EAEU mixed agreements with third countries: issues of international responsibility

Abstract

At present, cooperation between the Eurasian Economic Union and third countries is generally carried out within the framework of signed free trade agreements or agreements on trade and economic cooperation. By their legal nature, the EAEU’s agreements with third countries are “mixed” agreements, where not only the Union itself, but also all EAEU Member States act on one side. This raises doctrinal and practical problems due to the fact that in the EAEU states, when taking certain measures at the national level, often act in fulfilment of their obligations under the law of their integration association without having any discretion. That is why the norms regulating liability for breach by the parties of their obligations arising from mixed agreements come to the fore. The current practice of states, international organizations and international courts in attributing conduct under mixed obligations of integration associations is far from being uniform and is not always in line with the provisions of the draft Articles of the International Law Commission On the responsibility of international organizations. The actions of the EAEU bodies are attributable to all EAEU Member States irrespective of their actual involvement in the challenged actions, which means the implementation of the doctrinal concept of joint obligations and joint responsibility of an international organization and its member states in the case of mixed agreements, whereby the injured party has the right to direct its claim to any joint co-defendant of its own choice.

References

1. Boklan, D.S. (2017). The Eurasian Economic Union and the World Trade Organization: correlation of legal regimes. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2, pp. 223–236 (in Russ.).
2. Ispolinov, A.S. (2017). Priority, Direct Applicability and Direct Effect of the Eurasian Economic Union Law. Journal of International Law and International Relations. 2017. no 1–2 (80–81). pp. 11–21 (in Russ.).
3. Kadysheva, O.V. (2022). Legal regulation of liability in the WTO and the EAEU. Lomonosov Law Journal, 2, pp. 25–48 (in Russ.).
4. Kolos, D.G. (2022). Competition of the jurisdiction of WTO disputes resolution bodies and regional trade agreements: lessons and perspectives for the EAEU. Lomonosov Law Journal, 3, pp. 21–41 (in Russ.)
5. Allen, B.E. (2011). The Use of Non-Pecuniary Remedies in WTO Dispute Settlement: Lessons for Arbitral Practitioners. In M. E., Schneider and J., Knoll (Eds.). Asa performance as a remedy (рр. 281–310).
6. Björklund, М. (2001). Responsibility in the EC of Mixed Agreements — Should Non-Member States Care? Nordic Journal of International Law, 3, рр. 373–402.
7. Kaspiarovich, Y. and Levrat, N. (2021). European Union Mixed Agreements in International Law under the Stress of Brexit//European Journal of Legal Studies, vol 13 no 2, pp. 121–150.
8. Kübek, G. Facing and embracing the consequences of mixity: Opinion 1/19, Istanbul Convention. Common Market Law Review, 2022, 59 (5), рр. 1465–1500.
9. Nedeski, N. Shared Obligations and the Responsibility of an International Organization and Its Member States The Case of EU Mixed Agreements (2021). International Organizations Law Review, vol 18 no 2 pp. 139–178.
10. Palchetti, P. (2017). The Allocation of International Responsibility in the Context of Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanisms Established by EU International Agreements. European Business Law Review, vol 28, p. 185–196.
11. Talmon, S. (2005). Responsibility of International Organizations: Does the European Community Require Special Treatment? In Ragazzi (Ed.) International Responsibility Today: Essays in Memory of Oscar Schachter (pp. 405–421). Leiden, Brill.