A state-like formation is a rather complex and exceptional phenomenon of an international legal nature, still poorly studied by the domestic science of international law. The educational literature contains very little information about this unique phenomenon, and the specialized literature only touches certain moments individual state-like entities. Separate monographic or dissertation works devoted to the concept, international legal personality and other issues of the status of state-like entities in Russia do not.

Special political-territorial formations (sometimes they are called state-like) can participate in international relations, which have internal self-government and, to various extents, international legal personality.

Most often, such formations are temporary and arise as a result of unsettled territorial claims. various countries to each other.

The common thing for political-territorial formations of this kind is that in almost all cases they were created on the basis of international agreements, as a rule, peace treaties. Such agreements endowed them with a certain international legal personality, provided for an independent constitutional structure, a system of organs government controlled, the right to issue regulations, to have a limited armed forces.

These, in particular, are the free cities and the Vatican.

A free city is a state-city that has internal self-government and some international legal personality. One of the first such cities was Veliky Novgorod. Free cities included Hanseatic cities(The Hanseatic League included Lubeck, Hamburg, Bremen, Rostock, Danzig, Riga, Derpt, Revel, Amsterdam, Koenigsberg, Kiel, Stralsund and others - a total of 50 cities).

In the XIX and XX centuries. the status of free cities was determined by international legal acts or resolutions of the League of Nations and the UN General Assembly and other organizations. For example, the status of Krakow was established in Art. 4 of the Russian-Austrian treaty, in Art. 2 of the Russian-Prussian treaty, in the additional Austro-Russian-Prussian treaty of May 3, 1815; in Art. 6-10 final act Congress of Vienna dated June 9, 1815; in the Free City Constitution of 1815/1833. Subsequently, by an agreement of November 6, 1846, concluded by Austria, Prussia and Russia, the status of Krakow was changed and it became part of Austria.

The status of the Free City of Danzig (now Gdansk) was defined in Art. 100-108 of the Versailles Peace Treaty of June 28, 1919, in the Polish-Danzig Convention of November 9, 1920 and in a number of other agreements (for example, in the agreement of October 24, 1921 and in the decisions of the High Commissioner of the League of Nations, subsequently recognized Polish government).

The scope of international legal personality of free cities was determined by international agreements and constitutions of such cities. The latter were not states or trust territories, but occupied, as it were, an intermediate position. Free cities did not have full self-government. However, they were subject only to international law. For residents of free cities, a special citizenship was created. Many cities had the right to conclude international treaties and join intergovernmental organizations. The guarantors of the status of free cities were either a group of states or international organizations (the League of Nations, the UN, etc.). An integral feature of a free city is its demilitarization and neutralization.

West Berlin had a special international legal status. After the end of the Second World War, as a result of the split of Germany, two sovereign states were formed: the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic, as well as a special political and territorial unit - West Berlin.

The government of the USSR, in agreement with the government of the GDR, in 1958 proposed to give West Berlin, located on the territory of the GDR, the status of a demilitarized free city capable of exercising international functions under the guarantee from the four powers: Great Britain, the USSR, the USA and France.

The international legal status of West Berlin was determined by the Quadripartite Agreement, signed by the governments of Great Britain, the USSR, the USA and France on September 3, 1971. In accordance with this document, West Berlin had a unique international legal status. The state-political structure of West Berlin was determined by the Constitution, which entered into force on October 1, 1950. The international legal personality of West Berlin was of a limited nature. The city had its own diplomatic and consular corps, accredited to the respective authorities of the US, British and French governments. The USSR, with the consent of the governments of these countries, established the Consulate General. West Berlin had the right to participate in international negotiations, to conclude agreements concerning communications, the telegraph, to regulate the travel of permanent residents to various regions of the GDR, and so on. Germany represented the western sectors of Berlin in international organizations and conferences.

The special status of West Berlin was canceled in 1990. In accordance with the Treaty on the final settlement with respect to Germany of September 12, 1990, the united Germany includes the territories of the GDR, the FRG and all of Berlin.

Vatican. In 1929, on the basis of the Lateran Treaty, signed by the papal representative Gaspari and the head of the Italian government, Mussolini, the "state" of the Vatican was artificially created (the treaty was revised in 1984). The creation of the Vatican was dictated by the desire of Italian fascism in its domestic and foreign policy to enlist active support catholic church. The preamble to the Lateran Treaty defines the international legal status of the state "Vatican City" as follows: to ensure the absolute and explicit independence of the Holy See, guaranteeing indisputable sovereignty over international arena, the necessity of creating a "state" of the Vatican, recognizing in relation to the Holy See its full ownership, exclusive and absolute power and sovereign jurisdiction, was revealed.

The main goal of the Vatican is to create conditions for independent government for the head of the Catholic Church. At the same time, the Vatican is an independent international personality. It maintains external relations with many states, establishes in these states its permanent missions(embassies) headed by papal nuncios or internuncios (Article 14 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961). Delegations of the Vatican participate in the work of international organizations and conferences. It is a member of a number of intergovernmental organizations (IAEA, ITU, UPU, etc.), has permanent observers at the UN, JSC, UNESCO and other organizations.

At the same time, the Vatican is not a state in the social sense as a mechanism of government. certain society, generated by it and representing it. Rather, it can be seen as the administrative center of the Catholic Church.

According to the Basic Law (Constitution) of the Vatican, the right to represent the state belongs to the head of the Catholic Church - the pope. At the same time, it is necessary to distinguish between the agreements concluded by the pope as the head of the church on church affairs (concordats), from the secular agreements that he concludes on behalf of the state of the Vatican.

