Eurasian integration: general values and legal institutions.
Authors:   Court of the Eurasian Economic Union, Minsk, Republic of Belarus, Neshataeva T. N. 
Published: January 2021

Introduction. The article is devoted to the analysis of the civilisational foundations and features of Eurasian integration, their reflection in the charter documents and the practice of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union. The author describes cultural integrity, including religion. Teoretical Basis. Methods. Specifically, in the modern world, the author distinguishes four civilisations: Christian, Sinic, Indian, and Muslim. Russia (the pivotal state of the Eurasian integration under discussion) is a poly-civilisational state, because its culture is based on historical multinationality, multiconfessionality, and multiculturalism. The basis of Russian law is Christian values (for example, the rule of law), but elements that derive from Islam (the “rule of power”), and Buddhism (the protection of natural connections) are also very important. The article uses empirical methods of comparison, description, interpretation, theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic. Results. The author shows that compared with European integration, Eurasianism is based on slightly different values, namely: 1) the rule of law as a formal order; 2) collectivism and collegiality – the special significance of the rights and interests of an indefinite circle of persons in comparison with individual ones; 3) the priority of natural relationships in the group. The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is an international organisation of a supranational type. In its statutory documents the religious and civilisational peculiarities characteristic of Eurasianism were also taken into account. The principles of international law (as the super-imperative norms of jus cogens) have priority in application, but differ in special content, namely: 1) respect for the sovereign rights of states; 2) equality of states, which are implemented not formally, but taking into account economic reality, and; 3) the principle of pacta sunt servanda. Specifically, the EAEU Commission and the corresponding Court are created to monitor compliance with the treaties. The court also has peculiar features: 1) In the documents the principle of independence of judges is especially emphasised (the chairman is the first among equals); 2) the relations of the Court with the national courts of the Member States of the Union are built in a special way: they take the positions of the Court in their practice on a voluntary basis. The international court of a supranational union is mainly aimed at overcoming dualism – duality in the law of integration association. This creates a uniform understanding of the norms of union law, which cannot be reduced only to the positive component that the court corrects with the natural essence of law – the protection of human rights. The author gives examples of problems encountered in building the EAEU: 1) the ratio of the principle of pacta sunt servanda and the principle of national sovereignty; 2) the principle of equality in its real, not formal essence. Discussion and Conclusion. The EAEU takes into account both the principles of Christian civilisation (respect for law), and the principles of other civilisations (for example, respect for power and the principles of harmonious construction of relations within the Union – multiculturalism). It is important for the Court to find a balance between activism and conservatism both in resolving international conflicts and in interpreting law. So, activism in the EAEU Court is manifested in human rights issues, and conservatism: in matters of monitoring the activities of the Commission. An important problem is the balance in ethical issues, which is associated with the multiconfessional composition of the Eurasian court. The author concludes by noting that in a situation where the requirements for the appointment of judges are blurred and there is no verification mechanism, it is difficult for the international composition of the Court to find ethical consensus.