Non-use of force. The principle of non-use of force. make some commitment not to resort to war

This principle originated in international law in 1928. In 1928, the Paris Pact was adopted on the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy. According to this pact, states must not use force or the threat of force to achieve their interests in international relations.

After the adoption of the UN Charter, this principle became one of the main ones. According to this principle, the use of force in international relations in any situation is prohibited.

The UN Charter prohibits not only the use of armed force, but also unarmed violence, which is the unlawful use of force. The term "power", which is contained in paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter is subject to broad interpretation. Thus, in paragraph 4 of Art. 2 bylaws we are talking, first of all, on the prohibition of the use of armed force, but already in final act The CSCE points to the obligation of the participating states "to refrain from all manifestations of force with the aim of coercion of another participating state", "to refrain from any act of economic coercion". Consequently, in modern international law, the illegal use of force, both armed and in a broad sense, in any of its manifestations, is prohibited.

However, particular attention should be paid to the concept of "lawful use of armed force". The UN Charter provides for two cases of the lawful use of armed force: in self-defense (Article 51) and by decision of the UN Security Council in the event of a threat to the peace, violation of the peace or an act of aggression (Articles 39 and 42).

Articles 41 and 50 of the UN Charter contain provisions allowing the lawful use of unarmed force. Such measures include "complete or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraph, radio or other means of communication, as well as the severance of diplomatic relations."

The use of armed force in self-defense is lawful in the event of an armed attack on the state. Article 51 of the UN Charter expressly excludes the use of armed force by one state against another in the event that the latter takes economic or political measures. In such situations, or even if there is a threat of attack, a country can only resort to retaliatory measures if the principle of proportionality is respected.

In the structure of the UN, one of the main bodies responsible for maintaining international peace and security is the Security Council, which, if it considers the unarmed measures recommended for resolving conflicts insufficient, "is authorized to take such actions by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such actions may include demonstrations, blockades and other operations by the air, sea or land forces of the Members of the Organization" (Article 42).

The UN Charter does not contain a complete list of specific coercive measures. The Security Council may decide to apply other measures not specifically listed in the Charter.

The principle under consideration also includes a ban on aggressive wars. According to the 1974 Definition of Aggression, the first use of armed force by a state can be qualified as an aggressive war, which is an international crime and gives rise to the international legal responsibility of the state and the international criminal responsibility of the guilty individuals. The actions of the aggressors were qualified, according to the Charters of the Nuremberg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals, as international crimes.

To analyze the control of international security, the priority is to consider the principle of non-use of force or threat of force, first enshrined in the UN Charter (clause 4, article 2 and article 51).

The idea of ​​the inadmissibility of a decision contentious issues between states through war was expressed by thinkers and politicians many countries since ancient times. However, it was only in the 20th century that it was able to find its embodiment in a contractual form.

With regard to the realities that arose on the territory of the former Soviet Union after its collapse, the question of the non-use of force was very acute. As you know, the Russian leadership was often accused of being ready to use armed force to restore the USSR or to achieve concessions from its closest neighbors (for example, to change borders). Moreover, some of Russia's actions in the so-called. "near abroad" were unambiguously interpreted as aggression against the newly independent states. It was in this formulation that the Georgian leadership assessed the actions of the Russian military on the territory A bkhazia in the first months Georgian-Abkhazian conflict; Moldovan President M. Snegur also announced Russia's "military aggression" after the intervention of the 14th Army in the conflict in Transnistria. Currently, part of the Tajik opposition insists that the presence of the Russian 201st division on the territory of Tajikistan can also be qualified as Moscow's "aggression" against this country. Accordingly, Russia was accused of violating "generally recognized norms of international law", including the UN Charter, and the "victims of aggression" demanded from the UN itself, represented by its Security Council, the adoption of immediate and most severe measures to punish the aggressor.

Appeared in international law between the two wars, first as the principle of the prohibition of aggressive war, the principle of the non-use of force or the threat of force replaced the pre-existing right of states to war (jus ad bellum) . The interpretation of this principle is given in the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes1982 ., the definition of aggression adopted by the General And the UN Assembly in 1974 ., the Final Act of the 1975 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Charter of Paris for Peace for Europe and the Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle of Renunciation of the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, adopted by the General A Assembly of the United Nations on 18 November 1987, etc.

According to the principle of the prohibition of the use of force or the threat of force, all UN Member States "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other way inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations" ( paragraph 4, article 2).

A The analysis of documents revealing the content of the principle of non-use of force or threat of force leads to the conclusion that it is prohibited:

1) any actions constituting a threat of force or direct or indirect use of force against another state;

2) the use of force or the threat of force for the purpose of violating the existing international borders of another state or for resolving international disputes, including territorial disputes and issues relating to state borders, or for violating international demarcation lines, including armistice lines;

3) reprisals with the use of armed force; these prohibited acts include, in particular, the so-called “peaceful blockade”, i.e. blocking the ports of another state, carried out by the armed forces in peacetime;

4) organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands, including mercenaries;

5) organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts civil war or condoning organizational activities within its own territory, aimed at the commission of such acts, in the event that the said acts are associated with the threat or use of force;

6) military occupation of the territory of the state, which is the result of the use of force in violation of the UN Charter:

· acquisition of the territory of another state as a result of the threat or use of force;

· violent actions that deprive peoples of the right to self-determination, freedom and independence.

Practice recent years confirms that the task of unconditionally affirming the principle of the non-use of force in international life, unfortunately, has not come to naught, but, on the contrary, has become even more urgent. Since the creation of the UN, humanity has come a long way, the world has changed significantly. These changes are simultaneously fraught with new opportunities and new dangers.

International security, as noted in the Declaration on Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Principle of Renunciation of the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, approved at the 42nd session of the General And the UN Assembly in 1987 ., must be based on the principles of non-use of force, the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, and the right of free choice and independent development of each country.

The declaration consistently argues that international security is made up of security in various regions, and states that the states parties to regional agreements or bodies should consider the possibility of making wider use of such agreements and bodies to resolve issues related to the maintenance of international peace and security. , in accordance with Art. 52 of the UN Charter. Thus, the declaration reflected the idea, which has not lost its relevance even today, that in the struggle for general security, with the exception of war from the life of society, all international institutions and forms, and above all such a universal body of cooperation between states as the United Nations.

Thus, the provisions of the UN Charter and the declarations that develop them oblige all UN members to settle peacefully all disputes that may threaten international peace and security. The fact that these provisions of the UN Charter reflect a profound change in international law and are of the utmost importance has been widely recognized by lawyers and governments alike. Far from being an expression of utopian hopes for the reorganization of international relations, contained in Art. 2 of the UN Charter, the legal provisions regarding the use of force reflect a deep and realistic assessment of the destructive potential of modern warfare and the greatly increased desire of governments to prevent such war from occurring. .

The principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes is also closely related to the principle of the non-use of force. According to him, all disputes between states, of whatever nature and whatever origin they may be, must be resolved only by peaceful means.

The peaceful settlement (or resolution) of disputes is unanimously regarded as one of the basic international legal principles.

Hardly anyone will object to the assertion that conflict situations arising on the territory of the former Soviet Union should be resolved by peaceful means. The question is different: is it possible to absolutize this principle in relation to post-Soviet realities, and if not, under what circumstances and under what conditions should this principle be abandoned? Are there any objective criteria for the development of a conflict situation that make the application force methods conflict resolution acceptable and justified?

The creation of the UN and the adoption of its Charter led to the consolidation of the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes in international law, which has become universally recognized and binding. It is impossible not to note the fact that “the Charter of the United Nations ... introduces a major innovation in international law, unconditionally demanding the resolution ... of a dispute between states by one of peaceful means and, thus, excluding the possibility of declaring war” . The consolidation of the principle in a more concrete and precise form allowed the UN Charter to take a step forward in comparison with the previously existing formulations of the principle, since, in addition to the obligation of states to resolve all disputes between them only by peaceful means, it also fixes the obligation of states not to use force or threat of force in settling their disputes.

