Foreign Affairs
English
Submit an article
Back to Issue: No.3, 2026

Integration diplomacy of the Kyrgyz Republic within the EAEU: A compensatory function, institutional ballast and the transition to smart integration

Nadira Dzhumadylova*

N.Dzhumadylova1@gmail.com

Abstract

The relevance of the research is determined by the gap between the formal legal equality of small states in asymmetric integration blocs and their real ability to exercise sovereignty. The purpose of the study was to identify the role of integration diplomacy in minimising risks to the sovereign capacity of the Kyrgyz Republic within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), as well as to substantiate the transition to a model of “smart integration” as a tool for strengthening political security. The methodological basis was a combination of institutional analysis of the three-tier regulatory framework of the country, typological analysis of risks to sovereign capacity in four dimensions, political analysis of macroeconomic indicators and SWOT analysis. The results were compared with data of international organisations and state bodies of the Kyrgyz Republic. The study showed that the institutional design of the Kyrgyz Republic’s participation in the EAEU is characterised by a mainly reactive attitude of the state, which is a manifestation of institutional inertia. The three-tier hierarchy of the regulatory framework is subject to structural constraints at each level, which, when aggregated, constrain the country’s diplomatic initiative in supranational bodies. The Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic, which is constitutionally empowered to oversee the implementation of international treaties, is not being fully utilised as a mechanism for substantive oversight of the implementation of EAEU regulations; this represents a constitutional and political challenge, rather than merely an administrative one. Simultaneous membership of the EAEU, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is interpreted as a form of forced institutional hedging: the compensatory function of these frameworks serves as a temporary substitute for sovereign capacity, whilst the transition to informed sovereign participation requires the development of diplomatic capacity through “smart integration” model. The practical significance of this research is determined by the development of analytical tools applicable to assessing the alignment of the institutional design of integration participation with the economic potential for union membership in other small states with similar structural characteristics

Keywords

integration diplomacy; compensatory function; sovereignty deficit; institutional ballast; political security; smart integration

