The Institutions of Comecon PDF
Preview The Institutions of Comecon
THE INSTITUTIONS OF COMECON THE INSTITUTIONS OF COMECON Giuseppe Schiavone © Giuseppe Schiavone 1981 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1981 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission First published 1981 by THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTD London and Basingstoke Companies and representatives throughout the world British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Schiavone, Giuseppe The institutions of Comecon 1. Sovet ekonomicheskol vzaimopomoshchi I. Title 338.9T47 PC244 ISBN 978-1-349-05270-7 ISBN 978-1-349-05268-4 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-349-05268-4 Comecon is like the bumble-bee which, according to the laws of aeronautical engineering, cannot fly because its wings are too small for its body; but, never having heard of aeronautical engineering, the bumble-bee flies anyway. Arthur J. Smith Contents Introduction 1 1 The Historical Framework 11 2 Principles and Purposes 44 3 Functions and Powers 60 4 Membership and Relations with Third Parties 78 5 The Institutional Structure 105 6 Monetary and Financial Cooperation 129 7 The Institutions for Multilateral Payments and for Investments 150 Appendix A: Sessions of the Assembly 167 Organization Chart 173 Appendix B: Charter of CMEA 174 Appendix C: A Selective Bibliography by Linda Ervin 187 Subject Index 247 Author Index 255 vii Introduction The legal and institutional aspects of international economic cooperation among socialist countries 1 - even though, in various forms and on various levels, such cooperation has now been in progress for more than three decades - have not been closely studied in the Western world. Indeed, the main legal features of the cooperation which is developing in a substantial section of the socialist camp form a subject which, on the whole, is compara tively little known in the West. In particular, the major works about Comecon, hereafter CMEA (from the initial letters of its full name, Council for Mutual Economic Assistance), with the exception of a few studies in German and French, have taken a strictly economic, historical or political perspective. The main areas of interpretation and assessment have often tended so far to be concerned with a handful of principal themes in economic integration and interdependence in order to evaluate, inter alia, the performance of CMEA in terms of the implications for Soviet political and economic control of Eastern Europe. In the last few years, on the other hand, the body of Eastern legal literature concerning socialist economic integration has been growing in size and improving in quality. One cause of this state of affairs is, at least to a certain degree, the continuing difficulty for Western lawyers in obtaining detailed and up-to-date information about the evolution and regulation of the relations between members of the socialist ‘system’. It should also be stressed that, as regards more specifically the field of international law and organization, in certain periods the socialist countries have agreed upon permanent actions of an inter national nature devoid of any legal form. The present book is intended to serve as a ‘guide’ or ‘handbook’ to CMEA, providing a compendium of information with special reference to the most recent developments on the institutional level. All but two chapters of the book deal with CMEA and its principal and subsidiary organs; the two final chapters con- l 2 THE INSTITUTIONS OF COMECON centrate on ‘functional’ issues such as monetary and financial cooperation, and payments and capital flows. Overall, the aim is to provide a balanced summary rather than an exposition of the author’s own viewpoint. It is not uncommon, in works of this kind, to make com parisons between CMEA and more or less corresponding Western bodies such as the OECD (formerly OEEC) and the EEC.2 In fact, the view is widely shared that CMEA cooperation and integration emulate that of Western intergovernmental organizations and of the EEC in particular. The very foundation, thirty years ago, of CMEA appeared essentially as a Stalinist riposte to the Marshall Plan and the OEEC.3 Since that time several major changes in CMEA have occurred, but the success of cooperation and integration policies in Western Europe still serves as a powerful incentive for the strengthening of CMEA and the move towards some form of enhanced supranational au thority. It is nevertheless to be doubted that comparisons which are important for a political or economic appraisal of CMEA are equally meaningful from a legal standpoint. On a strictly formal level, certain alleged similarities and analogies may more often than not prove misleading and stand in the way of a fuller understanding of organizational phenomena which are a dis tinguishing trait of the socialist camp. More substantially, consideration of the peculiar socio-economic structures of the socialist countries should be approached with caution and superficial comparisons avoided - the more obvious the more deceptive. Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind the major role played by the Communist and workers’ parties of the socialist countries, and especially by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in promoting and directing the various forms of cooper ation, both bilateral and multilateral. The relations between the parties, and the differences and disagreements that occasionally arise on different issues and at different levels, therefore assume an overriding importance, and give cooperation among socialist countries a marked political character. Despite continuing and significant conflicts within the socialist world, which originate both from historic and traditional rivalries and economic interests and antagonisms, Soviet scholars claim that international relations between socialist states are of a new and higher type, being based upon the harmony of national 3 INTRODUCTION interests with those of the ‘system’ as a whole. The Marxist- Leninist principle of socialist internationalism, which allegedly governs the mutual relations of socialist states is said to be considerably richer and more complete than the principles governing cooperation among Western countries. Along with specific national interests, socialist states are claimed to have more general and ‘international’ interests which call for mutual support and assistance. More precisely, the principle of mutual assistance is defined as the legal right to receive assistance from other socialist states and the corresponding legal duty to render assistance to other socialist states. These principles obviously provide an institutional basis for interference in internal affairs ‘in the greater interest of the socialist camp’. Economic cooperation and integration, for their part, are said to be the most important aspects of this mutual assistance inherent in the principle of socialist internationalism. Therefore, it is not by chance that the most important organization of the socialist countries for econ omic cooperation and integration bears the name of the ‘Council for Mutual Assistance.’4 When the CMEA Charter was amended in 1974, explicit mention was made of the principle of socialist internationalism in paragraph 2 of Article I. It must nevertheless be stressed that the reference to the said principle was accompanied and counterbal anced by the introduction, in the same paragraph, of the principles of independence and non-interference in internal affairs. Despite such a careful blend of principles and counter principles, some small CMEA members, and especially Romania, are deeply concerned at the possible dangers of loss of national sovereignty and economic independence that can result from fairly comprehensive integration plans. The very principle of socialist internationalism is, in fact, now being openly discussed within the Communist movement and a trend towards its substitution with a much looser concept is gradually emerging. Although it is far from easy to foresee how important its impact will be, such a tendency will undoubtedly affect the basic principles governing relations within CMEA and the broad issues of cooperation and integration. In any event, it is the small CMEA countries which are apparently destined to reap the most substantive benefits from the decline of socialist internationalism. A brief survey of some recent documents may help bring out 4 THE INSTITUTIONS OF COMECON the progressive developments of the new ‘solidaristic’ conception and the consequent changes which have occurred to date. As a first example, one can cite the statement of 24 November 1976 about the further development of cooperation and fraternal friendship between the Soviet Communist Party and the Romanian Party, the USSR and Romania.5 After stressing that Soviet-Romanian cooperation takes place in ‘a climate of strict respect of the principles of equality of rights, of independence, of sovereignty, of non-interference in internal affairs and of mutual fraternal assistance’, the declaration makes reference to relations with the other states and parties. In the very context of the definition of these relations, one significant point appears to be the substitution - consecrated only a few months earlier by the Berlin conference of the European Communist and workers’ parties, which will be discussed later - of the principle of ‘in ternational solidarity’ for that of socialist internationalism. Indeed, the declaration stresses ‘the steady improvement of relations between socialist countries, sovereign and having equal rights, on the basis of the principles of international solidarity’. Furthermore, the Soviet and the Romanian parties declare their firm intention to contribute to the strengthening of the unity of Communist and workers’ parties ‘on the basis of the principles of Marxism-Leninism and of international solidarity, with full respect for equality of rights and of the autonomy of each brother party and of non-interference in internal affairs’. ‘Fraternal and voluntary international cooperation’ as a basis for relations between the two parties and countries is repeatedly cited in the Soviet-Yugoslav communiqué of 17 November 1976, in which no reference whatsoever is made to proletarian in ternationalism, while solemnly reconfirming ‘the respect for autonomy and freedom of choice of different ways of socialist development’, in conformity with the historical, national and international peculiarities of each country.6 The gradual evolution of the meaning and content of in ternationalism may be seen more clearly by comparing the ritual formulas used in various declarations by the conferences of representatives of Communist and workers’ parties. As an example, in the declaration of the conference of the Communist and workers’ parties held in Moscow in November 1957, explicit reference is made to socialist internationalism, citing full equality of rights, respect for territorial integrity, independence and state
The list of books you might like