International legal personality of other participants international relations(TNC, INGO, individual, humanity), including state-like entities

Legal personality of state-like entities

In international law, in accordance with interstate treaties in the past and at present, a special international legal status is granted to some political-territorial (state-like) entities. In accordance with such international treaties, these entities are endowed with certain rights and obligations and thereby become subjects of international legal regulation. Their international legal personality is determined by the fact that they are capable of independently, independently of states and other subjects of international legal communication, to implement the established legal rights and responsibilities. The relevant international legal capacity is determined by the provisions of the said treaties and, in some cases, customary law. These include:

• 1) free cities. In the past, they had a special international legal status. Thus, according to the Vienna Treaty of 1815, Krakow was proclaimed a "free, independent and completely neutralized" city (it existed until 1846). The Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919 established a special international legal status for the "free state" of Danzig (1920–1939). The 1947 peace treaty with Italy provided for the formation of the "Free Territory of Trieste" (practically it was not formed; parts of it became part of Italy and Yugoslavia);
• 2) West Berlin - also had a special international legal status. The main international legal act that regulated its international legal status was the quadripartite agreement between the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and France dated 03.09.197 i. According to the agreement, the western sectors of the city were united into a special political entity with their own authorities (the Senate, the prosecutor's office, etc.), to which part of the state powers were transferred. A number of powers were exercised by the allied authorities of the victorious powers. The interests of the population of the city in international relations were represented and defended by consular officials of the FRG. The status of West Berlin ended in 1990;
• 3) Vatican - the residence of the head of the Catholic Church (the Pope) in a special area of ​​​​Rome, sometimes called the city-state. Its legal status is determined by the 1984 agreement between Italy and the "Holy See". The Vatican maintains external relations with many states, in particular with Catholic countries; he establishes his permanent representations in them, headed by papal nuncios or legates. The Vatican is involved in many international conferences and is a party to many international agreements. In addition, it is a member of a number of universal international organizations (UPU, IAEA, ITU, etc.), has permanent observers at the UN, ILO, UNESCO and some other organizations.

The problem of the international legal personality of an individual

For a long time, domestic science denied the quality of international legal personality to individuals. The situation changed during the period of "perestroika" in the USSR, when many scientists began to call for a revision of this point of view. The fact is that states, as the main subjects of international law, are increasingly creating norms aimed not only at regulating their mutual relations, but also norms addressed to other persons and entities by coordinating their wills. These norms may be addressed by INGOs, individual international bodies (commissions, committees, judicial and arbitration bodies), employees of IMGOs, i.e. individuals and entities that do not themselves have the ability to create norms of international law.

Although most of the norms aimed at influencing the legal status of an individual are directly addressed to states and oblige them to provide individuals with a certain set of rights and freedoms, in some cases related to the activities of international human rights bodies, international legal norms determine the rights and duties of an individual directly.

Of course, the situation is more complicated with the international legal personality of individuals in relation to international documents in the field of human rights in cases where the individual cannot directly speak before international bodies.

Of course, most often the norms of international law aimed at regulating the behavior of individuals or legal entities - subjects within state law, act in relation to them not directly, but indirectly by the norms national law. However, in a number of cases, rights and obligations under international law are directly vested in individuals and entities that do not have the ability to create norms of international law.

In fact, the circle of persons and entities that are the subject of international law depends on what definition of the subject of international law is given. If the subjects of international law are defined as "formations independent of each other, not subordinate in the field of international relations to any political power having the legal capacity to independently exercise the rights and obligations established by international law", then individuals and legal entities, as well as INGOs, do not have the quality of international legal personality. If, however, all persons and entities - bearers of rights and obligations directly in force of international law, then it will be necessary to recognize individuals as subjects of international law, including employees of the MMPO, a certain circle of legal entities, INGOs, and various international bodies.

Most likely, in international law we should talk about two categories of subjects. The first group includes those who have rights and obligations directly arising from the norms of international law, and are themselves directly involved in the creation of these norms, in ensuring their observance. First of all, these are states, as well as peoples and nations exercising their right to self-determination, MMPO. The second category includes individuals, INGOs, a number of international economic associations (IChO), international bodies (commissions, committees, judicial and arbitration bodies). They, having a certain rather limited range of rights and obligations under international law, do not themselves directly participate in the process of creating norms of international law.

• International law: textbook / ed. G. I. Tunkina. M., 1982. S. 82.

Some political-territorial formations also enjoy international legal status. Among them were the so-called. Free Cities, West Berlin. This category of entities includes the Vatican and the Order of Malta. Since these formations are most like mini-states and have almost all the features of a state, they are called "state-like formations".

The legal capacity of free cities was determined by the relevant international treaties. Thus, according to the provisions of the Vienna Treaty of 1815, Krakow was declared a free city (1815-1846). Under the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919, Danzig (1920-1939) enjoyed the status of a “free state”, and in accordance with the peace treaty with Italy in 1947, the creation of the Free Territory of Trieste was provided, which, however, was never created.

West Berlin (1971-1990) had a special status granted by the quadripartite agreement on West Berlin in 1971. In accordance with this agreement, the western sectors of Berlin were united into a special political entity with their own authorities (the Senate, the prosecutor's office, the court, etc.), to which some of the powers were transferred, for example, the issuance of regulations. A number of powers were exercised by the allied authorities of the victorious powers. The interests of the population of West Berlin in international relations were represented and defended by consular officials of the FRG.

The Vatican is a city-state located within the capital of Italy - Rome. Here is the residence of the head of the Catholic Church - the Pope. Legal status The Vatican City was defined by the Lateran Agreements signed between the Italian State and the Holy See on February 11, 1929, which are basically still in force today. In accordance with this document, the Vatican enjoys certain sovereign rights: it has its own territory, legislation, citizenship, etc. The Vatican actively participates in international relations, establishes permanent missions in other states (there is also a representative office of the Vatican in Russia), headed by papal nuncios (ambassadors), participates in international organizations, in conferences, signs international treaties, etc.

The Order of Malta is a religious formation with its administrative center in Rome. The Order of Malta actively participates in international relations, concludes agreements, exchanges representations with states, has observer missions in the UN, UNESCO and a number of other international organizations *.

International legal status of subjects of the federation

In international practice, as well as foreign international legal doctrine, it is recognized that the subjects of some federations are independent states, the sovereignty of which is limited by joining the federation. The subjects of the federation are recognized to have the right to act in international relations within the framework established by federal legislation.

The German constitution, for example, provides that the Länder, with the consent of the federal government, may conclude treaties with foreign states. Norms of a similar content are enshrined in the law of some other federal states. At present, the lands of the Federal Republic of Germany, the provinces of Canada, the states of the USA, the states of Australia and other entities, which in this regard are recognized as subjects of international law, are actively involved in international relations.

