Comparison of Structure and Prospect of European Union and Eurasia Union

This paper seeks to explore a comparison between the European Union (EU) and the Eurasian Union, popularly known as the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The EU is indeed, the point of reference of the comparison, whereas, the EAEU is an illustration of the rising region. In particular, this essay will compare the structure and prospects of the two unions. However, as a preliminary measure, the definition of the two unions and their origins will be explained foremost. 

Stuck on a paper?

Order an original, fully referenced and formatted paper.

Write my paper

Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is an economic union that is mostly of the northern states of Eurasia, formed in the year 2014. The creation was as a result of a treaty that was signed by Belarus, Russia, and Kazakhstan states. The union became operational as from the year 2015. Moreover, another treaty, the Armenia accession treaty, was also signed towards the end of the year 2014 to allow for the accession of Kyrgyzstan and Armenia to the EAEU. The Armenian accession treaty equally became effective in the year 2015, and the acceding states became participants of the EAEU immediately after the establishment (Kirkham 2016, p. 117). Operationally, the EAEU treaties allows the people of the member states to enjoy the right to live and work in any other member states without restrictions, such as obtaining special work permits, and it is anticipated to minimize commerce restrictions among the members.  

Historically, it is reported that the idea of Eurasia regionalism is traced back to the fall of the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the idea of the Eurasia regionalism emerged to safeguard the heritage of the former practices such as cultural identities and common language for the diverse Eurasian society as well as infrastructures. Intrinsically, the EAEU was born as an economic solution to the region by protecting the national economies from the adverse effects that has been brought about by globalization (Roberts 2017, p. 424). The EAEU’s mission, therefore, is to facilitate favorable conditions for sustainable economic flourish for its members and ultimately, lead to better living standards for the citizens. Besides, the union aims to provide free markets for the goods and services within the jurisdiction. According to Klofat (2016), by instigating a common market, the union would augment a wide-ranging corporation, competitiveness, and harnessed economies of scale within the region and the international economy. 

The European Union’s cohesion and effectiveness can be traced back to the Second World War. The union represents one of the numerous efforts to unify Europe since the war. Following the end of the war, many European nations realized that they needed immediate political, economic, and social networks to ensure economic and military ties that would perpetuate reconciliation between Germany and France. Ultimately, in the year 1951, the treaty of Paris was signed by six countries including Italy, France, Belgium, Netherlands, West Germany, and Luxembourg to materialize the goals of the EU, which officially became operational in the year 1952 (Dinan 2013, p. 126). Later on, by early 21st century, the EU rapidly expanded and many nations opted to join it through the treaty of Maastricht, which came into force in the year 1993. Today, the EU is made up of 28 countries and it controls common economic, security, and social policies among the member states. In essence, the Maastricht treaty was designed to foster political and economic incorporation by formulating a unified currency; the euro. Moreover, the treaty integrated foreign and security policy, equal rights of citizens, and fostering integration in matters of immigration, judicial, and asylum cases (Dinan 2013, p. 129).  

The overall aim of the EU is to foster peace, values, and good governance of the people (Oshri, Sheafer & Shenhav, 2015, p. 131). In essence, the EU’s first priority is to advance peace within the continent. Consequently, the union seeks to enhance its values such as respect for human rights and dignity, democracy, rule of law, freedom, and equality. Prominently, the EU aims at ensuring that the interests of the people are met through the provision of a favorable atmosphere for freedom, security, and justice. On the other hand, the EAEU was created to integrate the economy of the formerly soviet nationals. Moreover, it was aimed at countering the economic strengths of the EU and China. 

Boost your grades with a new guide on A+ writing

Learn everything you need about academic writing for free!

Incorrect email. Please check it and try again.

Get it

By continuing, you agree to the Terms & conditions & Privacy policy

Time to excel in writing! The download will start within seconds.

Download

Comparison of Structure of European Union and the Eurasian Union

The structure of the EU comprises of the Executive Commission, the Council of Ministers, the Court of Justice, the European Council, the Monetary Committee, and the Economic and Social committee. 

• The Executive Commission

This is the critical institution in the EU structure. It is autonomous of the national government of the EU member states regarding their functions. The executive commission performs functions concerning the initiation, progression, and implementation of the economic policies of the union. The directives of the commission are binding to the member countries. Intrinsically, the commission is bestowed with powers to override any policy of a member country that goes against the laid objectives of the community (Dinan 2013, p. 138).

