As for the European Union, 72% of its exports to Ukraine were finished products.

The need to address these issues is especially relevant for Ukraine, whose foreign trade policy includes the stages of its formation (1992-1994), liberalization (1994-1997), the exhaustion of opportunities for extensive development (1997-1999) and the manifestation of some signs of improvement in 2000 and the first quarter of 2001. Each of these stages is characterized by a certain state of the economy, the level of its market transformation, the peculiarities of trade conditions and means and methods of its regulation [3] …

If the formation of foreign trade policy was characterized by a combination of deepening systemic transformation crisis, mainly administrative forms of direct control over exports with excessive liberalization of imports, the stage of liberalization of foreign trade relations is characterized by simplification of export conditions while strengthening protective barriers to imports. internal market, the introduction of specific and combined duties, excise duties and VAT.

Liberalization of exports, its exemption from value added tax, combined with tight monetary and fiscal policies, accelerated the "expulsion" of products abroad, which with the reduction of domestic consumption did not find sales in the domestic market. There was also a mechanism of self-reproduction of the extreme version of exports, which is based on reducing domestic consumption, reducing the share of high-tech products due to reduced competitiveness and accelerated degradation of processing industries and increasing raw material skew of production and exports.

The stage of exhaustion of opportunities for extensive development of foreign trade is characterized by a decrease in trade in goods and services in the absence of significant changes in the means and methods of regulating foreign trade. The reasons for this lie in the long-term deterioration of the economy and trade conditions, due largely to rising prices for critical imports and declining due to rising cost of efficiency of production and export of energy and other raw materials. Some improvement in the situation, as evidenced by a certain balance in trade in goods and improved structure of trade, was achieved only in 2000 under the influence of internal and external economic recovery [3].

The development of Ukraine’s foreign trade and the formation of a mechanism for its regulation confirms the validity of the conclusion of those researchers who believe that in a crisis rapid liberalization of foreign trade not only does not contribute to positive structural changes in production and exports, but may slow them down. Exports of raw materials and semi-finished products to world markets, which are characterized by a slowdown and instability, is an extremely unreliable basis for economic growth. Is not evidenced by the growing energy intensity of the economy, debt for energy supplies, raw materials of production and exports, dependence on economic policies of major trading partners, degradation under the influence of external factors of high-tech industries and industries.

Adverse trends in foreign trade necessitate clarification of their causes and critical assessment of the general foreign trade policy and legal framework for its implementation in order to bring the mechanism of foreign trade regulation in line with economic development, achieve positive structural changes in production and exports and reduce dependence on imports. subordination of the foreign trade regime to the needs of Ukraine’s accession to the GATT and accession to the WTO.

The formation of Ukraine’s foreign trade policy, especially at its initial stage, was affected by excessive hopes that market regulators will work automatically due to the choice of a model of orthodox monetary stabilization with its inherent limitation of state influence, as well as lack of clear conceptual approaches to market reform and economic development. trade. At the same time, the fact that the necessary directions and scale of state intervention in this area depend, as evidenced by international experience, on the structure, dynamics and balance of foreign trade relations in the interaction of the national economy with the world literacy narrative topic ideas economy was ignored.

Therefore, changes in the world commodity markets and foreign trade regimes of other countries, which affect the development of foreign trade, require mandatory and timely adjustment of foreign trade legislation to meet its national interests [3].

Since Ukraine, as a relatively young independent state, was forced to start creating a legal framework for regulating foreign trade from scratch, it chose the so-called distorted form of legislative provision from three possible options for its formation. During its implementation, the one-sided development inherent in the partial form seems to be preserved due to the fact that the dynamism of foreign economic processes precedes the creation of a legal framework, which mostly lags behind the practical needs of their regulation.

Numerous laws, decrees of the President of Ukraine, resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers and bylaws of various ministries and departments on foreign economic activity, adopted in recent years, create a legal framework that seems to be developed and at the same time too contradictory and confusing.

