Unfulfilled Divergence: Paradoxes of the UK’s Legal Development after Brexit

Capa

Citar

Texto integral

Acesso aberto Acesso aberto
Acesso é fechado Acesso está concedido
Acesso é fechado Acesso é pago ou somente para assinantes

Resumo

The paper examines the paradoxes of the UK’s legal development following its withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit), which, contrary to expectations of full legal autonomy, has revealed the resilience of integration ties and the limited extent of actual divergence. The authors explore the contradiction between the proclaimed restoration of sovereignty and the continued substantial influence of EU law on the British legal system. Special attention is paid to the mechanisms of incorporating "retained" and "assimilated" EU law into domestic legislation, as well as the role of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) in maintaining normative convergence. Empirical evidence demonstrates that, despite political rhetoric about divergence, much of the acquis communautaire remains unchanged, with UK law in certain areas continuing to align with European standards. The paper analyzes institutional and economic factors constraining radical legal separation, including pressure from the business community and the need to maintain compatibility with the EU single market. The analysis concludes that Brexit has not led to a complete severance of legal ties but has instead transformed them into a new form of interaction, where autonomy coexists with the necessity of adapting to EU regulatory realities. The study contributes to the understanding of disintegration processes in law, highlighting the enduring nature of integration legacies and the methodological significance of the UK’s experience for other regional organizations, including the Eurasian Economic Union.

Sobre autores

M. Entin

MGIMO University; UrFU; Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University; AEVIS

Email: entinmark@gmail.com
Doctor of Sciences (Law), Head of the Integration Law and Human Rights Department MGIMO University, Professor at MGIMO, UrFU, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Chairman of the Board of AEVIS Moscow, Russia; Moscow, Russia; Moscow, Russia; Moscow, Russia

D. Galushko

Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation (Financial University)

Email: galushkodv@gmail.com
Doctor of Sciences (Law), Associate Professor, Professor at the Department of Legal Regulation of Economic Activities Moscow, Russia

Bibliografia

  1. Ананьева Е.В. (2019) Брекзит как процесс. Научно-аналитический вестник Института Европы РАН. № 2(8). С. 26–33. doi: 10.15211/vestnikieran220192632.
  2. Бабынина Л.О. (2021) Брекзит завершен, но сага будет продолжаться. Европейский союз: факты и комментарии. № 103. С. 23–30. doi: 10.15211/eufacts120212330.
  3. Бажан А.И. и др. (2017) Экономические аспекты брекзита. Ин-т Европы РАН. Доклады Института Европы, ФГБ Н Ин-т Европы Российской акад. наук; № 345, Москва.
  4. Богдановская И.Ю. (2021) Конституционно-правовые последствия брекзита: суверенитет парламента или народа? Право. Журнал Высшей школы экономики. № 3. С. 231–253. doi: 10.17323/2072-8166.2021.3.231.253.
  5. Британия после брекзита: Монография [отв. ред. К.А. Годованюк] (2021). Федеральное государственное бюджетное учреждение науки Институт Европы Российской академии наук, Москва. doi: 10.15211/reports82021_386. EDN ZNCCCD.
  6. Галушко Д.В. (2023) Теория и практика правового регулирования интеграционных процессов в свете вызовов брекзита: диссертация на соискание ученой степени доктора юридических наук. МГИМО, Москва. EDN UOHISB.
  7. Громыко А.А. (2016) ЕС и брекзит: «Цель и само существование нашего союза под вопросом». Год планеты: Экономика, политика, безопасность. Ежегодник. Том Выпуск 2016 года. Идея-Пресс, Москва. С. 168–177.
  8. Коданева С.И. (2022) Правовые последствия брекзита для регионов Британии и теоретические основы правовых механизмов предотвращения сецессии. Актуальные проблемы государства и права. Т. 6. № 2(22). С. 140–150. doi: 10.20310/2587-9340-2022-6-2-140-150.
  9. Коданева, С.И. (2023) Последствия брекзита для конституционной системы Британии. Государство и право. № 1. С. 114–122. doi: 10.31857/S102694520024108-9.
  10. Коданева, С.И. (2023) Брекзит: причины, предпосылки и правовые последствия. Институт научной информации по общественным наукам РАН, Москва. doi: 10.31249/brexit/2023.00.00.
  11. Лобов М.Б. (2024) Правовые аспекты дезинтеграции: уроки выхода государств из европейских региональных организаций. Московский журнал международного права. № 4. С. 15–34. doi: 10.24833/0869-0049-2024-4-15-34.
  12. Фадеева И.А. (2025) Последствия брекзита на формирование интеграционных процессов ЕС. Экономика и предпринимательство. № 1(174). С. 545–549. doi: 10.34925/EIP.2024.174.1.097.
  13. Энтин М.Л., Галушко Д.В. (2021) О правовых последствиях брекзита (на примере защиты персональных данных). Современная Европа. № 5(105). С. 45–55. doi: 10.15211/soveurope520214555.
  14. Baldini G., Bressanelli E., Gianfreda S. (2020). Taking back control? Brexit, sovereignism and populism in Westminster (2015–17). European politics and society. No. 21(2). P. 219–234. doi: 10.1080/23745118.2019.1632584.
  15. Bradford A. (2020). The BUNKsels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World. Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190088583.001.0001
  16. Brownlow G. (2023). Northern Ireland and the Economic Consequences of Brexit: taking back control or perpetuating underperformance? Contemporary Social Science. No. 18(2). P. 168–184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2023.2190157
  17. Bulmer S., Quaglia L. (Eds.) (2019). The Politics and Economics of Brexit. Routledge, London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/978042423659
  18. Craig P. (2020). Brexit, A Drama: The Endgame – Part I. European Law Review. No. 2. P. 163–182.
  19. Dhingra S., Ottaviano G., Sampson T., Van Reenen J. (2016) The consequences of Brexit for UK trade and living standards. URL: https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit02.pdf (дата обращения: 10.03.2025).
  20. Dhingra S., Sampson T. (2022) Expecting Brexit. Annual Review of Economics. Vol. 14(1). P. 495–519. doi: 10.1146/annurev-economics-051420-104231
  21. Du J., Shepotylo O., Yuan, X. (2025) How did the Brexit uncertainty impact services exports of UK firms? Journal of International Business Policy. No. 8. P. 80–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-024-00202-6
  22. Eeckhout P. (2021) Brexit after the negotiation of the trade and cooperation agreement: who takes back control of what? Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo. No. 68. P. 11–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rdce.68.01
  23. Fabbrini F. (ed.) (2024) The Law & Politics of Brexit: Volume V: The Trade and Cooperation Agreement. Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198908289.001.0001
  24. Gamble A. (2018) Taking back control: the political implications of Brexit. Journal of European Public Policy. No. 25 (8). P. 1215–1232.
  25. Gibson L. (2024) The end of REUL? Progress in reforming retained EU law: Research briefing. House of Commons, London.
  26. Menon A., Wager A. (2020). Taking back control: sovereignty as strategy in Brexit politics. Territory, Politics, Governance. No. 8(2). P. 279–284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2019.1702895
  27. Peers S. The End – or a New Beginning? The EU/UK Withdrawal Agreement. Yearbook of European Law, Vol. 39. P. 122–198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yea010
  28. Thompson H. (2021) The European Geopolitical Space and the Long Path to Brexit (The Government and Opposition/Lennard Schapiro Lecture 2020). Government and Opposition. No. 56(3). P. 385–404. doi: 10.1017/gov.2021.1

Arquivos suplementares

Arquivos suplementares
Ação
1. JATS XML
Baixar

Declaração de direitos autorais © Russian Academy of Sciences, 2025