References

  1. Adarov, A. (2022). Eurasian economic integration: Impact evaluation using the gravity model and the synthetic control methods. Review of World Economics, 159, 467-504. doi: 10.1007/s10290-022-00473-2.
  2. Adhikari, S., & Khatri, B. (2023). Labour migration market and policy failure: A comparative study of the Philippines and Nepal. Journal of International Development, 36(2), 1407-1425. doi: 10.1002/jid.3865.
  3. Agrawal, D.R., Brueckner, J.K., & Brülhart, M. (2024). Fiscal federalism in the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Economics, 16, 429-454. doi: 10.1146/annurev-economics-081623-020713.
  4. Athukorala, P., & Hill, H. (2023). Trade policy in a “double-landlocked” transition economy: Kyrgyzstan. The World Economy, 46(12), 3455-3471. doi: 10.1111/twec.13416.
  5. Baris, O.F., Knox, C., & Pelizzo, R. (2021). “Good enough” governance in the post-soviet Eurasia. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 24(4), 329-359. doi: 10.1080/13876988.2021.1893111.
  6. Bekbolotova, S., Djanibekov, N., & Herzfeld, T. (2025). How does regional economic integration impact trade in small economies? Evidence from Armenia and Kyrgyzstan’s EAEU accession. Eurasian Geography and Economics. doi: 10.1080/15387216.2025.2475904.
  7. Beksultanov, A., Cui, X., Fu, D., Wang, Z., & Ji, Y. (2026). Economic reforms in taxation, trade, and finance: A case study of the Kyrgyz Republic. International Journal of Advances in Signal and Image Sciences, 12(1), 324-334. doi: 10.29284/wmzcfm76.
  8. Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE). (2020). An analysis of the impact of EAEU accession on the Kyrgyz Republic. Retrieved from https://www.cipe.org/resources/eaeu-research-paper-kyrgyzstan/.
  9. Cieślik, A., & Gurshev, O. (2023). Trade policies in central Asia after EAEU enlargement and after Russian WTO accession: Regionalism and integration into the world economy revisited. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 65(5), 656-678. doi: 10.1080/15387216.2022.2162098.
  10. Concept of Foreign Policy of the Kyrgyz Republic. (2019, March). Retrieved from https://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/430045/edition/949067/kg.
  11. Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic. (2021, April). Retrieved from https://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/1-2/edition/1202952/kg.
  12. Dabrowski, M. (2024). The risk of protectionism: What can be lost? Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 17(8), article number 374. doi: 10.3390/jrfm17080374.
  13. Davtyan, E. (2023). Being small in a large club: Unpacking Armenia’s actorness in the Eurasian Economic Union. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 25(2), 211-227. doi: 10.1080/14683857.2023.2273495.
  14. Decree of the Ministry of Justice of the Kyrgyz Republic No. 221 “On the National Development Strategy of the Kyrgyz Republic for 2018-2040”. (2018, October). Retrieved from https://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/430002/edition/1095562/kg.
  15. Dooranov, A., Jumabekova, N., Sarygulova, R., Bavlankulova, D., & Dzhylkychieva, Z. (2024). Economic assessment of the export potential of the Kyrgyz regions: Methodology for calculating and analysing the rating. Scientific Bulletin of Mukachevo State University Series “Economics”, 11(3), 59-72. doi: 10.52566/msu-econ3.2024.59.
  16. Dragneva, R., & Hartwell, C.A. (2020). The Eurasian Economic Union: Integration without liberalisation? Post-Communist Economies, 33(2-3), 200-221. doi: 10.1080/14631377.2020.1793586.
  17. Eurasian Economic Commission. (2015). Kyrgyzstan joined the Eurasian Economic Union. Retrieved from https://eec.eaeunion.org/news/12-08-2015-1/.
  18. Eurasian Economic Commission. (2024). Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and Bakytzhan Sagintayev discussed strategic development issues of the EAEU. Retrieved from https://eec.eaeunion.org/news/kasym-zhomart-tokaev-i-bakytzhan-sagintaev-obsudili-voprosy-strategicheskogo-razvitiya-eaes/.
  19. Eurasian Economic Union. (2020). Calculation and distribution of import customs duties. Retrieved from https://eec.eaeunion.org/comission/department/dofp/zachislenie/.
  20. Eurasian Economic Union. (2025). EAEU and Indonesia signed a Free Trade Agreement. Retrieved from https://eec.eaeunion.org/en/news/soglashenie-o-svobodnoy-torgovle-podpisano-mezhdu-eaes-i-indoneziey/.
  21. Eurasian Economic Union. (n.d.). Regulatory Impact Assessment and Ex-post Impact Assessment. Retrieved from https://eec.eaeunion.org/comission/department/dobd/advpred/ria.php.
  22. Eurasian Research Institute. (n.d.). The Court of the Eurasian Economic Union. Retrieved from https://www.eurasian-research.org/publication/the-court-of-the-eurasian-economic-union/.
  23. Fernández-I-Marín, X., Knill, C., Steinbacher, C., & Steinebach, Y. (2023). Bureaucratic quality and the gap between implementation burden and administrative capacities. American Political Science Review, 118(3), 1240-1260. doi: 10.1017/s0003055423001090.
  24. Gërxhani, K., & Cichocki, S. (2023). Formal and informal institutions: Understanding the shadow economy in transition countries. Journal of Institutional Economics, 19(5), 656-672. doi: 10.1017/s1744137422000522.
  25. Gevorkyan, A.V., & Assa, J. (2021). Poverty in “transition”: 30 years after and in the pandemic. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 80(4), 1233-1258. doi: 10.1111/ajes.12428.
