This analysis compares national interests under the EU and EAEU frameworks, highlighting mutual trust and integration challenges.
Ensuring national interests acquires special characteristics within the framework of interaction between states carried out at the level of an integration association, since it presupposes a high degree of harmonization of national legislation and the adoption of unified international documents, as well as the transfer of sovereign powers to supranational governing bodies. Precise formulation of national interests in this process is one of the most important guarantees of maintaining the regime of mutual trust between member states, and implementing coordinated actions in the common interests. In this regard, approaches rooted in the practice of the European Union (EU), which is a supranational association of the deepest integration, deserve to be compared with the emerging practices of interaction within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). This issue is acquiring particular significance in the context of the emerging crisis of mutual trust at the EU level, the strengthening of protectionism trends not only in the economic sphere, but also in the social, political and cultural areas. The article considers approaches to the correlation of national and supranational (union) interests of an integration association, including in the context of the doctrines of mutual recognition and mutual trust, margin of discretion, subsidiarity and national identity, which are reflected in judicial practice at the EU and EAEU levels based on the principles and norms arising from the agreements on the formation and functioning of these union associations. Based on the EU experience, approaches developed by law-making and law enforcement practice are proposed to substantiate the idea of a dialectical relationship between national and common interests in the development of various levels of integration. There are also identified interest groups to be taken into account within the EAEU, the analysis of which, as it seems, should be part of the law-making and law enforcement processes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
А. А. Сидоренко (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: