@ARTICLE{26583261_210490230_2017, 
	author = {Aleksey Ispolinov}, 
	keywords = {},
	title = {What Means Loud Term “Integration Unions” ?},
	journal = {},
	year = {2017},
	number = {3},
	pages = {105-120},
	url = {https://law-journal.hse.ru/en/2017--3/210490230.html},
	publisher = {},
	abstract = {In the present article, author critically assesses the notion of "integration justice", pointing out itsmethodological uncertainty existing in the scholar literature and resulting from the lack of clarity andcommon understanding of the meaning of definition of "Integration". It is suggested to consider asintergovernmental integration entities as those whose institutions possess powers transferred fromthe member states to adopt legally binding rules of general application replacing domestic legislationin the mutually agreed fields. In this case, the courts of such intergovernmental integration entitiesform a specific subcategory of international courts because only these courts have a competenceto review such normative acts of general application. That powers make such courts as a vital partof law-making process of integration entities like the functions performed by national constitutionalcourts. Existence of such powers to review normative acts of general application may transformthese courts into politically powerful player influencing the process of integration. Creating suchcourts, the member states by default use the Euroasian Union Court of Justice as a model and veryoften simply copying its structure and competences. However, the practice of the courts of regionalintegration shows that in the majority of cases such courts failed to play any significant roles on theintegration and it has a sense to take into account that just copying of the Euroasian Union Courtof Justice at the level of states does not automatically lead to the success of any specific court.The conclusion of the author is that future of any specific courts largely depends not solely on thestructure and competences of the court, but on the unpredictable and random combination of thepolitical, economic and legal factors.},
	annote = {In the present article, author critically assesses the notion of "integration justice", pointing out itsmethodological uncertainty existing in the scholar literature and resulting from the lack of clarity andcommon understanding of the meaning of definition of "Integration". It is suggested to consider asintergovernmental integration entities as those whose institutions possess powers transferred fromthe member states to adopt legally binding rules of general application replacing domestic legislationin the mutually agreed fields. In this case, the courts of such intergovernmental integration entitiesform a specific subcategory of international courts because only these courts have a competenceto review such normative acts of general application. That powers make such courts as a vital partof law-making process of integration entities like the functions performed by national constitutionalcourts. Existence of such powers to review normative acts of general application may transformthese courts into politically powerful player influencing the process of integration. Creating suchcourts, the member states by default use the Euroasian Union Court of Justice as a model and veryoften simply copying its structure and competences. However, the practice of the courts of regionalintegration shows that in the majority of cases such courts failed to play any significant roles on theintegration and it has a sense to take into account that just copying of the Euroasian Union Courtof Justice at the level of states does not automatically lead to the success of any specific court.The conclusion of the author is that future of any specific courts largely depends not solely on thestructure and competences of the court, but on the unpredictable and random combination of thepolitical, economic and legal factors.}
}