  26. Hartwell, C.A. (2021). Part of the problem? The Eurasian Economic Union and environmental challenges in the former Soviet Union. Problems of Post-Communism, 69(4-5), 317-329. doi: 10.1080/10758216.2021.1960173.
  27. International Monetary Fund. (2025). Kyrgyz Republic: Staff Concluding Statement of the 2025 Article IV Consultation Mission. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/en/news/articles/2025/04/04/mcs-04042025-kyrgyz-republic-concluding-statement-of-2025-art-iv-consultation-mission.
  28. Jin, Y., & Meng, X. (2023). Interdependence and multilateral economic sanctions. World Economy, 47(3), 983-1003. doi: 10.1111/twec.13476.
  29. Jipa-Muşat, I., & Piper, N. (2026). Dynamics of transnational labour migration revisited from a crisis complex perspective. Development and Change, 57(2), 261-288. doi: 10.1111/dech.70048.
  30. Kelishomi, A.M., & Nisticò, R. (2024). Economic sanctions and informal employment. Labour Economics, 89, article number 102581. doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.2024.102581.
  31. Knox, C., & Sharipova, D. (2023). Public sector reforms in developing countries: A preliminary review. Public Administration and Development, 43(5), 368-380. doi: 10.1002/pad.2030.
  32. Kolnberger, T., & Koff, H. (2021). Addressing seeming paradoxes by embracing them: Small state theory and the integration of migrants. Comparative Migration Studies, 9(1), article number 14. doi: 10.1186/s40878-021-00222-8.
  33. Komendantova, N., Rovenskaya, E., Strelkovskii, N., & Rodriguez, F.S. (2022). Impacts of various connectivity processes in Central Asia on sustainable development of Kyrgyzstan. Sustainability, 14(12), article number 6998. doi: 10.3390/su14126998.
  34. Law of the Kyrgyz Republic No. 96 “On the Interaction of State Bodies in the Sphere of Foreign Policy of the Kyrgyz Republic”. (2012, July). Retrieved from https://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/203696/edition/408192/kg.
  35. Lim, S., & Khun, C. (2022). Macroeconomic impacts of remittances: A two-country, two-sector model. Journal of Macroeconomics, 73, article number 103443. doi: 10.1016/j.jmacro.2022.103443.
  36. Lloyd’s Bank Trade. (2024). Kyrgyzstan: Trade profile. Retrieved from https://www.lloydsbanktrade.com/en/market-potential/kyrgyzstan/trade-profile.
  37. Mazhikeyev, A., & Edwards, T.H. (2020). Post-colonial trade between Russia and former Soviet republics: Back to big brother? Economic Change and Restructuring, 54, 877-918. doi: 10.1007/s10644-020-09302-8.
  38. Nasibov, M., & Gawrich, A. (2025). The agency of secondary states in post-Soviet Eurasian regionalism. International Politics. doi: 10.1057/s41311-025-00704-x.
  39. National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic. (2025). Annual report of the National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic for 2024. Retrieved from https://www.nbkr.kg/DOC/29042025/000000000064447.pdf.
  40. National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic. (2024). In January 2024, economic growth was 7.4 percent. Retrieved from https://stat.gov.kg/ru/news/v-yanvare-2024-goda-rost-ekonomiki-sostavil-74-procenta/.
  41. National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic. (2025). By the end of 2024, GDP growth was 9 percent. Retrieved from https://stat.gov.kg/ru/news/po-itogam-2024-goda-rost-vvp-sostavil-9-procentov/.
  42. Saber, T., Naeher, D., & De Lombaerde, P. (2022). On the optimal size and composition of customs unions: An evolutionary approach. Computational Economics, 62, 1457-1479. doi: 10.1007/s10614-022-10307-w.
  43. Sultonov, M. (2026). Trade-growth dynamics in Central Asia: A causal analysis of international trade and GDP interactions. Journal of Contemporary East Asia Studies, 14(2), 237-260. doi: 10.1080/24761028.2026.2637289.
  44. Trading Economics. (2026). Exports from Kyrgyzstan. Retrieved from https://ru.tradingeconomics.com/kyrgyzstan/exports.
  45. Treaty on the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union. (2018, January). Retrieved from https://docs.eaeunion.org/documents/236/2895/.
  46. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2024). Kyrgyz Republic agriculture. Retrieved from https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/kyrgyz-republic-agriculture.
  47. U.S. Department of State. (2025). 2024 investment climate statements: Kyrgyz Republic. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-investment-climate-statements/kyrgyz-republic.
  48. Vasudevan, S., & Manalaya, S. (2021). Trade effects of Eurasian Economic Union and global production sharing: A gravity analysis. International Economic Journal, 35, 223-241. doi: 10.1080/10168737.2021.1901763.
  49. Weiss, T., & Fernandes, S. (2025). Foreign policy specialisation in EU small states: Conceptualising and analysing an underexplored practice. Journal of International Relations and Development, 28, 487-507. doi: 10.1057/s41268-025-00358-5.
  50. Zhusupbaev, K.K., & Toktobaev, B.T. (2025). Implementation of the international law norms on customs transit in the legal system of the Kyrgyz Republic. World Customs Journal, 19(1), 21-37. doi: 10.55596/001c.129587.

Suggested citation

Dzhumadylova, N. (2026). Integration diplomacy of the Kyrgyz Republic within the EAEU: A compensatory function, institutional ballast and the transition to smart integration. Foreign Affairs, 36(3), 163-178. https://doi.org/10.59214/ua.fa/3.2026.163
English
Submit an article