The international activity of subjects of foreign federations develops in the following main directions: the conclusion of international agreements; opening representative offices in other states; participation in the activities of some international organizations.

The question arises whether there are norms in international law on the international legal personality of subjects of the federation?

As is known, the most important element of international legal personality is contractual legal capacity. It represents the right to directly participate in the creation of international legal norms and is inherent in any subject of international law from the moment of its inception.

The issues of concluding, executing and terminating treaties by states are regulated primarily by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. Neither the 1969 Convention nor other international documents provide for the possibility of independent conclusion of international treaties by subjects of the federation.

Generally speaking, international law does not contain a ban on the establishment of contractual relations between states and subjects of federations and subjects among themselves. However, international law does not classify these agreements as international treaties, just as contracts between the state and a large foreign enterprise are not. In order to be a subject of the law of international treaties, it is not enough to be a party to an international agreement. It is also necessary to have the legal capacity to conclude international treaties.

The question arises about the international legal status of the subjects of the Russian Federation.

International legal status of subjects Russian Federation

As is known, the 1977 Constitution of the USSR recognized the union republics as subjects of international law. Ukraine and Belarus were members of the UN , participated in many international treaties. Less active participants in international relations were other union republics, whose constitutions provided for the possibility of concluding international treaties and exchanging missions with foreign states. With the collapse of the USSR, the former Soviet republics acquired full international legal personality, and the problem of their status as independent subjects of international law disappeared.

However, the processes of sovereignization that engulfed the newly independent states raised the question of the legal personality of the former national-state (autonomous republics) and administrative-territorial (regions, territories) formations. This problem acquired special significance with the adoption of the new Constitution of the Russian Federation in 1993 and the conclusion of the Federal Treaty. Today, some subjects of the Russian Federation declared their international legal personality.

The subjects of the Russian Federation try to act independently in international relations, conclude agreements with the subjects of foreign federations and administrative-territorial units, exchange representations with them and fix the relevant provisions in their legislation. The charter of the Voronezh region of 1995, for example, recognizes that the organizational and legal forms of the region's international relations are forms generally accepted in international practice, with the exception of treaties (agreements) of the interstate level. Taking part in international and foreign economic relations on its own or with other subjects of the Russian Federation, the Voronezh Region opens representative offices on the territory of foreign states to represent the interests of the region, which operate in accordance with the legislation of the host country.

The normative acts of some constituent entities of the Russian Federation provide for the possibility of them concluding international treaties on their own behalf. Yes, Art. 8 of the Charter of the Voronezh Region of 1995 establishes that part of legal system areas are international treaties of the Voronezh region. Norms of a similar content are fixed in Art. 6 bylaws Sverdlovsk region 1994, Art. 45 of the Charter (Basic Law) of the Stavropol Territory of 1994, art. 20 of the Charter of the Irkutsk region of 1995 and other charters of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as in the constitutions of the republics (Article 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Tatarstan).

Moreover, in some constituent entities of the Russian Federation, regulations have been adopted that regulate the procedure for concluding, executing and terminating contracts, for example, the law of the Tyumen region “On international agreements of the Tyumen region and treaties of the Tyumen region with the constituent entities of the Russian Federation” was adopted in 1995. The law of the Voronezh region “On legal regulations Voronezh Region" 1995 establishes (Article 17) that the authorities state power regions have the right to conclude agreements, which are regulatory legal acts, with state authorities of the Russian Federation, with subjects of the Russian Federation, with foreign states on issues of their common, mutual interest.

However, the statements of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation about their international contractual legal capacity do not yet mean, in my deep conviction, the existence of this legal quality in reality. It is necessary to analyze the relevant norms of legislation.

Federal legislation does not address this issue yet.

According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation (clause “o”, part 1, article 72), the coordination of international and foreign economic relations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation belongs to the joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Federation. However, the Constitution does not directly speak about the possibility of the subjects of the Russian Federation to conclude agreements that would be international treaties. The Federal Treaty does not contain such norms either.

The Federal Law "On International Treaties of the Russian Federation" of 1995 also refers the conclusion of international treaties of the Russian Federation to the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. It has been established that the international treaties of the Russian Federation concerning issues related to the jurisdiction of the subjects of the Federation are concluded in agreement with the relevant bodies of the subjects. At the same time, the main provisions of treaties affecting issues of joint jurisdiction should be sent for submission of proposals to the relevant bodies of the subject of the federation, which, however, do not have the right to veto the conclusion of the treaty. The 1995 law does not say anything about the agreements of the subjects of the Federation.

It should also be taken into account that neither the Constitution of the Russian Federation nor the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation” dated July 21, 1994 fix the norms on checking the constitutionality of international treaties of the subjects of the Federation, although such a procedure is provided for international treaties of the Russian Federation.

As for the practice of exchanging representations with subjects of foreign federations, this quality is not the main one in characterizing international legal personality, however, we note that neither the Constitution nor the legislation of the Russian Federation have yet regulated this issue. These representative offices are not opened on the basis of reciprocity and are accredited by any authority of a subject of a foreign federation or territorial unit. These bodies, being foreign legal entities, do not have the status of diplomatic or consular missions and are not subject to the provisions of the relevant conventions on diplomatic and consular relations.

The same can be said about the membership of the subjects of the Russian Federation in international organizations. It is known that the statutes of some international organizations (UNESCO, WHO, etc.) allow membership in them of entities that are not independent states. However, firstly, membership in these organizations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation has not yet been formalized, and, secondly, this sign, as already mentioned, is far from the most important in characterizing the subjects of international law.

Considering the above, the following conclusion can be drawn:

although at present the subjects of the Russian Federation do not fully possess all the elements of international legal personality, there is a clear trend towards the development of their legal personality and their registration as subjects of international law. In my opinion, this issue needs to be resolved in federal legislation.

The general theoretical definition of a subject of law is associated with a statement of the subjective right to participate in relations regulated by legal norms. Accordingly, the bearers of rights and obligations established by legal norms are characterized as subjects of law.

