CC BY
49ЛИТЕРАТУРА
1.Исполинов А.С. Особые мнения в международных судах: доктрина и практика. Доступно на: https://www.hse.ru/data/2018/04/19/1150473740/%D0%B8%D1%81%D0% BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0 %B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2.pdf. - С. 4, б. Дата обращения: 22 июля 2019 года.
2. Комарова Т.В. Суд Европейского союза и единство судебной практики // Современное право. -2013. - № 11. - С. 143-148.
3. Нешатаева Т.Н., Дьяченко Е.Б., Мысливский П.П. Евразийская интеграция: роль Суда (монография) /Под ред. д.ю.н., проф. Т.Н. Нешатаевой. - Москва: Статут, 2015. - 304 с.
REFERENCES
1. Ispolinov A.S. Оsоbye mneniya v mezhdunarodnych sudach: dоktrinа ipraktika. Dоstupnо na: https:// www.hse.ru/data/2018/04/19/1150473740/%D0%B8%D1%81%D0% BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D 0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2.pdf. - С. 4, б. Dаtа оbrаschеniya: 22 iyulya 2019 goda.
2. Kоmarоva Т. V. Sud Evrоpеyskogo sоyuza i ßdinsШ sudcbnüy praktiki // Savrcmcnnúc pmvü. - 2013. - No 11. - S. 143-148.
3. Nеshataеva T.N., Dyachcnto Е.B., Myslivskiy P.P. Evraziyskaya intеgratsia: гоГ Suda (münügraphiya) / Pоd ^d. d.j.n., prnf. T.N. Nеshataеvоy. - Moskva: Statut, 2015. - 304 s.
УДК: 339.923 (075.8)
THE CORRELATION BETWEEN SOVEREIGNTY AND SUPRANATIONALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF INTEGRATION PROCESSES WITHIN THE EAEU AND THE EU
Menzyuk Galina Anatolyevna
Dean of the Faculty of Business, Law and Pedagogy Kazakh-American Free University, Ph.D., Associate Professor KKSON Ust-Kamenogorsk, Republic of Kazakhstan, e-mail: menzjuk@mail.ru
Gavrilova Julia Alexandrovna
Head of the Department of Law and International Relations Kazakh-American Free University, Ph.D. Ust-Kamenogorsk, Republic of Kazakhstan, e-mail: gavriloyuliya@yandex.kz
Umitchinova Botagoz Aspandiarovna
Doctoral student of the specialty «Jurisprudence» Kazakh-American Free University, Ust-Kamenogorsk, Republic of Kazakhstan, e-mail: umitchinova.botagoz@mail.ru
Keywords: sovereignty; supranational; acquis communautaire; integration processes; national security; international organization.
Abstract. The article provides a comparative analysis of the legal nature of the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union in the context of the balance between state sovereignty and supranationality in the framework of integration processes. The relevance of the issue lies in the problem of limiting sovereignty when states join international organizations, which is not always in the national interests of these states. The conceptual basis for studying the issue was the principle of the functioning of the European Union - the acquis communautaire, the essence of which boils down to the fact that member states must adopt the norms of constituent acts, internal EU law, as well as EU international treaties with third countries. The authors concluded that the significant differences between the legal systems of the EU and the EAEU (including different degrees of supranationality, a strictly normative understanding of the content of constituent documents, enshrining in the constitutions of the transfer ofpart of the sovereign rights to an international organization) do not provide a basis for applying the concept of Acquis in relation to the EAEU in full. Taking into account the negative modern disintegration processes within the EU, the EAEU member states should maintain a balance in combination of the means of national and international legal regulation and develop internal mechanisms to protect the rights and interests of the member states.
