Trade dispute resolution mechanisms in the CEP: a comparative analysis with the WTO system and prospects for adaptation for the EAEU

The article provides a comparative analysis of the trade dispute resolution mechanism provided for by the Comprehensive Regional Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPAP) and the procedures operating in the World Trade Organization (WTO) system. The main attention is paid to the analysis of regulatory differences, the nature of obligations and the institutional structure of these systems. Special attention is paid to the assessment of the possibility of adapting certain procedures of the CEP to the legal system of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) in the context of the weakening of the functioning of the WTO Appellate Body. The author suggests considering the decentralized CEP model as a potential source of solutions in order to increase the effectiveness of resolving disagreements between the participants of the integration association. Additionally, the possibility of using individual components of the CEP mechanism in the EAEU legal system to improve intra-union resolution of trade disputes between member states is being considered. The study uses comparative legal, institutional, and formal logical methods that provide a systematic analysis of dispute resolution mechanisms within the framework of the CEP, WTO, and EAEU. The scientific novelty of the work lies in a systematic approach to the analysis of the CEP model as a potential source of institutional solutions for the EAEU. The author's main contribution is to identify applicable elements of the CEP mechanism that have the potential for institutional adaptation within the EAEU. The author suggests a hybrid dispute resolution model combining mandatory consultations and ad hoc arbitration. Its applicability in the legal architecture of the EAEU is substantiated. Institutional discrepancies between the CEP and the EAEU have also been identified, which can affect the effectiveness of implementation. As a result of the study, the possibility of partial adaptation of the procedural components of the CEP, including mandatory consultations and arbitration forms, in order to increase the stability of the EAEU legal architecture is substantiated. It is concluded that it is necessary to form a hybrid dispute resolution model combining elements of legal certainty and procedural adaptability. The risks associated with the varying degrees of institutionalization of the legal systems of the CEP and the EAEU are highlighted.

trade disputes, arbitration, consultations, regional integration, judicial authority, international legal mechanism, resolution mechanisms, trade organizations, regulatory differences, adaptations of individual procedures