EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AS A CHALLENGE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ECONOMIC STATE SOVEREIGNTY
Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. Approaches to Determining the Content of Economic Sovereignty. – 3. State Sovereignty within the EU. – 4. Relativity of Economic Sovereignty of EU Member States. – 5. Ukraine’s Steps Towards European Integration. – 6. Conclusions.
Abstract
One of the most significant modern examples of political and economic integration for Ukraine is the EU, given the plan for European integration. In gaining membership in this integration entity, states face the issue of delegating their powers to the Union. The issue of modification of state sovereignty in the context of the EU’s relations with member states and candidate countries for EU membership is acute, which raises concerns about the forced restrictions on their state economic sovereignty.
The methodological basis of the study are such general-science and special methods as historical-legal, dialectical, comparative-legal, and others. The historical-legal method was used to study the genesis of the content of the legal categories of ‘economic sovereignty’, ‘sovereign debt’, and the stages of European integration. The usage of the dialectical method provided a comprehensive study of the process of forming EU economic policy, as well as defining the ratio between the categories of ‘economic sovereignty restriction’ and ‘restriction of sovereign economic rights of the state’. By using the comparative-legal method, the paper reveals the specifics of the approaches of individual states to the legal regulation of relations to ensure economic sovereignty and economic security of the state.
The study, based on the experience of the new EU member states, has shown that European integration as a whole contributes to changing the volume of sovereign powers of states during the implementation of economic state sovereignty. However, the authors conclude that such a process is twofold: on the one hand, factors that objectively reduce the economic sovereignty of countries through the delegation of their sovereign rights are increasing, and, on the other, most states voluntarily and consciously accept such restrictions to obtain economic, political, and social benefits.
About Authors
Ivan Yakoviyk
Dr. Sc. (Law), Head of department of European Union Law, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine
i.v.yakovyuk@nlu.edu.ua
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8070-1645
Corresponding author, responsible for concept creation and writing, as well as supervising the article (Credit taxonomy).
Yevhen Bilousov
Dr. Sc (Law), Professor of department of European Union Law, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine. Co-author, responsible for conceptualization, the exploration of sources and their analysis and interpretation.
ye.m.bilousov@nlu.edu.ua
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7685-2208
Kateryna Yefremova
Cand. of Science of Law (Equiv. Ph.D.), Deputy Director for Research, Scientific Research Institute Legal Support of Innovative Development of National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine. Co-author, responsible for writing, the content of the paper and data curation.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1917-9691
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Disclaimer: The three authors all declared that their opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations.
Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding of this publication was provided by authors.
Translation: Provided by authors.
Managing editor – Dr. Serhii Kravtsov. English Editor – Dr. Sarah White.
Copyright: © 2022 I Yakoviyk, Ye Bilousov, K Yefremova. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
References
1. Khorishko L, Horlo N, ‘National identity in the discourse of political elites of Poland and Hungary’ (2021) 10 (40) Amazonia Investiga 9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.40.04.1
2. Bickerton C, European Integration: from Nation States to Member States (Oxford University Press 2012).
3. Georgios M ‘National Sovereignty, European Integration and Domination in the Eurozone’ (2020) 28 (2) European Review 225 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798719000437
4. Kramer Z, ‘Fiscal Sovereignty under EU Crisis Management: A Comparison of Greece and Hungary’ (2019) 69 (4) Acta Oeconomica Periodical of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences 595.
5. Aniodoh A, ‘Host States’ Monetary Sovereignty Within the Construct of Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (2021) 65 (1) Journal of African Law 1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021855320000339
6. Baidyn Yu, Economic sovereignty of the state: problems of determining the content (Scientific Research Institute of State Building and Local Government of National Academy of Law Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv, 2010).
7. Scheinert C, ‘History of economic and monetary union’ (2021) <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/79/history-of-economic-and-monetary-nion> accessed 18 November 2021.
8. Egan M, ‘EU Single Market(s) after Brexit’ (2019) 7 (3) Politics and Governance 19 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i3.2059
9. Yakovyuk I, Shestopal S, ‘The sovereign rights and sovereignty of the state: the problem of the correlation’ (2017) 6 (4(21)) Azimuth of Research: Economics and Management 381.
10. Bifulco R, Nato A, The concept of sovereignty in the EU – past, present and the future (Fall edn, 2020) <http://reconnect-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/D4.3.pdf> accessed 20 June 2022.
11. Sadurski W, Constitutionalism and the Enlargement of Europe (Oxford University Press, 2012).
12. Conclusions of the presidency (EC) Copenhagen, 21–22 June 1993. SN 180/1/93 REV 1
13. Esteves R, Tuncer AC, ‘Feeling the blues Moral hazard and debt dilution in Eurobonds before 1914’ (2016) 65 Journal of International Money and Finance 46 DOI:10.1016/j.jimonfin.2016.03.004
14. Mitchener KJ, Weidenmier MD, ‘Supersanctions and sovereign debt repayment’ (2010) 29 (1) Journal of International Money and Finance 19 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2008.12.011
15. Maerean AA, Pedersen M, ‘Sharp Sovereign debt and supersanctions in emerging markets: evidence from four Southeast European countries, 1878-1913’ (2021) European Historical Economics Society Papers 0216 <https://ideas.repec.org/p/hes/wpaper/0216.html> accessed 20 June 2022.
16. Memorandum of Understanding between the EU as lender and Ukraine as borrower (2020) <https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/international/neighbourhood_policy/doc/mou_eu_ukraine_en.pdf> accessed 20 June 2022.
17. OECD, ‘COVID-19 crisis response in Eastern Partner countries’ (2020) <https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/covid-19-crisis-response-in-eu-eastern-partner-countries-7759afa3/> accessed 20 June 2022.
18. European Commission, ‘Coronavirus: Macro-financial assistance agreement signed with Ukraine to limit fallout of pandemic’ (2020) <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1392> accessed 20 June 2022.
19. Kovaleva V, ‘Why is Ukraine losing assets?’ (Government Courier, 16 July 2020) <https://ukurier.gov.ua/uk/articles/chomu-ukrayina-vtrachaye-aktivi/> accessed 20 June 2022.
Reviews for article
Add a Review
Keywords
- European integration, state economic sovereignty, sovereign rights of the state, European Union, limitation of state sovereignty
How to cite it?
-
I Yakoviyk, Ye Bilousov, K Yefremova ‘European Integration as a Challenge for the Implementation of State Economic Sovereignty’ 2022 No 5(3) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 8-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-5.2-a000330