Халыцаралыц цуцыц жэне салыстырмалы цуцыцпшну
ЕАЭО ЖЭНЕ ЕО ШЕЦБЕР1НДЕ ИНТЕГРАЦИЯЛЬЩ ПРОЦЕСТЕР КОНТЕКСТ1НДЕГ1 СУВЕРЕНИТЕТ ЖЭНЕ ¥ЛТТЫЩТАН ЖОГАРЫ Т¥РУДЫЦ АРАЦАТЫНАСЫ
Галина Анатольевна Мензюк
«Бизнес, цуцыц жэне педагогика» факультетгнщ деканы, Казацстан-Американдыц ерктуниверситетi, з.г.к., БСБК доцентг; Оскемен ц., Казацстан Республикасы, e-mail: menzjuk@mail.ru
Юлия Александровна Гаврилова
«Кщыц жэне халыцаралыц цатынастар» кафедрасынъщ мецгерушiсi, Казацстан-Американдыц ерктуниверситетi, з.г.к.; Оскемен ц., Казацстан Республикасы; e-mail: gavriloyuliya@yandex.kz
Ботагоз Аспандиаровна Умитчинова
«Куцыцтану» мамандыгыныц докторанты, Казацстан-Американдыц еркт университетi; Оскемен ц., Казацстан Республикасы; e-mail: umitchinova.botagoz@mail.ru
Ty^h свздер: егемендт; ултYстiлiк; acquis communautaire; интеграциялыц Yдерiстер; улттыц цаутЫздж; халыцаралыц уйым.
Аннотация. Мацаладамемлекеттердщ егемендш жэне ултYстiлiк цатынас контекстт-де интеграциялыц процестер шецберiндегi Еуразиялыц экономикалыц одац пен Еуропалыц одацтыц зацдыц жагыныц салыстырмалы-цуцыцтыц талдауы ЖYргiзiлген. Мэселешц квкей-тестшт мемлекеттщ халыцаралыц уйымга кiрудегi егемендтшц шектелуiнде жатыр, ал ол Yнемi бул мемлекеттердщ улттыц мYдделерiне сэйкес келе бермейдi. Мэселешц концептуал-дыц негiзi Еуропалыц одацтыц цызмет ету устанымында - acquis communautaire-де жатыр, оныц мэш - мYше-мемлекеттер цурылтайшы акттердщ, шю цуцыцтыц нормаларын, сон-дай-ац ЕО-ныц Yшiншi елдермен халыцаралыц шарттарды цабылдауы цажетттнде. Автор-лар ЕО пен ЕАЭО цуцыцтыц ЖYйелерiнiц арасындагы айтарлыцтай айырмашылыцтар (ул-тYстiлiктiц эр тYрлi децгеш, цурылтайшы цужаттардыц мазмуныныц цатац нормативтт тYсiнiктерi, мемлекеттердщ Конституциясында егемендшк цуцыгыныц бiр бвлтн халыцаралыц уйымдарга бершутщ беютшуi) ЕАЭО-га цатысты толыц квлемде «Acquis» тYсiнiгiн цолдануга негiз бола алмайды деген шешiмге келдi. ЕО шецберiндегi цазiргi жагымсыз де-зинтеграциялыц Yдерiстердi ескере отырып, ЕАЭО-га мYше-мемлекеттер улттыц жэне халыцаралыц реттеу цуралдарын Yйлестiрудегi балансты цамтамасыз етт, мYше-мемлекет-тердщ цуцыцтары мен мYдделерiн цоргаудыц imrn механизмдерт жасау керек.
СООТНОШЕНИЕ СУВЕРЕНИТЕТА И НАДНАЦИОНАЛЬНОСТИ В КОНТЕКСТЕ ИНТЕГРАЦИОННЫХ ПРОЦЕССОВ В РАМКАХ ЕАЭС И ЕС
Мензюк Галина Анатольевна
Декан факультета «Бизнеса, права и педагогики»,
Казахстанско-Американский свободный университет, к.ю.н., доцент ККСОН; г. Усть-Каменогорск, Республика Казахстан, e-mail: menzjuk@mail.ru
Гаврилова Юлия Александровна
Заведующий кафедрой «Права и международных отношений», Казахстанско-Американский свободный университет, к.ю.н.; г. Усть-Каменогорск, Республика Казахстан, e-mail: gavriloyuliya@yandex.kz
Умитчинова Ботагоз Аспандиаровна
Докторант специальности «Юриспруденция», Казахстанско-Американский свободный университет; г. Усть-Каменогорск, Республика Казахстан, e-mail: umitchinova.botagoz@mail.ru
Ключевые слова: суверенитет; наднациональность; acquis communautaire; интеграционные процессы; национальная безопасность; международная организация.