In the theory of international law, the concept of the special status of its subjects has developed. With this approach, the ability to participate in relations governed by international legal norms is considered as a prerequisite, but not main feature subject. The main property of the subject is the legal capacity for independent international actions, including the creation of agreed international legal norms, for the independent exercise of the rights and obligations established by these norms. Distinctive features subjects of international law, according to this concept, are expressed in the fact that they are not under anyone's power and jurisdiction, they occupy an independent position relative to each other *.

Such a special status was recognized primarily for states, since it was about participants in interstate relations, as well as certain international (interstate) organizations, state-like entities, nations and peoples fighting against colonialism, for the creation of their own states.

"... the subjects of law, in a particular legal system, are not necessarily identical, as far as their nature or scope of their rights is concerned *". And although this judgment in a particular situation referred to the legal personality of the UN, it, in essence, has a general meaning.

The differentiation of the scope and nature of rights will be discussed below. As for the differences in the nature of certain subjects, the traditional subjects of international law are divided into two main categories in the literature - the main (primary) and derivative (secondary).

Category main (primary) subjects constitute, first and foremost, states possessing state sovereignty and acquiring, by virtue of their emergence (formation), international legal personality, not conditioned by anyone's external will and having a comprehensive character.

Category derivative (secondary) entities — they are predominantly international intergovernmental organizations. The specificity of their legal nature is expressed, firstly, in the fact that they are generated - precisely as subjects of international law - by the will of states that have fixed their decision in the constituent act (hence, their legal personality is derivative, conditional), and secondly, in the fact that that the content and scope of their legal status defined in the founding act in strict accordance with the purpose and functions of each organization (thus, their legal personality is functional, individualized). With some reservations, the so-called state-like formations, i.e., special historically established political-religious or political-territorial units with a relatively independent status, are usually referred to the same category.

A special position among the subjects of international law is occupied by nations and peoples fighting against colonialism, foreign domination, for the creation own state based on national sovereignty.

The issue of the status and types of non-traditional entities is resolved, even if their international legal personality is recognized, ambiguously. Nevertheless, several such entities can be named. Their participation in legal relations regulated by international legal norms, and, consequently, their status as bearers of certain international rights and obligations seem to be quite real. These are international non-governmental organizations*, international economic associations, national legal entities and individuals ( individuals). Taking into account the powers provided for by the constitutions of individual, primarily federal, states, the constituent parts of these states are characterized by a certain international legal status (according to the terminology adopted in domestic legislation, the subjects of the Russian Federation).

There are sufficient grounds for a distinction in the international legal system law-creating entities and law enforcement entities. To be more precise, they are distinguished: 1) law-creating and at the same time law enforcement entities, for the one who participates in the rule-making process cannot be aloof from the practice of applying the rules, and 2) subjects only law enforcement, but without norm-setting ability. By the way, a similar provision exists in domestic law. The first category includes states, international organizations, and, to a lesser extent, state-like entities and struggling nations; to the second - individuals, economic entities and other legal entities, international economic associations and non-governmental organizations.

In other words, the circle implementing norms of international law are much broader than the range creating these norms. After the development, signing and entry into force of an international treaty, to its implementation and to ensure its implementation, along with the bodies and officials involved in the process of concluding the contract, bodies and officials are connected, whose functions are somehow related to the subject of contractual regulation. If we take into account other participants in the law enforcement process named above, then we can state that the agreement is also valid outside the system of state power.

Following the example of domestic law, it is possible to divide subjects by industry. If the subjects of constitutional (state) law are not the same as the subjects of civil law, and the latter, in turn, are not identical to the subjects of administrative or criminal law (this means not only and, perhaps, not so much categories and names, how many features of the legal status), then why not recognize that the subjects of the law of external relations (diplomatic and consular law) are not the same as the subjects of the law of international organizations, or even more so the subjects of international humanitarian law(and here the assessment of the peculiarities of the legal status of the relevant subjects is of decisive importance).

International legal personality

the right to establish diplomatic and consular relations with other states, to exchange diplomatic and consular missions; the right to be a member of universal and regional international organizations and to have their own representative offices with them; the right to defend one's legal personality, including the right to individual and collective self-defence.

The main duties of a state are determined by the content of the basic principles of international law and include cooperation with other states, non-interference in their internal affairs, refraining from the threat or use of force, etc.

The subject-species rights and obligations of international organizations belonging to this group are determined by their charters or other kinds of constituent acts in accordance with the functions of each of them.

Other, not basic, rights and obligations of the subjects of international law are the specific results of the will, the activities of the subjects themselves. In exercising their right to conclude international treaties, states, international organizations and some other entities establish for themselves and for entities under their jurisdiction individual rights and obligations, the content and scope of which may change when concluding new contracts.

Each state, participating in this or that international treaty, first of all assumes certain obligations and coordinates with other states its powers arising from this treaty. At the same time, it fixes in the contract the rights and obligations addressed to its competent authorities, officials, its citizens and other persons under its jurisdiction.

The relationship between rights and obligations can be shown by the example of the norms of Art. III of the Treaty on open sky March 24, 1992:

"1. Each State Party shall have the right to conduct observation flights in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty.

2. Each State Party is bound to accept observation flights over its territory in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty."

States are the main subjects of international law

The transfer of rights and obligations from one state to another occurs in the following cases: 1) when a new subject of international law arises in connection with a radical change in the socio-economic and political system of the predecessor state; 2) when a new state arises on the site of the colonial possession of the metropolitan state; 3) when one state is divided into several new states; 4) when several states merge into one state; 5) when a part of the territory is separated from the state and an independent state is formed on it. There are several objects of succession: rights and obligations arising from international treaties of the predecessor state; state property; state archives; debts.

The basis of succession is the legal fact of the emergence of a new state as a subject of international law. However, there are no clear rules regulating the issue of criteria for the termination of the existence of states and the emergence of new ones. Therefore, in practice, the issue of the emergence of new states is decided taking into account specific circumstances. If there is an ambiguity regarding the question of whether a new subject of international law has arisen, then it is best to resolve it by agreement of the states concerned, the adoption of an appropriate act by an international organization, and the issuance of a decision by an international judicial body. So, after the collapse of Austria-Hungary, the Saint-Germain (1919) and Trianon (1920) treaties determined further fate Austria and Hungary; after World War II, the UN dealt with the question of the international identity of Israel and India. In the early 1990s, in connection with the collapse of the Yugoslav federation, problems arose in determining the status of the newly formed states.

