The Concept of the Implementation of the European Neighborhood Policy and the Extension of EU Law to the Post-Soviet Countries

Despite its legal uncertainty, the European Neighborhood Policy is enshrined in the sources of secondary law of the European Union. Through the Eastern Partnership, the EU seeks to extend its law to post-Soviet countries and become a “normative actor” in international relations, promoting its political and economic interests. Helping to maintain and strengthen stability, security and prosperity in the neighborhood region were stated as the main goals of the creation of the European Neighborhood Policy, and of the Eastern Partnership. Despite this, the policy pursued by the European Union, as recent events in the CIS countries show, has failed to contribute to stability in the post-Soviet space. The article deals with the legal basis and concept of the European Neighborhood Policy, peculiarities of its development and economic aspects of its implementation in the post-Soviet space, as well as identifying the causes of the contradictions in the region. The EU sees its role in promoting universal values in its foreign policy, relying on law. However, these values are used to cover political and economic expansion. Economic factors are among the main reasons for the spread of EU law in post-Soviet states. The development of legal relations between the European Union and post-Soviet countries has provided additional economic opportunities for European financial capital. The combination of these reasons provoked the emergence of additional sources of tension and conflicts in the post-Soviet space: primarily in Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia, which have signed Association Agreements with the EU

1. Astakhova S. (2019). Political crisis in Moldova: overcoming or continuing? Russia and the new states of Eurasia. No. IV (XLV), pp. 37–47. DOI: 10.20542/2073-4786-2019-4-37-47 (in Russian).

2. Blockmans S. (2018). European Neighbourhood Policy: CFSP in disguise. In: Blockmans S., Koutrakos P. (eds.). Research Handbook on the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. Edward Elgar, pp. 312– 330. DOI: 10.4337/9781785364082.00024.

3. Cannizzaro E. (2021). The Value of the EU International Values. In: Douma W. et. al. (eds.). The Evolving Nature of EU External Relations Law. Springer, pp. 3–18.

4. De Baere G. (2012). European Integration and the Rule of Law in Foreign Policy. In: Dickson J., Eleftheriadis P. (eds.). Philosophical Foundations of European Union Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 354–383. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588770.003.0014.

5. Elsuwege P.V., Chamon M. (2019). The meaning of ‘association’ under EU law. A study on the law and practice of EU association agreements. Brussels: Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament, 50 pp.

6. Harzl B. (2021). The EU and the De Facto States of the East European Periphery. Constraints in International and European Law. In: Bossuyt F., Van Elsuwege P. (eds.) Principled Pragmatism in Practice: The EU’s Policy towards Russia after Crimea. Nijhoff: Brill, pp. 163–179. DOI: 10.1163/9789004453715_010.

7. Istoricheskiy materialism (1951). Konstantinov F.V. (ed.) Historical Materialism. Moscow: Politizdat, 747 pp. (in Russian).

8. Kashkin S.Yu. (2019). Philosophy of Integration Law. Actual Problems of Russian Law. No. 2 (99), pp. 43–50 (in Russian). DOI: 10.17803/1994-1471.2019.99.2.043-050.

9. Leskina N. (2021). The Integration of Russia in the European Higher Education Area. Challenges and Opportunities. In: Bossuyt F., Van Elsuwege P. (eds.). Principled Pragmatism in Practice: The EU’s Policy towards Russia after Crimea. Nijhoff: Brill, pp. 352–369. DOI: 10.1163/9789004453715_020.

10. Levyash I. (2013). Dialectics of Integration: Conceptual Foundations and Geostrategic Priorities of Belarus’ Participation in Transcontinental Unification Processes. Belarusian Dumka. No. 7, pp. 55–63 (in Russian).

11. Mukhametshin F.M., Stepanov V.P. (2021). Russia and Moldova: between the legacy of the past and the horizons of the future (Essays on the post-Soviet period 1991–2020). Moscow: Progress – Tradition, 416 pp. (in Russian).

12. Müllerson R. (2002). Review: The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960. European Journal of International Law. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 725–735. DOI: 10.1093/ejil/13.3.727.

13. Nanopoulos E. (2021). From classbased project to imperial formation: European Union law and the reconstruction of Europe. In: O’Connell P., Özsu U. (eds.). Research Handbook on Law and Marxism. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 315–389.

14. Pravo… (2022). Kapustin A.Y. (ed.).Law of the European Union: textbook for universities. Moscow: Yurait, 387 pp. (in Russian).

15. Reale J., Antiseri D. (2003). Western Philosophy from the Beginnings to the Present Day. From Romanticism to the Present Day. Volume 4. Translated from Italian and edited by S.A. Maltseva. St. Petersburg: Publishing house “Pnevma”, 880 pp. (in Russian).

16. Strezhneva M.V., Rudenkova D.E. (2016). European Union: foreign policy architecture. Moscow: IMEMO. 135 pp. (in Russian).

17. Togt T., van der. (2021). The Role of EU Member States and the Future of EU– Russia Relations: Disentangling the Role of Germany and the Netherlands in EU Decision- Making on Relations with Russia since the Ukraine Crisis. In: Bossuyt F., Van Elsuwege P. (eds.). Principled Pragmatism in Practice: The EU’s Policy towards Russia after Crimea. Nijhoff: Brill, pp. 40– 61. DOI: 10.1163/9789004453715_004.

18. Waele H., de. (2017). Legal Dynamics of EU External Relations: Dissecting a Layered Global Player. Springer, 215 pp. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-54817-2.

19. Wallerstein I. (1997). Eurocentrism and its Avatars: The Dilemmas of Social Science. Sociological Bulletin. Vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 21–39.

20. White J. (1996). Karl Marx and the Intellectual Origins of Dialectical Materialism. Palgrave Macmillan, 427 pp.