Аннотация. В статье проведен сравнительно-правовой анализ юридической природы Евразийского экономического союза и Европейского союза в контексте соотношения госу-
дарственного суверенитета и наднациональности в рамках интеграционных процессов. Актуальность вопроса заключается в проблеме ограничения суверенитета при вступлении государств в международные организации, что не всегда соответствует национальным интересам данных государств. Концептуальной основой изучения вопроса явился принцип функционирования Европейского союза - acquis communautaire, содержание которого сводится к тому, что государства-члены должны принимать нормы учредительных актов, внутреннего права, а также международных договоров ЕС с третьими странами. Авторы пришли к выводу, что значительные различия между правовыми системами ЕС и ЕАЭС (разная степень наднациональности, строго нормативное понимание содержания учредительных документов, закрепление в конституциях государств передачи части суверенных прав международной организации), не дают основание для применения понятия «Acquis» в отношении ЕАЭС в полном объеме. Учитывая негативные современные дезинтеграционные процессы в рамках ЕС, государства-члены ЕАЭС должны обеспечивать баланс в сочетании средств национального и международного правового регулирования и разработать внутренние механизмы защиты прав и интересов государств-членов.
1. Introduction
The main goal of national security efforts is its state sovereignty, which implies political independence and self-government of its internal and external affairs, as well as freedom of independent decision-making in international relations.
The issue of the category of sovereignty of states and modern integration processes is relevant and widely discussed by political scientists, philosophers, sociologists. In legal literature these concepts are usually considered within the framework of the theory of government and law, constitutional and international law, as well as at the borderline between public international and national law.
2. On the definition of the concept of sovereignty
Shikanova E.G. identifies two interrelated forms: national (people's) sovereignty and state sovereignty. National sovereignty, or the sovereignty of the people, means that only the nation (people) is the basis of statehood and the source of state power. State sovereignty means that state power, based on the sovereign will of the people, is independent from anyone in internal affairs and international relations [1].
Jibin Mary George separates the concept of sovereignty into internal and external. Internal sovereignty is intended to express and exercise sovereignty mainly within its own state borders. At the same time, sovereignty also includes the idea of freedom from foreign control, that is, the independence of the state from the control or interference of any other state in the conduct of its international relations. This is what is called external sovereignty, in which the state has the right to independently determine its foreign policy and has the right to declare war and make peace. At the same time, external sovereignty implies that every state, large or small, by virtue of its sovereign status is equal to any other state. It cannot command any other state and it cannot
be commanded by any other state [2].
Musikhin G.I. carried out a classification analysis of the concepts of sovereignty and came to the conclusion that «sovereignty» can be viewed as a legal category or as a political rhetorical construct. Therefore, in different approaches, sovereignty can be understood empirically or normatively, be limited or absolute, uniform or divisible, etc. [3, p. 77].
Today, the legal category of sovereignty is subject to rethinking as a result of globalization and integration processes. Some characteristics of the sovereignty of states become irrelevant, such as the supremacy of state power to independently resolve certain issues, due to the execution of the supranational mandatory norm prescribed in international treaties or statutory documents of international organizations.
Simonishvili L.R. stresses that «the globalization of the economy, major breakthrough in the area of information exchanges, creation of a single economic and political space seriously affect the foundations of the national state and lead to the erosion of its sovereignty» [4, p. 6]. Thus, globalization processes occurring in the modern world become a factor destroying the sovereign national statehood and substantially transforming the classical forms of government. The growing inability of modern states to regulate global processes and, as a result, the weakening of their sovereignty are rather objective and impartial in nature [5].
3. Category of supranationality in international organizations of integration type
The multidimensionality of the «sovereignty» concept, as well as the processes of globalization and regional integration in the world, do not allow for an unequivocal answer to the problem of defining and limiting sovereignty of the states participating in various international integration associations.
The most difficult problem of the integration process is the conflict between the desire of
states to unite and the unwillingness to limit their individuality, including the long-standing legal traditions [6, p. 167]. Therefore, a dilemma arises: how to reconcile the integration processes and closer interaction of states within international organizations, on the one hand, and the preservation of the sovereignty of members states of international integration associations, on the other hand.
The theory of international and constitutional law has not yet formed a uniform position on the issue of limiting state sovereignty.
Renown scholars (A.Y. Kapustin, T.N. Neshataeva, A.N. Talalayev, V.M. Shumilov, M.L. Entin, D. Bouet, J. Pollak, P. Peskator and others) believe that international integration associations are either international organizations or international organizations with supranational features, emphasizing that the states creating an organization of a new type (supranational) transfer to the international body their sovereign functions affecting the very core of powers to manage the territory, population and relations with other actors of international life [7, p. 244].
