Regime for the Movement of Cultural Property in the EAEU

The article discusses the peculiarities of moving cultural values across customs borders of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The introduction of restrictive regimes for the export and import of cultural values is determined, on the one hand, by the desire of states to activate integration processes for the development of economic, social, and cultural interaction, and, on the other hand, by the aim to preserve their cultural heritage. The aim of the study is to identify comparative characteristics of national regimes of moving cultural property and determine their correlation with similar supranational rules. The article includes an analysis of the EAEU member states' "cultural" legislation (Russia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, and Kazakhstan) and the EAEU intergovernmental acts such as the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union with Annexes. The authors also review the judicial practice of Russian courts, the advisory opinion of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union and decisions of the Eurasian Economic Commission. The methodological basis of the article consists of genetic and structural-functional approaches; analysis and synthesis; special formal legal and comparative legal methods. The analysis of supranational regulation of moving cultural values allows drawing attention to the ambiguity of the EAEU law connected with the subjects that introduce the restrictions of moving certain goods, including cultural values, in the territory of the Union. It is against this background that the increasing importance of the systemic correlation of national restrictive norms is shown. Meanwhile, there are differences in the temporal aspects of the regimes (the period for obtaining an export license is from several days to several months; there are different deadlines for temporary export and examination), in procedural requirements (provision of cultural values for inspection could be obligatory or necessary only under certain conditions), in financial support (payment for carrying out the necessary procedures for the export of cultural values such as examination, for example), etc. The authors note that the content of the permissive regimes for moving cultural values across national borders is disjointed. In the context of the ambiguity of supranational legislation, it is expedient to make a judgment about the prematurity of introducing rules on the priority of the EAEU law regarding the procedure for the export and import of cultural values across the Russian state border into the legislation of the Russian Federation. This judgment is supported by amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation on the conditions for the application of international standards in the territory of Russia. In this regard, an algorithm for minimizing regulatory diversity in the movement of cultural values within the EAEU is proposed.

Keywords

Authors

References