledovaniy imeni Keynsa [Collection of scientific articles based on the correspondence of the International scientific and practical conference. Laboratory of Applied Economic Research named after Keynes]. - 2014. - P. 5-8.
2. Belousova, O.M., Chibisova, E.V. Institutional support of the state innovation policy in the system of Russian law // Law and modern states. - 2014. -№ 3. - P. 8-16.
3. Cadiet L. International association of procedural law welcome note // Russian law journal. - 2013. - Vol.1. № 1 (1). - P.7.
4. Demichev A.A. Khronodisretnoye monogeograficheskoye provovedenie kak napravlenie sovremennoy yuridicheskoy nauki [Chronodiscrete monogeographical comparative jurisprudence as the direction of modern juridical science] // Istoriya gosudarstva i prava [History of state and law]. -2010. - № 16. - P. 2-7.
Ignatyeva I.A. The «green economy's» tools in Russian law: problems and prospects // Russian law: theory and practice. - 2014. - № 1. - P. 71-77. Kislovskiy Y.G. Istoriya tamozhennogo dela i tamozhennoy politiki Rossii [The history of customs affairs and customs policy of Russia]. - M., 2004.
5.
7. Kislovsky Y.G. Istoriya tamozhni gosudarstva Rossiyskogo (907-1995) [History of the Russian State Customs(907-1995)]. - M., 1995.
8. Neshataeva T.N. Integratsiya i nadnatsionalizm [Integration and supranationalism] // Rossiiskoe pravosudie [Russian justice]. - 2014. - № 9 (101).
9. Pavlov A.N. Otsenka ekonomicheskogo effecta prisoedineniya Kirgizskoy respubliki k Tamozhennomu soyuzu [Assessment of the economic effect of the addition of the Kyrgyz Republic to the Customs Union] //Evraziyskaya ekonomicheskaya integratsiya [Eurasian Economic Integration]. - 2011. -No. 4 (13).
10. Razumov Yu.A. Metody i sposoby natsionalno-pravovoy implenetatsii v zakonodatelstve Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Methods and techniques of national and legislative implementation into the legal system of the Russian Federation] // Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii [International law and international organizations]. - 2013. - № 1.
11. Sharkova A.V., Alieva I.Z., Monakhova V.S., Development of socio-economic cooperation between Russia and the USA // Law and modern states. -2014. - № 1.
12. Vasin A.M., Chekin A.N. Nekotorye aspekty razvitiya mezhdunarodnogo ekonomicheskogo prava v epokhy globalizatsii [Some aspects of the development of international economic law in the era of globalization] // Mezhdunarodnoe publichnoe i chastnoe pravo [The international public and private law]. - 2007. - № 1.
13. Yaroshchuk A.B. Tamozhennyy soyuz kak forma razvitiya ekonomicheskoy i sotsial'noy integratsii na prostranstva evropeyskogo ekonomicheskogo soobshchestva [The Customs Union as a way of developing the economic and social integration within the European Economic Community] // Gumanizatsiya obrazovaniya [Humanization of education]. - 2011. - № 5.
14. Zaitseva O.P. Vozniknovenie i razvitie mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy [The emergence and development of international organizations] // Voposy istorii [Questions of history]. - 1976. - № 2.