The concept of «supranationality» appeared in foreign literature after the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The Treaty on the Establishment of the ECSC was signed in Paris in 1951. The term «supranational» was legally enshrined in the Paris Agreement. Analyzing the provisions of the Treaty on the Establishment of the ECSC, O.N. Shpakovich formulates the main features of supranationality:
1) the transfer of part of the sovereign powers belonging to states from the state level to the supranational level;
2) the right of international bodies to take a majority vote without the consent and against the consent of the member states on the decision in the form of certain acts. These decisions are binding on member states, have a direct effect on their territory and are also binding on individuals and legal entities of member states;
3) the supremacy of supranational authority over the state on a certain range of issues [8, p. 135].
However, according to I.I. Lukashuk, by entering into an international agreement of joining an integration association, the state does not limit but manifest its sovereignty, creating new duties and acquiring additional opportunities for exercising sovereign rights [9, p. 140].
One can consider the examples of the EAEU and the EU in view of the problem of limiting sovereignty and supranationality when states enter into any type of integration associations.
In this context, the legal nature of the Eurasian Economic Union presents an interesting discussion, especially the degree of restriction of the national sovereignty of the member states of this association.
Professor K.A. Bekyashev, notes that «being
an internstate organization, the EAEU cannot have the qualities of supranationality, since it cannot rise above its founders or command them. Therefore, in art. 38 of the Treaty it is rightly indicated that the Union does not have supranational competence in the field of service trade (this is international legal relations) [10].
A similar position is taken by L.P. Anufrieva, stressing that «the EAEU is a subject of international law, i.e. an international legal entity that does not have a so-called «supranational» or «suprastate» nature or the "law of Eurasian integration", being mediated by international treaties and/or legal acts of bodies of an international organization, and is naturally a part of international law [11].
Such points of view dominate among international scholars and are also fundamental for the EAEU member states themselves, who are largely interested in maintaining sovereignty in the process of creating the EAEU. The national state is of superior value for all members of this integration association, therefore, fundamental national interests - independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity - will continue to maintain their primary importance now and in the foreseeable future. At the core of the common understanding of the Eurasian integration process Kazakhstan has consistently emphasized the key priority of economic interests [12].
The main objectives of foreign policy are defined in accordance with the national interests of Kazakhstan in the Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 20142020, approved by the Decree of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated January 21, 2014 No. 741. One of the primary objectives is the all-round provision of national security, defense, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country, as well as further integration into the system of regional and international trade and economic relations.
This position is also enshrined in the Treaty on the EAEU: the five countries that signed it expressed their conviction that further development of integration meets their national interests. In addition, in order to protect the priority of national interests, the Treaty on the EAEU includes a clause on the non-use of actions that could damage the national economy and national security of the member states in the integration process.
The creation of the Eurasian Economic Union in 2015 had no effect on the national Constitutions of its member states. The possibility of transferring part of its powers to such associations is enshrined only in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to Art. 79 of which "the Russian Federation may participate in interstate associations and transfer to them part of its powers in accordance with international
treaties, if it does not entail restriction of human and citizen rights and freedoms and does not contradict the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation"1.
The question of the transfer of powers to interstate associations in the Constitutions of other states is addressed in legal acts of constitutional control agencies. For example, Doctor of Law Sokolova N.A. emphasizes that "in accordance with the norms of international law, the Republic of Belarus can enter into interstate formations and leave them on a voluntary basis (Article 8 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus).... However, the possibility of transferring any sovereign powers (rights) of the Republic to interstate entities is not directly provided for by any constitutional act [13].
According to the Regulatory Resolution of the Constitutional Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On the official interpretation of the norms of Article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan in relation to the order of execution of decisions of international organizations and their bodies" No. 6 ofNovember 5, 2009, the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan does not contain a special clause providing for the transfer of certain powers of the state bodies to international organizations and their bodies. At the same time, the constitutional and internationally recognized status of the Republic of Kazakhstan - as of a sovereign state, which is based on its independence and self-governance in shaping and implementing domestic and foreign policy, allows the Republic to make such decisions in compliance with the provisions and norms of the Basic Law.
However, the Constitutional Council does not recognize as binding for Kazakhstan the decisions of international organizations and their bodies that violate the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 2 and paragraph 2 of Article 91 of the Constitution on the sovereignty of the Republic that extends over its entire territory, and on the inadmissibility of changing the unitarity and territorial integrity of the state, and the form of government of the Republic established by the Constitution.
In other words, unlike the Constitutions of the EU member states restricting sovereignty in favor of supranationality, the basic laws of the EAEU countries largely (with the exception of the Russian Federation) do not concede the right to restrict their sovereignty on the part of the EAEU.
