Formation of an Institution of Supranational Commercial Arbitration for the Consideration of Disputes based on Applications from Economic Entities within the Framework of the Eurasian Economic Union

The study is devoted to an analysis of a number of problems arising from the non-governmental nature of the institution of international commercial arbitration in the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union. The author believes that one of the strategic directions of EAEU development until 2025, namely the development of an initiative to create within the EAEU an international arbitration for the consideration of economic disputes based on applications from business entities, contributes to the doctrinal rethinking of the essence of the institution of international commercial arbitration. The author concludes that in the context of deepening Eurasian integration, the concept of «international» in the context of commercial arbitration is gradually acquiring a new meaning — «supranational». The supranational significance of international commercial arbitration, as the author notes, will simplify the mechanism for the recognition and enforcement of arbitration decisions by courts of national jurisdiction of the EAEU member states. This is due to the fact that the supranational significance of the arbitration decisions adopted by commercial arbitration will ensure a completely different system of guarantees for the enforcement of arbitration decisions as a supranational body of the EAEU due to the direct and immediate effect of arbitration decisions throughout the territory of the EAEU member states.

1. Galperin M. L. Problema «karmannykh» treteyskikh sudov: vozmozhnye puti resheniya // Arbitrazhnoe pravosudie v Rossii. — 2007. — № 10. — S. 53–59.

2. Zotov A. V. Znachenie opredeleniya rossiyskogo gosudarstvennogo suda o zaprete initsiirovaniya i prodolzheniya arbitrazha v poryadke st. 248.2 Arbitrazhnogo protsessualnogo kodeksa RF dlya mezhdunarodnogo kommercheskogo arbitrazha // Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa. — 2023. — № 3. — S. 104–133.

3. Karabelnikov B. R. Priznanie i privedenie v ispolnenie inostrannykh arbitrazhnykh resheniy: nauch.-prakt. kommentariy k Nyu-Yorkskoy konventsii 1958 g. — M., 2001. — 368 s.

4. Kudryavtseva E. V., Kurochkin S. A. Narushenie publichnogo poryadka kak osnovanie otkaza v priznanii i privedenii v ispolnenie arbitrazhnykh resheniy v stranakh EAES // Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa. — 2023. — № 5. — S. 225–246.

5. Lebedev S. N. Izbrannye trudy po mezhdunarodnomu kommercheskomu pravu, pravu mezhdunarodnoy torgovli, mezhdunarodnomu chastnomu pravu, chastnomu morskomu pravu / sost. A. I. Muranov. — M., 2009.

6. Libsher K. Memorandum: kak pravilno dogovarivatsya o rassmotrenii spora v mezhdunarodnom kommercheskom arbitrazhe // Treteyskiy sud. — 2002. — № 3/4. — S. 200–204.

7. Makovskiy A. L., Karabelnikov B. R. Arbitrabelnost sporov: rossiyskiy podkhod // Mezhdunarodnyy kommercheskiy arbitrazh. — 2004. — № 3. — S. 16–40.

8. Syurmeev K. E. Transgranichnye kommercheskie spory: problema parallelnykh razbiratelstv: avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — M., 2019. — 201 s.

9. Yan Chzhe. Kratkiy ocherk razvitiya pravovogo regulirovaniya mezhdunarodnogo kommercheskogo arbitrazha v Kitayskoy Narodnoy Respublike // Treteyskiy sud. — 2021. — № 3/4. — S. 238–253.

10. Garnett R. Anti-Arbitration Injunctions: Walking the Tightrope // Arbitration International. — 2020. — Vol. 36. — Iss. 3. — P. 340–352.

11. Vanneste T. Global trade and commercial networks. — London, 2011. — 288 p.