Central to the succession is the question of the scope of rights and obligations; passing from the predecessor State to the successor State. Various theories have developed on this issue in the science of international law.

According to theory of universal succession, developed in the 17th-19th centuries. and clearly manifested in the writings of G. Grotius, the successor state fully inherits the international personality of the predecessor state. This theory had its roots in Roman inheritance law. Its variation was the doctrine of continuity (identity), whose representatives (Puffendorf, Vattel, Bluntschli, and others) believed that all international rights and obligations of the old state, including all existing treaties, pass to the heir, since the identity of the state remains one and the same. Same. The legal relations that the new state inherited remained the same as those of the predecessor state; the successor state continued to be the same legal entity, embodying the unity of the territory, population, political power, rights and obligations of the previous state. In its essence, the doctrine of continuity, justifying the identity of the legal personality of the state, was a denial of any succession.

Negative theory was put forward at the beginning of the 20th century. and received the greatest justification in the works of the English lawyer A. Cates. Its supporters believed that there was no continuity of the international legal personality of the state. In this regard, when the power of one state is replaced by the power of another state, the international treaties of the predecessor are discarded. A variation of the negative theory is the concept of tabula rasa, according to which the new state begins its contractual relations from a "clean slate".

These theories have not received confirmation in the practice of succession. According to modern views, the specific scope of the rights and obligations that pass from the predecessor State to the successor State depends on many factors that should be taken into account. The sovereign will of the successor state, which determines the scope of the succession according to its own interests, is essential. However, this should not be contrary to the basic principles of international law, to the detriment of other states and peoples. In particular, annexation, the seizure of foreign territory, cannot be subject to succession.

Succession in respect of international treaties

During the Great french revolution 18th century after the overthrow of the monarchy, the National Convention of France abandoned the dynastic treaties, which lost their meaning. In 1793, he annulled all treaties of alliance or trade that existed between the former French government and the states with which the republic was at war. At the same time, the importance of the operation of the principle of compliance with international treaties was stated.

In 1917-1918. Russia announced the rejection of a number of treaties due to their contradiction to the democratic sense of justice and "the internal order of Russia." All treaties relating to the partitions of Poland were canceled "in view of their contradiction to the principle of self-determination of nations." But many treaties of tsarist Russia remained valid, for example, agreements on the protection of victims of war, health care, the Universal Postal Convention, the Convention on Cooperation at Sea, etc.

The 1978 Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in respect of Treaties established general rule, according to which a newly independent state is not obliged to maintain in force any treaty or become a party to it solely by the fact that at the time of succession this treaty was in force in relation to the territory that is the object of succession (art. 16). However, a newly independent state may, by notification of succession, establish its status as a party to any multilateral treaty which, at the time of the succession of states, was in force in respect of the territory that was the object of the succession (art. 17).

Moreover, a newly independent State, by means of a notification of succession, may take part in a multilateral treaty not in force at the time of the succession if, at the time of its succession, the predecessor State was a contracting State with respect to the territory that became the object of the succession. According to paragraph 1 of Art. 19 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, “if, prior to the date of the succession of States, a predecessor State has signed a multilateral treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, and has expressed its intention to extend that treaty to the territory which is the object of the succession of States, the newly independent State may ratify, accept or approve this treaty as if it had signed it itself, and thereby become a contracting state or a party to this treaty." The signing by the predecessor State of a treaty, unless a different intention arises from the provisions of the treaty or is otherwise established, shall be regarded as an expression of its intention to extend the treaty to the entire territory for whose international relations the predecessor State was responsible. When it is clear from the treaty or otherwise established that its application to a newly independent state would be incompatible with the object and objectives of the treaty or would fundamentally change the terms of its operation, then this state cannot participate in such a multilateral treaty. Furthermore, if it follows from the provisions of the treaty, or from the limited number of States involved in the negotiations, and from the object and purpose of the treaty, that the participation of any other State in such a treaty requires the consent of all its parties or all contracting States, "a newly independent State may become a contracting State or a party to this treaty only with such consent" (clause 4, article 19). It should also be borne in mind that when a treaty is not considered to be in force against a state on the basis of the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States of 1978, then this circumstance does not in any way affect the obligation of this state to fulfill any obligation recorded in the treaty. which is valid for him under international law, irrespective of the treaty.

The states that arose as a result of the liberation of their peoples from colonial dependence, as a rule, confirmed their participation in multilateral treaties that were associated with the strengthening of peace, the maintenance of good neighborly relations, and were of a humanitarian nature. Thus, Malta declared that it continues to bear the obligations arising from the Moscow Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water of August 5, 1963, which was ratified by England, which was responsible for the territory of Malta. Algeria acceded in 1960 to the four Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War of August 12, 1949. Some newly independent states have declared that they will continue to fulfill their obligations under all multilateral treaties for which requests have been made by the UN Secretariat.

The Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in Treaties also establishes the conditions for the succession of obligations under bilateral agreements. A bilateral treaty which was in force with respect to the territory which was the object of the succession shall be deemed to be in force between the newly independent state and the other participating state if: (a) they have expressly agreed to do so; b) by virtue of their conduct, they must be considered to have expressed such an agreement (art. 24).

In the event of the amalgamation of two or more States into one State, any treaty that was in force with respect to any of them shall continue to be in force with respect to that successor State. An exception is where the successor State and another State Party or other States Parties agree otherwise, or it is clear or otherwise established from the treaty that the application of that treaty to the successor State would be inconsistent with the object and purpose of that treaty or the fundamental would change the conditions of its action in a way (v. 31).

Where, however, part or parts of the territory of a State secede and form one or more States, whether or not the predecessor State continues to exist, the following solution is presumed: in respect of each successor State thus formed; (b) Any treaty which was in force in respect of only that part of the territory of the predecessor State which became the successor State shall continue to be in force in respect of that successor State only (art. 34).