In his article Schur-Trukhanovich L.V. expresses an opinion on the ineffectiveness of constitutional judicial interpretation in filling the gap in regulating the procedure for transferring
powers to interstate entities as the Eurasian Economic Union develops. In this regard, he believes that inclusion in the constitutional acts of the Eurasian Economic Union member states of norms objectifying the Eurasian Economic Union as a subject of constitutional legal relations, and its law - as part of the law of national legal systems, would comprehensively resolve the issue of legitimizing a new international organization [14, p. 72].
Guided by the objectives and the legal nature of the EAEU, one should disagree with the considerations of Schur-Trukhanovich L.V. In the articles of association, the EAEU is defined as an "international organization for regional economic integration". This narrowly structured definition indicates that the future evolution of the EAEU will be limited to the objectives of economic integration (customs union and the internal market) and will not affect such areas of politics, security and internal and external relations as it happened in the EU [15].
Regarding the issues of preserving the sovereignty of states in the conditions of the functioning of the EAEU, at times questioning the sovereignty of its members, it is important to note the experience of the European Union, which could not solve the contradiction between national sovereignty and supranational bodies created by the EU members themselves, whose powers are constantly expanding.
Researchers at the University of Travnik (Bosnia and Herzegovina) Ajla Skrbic, Meliha Frndic Imamovic argue that "today there is only one international organization of a supranational character - the European Union. The main essence of the definition of "supra-national" lies in its legal nature, referring to the issues of superiority and direct application of the norms of the European Union on the territory of the member states" [16, p. 318].
Chirkin V.E. believes that regional organizations can create their own law of a different nature. It follows that there is regional international law and supranational law. The supranational law of the EU is a special kind of regional supranational law, which is created on the basis of international acts for internal state use by member states of this organization" [17, p. 22].
The states belonging to the European Union are losing their sovereignty more and more without getting any real mechanisms of influence on all-Union decisions and policies ... these states are attracted to the Union not by military force but by economic advantage, in exchange for which they irrevocably give up their sovereignty [18, p. 103].
1 Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted at National Voting on December 12, 1993 // http://www. constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm
4. Legal nature of the EAEU through the prism of the "EU acquis"
At present, the political and legal concept of the European Union is the principle of acquis communautaire, formalized in the Maastricht Treaty, implying that member states must adopt the norms of constituent acts, internal law, and international treaties of the EU with third countries. The acquis is in several cases linked to, built upon, or supplements international conventions applied in all Member states. The acquis regulates in most cases, e.g. company law or financial services, only part of the legal area. It supposes that there is a legal framework for the area as a whole ensuring the good functioning and good governance of the area [19, p. 13].
According to A.S. Ispolinov, the concept of the acquis communautaire lies at the heart of 1) the negotiations and the expansion process of the "European Communities; 2) ... significant institutional changes in the European Union, 3) ... use of advanced cooperation mechanisms by a group of member states of the Union when measures are taken by these states that the rest of the member states disagree with or are not ready for; 4) foreign policy and foreign economic expansion of the EU in relation to third countries, when the mandatory and full implementation of any Union acquis by the EU counterparty countries is declared one of the key conditions for EU cooperation with these countries" [20, p. 87-88].
Despite the insufficient attention of scholars from the post-Soviet countries to the considered political and legal concept, Petrov R. and Kalinichenko P. tried to identify the similarities and differences in the legal nature of the EU and the EAEU through the lens of the acquis communautaire principle. However, it must be emphasized that the notion of 'acquis' has left the domain of the EU and has been imported by legal systems of other international organizations [15]
However, unlike the EU, the law of the EAEU has a different nature in determining the ratio of intra-national and supranational law.
The impossibility of applying the principle of acquis in full in the law of the EAEU can be traced as follows.
At the time of the creation of the EAEU, member states had different degrees of adherence to international conventions governing the transition of goods and vehicles across the customs border. One of the clearest examples is the Kyoto Convention. Among the EAEU member states, one state (Kyrgyz Republic) did not join the Convention at all, four states joined the Main Text of the Kyoto Convention and the General Annex, however, the volume of obligations arising from joining the special annexes of the Kyoto Convention is different.
