Academic journal article European Research Studies

1994 Treaty as the Basis for the 2011 Agreement on Free Trade Area

Academic journal article European Research Studies

1994 Treaty as the Basis for the 2011 Agreement on Free Trade Area

Article excerpt


In the agreement of 1994 it is possible to distinguish entirely two fundamental objectives: the formation of well-defined free trade area and the establishment of a dispute settlement mechanism. Aspects were involved only in the Commonwealth of Independent States (hereinafter the CIS) but in the body of the treaty have been involved the guidelines for long-term development. Partly because of this, the fundamental (basic) principles and mechanisms have been used in the new agreement on free trade area dating back to October 18, 2011. Simply put, despite the fact that the agreement of 1994 has lost its legitimacy in 2012, its basis is valid today, but as a part of more extensive and up to date agreement of 2011. Today the map of the area of free trade gained more impressive dimensions, and the settlement of disputes (the term was used in the 1994 agreement, but in fact it was renamed to the term "disputes" in the treaty of 2011) became more productive, and most importantly easier to use to all parties concerned. In our opinion, because the treaty of 2011 largely respond to the document of 1994, the agreement on free trade area in 1994 can be considered as basic. In fact, we can assume that the new 2011 treaty is not fundamentally new agreement, and is in some ways a modification of the 1994 agreement.

We believe that it is impossible to claim that the new agreement was a final and comprehensive. After the treaty was adopted in 1994, it took more than 10 years to form a free trade area. And it is only about the CIS countries. As the 2011 document registered more relevant mechanisms and by its preparation has been used somewhat different (in comparison with the 1994 document) case-law database, we can assume that the establishment of the provisions of the 2011 agreement on free trade area will take some time. At the same time, in our opinion, it can actually be claimed that the agreement on the framework of free trade and resolving core disputes is not final, and in the future will undergo significant changes.

1. Saving Progressive Mechanisms and their Adaptation

Using some interim verdicts, all of the above can be summarized: despite the fact that the 1994 CIS agreement on free trade has lost its legitimacy in 2012, it has not lost its validity and relevance. At the same time the agreement of 2011, in some ways is an upgrade (improvement and addition) of the 1994 document, and in the foreseeable future may again undergo qualitative changes.

The 1994 agreement merely set the right direction, and helped to assess the effectiveness of mechanisms for dispute resolution. Notably, it is not standard, but only some basics, and the current status on free trade is more productive and adapted under the actual conditions.

The text of the 1994 agreement on free trade zone and the agreement of 2011 is available in a free form, so their studying in this article is inappropriate. Therefore, we paid special attention to the differences, which in our opinion will help to assess more accurately the qualitative changes. So the application of highlights and complements of ongoing agreements to the comparison is needed.

Qualitative changes in the agreements on free trade area in the segment of the settlement of disputes

As mentioned, in the 1994 agreement was used the term "dispute settlement". According to our estimates, this definition does not fully meet modern trends (particularly the difference of disputes regarding conflict sides' standards). But in the free trade agreement from October 18, 2011 this aspect is already defined as resolution of disputes, which in turn is more accurate terminology, although the two definitions take place.

Comparing the dispute settlement mechanisms in the agreements of 1994 and 2011, we can emphasize that the latter had to step aside from the strict structure of the first document. In the new version instead of alternating transition from one procedure to another, the discretionary algorithms are used, ie instructions for the parties involved are more liberal. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.