In the UN Charter, the provision on the peaceful settlement of international disputes, referred to in paragraph 1 of Art. 1, paragraph 3 of Art. 2, paragraph 4 of Art. 3, Art. 14, art. 52, in ch. VI, VII, etc. Chapter VI gives the Security Council the opportunity to "investigate any dispute or any situation which may give rise to international friction" and "recommend such conditions for the resolution of the dispute as it may think fit", however, they should not be connected with use of the armed forces. In Art. 33 lists the ways of peaceful settlement of disputes: negotiation, examination, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, trial, recourse to regional bodies or agreements, or other peaceful means at the discretion of the disputing parties. In addition, according to Art. 41 (Chapter VII), the Security Council may apply to restore peace a set of measures, also not related to the use of armed forces, which constitute “a complete or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraph, radio or other means of communication, as well as the severance of diplomatic relations.

The UN Charter thus not only enshrined the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes in a precise and concrete form, but also obliged states to resolve all disputes between them exclusively by peaceful means, without resorting to force of arms or their use.

Before the adoption of the Hague Conventions 1899 and 1907 . international law did not know this principle: after all, it allowed for the possibility of resolving disputes between states not only by peaceful, but also by non-peaceful means, including war. First time at The Hague conferences 1899 and 1907 . special conventions for the peaceful settlement of international conflicts. Art. 1 of both conventions contained a provision where the contracting powers agreed to make every effort to secure a peaceful solution to international disagreements. But these conventions contained only an indication of resorting to peaceful means of resolving international disputes, “before resorting to arms”, “as far as circumstances permit” (Article 2).

The Geneva Protocol for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, drafted by the League of Nations in 1924, stated that war constituted international crime and that would be considered an aggressor “any state that has refused to submit a dispute to the procedure for peaceful settlement provided for in Art. 13 and 15 of the Charter of the League of Nations, as amended by this Protocol, or which has refused to comply with a judgment or arbitration decision, or unanimously adopted resolution Council” (Article 10).

At the same time, the Statute of the League of Nations, in certain cases, allowed war as a legitimate means of settling disputes.

The principle of peaceful settlement of disputes was further developed in the resolution of the VI Inter-American Conference of 1928 and various bilateral non-aggression treaties and conciliation procedures providing for the mandatory peaceful settlement of disputes.

An important role in the development of the Principle of peaceful settlement of disputes was played by the adoption in 1928 of the Paris Pact on the renunciation of war. In Art. 2 of the Covenant directly stated: "The High Contracting Parties recognize that the settlement or resolution of all disputes or conflicts that may arise between them, of whatever nature or whatever origin they may be, must always be sought only in peaceful means."

For the analysis of the content of the Principle of peaceful settlement of disputes, the question of determining the scope of application of this principle seems essential.

In the practice of international legal analysis of disagreements, in addition to the category of "dispute", the category of "situation" is also used. On present stage there is no clear distinction between the concepts of "dispute" and "situation", as well as an exact definition of these concepts. The Charter also does not define the concepts of "dispute" and "situation", and the analysis of those Articles of the Charter in which these concepts occur cannot serve as a basis for their clear distinction. These articles can be divided into three groups. Some articles contain only the word “dispute” (clause 3 of article 2; clause 3 of article 27; clauses 1, 2 of article 33; clause 2 of article 35; clause 1 of article 37, article 38 ; paragraphs 2, 3, article 52, article 95). In other articles, only the word “situation” is included (clause 3, article 11, article 14, article 40). The third group consists of articles with the words “dispute” and “situation” (clause 1, article 1; clause 1, article 12, article 34; clause 1, article 35; clause 1, article 36).

There are two types of disputes and situations: the continuation of some threatens international peace and security, the continuation of others is not associated with such a threat. In the light of the goals of the UN, it is more important to settle disputes and situations of the first type, at the same time, in the context of these same goals, all disputes and situations must be settled, because those that do not threaten international peace and security still cause international friction. The presence of such tensions hinders the development of friendly relations and mutually beneficial cooperation between states and complicates the process of creating comprehensive international security.

