Available in Russian
Author: Olga Kadysheva
DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2023-2-17-32
Keywords: public order; exceptions; freedoms of the single market; the EU Court; the EAEU Court
According to the traditional view, issues of public order relate to private international law, where reference to the public order of the State is used as the basis for a court’s refusal to apply a foreign law or to recognize and execute a foreign judicial or arbitral award. However, the concept of public order has recently become firmly rooted in public international law, where it is used in both broad and narrow senses of its meaning. Public order in the narrow sense is one of the grounds provided for by an international treaty for the legitimate refusal of a State to fulfill its obligations under the treaty. Public order in the broad sense is a set of norms that are fundamental to a particular international legal order and ensure its stability and effectiveness. In the article, issues of the implementation of the concept of public order in its broad and narrow senses are examined by using as examples decisions by courts of regional economic integration (the Court of the European Union and the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union). It shows how the Court of Justice of the EU resolved the issue of public order as one of the exceptions provided for by the constituent treaties of the EU in relation to the market freedoms of the single internal market, as well as showing the Court’s attempt to take control of the application of this provision by EU member States. The article also explains the reasons for the EU Court’s use of the concept of public order in its broad sense, primarily in matters of the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards by EU member states’ national courts. As for the practice of the EAEU Court in these matters, it is noted that public order issues in both senses have not yet been the subject of detailed consideration by the Court and are only beginning to be briefly mentioned in dissenting opinions of individual judges.
About the author: Olga Kadysheva – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Associate Professor, Department of International Law, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia.
Citation: Kadysheva O. (2023) Kontseptsiya publichnogo poryadka v sudakh regional’noy ekonomicheskoy integratsii [The concept of public order in courts of regional economic integration]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 17–32. (In Russian).
References
Bermann G.A. (2011) Reconciling European Union Law Demands with the Demands of International Arbitration. Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1193–1216.
Bermann G.A. (2012) Navigating EU Law and the Law of International Arbitration. Arbitration International, vol. 28, no. 3, рр.397–445.
Brun M.I. (1916) Publichnyy poryadok v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave [The public order in private international law], Petrograd: Senatskaya tipografiya. (In Russian).
Ferretti F. (2020) EU Internal Market Law and the Law of International Commercial Arbitration: Have the EU Chickens Come Home to Roost? Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, vol. 22, pp. 133–155.
Ghantous M. (2018) Ordre Public Protection as Legitimate Aim for Freedom of Expression Restriction in the International Legal Order. Revue québécoise de droit international / Quebec Journal of International Law / Revista quebequense de derecho internacional, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 243–266.
Ghodoosi F. (2015) The Concept of Public Policy in Law: Revisiting the Role of the Public Policy Doctrine in the Enforcement of Private Legal Arrangements. Nebraska Law Review, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 685–736.
Hoško T. (2014) Public Policy as an Exception to Free Movement within the Internal Market and the European Judicial Area: A Comparison. Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 189–213.
Ispolinov A. (2017) Prioritet prava Evropeyskogo Soyuza i natsional’naya (konstitutsionnaya) identichnost’ v resheniyakh Suda ES i konstitutsionnykh sudov gosudarstv – chlenov ES [The priority of EU law and national (constitutional) identity in the decisions of the European Court of Justice and the constitutional courts of the EU member-states]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 47–68. (In Russian).
Kamiyama M. (2014) Obligations Erga Omnes and International Public Order after the Decision in the Belgium v. Senegal Case. Revista dos Estudantes de Direito da Universidade de Brasília, vol. 1, no. 11, p.43–62.
Keresteš T. (2016) Public Policy in Brussels Regulation I: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. LeXonomica, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 77–91.
Kessedjian C. (2007) Public Order in European Law. Erasmus Law Review, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 25–36.
Knight W.S.W. (1922) Public Policy in English Law. Law Quarterly Review, vol. 38, pp. 207–222.
De Lang R. (2007) The European Public Order, Constitutional Principles and Fundamental Rights. Erasmus Law Review, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–24.
Orakhelashvili A. (2008) Peremptory Norms in International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pavlova N.V. (2013) Ogovorka o publichnom poryadke kak sudebnyy eksklyuziv i predel vezhlivosti konkretnoy natsii. Kommentariy k Obzoru praktiki rassmotreniya arbitrazhnymi sudami del o primenenii ogovorki o publichnom poryadke [The public policy defense as a judicial exclusive and ultimate courtesy of a particular nation. Commentary to Review of the application by the Russian courts of the public policy defense]. Vestnik Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii, no. 7, pp. 162–173. (In Russian).
Shulakov A.A. (2021) Publichnyy poryadok v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave – pravilo ili isklyuchenie? [Public order in international private law – rule or exception?]. Vestnik Universiteta imeni O.E.Kutafina (MGYuA), no. 3, pp. 149–159. (In Russian).