Meanwhile, all five EAEU member states
form a single economic space, and such uneven accession generally plays a negative role. The Eurasian Economic Commission attempted to influence the states in order to accede to all structural internal documents of the Convention, on which the national legal uniform norms of the states who are participants to the Convention should be based, which provoked protest from the EAEU member states, who considered this attempt to encroach on their sovereignty and national interests.
Consequently, constitutional courts of the EAEU Member States may block the recognition of supremacy, direct applicability and direct effect of the 'Union Law' within legal orders of the EAEU Member States if they challenge their national sovereignty.
The main problem with the implementation of export control in the EAEU is the lack of a single contractual legal framework establishing a unified procedure for the application of export control measures in the member states of the Union [21]. Thus, a paradoxical situation arises: export controls are applied even though there are no customs operations with goods transported within the EAEU. The lack of a single order of export control on the territory of the EAEU impedes the freedom of movement of goods within the Union, which creates additional barriers for traders. When drafting the EAEU Treaty, initially there was a section on export control measures, however, as a result of Kazakhstan's insistence, this section was excluded as threatening the national security of the member states.
Therefore, the principle of acquis communautaire is not fully applied in the framework of the EAEU. Meanwhile, the application of this principle in the EU, from the point of view of Raimondo Cagiano de Azevedo, Angela Paparusso and Mauro Vaccaro, resulted in limiting of sovereignty without being directly transformed into an equivalent creation of democratic sovereignty at a supranational European level [22, p. 189], since it must comply with the principle of subsidiarity, which is one of the fundamental principles of the European integration process. This is one of the reasons for the worsening political and economic crisis in Europe in recent years. An example is the process of leaving the UK from the European Union (Brexit).
5. Concluding remarks
The relationship between sovereignty and supranationality in the context of integration processes within the framework of the EAEU and the EU demonstrates different approaches to determining the balance between the legal concepts under consideration. Thus, in the European legal community, there is a tendency for the EU to voluntarily transfer the rights of member
states to the EU, which are inherent in them due to their state sovereignty. At the same time, the degree of supranationality in the activities of the European Union is constantly increasing with the development of EU institutions, which leads to dissatisfaction of individual European states.
However, the development of integration processes in the Eurasian space is limited to the goals clearly articulated in the Treaty on the EAEU. Supranationality in the status of the EAEU and its EEC agency goes against the norms
of positive law that form the legal foundation of Eurasian integration and the existing form of its institutionalization.
In order to prevent negative factors restricting sovereignty within the EAEU, states need to ensure a compromise, maintaining a reasonable balance in a combination of means of national and international legal regulation preventing the mixing of the scope of their application, and develop internal mechanisms to protect the rights and interests of EAEU member states.
ЛИТЕРАТУРА
1. Шиканова Е.Г. Территориальная целостность и суверенитет как основные объекты обеспечения национальной безопасности Российской Федерации в современный период // Интернет-ресурс: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/v/territorialnaya-tselostnost-i-suverenitet-kak-osnovnye-obekty-obespecheniya-natsionalnoy-bezopasnosti-rossiyskoy-federatsii-v (Дата обращения: 22.04.2019).
2. Jibin M.G. Doctrine of Sovereignty // Интернет-ресурс: https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/ doctrine-of-sovereignty/ (Дата обращения: 22.04.2019).
3. Мусихин Г.И. Классификация теорий суверенитета как попытка преодоления «концептуального эгоизма» // Общественные науки и современность. - 2010. - №1. - С. 64-78.
4. Симонишвили Л.Р. Проблемы понимания «суверенитета государства» в современных условиях // Международное публичное и частное право. - 2014. - № 1. - С. 6-8.
5. Грачев Н.И. Государственное устройство и суверенитет в современном мире: вопросы теории и практики. Автореферат диссертации на соискание ученой степени д.ю.н., 12.00.01 //Интернет-ресурс: http://www.dissercat.com/content/gosudarstvennoe-ustroistvo-i-suverenitet-v-sovremennom-mire-voprosy-teorii-i-praktiki (Дата обращения: 25.04.2019).
6. Андриянов Д.В. Евразийский экономический союз: борьба за «третье пространство» и интеграция через право // Актуальные проблемы российского права. - 2018. - № 3 (88). - С. 163-172.
7. Нешатаева Т.Н. Интеграция и наднационализм // Вестник Пермского университета. Сер. «Юридические науки». - 2014. - Вып. 2 (24). - С. 243-248.
8. Шпакович О.Н. Наднациональность в праве международных организаций // Вестник международных организаций. - 2012. - № 2 (37). - С. 133-143.