The UN Charter does not establish criteria for dividing disputes and situations into these two categories. The solution of this issue is referred to the competence of the Security Council. According to Art. 34 of the Charter, "The Security Council is empowered to investigate any dispute or any situation which may give rise to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuation of this dispute or situation may not threaten the maintenance of international peace and security." The UN practice has not developed common criteria for dividing disputes and situations into the indicated categories. It is not possible to satisfactorily solve this complex task, primarily because the question of whether or not a dispute or situation constitutes a threat to international peace and security is due to the specific circumstances of each particular dispute, and also largely depends on the nature of the foreign policy of the disputing or involved in the situation. sides. In any case, it seems indisputable that the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes includes within its scope all international disputes and situations, whether or not they threaten international peace and security.

The essence of the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes lies not only in the fact that international disputes must be resolved by peaceful means, but in the fact that they must be resolved only by peaceful means, exclusively by peaceful means, i.e. no use of force in the settlement of international disputes is permitted. Prof. I.P. Blishchenko and M.L. Entin note that the provisions of the UN Charter and the 1970 Declaration of Principles of International Law that the settlement of an international dispute should be carried out "in such a manner as not to endanger international peace and security and justice" and "in accordance with the principles of international law" also indicate into three essential elements that characterize the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes. The result of a peaceful settlement should in no case pose a threat to international peace and security, offend the interests of third countries, create new conflict situations or, without resolving the dispute on the merits, without eliminating the causes of the conflict, leave a constant possibility of aggravating the “hidden conflict between states” .

The principles of non-use of force or threat of force and the peaceful settlement of disputes are reflected in the basic empirical provisions on which UN international control is based. The principles of the consent of the parties, the impartiality of peacekeeping forces and the non-use of force are universally recognized and fundamental both for UN peacekeeping practice and for the control of international security conducted by national governments and international organizations (for example, the Supervisory Force British Commonwealth Nations in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Multinational Force in Beirut, A Slave Defense Forces in Lebanon).

The advantage of international control based on the above principles is obvious. It is distinguished by the possibility of achieving control goals at minimal material costs and using a small number of military observers or military contingents. In addition, adherence to the principles of impartiality and neutrality, as a rule, ensures the support of the local population, without which all the efforts of peacekeepers may be fruitless (this is clearly demonstrated by the experience of peacekeeping operations in Somalia and former Yugoslavia, Russian peacekeeping forces showed themselves with the best side), and, last but not least, guarantees the day-to-day security of military bases and personnel.

However, in the event of an escalation of violence, this approach does not provide real opportunities to influence the conflicting parties. His negative side was demonstrated in a very cruel way during the crisis in the Middle East in 1967 . - the expulsion of the UN Emergency Forces (UNEF I) from Egypt and the ensuing outbreak of war between Israel and a number of Arab countries. It did not prevent disruption of the peace, foreign aggression and the seizure of the territories of UN control in Cyprus in 1972 and in Lebanon in 1982.

The obvious limitations of the principles of impartiality and non-use of force, the desire to get rid of the shortcomings inherent in international control and the urgent need to resolve the escalating conflicts have led to a shift in emphasis towards forceful methods.

It is impossible to deny the successes that have been achieved by the UN through the use of force. Thus, the successful holding of elections in Namibia in 1989 . was ensured, including the approval of the UN representatives or, at least, their tacit consent to the use of force against the agents of the Southwest People's Organization A freaks. The preventive deployment of troops in Macedonia, which is, in fact, openly military operation, prevented possible attacks on this former Yugoslav republic by Albanian militants. UN-approved Gulf War in 1991 . and bomb strikes A TO on Serbian positions in the former Yugoslavia in 1995 . certainly made it possible to achieve the goals of ongoing operations and prevent further escalation of conflicts. However, they raised next questions, on which, in currently, it is not possible to get unambiguous answers. SS Presence A to A fghanistan did not lead to its goals. So at the hearings at the UN in March 2005 . it was noted that the number of opium poppy crops in A fghanistan not only did not decrease, but on the contrary doubled, which led to a sharp increase in the production and sale of drugs, the proceeds from the sale of which go to finance international terrorist organizations which pose the greatest threat to international security today. US Invasion A to Iraq also only led to an upsurge in terrorist activity. The situation is even more depressing due to the fact that this invasion was not authorized by the UN.