The current excessively cumbersome system of foreign trade regulation is marked by internal contradictions, conflicts in the settlement of some aspects of foreign trade relations and their inconsistency with many internationally recognized principles and norms. Legal unregulation, which gives rise to the spontaneous development of some foreign trade processes, disparities in the relationship between laws and regulations in favor of the latter and the contradictions between them, create favorable conditions for corruption and abuse in this area [3].

It does not improve the situation and the tendency of legislators to seek diametrically opposed solutions, which often cancel each other out. It creates instability of the current foreign trade regime, which is affected by the lack of clear conceptual approaches to solving specific problems and the influence of certain lobbying forces. The declarativeness and unaddressedness of a number of legislative and by-laws, the lack of a mechanism for implementation and control over their implementation and the lack of scientific validity of the decisions underlying some legal documents, lead to the fact that their implementation yields contrary to expectations.

Lagging behind the processes of market transformation, which limits the use of better means of state influence, and the shortcomings of the legal framework for foreign trade create favorable conditions for abuse, administrative dominance and corruption, contribute to the shadowing of foreign trade and its transformation into a clash of interests, clan, clan which do not always correspond to national priorities. All this significantly limits the possibilities of bringing the foreign trade regime in line with the needs of economic development, requirements and norms of international trade law and accumulates obstacles on the way to Ukraine’s accession to the GATT and accession to the WTO.

The picture of Ukraine’s trade relations with the European Union is somewhat unique, as it can and should be considered in many dimensions in order to finally understand the essence of the problem. Such measurements are primarily:

development of Ukraine’s trade with the EU and comparison with the experience of EU candidate countries; the problem of political decisions on both sides as a deterrent; development of Ukraine’s trade relations with the European Union and prospects for trade with the CIS countries [34].

The development of Ukraine’s trade with the European Union – for many reasons, including those mentioned above – did not have a clearly growing vector, in contrast to the countries of Central Europe. Thus, in Poland at the time of signing the Trade and Cooperation Agreement in 1989, the EU’s share in foreign trade was slightly more than 15%, but in 1992, after a series of asymmetric steps by the EU in trade, the EU’s share was 57%. Poland’s share of foreign trade grew just as fast, from 1.8% in 1989 to almost 5% in 1995. In the case of Ukraine, the share of the EU in foreign trade turnover in 2000 barely reached 20%, while in the foreign trade turnover of the EU itself, Ukraine’s share was marginal 0.3% [34].

The European Union is Ukraine’s largest trading partner after the CIS countries, which in 2000 accounted for 35% of Ukrainian exports and 60% of imports. In 1999, the development of trade relations between Ukraine and the EU slowed down significantly due to the financial crisis in Russia in August of the previous year and its consequences for the Ukrainian economy: imports from the EU fell by 26%. In 2000, positive trends in the Ukrainian economy led to general economic growth – for the first time since Ukraine’s independence. Exports from EU countries and imports of Ukrainian goods there increased by 34.5% and 35.5%, respectively [34].

At the same time, the structure of trade between Ukraine and the EU has not changed: the majority of Ukrainian exports to the EU are raw materials (22%) and heavy industry products (44%, of which the share of iron and steel products is 17.5%, textiles – 14.6% and products of the chemical industry – 9.8%). The share of agricultural products in Ukrainian exports to the EU is about 12.4%. As for the European Union, 72% of its exports to Ukraine were finished products. These figures are presented to emphasize once again the problem, which is likely to be a significant component of the negative consequences for Ukraine from EU enlargement: low competitiveness of Ukrainian production, which is also reflected in the dominance of raw materials in Ukrainian exports [34 ].

Almost the only way to improve the situation may be to attract foreign investment. Foreign direct investment in Ukraine during 1992-2000 to just over 3.7 billion US dollars, while more than 22 billion was invested in the Polish economy [34].