Succession to State Property

According to the 1983 Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in respect of State Property, State Archives and State Debts, State property of a predecessor State means property, rights and interests which, at the time of State succession, belonged under the internal law of the predecessor State to that State. The transfer of state property of the predecessor state to the successor state occurs without compensation, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties concerned or decided by the relevant international bodies. The predecessor state shall take all measures to prevent damage or destruction of public property which passes to the successor state. When the successor state is a newly independent state, the immovable public property of the predecessor state located in the territory that is the object of the succession passes to the successor state. The movable state property of the predecessor state related to its activities in relation to the territory that is the object of succession also passes to the successor state (art. 15). In the event of the unification of two or more states into one, the state property of the predecessor states passes to the successor state. When a state is divided and ceases to exist, and two or more successor states are formed on the divided parts of the territory, then, unless the latter agree otherwise: a) the immovable state property of the predecessor state shall pass to the successor state in whose territory it is located; (b) the immovable State property of the predecessor State, located outside its territory, shall pass to the successor States in equitable shares; (c) The movable public property of the predecessor State relating to its activities in respect of the territories that are the object of the succession passes to the successor State concerned; d) other movable state property of the predecessor state shall pass to the successor states in fair shares (art. 18).

When part of the territory of a state is transferred by it to another state, the transfer of state property from the predecessor state to the successor state is governed by an agreement between them. If there is no agreement, then the immovable property of the predecessor State located in the territory that is the object of succession passes to the successor State. Movable property also passes to the successor state if it was connected with the activities of the predecessor state in relation to the territory that became the object of succession (art. 14).

Succession to State Archives

State archives are part of state property. In this regard, the rules of succession in relation to state archives are in many respects similar to the rules established for the succession of state property as such. For example, when the successor state is a new independent state, then the archives belonging to the territory that is the object of the succession, and which became the state archives of the predecessor state during the dependency, pass to the new independent state. That part of the state archives of the predecessor state, which, for the purposes of the normal administration of the territory - the object of succession - must be located on this territory, passes to the new independent state (Article 28).

When a state is divided and ceases to exist and two or more successor states are formed on its former territory, then, unless the latter agree otherwise, the part of the state archives of the predecessor state, which must be located on the territory of the successor state for the normal administration of its territory, passes to that successor State (art. 31).

However, the problem of the integrity of archival funds, the exceptional importance of the information contained in them give rise to a certain specificity of this issue. Therefore, the Vienna Convention of 1983, concerning the division of the state, establishes the principle of fairness and consideration of all relevant circumstances when resolving the issue. The most detailed approach is defined in the succession of a new independent state. In particular, in the cases specified by the Convention, it provides for the possibility of concluding agreements between a newly independent state and a predecessor state regarding the transfer or proper reproduction of parts of the state archives of the latter “in such a way that each of these states can, in the widest and most equitable way possible, benefit from these parts of the state archives of the predecessor state" (art. 28). Agreements of this kind must not prejudice the rights of the peoples of the participating States to development, to information about their history and to their cultural heritage. At the same time, the predecessor state is obliged to provide the new independent state with reliable archival information that relates to titles to the territory or borders of the latter or is necessary to clarify the meaning of certain documents of the predecessor state passing to the new independent state. The predecessor State is also under an obligation to cooperate with the successor State in returning to it any archives belonging to the territory - the object of the succession - and dispersed during the dependency period.

Succession in respect of public debts

The Vienna Convention of 1983 understands the public debt as any financial obligation of the predecessor state in relation to another state, international organization or other subject of international law that has arisen in accordance with international law. The Convention establishes the principle that the succession of States does not in itself affect the rights and obligations of creditors. Therefore, it unequivocally assumes that when two or more States merge and thereby form one successor State, the public debt of the predecessor States passes to the successor State. In other cases, i.e., when a part of the territory of a state is transferred, a part or parts of its territory is separated, a state is divided, a new independent state arises, the respective parties (the successor state and the predecessor state or states of the former subject) enter into an agreement with each other, regulating the issue of the transfer of public debt. Moreover, such an agreement, concluded by a new independent state, should not prejudice the principle of the inalienable sovereignty of each people over its wealth and natural resources, and the implementation of this agreement should not undermine the foundations of the economic well-being of this state. If there is no agreement, then the issue is decided depending on the way in which the successor state arises. When a successor arises as a new independent state as a result of the liberation of its people from colonial dependence, then, in the absence of the said agreement, no public debt of the predecessor state is transferred to the new state. When a successor state arises as a result of the transfer, separation of part or parts of the territory of another state or division of the state, the national debt of the predecessor state passes to the successor states in equitable shares, taking into account, in particular, property, rights and interests, which pass to to the successor state in connection with this public debt (Articles 37-38, 40-41). ,

Federal states as subjects of international law

The provision of the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties on the binding nature of the treaty "for each party in relation to its entire territory" (Article 29) is also valid for federal states. This general rule is clearly expressed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (art. 28) and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art. 50) - the provisions of both covenants "apply to all parts of federal states without any there were restrictions or exemptions.

This approach is also inherent in some constitutions. Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America qualifies treaties made in the name of the United States, along with the Constitution and laws, as "the supreme law of the land" to be followed by judges in every state. According to the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, "the conduct of external relations with foreign states belongs to the Federation" (part 1 of article 32), and the general norms of international law as an integral part of the law of the Federation "directly give rise to rights and obligations for residents of the federal territory" (article 25 ), i.e., they have a federal legal significance. According to the Constitution of India, the competence of the Union includes "foreign relations, all matters relating to the relationship of the Union with "any foreign state", the conclusion and implementation of treaties with foreign states (Appendix 7).

In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, "the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation is ... the foreign policy and international relations of the Russian Federation, international treaties of the Russian Federation ..." (paragraph "k" of Article 71).

However, specific state structure cannot but influence the mechanism for implementing the international legal personality of a federal state. This is evidenced, first of all, by legislative regulation, which is characteristic of individual federal states. In particular, according to the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, before the Federation concludes an agreement "affecting the special situation of any land, this land must be heard in a timely manner" (part 2 of article 32).

In the Russian Federation, the participation of its subjects in the conclusion of treaties of the Federation has not become an object of constitutional regulation, this issue is resolved in the Law "On International Treaties of the Russian Federation", which provides that international treaty RF, affecting issues related to the jurisdiction of the subject of the Russian Federation, is concluded in agreement with the state authorities of the interested subject, and when developing an agreement affecting the powers of the subject of the Russian Federation on subjects of joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and its subjects, proposals from the relevant bodies of the subject are considered when preparing the project (Art. 4).