To what extent is the abandonment of the principles of the non-use of force and the peaceful settlement of disputes consistent with the purposes and purposes of the United Nations? And isn't international control in this case simply a flexible device, the legal basis, goals and method of implementation of which can be subjected to radical "adjustment" depending on market conditions? political interests? Is it worth it to apply the mechanism of peacekeeping and use the UN troops in situations that obviously require a military approach? Addressing these issues would give new impetus to peacekeeping operations and take them to the next level.

It is no less relevant for the problem of conflict resolution in the post-Soviet space. By conceptually separating peacekeeping actions and the conduct of hostilities, this decision, it seems, would allow Russia to work out a more balanced and definite approach to resolving conflicts in the CIS. It would prevent Russia from becoming involved in situations like Tajikistan, where peacekeeping missions are assigned to regular combat units simultaneously with the tasks of protecting the borders and preventing the involvement of a third party in the conflict. This confusion of tasks inevitably leads to uncertainty and lack of legitimacy of the status of peacekeepers, and willy-nilly forces them to take the side of the existing regime. Blishchenko I.P., Entin M.L. Peaceful resolution of disputes between states - one of the most important principles of international law // International legal forms of cooperation between states in Europe. M., 1977, art. 60.

Global and regional systems of collective security at the present stage (international legal aspects): Abstract of the thesis. dis. ... Dr. jurid. Sciences / Mahammad Tahir. - S.-Pb., 2004. S. 34.

Concept and distinctive features the basic principles of international law are described in the chapter "Rules of international law".

The presentation of the content of each of the principles is based on the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and is given in this chapter in accordance with their official specification, which is carried out in the Declaration on Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter of October 24, 1970 and in the Final Act Conferences on Security and Cooperation in Europe of August 1, 1975 (section "Declaration of principles by which the participating states will be guided in mutual relations").

The interconnection of principles is noted in the 1970 Declaration:

"Each principle must be considered in the context of all other principles."

Sovereign equality of states

The principle of sovereign equality of states was formed and consolidated in the documents mentioned above as a synthesis of traditional legal postulates - respect for state sovereignty and equality of states. Accordingly, it is characterized as a complex, dual principle. The very combination of these two elements gives rise to a new international legal phenomenon - the sovereign equality of states.

As such, it was enshrined in the UN Charter: "The organization is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its members" (clause 1, article 2).

According to the 1970 Declaration and the 1975 Final Act, states have the same (equal) rights and obligations, i.e. they are legally equal. At the same time, according to the Declaration, all states "are equal members of the international community regardless of economic, social, political or other differences."

Each state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty, and at the same time is obliged to respect the legal personality of other states and their respective rights, including the right to determine and exercise at its discretion mutual relations on the basis of international law. Specific to the Final Act is the wording regarding the right of States "to belong or not to belong to international organizations, to be or not to be parties to bilateral or multilateral treaties...".

The “equal sovereignty” of states is characterized by the fact that “each state is sovereign within the system of states, the international community, i.e., in the conditions of interaction and interdependence of states. The sovereignty of one state is associated with the sovereignty of another state and, as a result, must be coordinated with it within the framework of the current international law (the phrase "agreed sovereignty" is found in the literature). The functions of international law include the normative provision of such coordination, a kind of streamlining of the implementation of international legal personality based on state sovereignty.

Non-intervention in internal affairs

The modern understanding of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states is generally fixed in the UN Charter and specified in the indicated international legal documents, as well as in the 1965 UN Declaration on the inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of states, on the protection of their independence and sovereignty.

According to the UN Charter, the Organization does not have the right to intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.