• The Council of Ministers

The council is made up of the member states’ foreign affairs ministers. Their core function is to make critical decisions regarding political matters. 

• The Court of Justice 

The European Union’s Court of Justice is located in Luxembourg. It has the jurisdiction to hear and determine any issue regarding the distinct provisions of the Rome Treaty. It has the power to rule against the decisions of the national courts of the member countries pertaining to matters of EU policies. 

• The Monetary Committee 

The EU’s monetary committee is made up of professionals and central bank officials from the member countries. Its key mandate is to advice the executive commission and the council of ministers about the matters concerning global monetary. 

• The European Parliament

The EU’s parliament is essentially a consultative forum. It constitutes members representing the parliaments of the EU’s member states. At least, the EU parliament convenes eight sessions annually. The members of the EU parliament are directly elected. 

• The Economic and Social Committees 

Primarily, this committee is constituted by representatives from professional bodies, work force, and employers (Stoeckel 2012, p. 33). 

Contrariwise, the Eurasian Union’s mode of operation is through supranational and intergovernmental institutions. The core institution of the Eurasian Union is the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council of the Union; the Supreme Body (Neshataeva 2016, p. 12). The Supreme Body is made up of the Presidents, who are the heads of the member countries. The Supreme Body is followed in rank by the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council that consists of the Prime Ministers of member countries. The usual EAEU activities are conducted through the EAEU executive body called the Eurasian Economic Commission. Moreover, the EAEU also operates the judicial body; the Court of the EAEU, which hear and settle disputes arising in the community. 

Any topic. Any deadline.

Our certified writers can do
an A-level paper for you.

Write my paper

Comparatively, therefore, both unions present an intricate institutional setting. Intrinsically, the EU is made up of the European Council, the European Commission, the Court of Justice, the Economic and Social Committees, the European Parliament, and the monetary Committee (Zarotiadis & Gkagka 2013, p. 542). On the other hand, the EAEU operates through the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, the Court of EAEU, the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council, and the Eurasian Economic Commission. Apparently, it is evident that the EAEU institutional framework is almost similar to that of the EU. However, based on the EU’s creation of the Customs Union and the Common Economic space, their economy thrives rather rapidly than that of the EAEU, since they can draw from their experience and that of other community’s associations (Sytin 2015, p. 13). 

Comparison of the Prospects of the EU and the EAEU

The EU shows better prospects than the EAEU and mostly, the EU is considered a point of reference when comparing the two unions (Banaszkiewicz 2016, p. 183). In essence, the EU has an elaborate history and is projected to be tilting towards a regional state, while the EAEU is still lagging behind. That is, there are usually five levels to satisfy the requirements for a complete region; the regional space, society, community, complex, and a regional state. Ideally, the EU has satisfied all the levels except for the regional state, which pundits claim that it is currently tilting towards. However, the EAEU is still struggling for the recognition as a regional complex. Regarding the commerce, the intra-regional commerce seems more stable in the EU than within the EAEU. It implies then that the two regions do not have a strong economic competition. Moreover, Abesadze (2015) estimates that the EU’s economy is significantly stronger than that of EAEU. In relation to the interaction with international community, the EU is a permanent UN observer and accredited member of the World Trade Organization. On the other hand, EAEU have no global recognition and so, it is not regarded as a political or economic actor in the global arena. 

On the subject of democracy, the EU is regarded as a stronghold of supranational democracy. EU is reported to satisfy almost all the fourteen indicators of the global democracy watch (Poloni-Staudinger 2008, p. 547). However, the only indicator still remaining is the satisfaction of requirements to attain full democracy in the area of separation of the three arms of government; the executive, judiciary and the legislative. Moreover, the EU usually run its institutions and safeguards its national democracies in an outstanding manner. Contrarily, however, the EAEU treaty bears no such word like democracy. Furthermore, Klofat (2017) observes that EAEU usually cares less about the widespread authoritarian administration of member states government instead of undermining such backward, undemocratic regimes. Indeed, the EAEU member states are usually characterized by poor democratic and freedom ratings. Based on the stated elements of prospects comparison, it is certain that EU portrays better projections than the EAEU.