The Constitution of the Russian Federation directly regulates another issue - the implementation of international treaties of the Russian Federation, including this activity in the sphere of joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and its subjects (clause "o", part 1, article 72).

The Constitution does not contain a clearly formulated norm on the supremacy and operation of international treaties of the Russian Federation throughout the entire territory of the Federation. In part 2 of Art. 4 we are talking about the supremacy of the Constitution and federal laws. Through the interpretation of Part 4 of Art. 15 of the Constitution, which declares the universally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation as an integral part of the legal system of the Federation, it can be presumed constitutional fixing federal legal effect international treaties.

In the conditions of a federal state, the observance and execution of international treaties of the Russian Federation, in general, the implementation of the international legal personality of the Russian Federation are ensured not only by federal authorities and federal laws, but also by the authorities of the relevant subjects of the Russian Federation within their powers.

The Russian Federation as a subject of international law

The termination of the existence of the USSR as a federal state and a subject of international law (December 1991) meant the constitution of the Russian Federation (until April 1992 - the RSFSR) as a sovereign state with an independent international legal status. This also applies to other states that were union republics within the USSR and created the Commonwealth of Independent States (excluding the Baltic countries, which declared independence a little earlier, announced their withdrawal from the USSR and did not take part in the CIS).

The Russian Federation, as a sovereign state exercising full power on its territory and acting independently in the external sphere, has all the features of the main subject of international law.

Fourthly, in the period from the middle of 1990 to the end of 1991, i.e. from the moment of the development and adoption of declarations on state sovereignty in the union republics until the termination of the existence of the USSR and the acquisition by these republics of the status of independent states, there was a real International activity then the subjects of the Union. So, the RSFSR at that time concluded a number of agreements with the subjects of foreign federations - individual states of the USA, the lands of the Federal Republic of Germany, the republics of the then Yugoslavia, several agreements of a trade and economic nature with the governments of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and other states. These treaty ties, as well as direct diplomatic contacts, testified to the recognition foreign countries international legal status of the republics within the USSR.

Fifth, over the many years of existence of such foreign federations as the USA, Canada, Austria, Switzerland, Australia, a system has developed for their subjects - states, provinces, lands, cantons - to become direct contractual relationship with each other on an interstate basis, and in some cases - contractual relations of a subject of one state with another state (for example, the province of Quebec in Canada with France).

The noted international practice had its own internal prerequisites in the form of constitutional norms that allowed certain external relations of the subjects of the federation and to some extent regulated them.

According to the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted by General Assembly UN December 14, 1960, "All peoples have the right to self-determination, by virtue of this right they freely determine their political status and exercise their economic, social and cultural development". The right of peoples (nations) to self-determination in relation to each people is revealed through its national sovereignty, which means that every people has the sovereign right to independence in achieving statehood and independent state existence, to a free choice of development paths.

If peoples (nations) have the right to self-determination, then all states have the duty to respect this right. This obligation also covers the recognition of those international legal relations in which the subject is the people (nation). Thus, the inalienable right of the people (nation) to self-determination, associated with its national sovereignty, is the basis of its international legal personality.

Historically, this legal personality of the people (nation) was clearly manifested in the period of the collapse of colonialism after the end of the Second World War. IN modern period When the absolute majority of the former colonial peoples achieved independence, the importance of the principle of self-determination is emphasized by the right of every nation that has built its statehood to determine its internal and external political status without outside interference and to carry out political, economic, social and cultural development at its own discretion.

If we are talking about the self-determination of individual peoples within the framework of an independent state, then the issue should be decided on the basis of specific circumstances in the context of the basic principles of international law that are interconnected with each other. The realization of self-determination by one people within the framework of a multinational sovereign state should not lead to a violation of the rights of its other peoples. In this regard, the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of March 13, 1992 stated: "Without denying the people's right to self-determination, exercised through a legitimate expression of will, one should proceed from the fact that international law limits it to the observance of the principle territorial integrity and the principle of respect for human rights."

Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between the self-determination of peoples (nations) that do not have any statehood, and the self-determination of peoples (nations) that have already achieved statehood. If in the first case the national sovereignty of the people is not yet secured by state sovereignty, then in the second case the people have already exercised their right to self-determination, and their national sovereignty is protected by the state - an independent subject of international law. Self-determination of the people within a multinational state does not at all imply the obligation to separate and create their own independent state. First of all, such self-determination is associated with an increase in the level of independence, but without a threat to human rights and the territorial integrity of the state.

The subjects of international law, as a rule, are peoples (nations) that are in colonial dependence on the mother country, but fighting for independence and the creation of a sovereign state by exercising the right to self-determination.

Such a people (nation) has both the ability to have international rights and obligations, and the ability to independently exercise them. But these organic bound friend on the other hand, the abilities that make up the legal personality of a people (nation) have specific features that distinguish the international legal personality of a nation from the international legal personality of a state. The people (nation) in the process of struggle for the creation of an independent state is able to participate in international relations only on "issues relating to the exercise of the right to self-determination. In this regard, the people (nation) has fundamental rights, including the right to conclude with states, international organizations, international treaties with other peoples exercising their national sovereignty, accede to multilateral international agreements.On behalf of the people, when concluding international treaties or joining them, bodies representing the people that have developed during the struggle for independence act: the national liberation front, the provisional government, the leadership of a political party supported by the majority of the population.

The colonial people (nation) has the right to express their will in any form with the aim of gaining independence from the metropolis, including the right to establish official relations with sovereign "states, regulated by the norms of diplomatic and consular law, and the right to participate in the activities of international organizations.

One of the fundamental rights of a people (nation) is the right to international legal protection and to receive support from other subjects of international law.

Legal personality of international organizations

International organizations are subjects of international law of a special kind. Their legal personality is not identical with the legal personality of states, since it does not stem from sovereignty.

An international organization, not possessing sovereignty, the source of its rights and obligations in the sphere of exercising its competence, has an international treaty concluded between the states concerned. Therefore, international organizations as subjects of international law are secondary, derivative in relation to states.