The 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples confirmed the anti-colonial orientation of the principle and at the same time legally secured the right of all peoples to freely determine their political status, to exercise economic, social and cultural development freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources. The International Covenants on Human Rights of 1966 fixed the right to self-determination in a contractual form, binding on the participating states. The 1970 Declaration on the Principles of International Law, as a codifying act, specified its content and determined that the means of exercising the right to self-determination are the creation of a sovereign state, joining a state or uniting with it, establishing any other political status freely chosen by the people.

According to the formulation of this principle in the Final Act of the CSCE as equality and the right of peoples to decide their own destiny, "all peoples always have the right, in conditions of complete freedom, to determine, when and how they wish, their internal and external political status without outside interference and to exercise their own political, economic, social and cultural development".

Of particular relevance in modern conditions is the other side of the principle, which provides fencing sovereign states from separatist movements, arbitrary actions aimed at splitting a sovereign state. Nothing in the principle under consideration, stated in the 1970 Declaration, should be interpreted as authorizing or encouraging any action that would lead to the dismemberment or violation of territorial integrity and political unity of sovereign states observing the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. Thus, this principle must be applied taking into account another basic principle of international law - the territorial integrity of states.

Non-use of force or threat of force

The formation of this principle is associated with such international legal acts as the Convention on the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflicts (1899) and the Convention on the Limitation of the Use of Force in the Recovery of Debt Obligations (1907).

Certain legal restrictions on the use of force were contained in the Statute of the League of Nations. In particular, art. 12 obligated states not to resort to war until certain peaceful means had been used.

Of particular importance in condemning and refusing to resort to war was the Treaty of Paris (Briand-Kellogg Pact) of August 27, 1928. According to its Art. 1 "The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare, in the name of their respective peoples, that they condemn the resort to war to settle international disputes and renounce it in their mutual relations as an instrument of national policy." Article 2 provided for the settlement of disputes or conflicts by peaceful means. This approach, in fact, consolidated the principle of the prohibition of aggressive war, which was later specified and developed in the Charters of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals and their sentences.

The states of Europe have always attached special meaning inviolability of borders, evaluating this factor as one of the main conditions for ensuring European security. The provision on the inviolability of the borders of the states of Europe found normative reflection in the treaties of the USSR, Poland, the GDR and Czechoslovakia with the FRG in 1970-1973.

The Treaty between the USSR and the FRG of August 12, 1970 stated that "peace in Europe can be preserved only if no one encroaches on modern borders." The parties stated that "they do not have any territorial claims against anyone and will not put forward such claims in the future." They will "strictly observe the territorial integrity of all states in Europe within their present borders."

In the Final Act of the CSCE of August 1, 1975, the norms on the inviolability of borders are singled out as an independent principle of relations between states.

The participating States of the CSCE regard all borders of each other and the borders of all states in Europe as inviolable. They undertake to refrain now and in the future from any encroachment on these frontiers, as well as from any demand or action aimed at the seizure and usurpation of part or all of the territory of any participating State.

The principle of inviolability of borders, among other principles, is the basis of the relations of the Russian Federation with other states, which is confirmed by its agreements with them.

The Agreement on the Establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States of December 8, 1991 and the Alma-Ata Declaration of December 21, 1991 confirm the recognition and respect for the inviolability of existing borders.

The agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Poland on friendly and good-neighbourly cooperation dated May 22, 1992 includes the following provision: "The Parties recognize the existing border between them as inviolable and confirm that they have no territorial claims against each other, and will not put forward such claims in future".

Commitment to the principle of inviolability of borders is also expressed in the Treaty between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on friendship, cooperation and partnership of May 31, 1997, in the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Azerbaijan on friendship, cooperation and security of July 3, 1997, etc.

It is significant that this principle, among others, is included in the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization of May 27, 1997.

Territorial integrity of states

In accordance with this principle, the content of which is revealed in the Final Act of the CSCE, the following obligations are imposed on the states: to respect the territorial integrity of each of the states; refrain from any action inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, against the territorial integrity, political independence or unity of any participating State;

refrain from making each other's territory an object of military occupation or an object of acquisition through the use of force or the threat of force.

