EU-Ukraine Association Agreement Research Articles

The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement prior to the Vilnius Eastern Partnership Summit

Abstract This paper seeks to explore how the EU policy on Ukraine evolved in the run-up to the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius in November 2013. In particular, it looks into the preparations leading to the signature of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. Thereby it contributes to better understanding of the EU policy debate related to the associated negotiations with the Eastern Partnership countries. Prior to the Vilnius Summit there were high expectations that signature of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement would become a key deliverable of the summit. After the EU had postponed the signing of the agreement due to Ukraine’s backsliding in democracy for several times, the process gained new momentum in 2013. It is suggested that exogenous factors, such as Russia’s increasing pressure on Ukraine, contributed to consolidating the EU position. However, at the last minute Ukraine suspended its signature of the agreement at the Vilnius Summit. While Ukraine’s domestic developments and Yanukovych’s deals with Russia can be blamed for this fiasco, the EU Member States take a large share of responsibility. Lack of creativity to find a way out of the deadlock, as well as lack of the political will on the part of EU leaders to fight for Ukraine explains why the Association Agreement turned out as a missed opportunity.

The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement: Assessment of an Innovative Legal Instrument

This paper analyses the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement (AA). It argues that this new legal framework, which has the objective to establish a unique form of political association and economic integration, is characterised by three specific features : comprehensiveness, complexity and conditionality. After a brief background of the EU-Ukraine relations, the following aspects are scrutinised: legal basis and objectives, institutional framework and mechanisms of enhanced conditionality and legislative approximation. In addition, constitutional challenges for the effective implementation of the EU-Ukraine AA are discussed. Based upon a comparison with other EU external agreements, it is demonstrated that the AA is an innovative legal instrument providing for a new type of integration without membership.

Vilnius eastern partnership summit: milestone in EU-Russia relations – not just for Ukraine

Abstract The Vilnius Eastern Partnership Summit on 28-29th November 2013 represents a milestone in EU relations not just with respect to the six Eastern Partnership countries (EaP Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and particularly Ukraine), but also with the EU’s ‘strategic partner’ Russia. The turbulence and numerous speculations regarding expectations about the signature of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement (comprising a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement - AA/DCFTA), as well as progress in initialling similar future agreements with Georgia and Moldova, have been escalating before the summit. The association agreementswould bring EaP signatory countries closer to the EU not really closer to EU membership, but closer to the application of various EU norms and standards (takeover of the ‘acquis communautaire’) and - significantly - out of the Russian orbit, for the beginning at least symbolically. The last minute postponement of the EU-Ukraine AA/DCFTA signature announced by Ukraine’s government just one week before the summit represents a serious setback for the EU. Though the EU has no ‘Plan B’ and was stunned after Ukraine’s announcement, life will continue after the summit and new initiatives will have to be started. What are the relevant issues and challenges and what is at stake? This note attempts to evaluate the consequences (economic and otherwise) of alternate decisions following the Vilnius Eastern Partnership Summit, reviews some of the disputed arguments and discusses selected relevant economic issues.

The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement as a Framework of Integration between the Two Parties

The strengthening of relations between EU and Ukraine is of strategic significance to the two parties, both politically and economically, given the size and geographic position of the country under consideration and the fact that EU is already one of the major commercial partners of Ukraine. Towards this goal, the partnership and cooperation regime should be succeeded by an association regime joining the two sides. Negotiations for the conclusion of a pioneer Association Agreement (AA), the first with a country of Eastern Partnership, have been completed. However, its final signature depends upon the fulfillment, from the side of Ukraine, of specific terms related to the progress of internal reforms in the nation's political, economic and legal system. The AA will become the legal framework for the political association and economic integration between the contracting parties. Crucial component of the agreement is a deep and comprehensive free trade area (DCFTA), the establishment of which is expected to contribute in Ukraine's economic modernization and integration with EU's internal market, mainly by adopting the trade-related EU acquis. The aim of this paper is to examine the importance of the AA and in particular the rules governing the liberalization of bilateral trade, the implementation mechanisms laid down and the issues related to the perspective of Ukraine's accession to the EU.

