Olga Vladimirovna Kadysheva

After 6 years from the start of the activity of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union the practical necessity of making some changes and amendments to the Statute and Regulation of the Court seems to be obvious. It’s suggested that all changes and amendments could be divided into two big groups depending on how such amendments will be viewed by the member-states of the Eurasian Economic Union. A first group comprises measures aiming to expand subject matter and personal jurisdiction of the Court whose powers had been significantly and intentionally weakened by the members-states of the EAU from its very establishment. A probability of such amendments looks quite low as it depends on the readiness of the members states to re-evaluate the risks and concerns perceived by them which led to the limited jurisdiction of the Court. A second group consists of procedural and organization changes aiming to remedy omissions and weak places in the day-to day activity of the Court detected during first years such as lack of any time limits or improvement of appellate review. Such measures are not connected with expansion of the jurisdiction of the Court, so their probability seems more optimistic.

The issue of international responsibility continues to be one of mist debatable topics among academia and in the decisions of international courts and tribunals. One of the major features of the WTO is a highly specific and to certain extent unique system of responsibility for violation of WTO rules elaborated by the founding member states. As a result of significant deviations from the classical approach as provided by the International Law Commission in its both Drafts Articles of international responsibility, WTO rules of state responsibility are widely treated by academia as lex specialis with its own advantages and disadvantages. Despite of existence of some rules of state responsibility in the Treaty of the Eurasian Economic Union such rules are mostly of sporadic, case-specific and badly coordinated character based on misguided borrowing of WTO approach which is ill-suited for the purpose of creation of common internal market. The necessity for the EAEU to create its own complex of norms on liability should not lead to a blind replication of either ILC or WTO approaches, as this could be at odds with the objectives of Eurasian integration. It’s suggested as one of possible alternatives to use the approach of the Court of Justice of the EU rejecting almost from the very beginning a classical international law canon of horizontal control performed by the states themselves backed by the use of the horizontal measures of enforcement towards the state violating its obligations.