9. Лукашук И.И. Глобализация, государство, право. XXI век. - М., 2000. - 262 с.
10. Бекяшев К.А. ЕАЭС: международная (межгосударственная) организация или международное (межгосударственное) интеграционное объединение? // Евразийский юридический журнал. -2014. - № 11 //Интернет-ресурс: www.eurasialaw.ru (Дата обращения: 25.04.2019).
11. Ануфриева Л.П. Право евразийской интеграции в действии //Евразийский юридический журнал. - 2016. - № 5 //Интернет-ресурс: www.eurasialaw.ru (Дата обращения: 25.04.2019).
12. Тельнов В. Национальные интересы стран ЕАЭС: на пути к балансу // Интернет-ресурс: https://e-history.kz/ru/contents/view/2629 (Дата обращения: 30.04.2019).
13. Соколова Н.А. Евразийский экономический Союз: правовая природа и природа права // Интернет-ресурс: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/evraziyskiy-ekonomicheskiy-soyuz-pravovaya-priroda-i-priroda-prava (Дата обращения: 30.04.2019).
14. Щур-Труханович Л.В. К вопросу о конституционной обеспеченности передачи государствами-членами полномочий Евразийскому экономическому союзу и Европейскому союзу // Журнал зарубежного законодательства и сравнительного правоведения. - 2016. - № 4. - С. 69- 76.
15. Petrov R., Kalinichenko P. On Similarities and Differences of the European Union and Eurasian Economic Union. Legal Orders: Is There the «Eurasian Economic Union Acquis»? // Интернет-ресурс: www.researchgate.net (Дата обращения: 30.04.2019).
16. Skrbic A., Imamovic M.F. The Sovereignty of the Member States of International Organizations with special Focus on European Union // Jean Monnet International Scientific Conference «Proceduralaspects Of Eu Law». - 2017. - Issue 1. - С. 309-320.
17. Чиркин В.Е. Наднациональное право: возникновение, содержание, действие // Актуальные проблемы российского права. - 2016. - № 1. - С. 18-24.
18. Шишков В.В. Европейский Союз: от идеи наднационального суверенитета - к новой западноевропейской «империи»: проблемы и перспективы европейской интеграции //Научный ежегодник Института философии и права Уральского отделения Российской академии наук. - 2014. - Том 14. - Вып. 1. - С. 93-106.
19. Jacobsen C.B. Implementing the acquis communautaire - thefight over80.000pages. - Riga, 2002. -40p.
Халыцаралыц цуцыц жэне салыстырмалы цуцыцтану
20. Hcnonrnoe A.C. Концепцин acquis communautaire e npaee Eeponeucmeo Cow3a //BecmHUKMo-CKoecKûzo yHueepcumema. Cepm 11. npaeo. - 2010. - № 5. - C. 68-88.
21. naenoea E.A. npoôneMu ocy^ecmeneHua экспoртнoгo KOHmpona, e Eepa3uucKOM экoнoминескoм cow3e u nymu uxpeweHm // Экoнoминеские Hayrn. 2018. - № 12 //HHmepmm-peeypc: https://elibrary.ru/ item.asp?id=32866024 (ffama oôpa^eHua: 06.05.2019).
22. Cagiano de Azevedo R., Paparusso A., Vaccaro M. Sovereignty and acquis communautaire: the new borders of the European Union // L 'Europe en Formation. - 2013. - № 2. - C. 189-195.
REFERENCES
1. Shikanova E.G. Territorial'naja celostnost' i suverenitet kak osnovnye obekty obespechenija nacional'noj bezopasnosti Rossijskoj Federacii v sovremennyj period // Internet resource: https:// cyberleninka.ru/article/v/territorialnaya-tselostnost-i-suverenitet-kak-osnovnye-obekty-obespecheniya-natsionalnoy-bezopasnosti-rossiyskoy-federatsii-v.
2. Jibin M.G. Doctrine of Sovereignty // Internet resource: https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/ doctrine-of-sovereignty/.
3. Musihin G.I. Klassifikacija teorijsuvereniteta kakpopytkapreodolenija «konceptual'nogojegoizma» // Obshhestvennye nauki i sovremennost'. - 2010. - №1. - S. 64-78.
4. Simonishvili L.R. Problemy ponimanija «suvereniteta gosudarstva» v sovremennyh uslovijah // Mezhdunarodnoe publichnoe i chastnoe pravo. - 2014. - № 1. - S. 6-8.
