The article identifies the basic components of the interaction of the LSEU (LSEU) with inter-national law (further – IL), examines its specific legal structure and mechanisms of function-ing. The aim of the article is to thoroughly study the format challenges and outline the pro-spects for harmonization and further interaction between the LSEU and the IL. To achieve this goal, the comparative legal method was used, which made it possible to analyze the com-mon and distinctive features of the norms of LSEU and IL, as well as to assess their role in overcoming legal contradictions. The formal legal approach ensured the systematization of legal principles, terminology and sources of law, as a result of which LSEU was recognized as an autonomous supranational system with its own hierarchy of norms. The system-structural method helped to identify the internal coherence of the LSEU, its connections with interna-tional norms and the practice of judicial application of law. It is established that the European legal system, formed under the influence of international and national law, has a unique archi-tecture, which is manifested in its ability to adapt and transform international norms through mechanisms of unification and parallel harmonization. The practice of the Court of Justice of the EU shows that LSEU often takes precedence over international obligations, which causes jurisdictional conflicts, especially in such sensitive areas as human rights and foreign economic activity. The need for a clearer definition of the boundaries of competences between LSEU and IL is proven, in particular in the context of the issue of the Union's accession to the ECHR. At the same time, promising directions for the formation of new coordination mecha-nisms that would take into account both the autonomy of the LSEU and generally accepted principles of IL are identified. Further scientific research could be aimed at developing practi-cal recommendations for the effective harmonization of LSEU provisions with international treaties, in particular by revising their terms and legal justifications, which would ensure a more stable and fair functioning of both legal systems in a continuous global legal space.
Волохов et al. (Fri,) studied this question.