Analysis of the regional integration theory on the example of the EAEU

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

The article is dedicated to the analysis of liberal intergovernmentalism by Andrew Moravcsik. It is applied to study integration communities all around the world and is relevant for examining the EAEU. A.Moravcsik distinguishes three stages of the integration process: formation of national preferences (priorities), intergovernmental bargaining and realisation of its commitments at the institutional level. At the third stage institutions are endowed with supranational authority, which becomes possible through pooling or delegation of sovereignties. Applying this model, the author describes the reasons for making the Eurasian choice. They include the common need to develop transnational cooperation, enlarge the market for local producers and protect it from third parties, present the Union as an independent actor of international relations. The author gives examples of cases of the negotiation process around signing the Treaty on the EAEU and demonstrates issue-linkages based on asymmetrical interdependence within the Union. The study analyses the institutional implementation of interstate agreements and activities of the Eurasian Economic Commission, which is the supranational body of the EAEU. The Commission regulates different aspects of integration processes in the common markets for goods, services, capital and labor. The article proves that liberal intergovernmentalism is applicable to the case of Eurasian integration.

About the authors

Rigina Valer'evna Syssoyeva

Astana International University

Email: dra.syssoyeva@outlook.com
Astana, Kazakhstan

References

  1. Байков A.A, Дымова Л.А. (2017) От утопии к теории. Вклад Э. Моравчика в развитие либерально-идеалистического подхода к изучению международных отношений. Вестник Московского университета. Серия 25. Международные отношения и мировая политика. 2017. №1. C. 3-23.
  2. Глазьев С.Ю. (2021) За горизонтом конца истории. Проспект, Москва. 416 с.
  3. Зуев В.Н., Островская Е.Я., Скрябина В.Ю., Калачигин Г.М. (2021) Особенности стратегии ЕАЭС по формированию сети ЗСТ. Экономический журнал Высшей Школы Экономики. Т. 25. № 1. С. 42-64. doi: 10.17323/1813-8691-2021-25-1-42-64
  4. Мясникович М. (2021) Практические вопросы евразийской экономической интеграции. Белорусская наука,Минск, Беларусь. 294 с.
  5. Тесленко И.Б., Чекушов А.А. (2019) Продовольственная безопасность ЕАЭС: проблемы и пути согласования интересов стран-участниц. Вестник Академии. №4. С. 28-34.
  6. Чеботарев Ю.А. (2018) Либеральный межправительственный подход в контексте современных региональных исследований на примере Латинской Америки. Мироваяполитика. № 2. С. 26-34. doi: 10.25136/2409-8671.2018.2.26333
  7. GolovninM., LibmanA., UshkalovaD., YakushevaA. (2013) IstheUSSRdead? Experience from the financial and economic crisis of 2008-2009.Communist and Post-Communist Studies.No.46(1). P. 109-122.
  8. Keohane R.O. (1988) International Institutions: two approaches.International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 32. No. 4. P. 379-396.
  9. Moravcsik A. (1991) Negotiating the Single European Act: national interests and conventional statecraft in the European Community.International organization. Vol. 45. Issue 1. P. 19-56.
  10. Moravcsik A. (1993а)Idealism and interest in the European Community: The case of the French Referendum. French Politics and Society. Vol. 11. No. 1. P. 45-56.
  11. Moravcsik A. (1993b)Preferences and power in the European Community: a liberal intergovernmentalist approach. Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 31: 30th Anniversary Edition, No. 4. P. 473-521.
  12. Moravcsik A. (1997)Liberalism and localism in the world economy. A Vision of a New Liberalism? Critical Essays. Ed. byK.Yamamura. Stanford University Press, Stanford, USA. P. 82-113.
  13. Moravcsik A. (1998) The Choice for Europe:Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. UCL Press Limited, UK. 528 p.
  14. Moravcsik A., Nicolaïdis K. (1999) Explaining the treaty of Amsterdam: interests, influences, institutions. Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 37. No. 1. P. 59-85.
  15. Moravcsik A. (2005a) Introduction. Europe without illusions. Europe without illusions. Ed. by A.Moravcsik. University Press of America, Lanham, USA. P. 3-44.
  16. Moravcsik A. (2005b) A too perfect Union? Why Europe said "No". Current History. Vol. 104. No. 685. P. 355-359.
  17. Moravcsik A., Shimmelfennig F. (2009) Liberal intergovernmentalism. European integration theory. Ed. By T.Diez, A.Wiener. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. P. 67-87.
  18. Solingen E. (2007) PaxAsiatica versus Bella Levantina: the foundations of war and peace in East Asia and the Middle East. American Political Science Review. Vol. 101.No. 4. P. 757-780. doi: 10.1017/S0003055407070487

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2023 Russian Academy of Sciences