Chapter 2 narrates the historical background, evolution, and context of Eurasian integration. The EAEU has been built upon previous integration entities, and the overview provides a better foundation for understanding EAEU’s legal nature and the institutional structure. It delimits the scope of Eurasian integration through an overview of various understandings of Eurasia and integration. It explains why the narrower conceptualization of Eurasian integration to delimitate as much as possible the boundaries of Eurasian integration by distinguishing stages and entities that led to EAEU-proper is preferred. It further establishes four relevant stages of Eurasian integration, which cover the period from the fall of the Soviet Union to our times and proceeds chronologically, starting with the early attempts to create a customs union in the post-Soviet space to establishing the EAEU itself. As there is no aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the history of Eurasian integration, it focuses primarily on its legal garment. It further provides an overview of the legal nature of the entities the EAEU has been built upon leading to an exploration of a prima facie legal nature of the EAEU.

This chapter maps out the scandals and high profile cases that have come to shape debates on MSV in each of the case countries. It also discusses the challenges associated with definitions and data collection.

Chapter 4 delves into the powers of the EAEU in their substance. It addresses the concept common to all international organizations – attributed competences – and the way it is articulated in the EAEU. A number of areas fall under the exclusive competence of the organization, although the range of such powers is rather limited and there is no clear typology of competences. Specific attention is devoted to the doctrine of implied powers as a manifestation of the Court’s ability to interpret the distribution of powers and due to the attempt of the Member States to curtail this option in the EAEU. Given the fragmented nature of implied powers research and necessity to situate the EAEU in this respect, this chapter provides an overview of the adoption of this doctrine in distinct legal orders and offers a classification of approaches. This allows to demonstrate that the EAEU Treaty provisions, regardless the seeming wish of the drafters, do not in effect preclude the Court from establishing a balanced approach to implied powers. Therefore, it is enabled to exercise its authority to interpret competences in this respect and enhance legal order autonomy.

This chapter draws out the main conclusions of the book and the overarching contributions it makes to broader debates about rape culture.

This chapter focuses on the US military and includes an overview of the history of sexual violence in the US and the main narratives that emerge in media coverage of sexual violence in the US.

Chapter 5 looks closely into the notion of law of the Union established by the EAEU Treaty. It analyses the sources of law of the Union and proceeds with clarifying their hierarchy and legal force. It also analyses the place of direct applicability, direct effect and primacy in the EAEU pertaining to legal order autonomy. Eventually it turns to the provisions of Member States’ national legislation vis-à-vis EAEU law. The three founding Member States have been deeply involved in Eurasian integration. The process of drafting the EAEU Treaty required alignment with the generally recognised principles of international law, national legislation of Member States, taking into account international experience, but not the least with national constitutions. Therefore, in principle, tensions between the legal orders of the EAEU and its Member States should have been minimized from the outset. This chapter shows that it is not necessarily so in two case studies: Russia and Belarus. The former has had the most controversial encounters with external legal orders, including that of the EAEU, which was eventually ossified in the ensuing constitutional amendments in this regard. The latter has the strictest constitutional limitations, which have direct bearing on the EAEU legal order.