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.

This chapter explores typologies of frontier violence as a particular feature of Britain’s settler colonial world. As historians have discussed, settler colonialism was distinctive from other forms of colonialism for its reliance upon the acquisition of Indigenous lands and the dissolution of Indigenous societies. From the 1820s onwards, the increasing pace of settler migration to the colonies and the settler demand for land created new pressures that generated repetitive patterns of frontier warfare for the next century. Indigenous peoples resisted colonial incursions on their country, and governments responded with an array of measures that ranged from diplomatic solutions to paramilitary policing and the enlistment of martial law. This chapter considers how these patterns of frontier violence were not consistent around the nineteenth-century British world but moved in cycles between strategies of conciliation and extraordinary legalized force. In doing so, it traces how different expressions of frontier violence supported government efforts to secure the settler polity and to assert colonial claims of sovereignty.