The above provisions of the content of the principle of territorial integrity testify to its close connection with other basic principles of international law, especially such as the principle of the non-use of force and the threat of force, the inviolability of borders, equality and self-determination of peoples.

The Declaration on the Principles of International Law of 1970 states that the content of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples should not be interpreted as authorizing or encouraging any action that would lead to the dismemberment or partial or complete violation of the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states that have governments , representing all the people belonging to the given territory. The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples obliges states to refrain from any actions aimed at the partial or complete violation of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other state.

On April 15, 1994, the leaders of the CIS countries adopted the Declaration on Observance of the Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity and Inviolability of the Borders of the CIS Member States.

According to Art. 4 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the sovereignty of the Russian Federation extends to its entire territory; it ensures the integrity and inviolability of its territory.

Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms

The formation of the obligation of states to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms as one of the principles of international law is associated with a longer process of normative regulation than those principles that were directly proclaimed in Art. 2 of the UN Charter and specified in the 1970 Declaration.

The Charter itself, when defining the goals of the UN, refers to the implementation of international cooperation "in the promotion and development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all ..." (paragraph 3 of article 1). According to Art. 55, the UN promotes "universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all...". And if we resort to a comprehensive assessment, we can conclude that the UN Charter imposes on states the obligation not just to respect, but to universal respect for the rights and fundamental freedoms, and not only their respect, but also observance.

The normative content of the principle was developed gradually within the UN, through the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the adoption of two international covenants - on economic, social and cultural rights and on civil and political rights (1966), as well as other declarations and conventions.

In parallel, the legal regulation of the obligations of states in the field of human rights and freedoms at the regional level was carried out (American, European, later African conventions, and now within the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States).

In the Final Act of the CSCE of 1975, normative prescriptions on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms were for the first time formulated as components of an independent international principle by which the participating States undertook to be guided in mutual relations.

In accordance with the text of the act, the participating States "will encourage and develop the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other rights and freedoms, all of which derive from the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for his free and full development" . In developing this formula, states in the CSCE Vienna Outcome Document (1989) recognized that all rights and freedoms are of paramount importance and must be fully exercised by all appropriate means. The statement of the equal value of all rights and freedoms determines the content of the relevant provisions of the national legislation. In this regard, we note the wording of paragraph 1 of Art. 17 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation: "In the Russian Federation, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are recognized and guaranteed in accordance with the generally recognized principles and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution."

In the Final Act of the CSCE, respect for rights and freedoms is characterized as an essential factor of peace, justice and well-being in interstate friendly relations. It should be borne in mind that in both international covenants human rights and freedoms are regulated taking into account the right of peoples to self-determination. And in the Final Act of the CSCE, a provision on respect for the rights and protection of legitimate interests persons belonging to national minorities.

Among latest documents that apply the principle under consideration to the situation after the demise of the USSR are the Declaration of the Heads of State of the Commonwealth of Independent States on International Obligations in the Field of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (September 24, 1993) and the CIS Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (26 May 1995).

The principle of respect for rights and fundamental freedoms can be described as the legal basis for the formation and improvement of international humanitarian law as a branch of international law in its modern sense (see Chapter 13). The content of this principle determines the nature of the interaction between international legal and domestic norms in the field of humanitarian cooperation at a time when international law not only influences national human rights law, not only establishes generally accepted standards by which states should be guided, not only enacts international funds protection of human rights from mass encroachments, but also becomes a direct regulator and guarantor of certain elements legal status personality, provided, along with the national, international legal mechanism.

State cooperation

Cooperation of states as legal principle for the first time received recognition and consolidation in the UN Charter as a result of the fruitful interaction of the powers of the anti-Hitler coalition in World War II and as a criterion for interstate communication in the future. At the same time, a qualitatively new, higher level of interaction was implied than the traditional maintenance of relations between countries.