5. Grachev N.I. Gosudarstvennoe ustrojstvo i suverenitet v sovremennom mire: voprosy teorii i praktiki. Avtoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie uchenoj stepeni d.ju.n., 12.00.01 //Internet resource: http://www. dissercat. com/content/gosudarstvennoe-ustroistvo-i-suverenitet-v-sovremennom-mire-voprosy-teorii-i-praktiki.
6. Andrijanov D.V. Evrazijskij jekonomicheskij sojuz: bor'ba za «tret'e prostranstvo» i integracija cherezpravo //Aktual'nyeproblemy rossijskogoprava. - 2018. - № 3 (88). - S. 163-172.
7. Neshataeva T.N. Integracija i nadnacionalizm // Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Ser. «Juridicheskie nauki». - 2014. - Vyp. 2 (24). - S. 243-248.
8. Shpakovich O.N. Nadnacional'nost ' v prave mezhdunarodnyh organizacij // Vestnik mezhdunarodnyh organizacij. - 2012. - № 2 (37). - S. 133-143.
9. LukashukI.I. Globalizacija, gosudarstvo, pravo. XXI vek. - M., 2000. - 262 s.
10. Bekjashev K.A. EAES: mezhdunarodnaja (mezhgosudarstvennaja) organizacija ili mezhdunarodnoe (mezhgosudarstvennoe) integracionnoe obedinenie? // Evrazijskij juridicheskij zhurnal. - 2014. - № 11 // Internet resource: www.eurasialaw.ru.
11. Anufrieva L.P. Pravo evrazijskoj integracii v dejstvii // Evrazijskij juridicheskij zhurnal. - 2016. -№ 5 //Internet resource: www.eurasialaw.ru.
12. Tel'nov V. Nacional'nye interesy stran EAES: na puti k balansu // Internet resource: https://e-history. kz/ru/contents/view/2629.
13. Sokolova N.A. Evrazijskij jekonomicheskij Sojuz: pravovaja priroda i priroda prava //Internet resource: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/evraziyskiy-ekonomicheskiy-soyuz-pravovaya-priroda-i-priroda-prava.
14. Shhur-Truhanovich L.V. K voprosu o konstitucionnoj obespechennosti peredachi gosudarstvami-chlenami polnomochij Evrazijskomu jekonomicheskomu sojuzu i Evropejskomu sojuzu // Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel 'stva i sravnitel'nogopravovedenija. - 2016. - № 4. - S. 69-76.
15. Petrov R., Kalinichenko P. On Similarities and Differences of the European Union and Eurasian Economic Union. Legal Orders: Is There the «Eurasian Economic Union Acquis»? // Internet resource: www.researchgate.net.
16. Skrbic A., Imamovic M.F. The Sovereignty of the Member States of International Organizations with special Focus on European Union // Jean Monnet International Scientific Conference «Proceduralaspects Of Eu Law». - 2017. - Issue 1. - P. 309-320.
17. Chirkin V.E. Nadnacional'noe pravo: vozniknovenie, soderzhanie, dejstvie //Aktual'nye problemy rossijskogo prava. - 2016. - № 1. - S. 18-24.
18. Shishkov V.V. Evropejskij Sojuz: ot idei nadnacional'nogo suvereniteta - k novoj zapadnoevropejskoj «imperii»: problemy i perspektivy evropejskoj integracii // Nauchnyj ezhegodnik Instituta filosofii i prava Ural'skogo otdelenija Rossijskoj akademii nauk. - 2014. - Tom 14. - Vyp. 1. - S. 93-106.
19. JacobsenC.B.Implementing theacquis communautaire-thefightover80.000pages. -Riga, 2002.-40p.
20. Ispolinov A.S. Koncepcija acquis communautaire vprave Evropejskogo Sojuza // VestnikMoskovskogo universiteta. Serija 11. Pravo. - 2010. - № 5. - S. 68-88.
21. Pavlova E.A. Problemy osushhestvlenija jeksportnogo kontrolja v Evrazijskom jekonomicheskom sojuze iputi ih reshenija //Ekonomicheskie nauki. 2018. - № 12 //Internet resource: https://elibrary.ru/item. asp?id=32866024.
22. Cagiano de Azevedo R., Paparusso A., Vaccaro M. Sovereignty and acquis communautaire: the new borders of the European Union // L 'Europe en Formation. - 2013. - № 2. - P. 189-195.s.