An organization becomes a subject if the founding states endow the organization with international rights and obligations. Its competence is specific in the sense that the rights and obligations of an international organization are distinct from those of a State. If the legal personality of the state is not limited either in the subject of legal regulation or in the scope of powers, then the legal personality of the organization is determined by those specific tasks and goals that are established by the states in the constituent act that creates the organization. In this regard, each international organization has its own, inherent only to it, range of rights and obligations. However, despite the differences in the nature and scope of rights and obligations, organizations operate within the framework of international law and have features that ensure the legal personality of an international organization. The creation and functioning of an international organization have a legitimate basis if they comply with the norms of international law, in the first place, its basic principles. On the one hand, Art. 5 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 introduces international organizations into the sphere of contractual regulation, as it determines the applicability of this convention "to any contract that is founding act international organization". On the other hand, Article 53 of the said Convention declares a treaty null and void if, at the time of its conclusion, it contradicts the peremptory norm of general international law. International organizations are obliged, in particular, to adhere to the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of the state, sovereign equality members, conscientious fulfillment of international obligations.

Each international organization has a contractual legal capacity, the specifics and scope of which are determined by its charter.

In the modern period, the most famous international organizations are the United Nations (UN), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). International Labor Organization (ILO), World Organization Health (WHO), Organization of African Unity (OAU), Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and others.

In a number of cases, succession of international organizations is carried out, in which, in order to maintain the continuity of functions, certain powers are transferred from an organization that has ceased to exist to a newly established organization by states. Thus, the UN was the successor to the rights and obligations of the League of Nations under a number of international treaties.

International law recognizes the responsibility of international organizations in case of violation by them of generally recognized international legal principles and norms and international treaties concluded by them, provisions of constituent acts.

International legal status of individuals

Of particular interest today is the assessment of the international legal status of individuals (natural persons).

In the discussion that is being conducted in the domestic literature, we proceed from the fact that the previous ideas about the inapplicability of the features of international legal personality to individuals are not entirely consistent with state of the art international legal regulation and real legal relations, and we adhere to the concept of recognizing an independent international legal status of a person, indicating his specific international legal personality.

It is impossible to recognize as convincing the references of those who deny the international legal status of individuals to a small number, in comparison with the state, of the relations of an individual based on international legal norms. In principle, the very legal ability to have and exercise rights and obligations is important, and the quantitative indicator characterizes the actual state, but not the legal ability.

An increasing number of treaties, the content of which relates to ensuring human rights in such areas as civil, family, labor and similar legal relations, legal relations in connection with the provision of legal assistance, in the field of education, taxation, social security, as well as legal relations guaranteeing the protection of victims wars during armed conflicts. Thus, agreements on legal assistance in civil, family affairs specifically define the rights of individuals. In treaties on the avoidance (elimination) of double taxation of income and property, it is noted that they apply to persons, the list of which is specified here. The Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War and their Additional Protocols expressly state that they apply to all persons protected by those instruments.

Direct legal relations with the participation of individuals at the international level are provided for in treaty acts that establish and regulate the right of an individual to apply to interstate bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms (Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with Protocol No. 11 and a number of others). A similar right of the individual is recorded in Part 3 of Art. 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

It is customary to classify derivative subjects of international law as special political-religious or political-territorial units, which, on the basis of an international act or international recognition have a relatively independent international legal status.

Such political-religious and political-territorial units in international law are called state-like entities.

State-like formations (quasi-states) - special kind subjects of international law that have some features (features) of states, but are not such in the generally accepted sense.

They are endowed with an appropriate amount of rights and obligations and thus become subjects of international law.

K.K. Gasanov singles out the following signs state-like formations:

1) territory;

2) permanent population;

3) citizenship;

4) legislative bodies;

5) government;

6) international treaties.

The question arises: why are state-like formations not among the primary ones?

The answer to this question is given by R.M. Valeev: state-like formations do not have such a property as sovereignty, because, firstly, their population is not a people, but part of a nation or representatives of various nations; secondly, their international legal capacity is severely limited, real independence in international sphere they don't have. The appearance of such formations is based on international instruments(contracts).

In the historical aspect to the state similar formations include the "free cities", West Berlin, and at present the most striking examples are the Vatican and the Order of Malta.

The Free City is a self-governing political entity that has been granted an international legal status by an international treaty, allowing it to participate mainly in economic, administrative and cultural international legal relations.

The creation of a free city, as historical experience shows, is usually the result of a settlement controversial issue about its belonging to one state or another.

In 1815, to resolve the contradictions between the great powers, the Treaty of Vienna declared Krakow a free city under the auspices of Russia, Austria and Prussia. In 1919, an attempt was made to resolve the dispute between Germany and Poland regarding Danzig (Gdansk) by granting it the status of a free city under the guarantee of the League of Nations. The external relations of the city were carried out by Poland.

To settle the claims of Italy and Yugoslavia regarding Trieste, the Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste was developed. The territory was to have a constitution, citizenship, a people's assembly, and a government. At the same time, the constitution and the activities of the government had to comply with the Statute, i.e. international legal act. In 1954, Italy and Yugoslavia divided the territory of Trieste between them.

state-like entity international law

Therefore, the highest legal act for it, as mentioned above, is an international treaty, which determines the special international legal personality of the city.

West Berlin had a unique international legal status in accordance with the Quadripartite Agreement of the USSR, Great Britain, the USA and France of September 3, 1971. These states retained the special rights and responsibilities in relation to West Berlin, which maintained official relations with the GDR and the FRG. The GDR government concluded a number of agreements with the West Berlin Senate. The German government represented the interests of West Berlin in international organizations and conferences, provided consular services to its permanent residents. The USSR established a consulate general in West Berlin. Due to the unification of Germany, formalized by the Treaty of the Final Settlement concerning Germany of 12 September 1990, the rights and responsibilities of the four powers in relation to West Berlin were terminated as it became part of the united Federal Republic of Germany.

The question of the international legal personality of the Vatican and the Order of Malta has a certain specificity. They will be discussed in more detail in the following sections of this chapter.

Thus, state-like entities should be classified as derivative subjects of international law, since their legal personality is the result of the intentions and activities of the primary subjects of international law.