EU-Ukraine DCFTA: The Model for Eastern Partnership Regional Trade Cooperation

The EU has been one of the largest trade partners for so called Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries, namely Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Commodity turnover of these countries with the EU vary between 30% and 50% of total, but their access to the EU market is less preferential than for many other neighboring countries. They trade with the EU on the basis of MFN regime, and five EaP countries, with exemption of Belarus, use privileges provided by Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) or the GSP or autonomous trade preferences (Moldova).With the launch of EaP initiative in 2009, relations between the EU and the Eastern European countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine) have received new impetus for development. The EaP offers upgrade of relations within three major dimensions, namely (a) the Association Agreement (AA), (b) Agreement on a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), and (c) Visa Facilitation and Readmission agreements.The AA talks have been launched with all EaP countries expect for Belarus, and four of them have been involved in the DCFTA talks. Ukraine has progressed the most, as after five years of negotiations the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement with embedded DCFTA has been initialed in 2012.The aim of this study is to assess gains and losses that could arise from the DCFTA with the EU for the EaP countries, using information about EU-Ukraine DCFTA as model case for EaP regional trade cooperation.The focus of the paper is on non-tariff (regulatory) component of the EU DCFTA and potential implications of regulatory approximation. Also, current level of harmonization of EaP countries’ regulatory framework with the EU acquis in the areas related to the DCFTA is analyzed.

Basic international and European standards in the field of justice and their impact on ensuring the consistency of judicial practice

Ukraine's integration into the European Union binds the former to approximate its legislation to international and European standards in various fields, including justice. This is also prompted by the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and by the need for judicial reform, subject to the amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine of June 2016. The purpose of the article is to disclose basic international and European standards in the field of justice and their role in ensuring the consistency of judicial practice, which has not been studied in this aspect before.
 Scholars have different approaches to defining the concept of "international" and "European" legal standards in the field of justice and their division into types. The author proposes the understanding and definition of these concepts and the division of international standards into two main groups: 1) basic generally recognized international standards, that is binding international legal standards; and 2) special international standards in the field of justice that are advisory. The first group consists of the basic internationally recognized standards enshrined in UN human rights instruments, which are closely related to justice and include, in particular, everyone's entitlement to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal. They are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 10), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 14), the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 6, paragraph 1). These basic international standards are binding for democratic countries in the world and in Europe, in particular for Ukraine, as they have been ratified by it. A clear understanding of and adherence to mandatory basic internationally recognized international standards by courts of all tiers will help to ensure the consistency of judicial practice.
 The second group of international standards in the field of justice consists of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, approved by the resolutions of the UN General Assembly (1985), the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, approved by the UN Economic and Social Council Resolution (2006), recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, and opinions of the Consultative Council of European Judges for the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, etc. They emphasize the need to adhere to such basic international standards as guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary by the state and enshrining them in the constitution or laws of the country, and define such basic principles of the functioning of the judiciary and judges as independence, objectivity, honesty, incorruptibility, observance of ethical rules, equal treatment of all parties to the proceedings, competence and diligence of courts, and so forth. Compliance with these general international standards in the field of justice will help to ensure the integrity of the judiciary in the interests of a person. Such standards and specific recommendations for ensuring the integrity of the judiciary are broadly outlined in the Consultative Council of European Judges Opinion on the Role of Courts in Ensuring the Unity of Law (2017), namely the importance of uniform application of the law, the possibility of the use of precedents, the paramount role of the Supreme Court in ensuring the integrity of the judiciary, the creation of a mechanism for filtering appeals, the inadmissibility of conflicting decisions, the importance of the role of the courts of appeal, the solid reasons for deviation from previous judicial practice, the compliance with the reporting system of courts, the application of previous decisions to specific cases, the ensuring of the principle of independence of judges, the use of various mechanisms to ensure the integrity of judicial practice. These issues were also discussed during the presentation of the Opinion in Ukraine and holding the conference Integrity of judicial practice: the view of the European Court of Human Rights and of the Supreme Court (2019).