One of the goals of the UN, according to paragraph 3 of Art. 1, is the implementation of international cooperation in resolving international problems economic, cultural and humanitarian character and in the promotion and development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. The principle of cooperation pervades many provisions of the Charter. Among the functions of the General Assembly is the organization of studies and the development of recommendations in order to promote international cooperation in the political field and to encourage the progressive development of international law in the fields of economic, social, culture, education, health and the promotion of human rights (art. 13). Chapter IX deals specifically with international economic and social cooperation.

The 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law emphasizes that cooperation is the duty of states: “States have an obligation, regardless of differences in their political, economic and social systems, to cooperate with each other in various fields international relations in order to maintain international peace and security and promote international economic stability and progress, the general well-being of peoples ... ". The Declaration outlines the main areas of cooperation, orienting states to cooperate both with each other and with the United Nations.

The principle of cooperation was further developed and concretized in relation to pan-European affairs in the Final Act of the CSCE of 1975, according to which the participating states "will develop their cooperation with each other, as with all states, in all fields in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter ". At the same time, the desire, on its basis, to promote mutual understanding and trust, friendly and good-neighbourly relations, security and justice is especially emphasized.

In modern conditions, achieving the universality of the principle of cooperation is of paramount importance.

Conscientious fulfillment of international obligations

The principle under consideration, as if completing the presentation of the basic principles of international law, was born and for a long time acted as a principle of compliance with international treaties - pacta sunt servanda ("treaties must be respected").

IN modern period from a customary legal norm, it turned into a contractual norm, and its content has significantly changed and enriched.

The preamble of the UN Charter refers to the determination of peoples "to create conditions under which justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and others can be observed", and in paragraph 2 of Art. 2, the obligation of the members of the UN to conscientiously fulfill the obligations assumed under the Charter is fixed, "in order to ensure to all of them in the aggregate the rights and advantages arising from membership in the membership of the Organization."

An important stage in the contractual consolidation of this principle was the Vienna Convention on the Law international treaties 1969. It notes that "the principle of free consent and good faith and the rule of pacta sunt servanda have been universally accepted." In Art. 26 establishes: "Each valid agreement is binding on its participants and must be fulfilled by them in good faith."

This principle was described in detail in the Declaration on Principles of International Law of 1970, in the Final Act of the CSCE in 1975 and in other documents.

The meaning of this principle lies in the fact that it is a universal and cardinal norm recognized by all states, expressing the legal obligation of states and other entities to comply with and fulfill the obligations assumed in accordance with the UN Charter, arising from the generally recognized principles and norms of international law and their corresponding international treaties. and other sources of international law.

Principle conscientious performance international obligations serves as a criterion for the legitimacy of the activities of states in international and domestic relations. It acts as a condition for stability, the effectiveness of the international legal order, consistent with the legal order of all states.

With the help of this principle, the subjects of international law receive a legal basis to mutually demand from other participants in international communication the fulfillment of the conditions associated with the use of certain rights and the performance of relevant duties. This principle makes it possible to distinguish lawful activity from illegal, prohibited. In this aspect, it is clearly manifested as a peremptory norm of international law. This principle, as it were, warns the states about the inadmissibility of deviation in the treaties they conclude from the cardinal provisions of international law, expressing the fundamental interests of the entire international community, and emphasizes the preventive function of the norms of jus cogens. The principle of faithful observance of international obligations, binding mandatory rules V single system international legal regulations, is their integral part. However, if individual norms of jus cogens can be replaced by others on the basis of an agreement between states, then such a replacement is impossible in relation to this principle: its abolition would mean the elimination of all international law.

In the process of developing this principle, it was provided that in the implementation of their sovereign rights including the right to establish their own laws and regulations, the participating States will be consistent with their legal obligations under international law.

The essential features of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations are the inadmissibility of arbitrary unilateral renunciation of the undertaken obligations and legal liability for violation of international obligations, which occurs in the event of refusal to fulfill them or other actions (or inaction) of a party to the contract that are illegal. Violation of international obligations raises the question of responsibility not only for deviation from the agreement, but also for infringement on the very principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations.