Organizations of general competence. International political and economic organizations of general competence. The evolution of international organizations
International organizations are subjects of international law. The main feature of non-governmental international organizations is that they are not created on the basis of an interstate agreement and unite individuals and / or legal entities (for example, the Association of International Law, the League of Red Cross Societies, the World Federation of Scientists, etc.).
Different criteria are generally applied to classify international organizations. By the nature of their membership, they are divided into interstate and non-governmental. According to the circle of participants, international interstate organizations are divided into universal, open to the participation of all states of the world (UN, its specialized agencies), and regional, whose members can be states of the same region (Organization of African Unity, Organization of American States). Interstate organizations are also subdivided into organizations of general and special competence. The activities of organizations of general competence affect all spheres of relations between member states: political, economic, social, cultural, etc. (for example, the UN, OAU, OAS). Organizations of special competence are limited to cooperation in one special area (for example, the Universal Postal Union, the International Labor Organization, etc.) and can be divided into political, economic, social, cultural, scientific, religious, etc. Classification by the nature of powers allows you to highlight interstate and supranational or, more precisely, supranational organizations. The first group includes the vast majority of international organizations whose purpose is to organize interstate cooperation and whose decisions are addressed to member states. The goal of supranational organizations is integration. Their decisions apply directly to citizens and legal entities of the Member States. Some elements of supranationality in this sense are inherent, for example, in the European Union (EU).
Most organizations are precisely interstate. They do not have supranational power, members do not transfer their powers to them. The task of such organizations is to regulate the cooperation of states.
International political and economic organizations of general competence:
United Nations - United Nations
Big Eight - G 8
International trade and economic organizations and industrial development organizations:
International financial institutions:
World Bank Group
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Regional Economic Cooperation Organizations
European Union - EU
Organization of Asia-Pacific Cooperation - ARES
Specialized intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations in the field of ICT:
International Telecommunication Union - ITU
World Information Technology and Services Alliance - WITSA and others.
The central place in the system of international organizations belongs to the UN.
The UN was established to maintain and strengthen international peace and security, to develop cooperation between nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. The UN Charter was signed on June 26, 1945 in San Francisco by representatives of the 50 founding countries. There are currently 191 member states of the UN. The UN Charter establishes six main organs of the Organization: the General Assembly /GA/, the Security Council /SC/, the UN Economic and Social Council /ECOSOC/, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice and the Secretariat. In addition to the main bodies in the UN system, there are a number of specialized agencies, of which most UN countries are members.
1.2 Evolution of international organizations
Today we can say that the monocentric international system of one actor is gradually being replaced by a polycentric international system of many actors.
The second in terms of role and importance (after the state) actor in international relations are international organizations (IOs). The first MOs appeared as early as the beginning and middle of the 19th century. These were the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine, which arose in 1815, as well as the Universal Telegraph Union (1865) and the General Postal Union (1874). The first IOs were created in the field of economy, transport, culture, social interests of states and, according to their goals, were aimed at joint cross-border cooperation in the non-political field (law politics).
The number of such organizations, or, as they were then called, international administrative unions, increased by the beginning of the 20th century. These included a health commission, a flood control commission, a transport union, and others. Increasing industrialization required joint management in the field of chemistry, electrification and transport, thereby necessitating the creation of new MOs. The cross-border flow of goods, services, information and people led to the fact that at the beginning of the twentieth century. a quasi-global, Eurocentric in essence, system of the world economy was formed. The Ministry of Defense played an important role in the management of this system.
In the political sphere, the predecessors of the first MO appeared after the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Then the so-called European concert, or pentarchy, was formed, consisting of 5 great powers (England, Prussia, Russia, Austria and France). The Concert of Europe can be seen as a prototype of the MOD in the field of security, which claimed a leading role in European affairs. The concert was a system of congresses and conferences, within the framework of which 5 powers resolved issues of settlement and resolution of international crises and conflicts. The main principle of the activity of the European concert was the principle of balance.
The next important stage in the development of the IR was the activities of the League of Nations, established in 1919. The League of Nations had two significant differences from the Concert of Europe: 1) it was created on the basis of an internationally recognized act - the Statute of the League of Nations; 2) it was built on the principle of collective security.
Thanks to the institutional forms of international cooperation created by the League, a more reliable support was provided for the future UN.
Time has shown that the UN Charter turned out to be a much more elective and influential instrument for maintaining international peace and security, as well as developing cooperation in the non-political sphere, than the Statute of the League of Nations. In the second half of the twentieth century. The UN was able to take a central place in the MOD system, coordinating the activities of both governmental and non-governmental MODs.
The activities of the UN and other IOs took place in a certain international atmosphere, which largely predetermined their successes and failures. In 1945-1990. The UN developed under the decisive influence of two major factors of the post-war system of international relations. The first of these was the "cold war" between East and West, the second - the growing conflict between the economically developed North and the backward and poor South. In this regard, the history of the UN and other MODs is a reflection of the development of the post-war world.
Main characteristics of regional organizations:
ü the spatial unity of the Member States, their location within a more or less integral geographical region;
ü spatial limitation of the goals, objectives and actions of member states.
In addition to regional MMPOs, in the modern world there are a large number of sub-regional organizations of general and special competence. When creating such MMPOs, their founders are guided not by the interests of geographical regions, but by the principle of specific interests.
Arab League (LAS). Any independent Arab state can become a member of the League. The members of the Arab League are the non-Arab states of Somalia and Djibouti, which brings the structure of the League closer to the sub-regional IMGOs. The goals of the Arab League are cooperation between member states, coordination of their political actions, ensuring their independence and sovereignty.
Organization of African Unity (OAU). Any independent and sovereign African state (about 50 members) can be a member of the OAU. The main goals are the condemnation of politically motivated killings and subversive activities; a commitment to the complete liberation of African states; absolute non-alignment with any military blocs.
Organization of American States (OAS). Members of the OAS are more than 30 states of Latin America and the Caribbean, the USA and Canada.
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Members are the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar (Burma), Laos, Indonesia, Kampuchea. Goals - creation of a region of peace, freedom and neutrality; cooperation of states; establishment of a free trade zone.
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Sub-regional organization of general competence - all Muslim states located in different regions can be members of the OIC. Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries have the right to send their representatives to the DEC as observers.
Over 50 states are members of the OIC. The objectives of the OIC are to strengthen Muslim solidarity; unification of Muslim peoples; aid to the people of Palestine; rapprochement of the political positions of Muslim countries.
European Union - established in 1957 on the basis of the Treaty of Rome on the unification of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) and the European Economic Community (EEC). The Maastricht Accords (1992) completed the legal process of the European Union. The main goals of the EU are the complete transformation of the common market into an economic and monetary union; formation of a unified foreign policy; the acquisition of a "European defense identity" and the creation of a common EU armed forces.
The EU is an international organization of a special kind: the member states have given up part of their sovereign rights in order to create supranational structures. The Communities that make up the EU are independent IIGOs. The international legal personality of the EU as a whole has a limited, secondary character in comparison with the legal personality of the former three European Communities.
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The agreement on the creation of the CIS was adopted in 1991 by the heads of state of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. On December 21, 1991, the heads of 11 states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine) signed the Protocol to the Agreement and the Declaration. In 1993, Georgia joined the founding documents of the CIS. The CIS Charter was adopted in 1993.
FEDERAL FISHING AGENCY
KAMCHATKA STATE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
CORRESPONDENCE FACULTY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMY AND MANAGEMENT
CONTROL WORK ON DISCIPLINE
"WORLD ECONOMY"
OPTION NUMBER 4
TOPIC:International organizations of general competence and their activities in the field of economic cooperation: Council of Europe; Commonwealth of Nations; League of Arab States; Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe - OSCE.
Performed Checked
Student of group 06AUs IO head
Distance form of education of the Department of Economics and Management
Miroshnichenko O.A. Eremina M.Yu.
Code of the record book 061074-ZF
Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Introduction. page 3 - 5
Council of Europe. pages 6 - 12
Commonwealth of Nations. pp. 13 – 15
League of Arab States. pp. 15 – 18
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe - OSCE
Bibliography.
In modern international relations, international organizations play a significant role as a form of cooperation between states and multilateral diplomacy.
Since the establishment of the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine in 1815, international organizations have been endowed with their own competence and authority.
Modern international organizations are characterized by further expansion of their competence and complication of the structure.
Currently, there are more than 4 thousand international organizations, of which more than 300 are intergovernmental. At the center of them is the UN.
An interstate organization is characterized by the following features:
state membership;
existence of a constituent international treaty;
permanent bodies;
respect for the sovereignty of member states.
The main feature of non-governmental international organizations is that they are not created on the basis of an interstate agreement (for example, the Association of International Law, the League of Red Cross Societies, etc.).
According to the nature of membership, international organizations are divided into interstate and non-governmental. According to the circle of participants, international organizations are divided into universal (UN, its specialized agencies) and regional (Organization of African Unity, Organization of American States). International organizations are also subdivided into organizations of general competence (UN, OAU, OAS) and special (Universal Postal Union, International Labor Organization). Classification according to the nature of powers makes it possible to single out interstate and supranational organizations. The vast majority of international organizations belong to the first group. The goal of supranational organizations is integration. For example, the European Union. From the point of view of the procedure for joining them, organizations are divided into open (any state can become a member at its own discretion) and closed (admission with the consent of the founders).
International organizations are created by states. The process of creating an international organization takes place in three stages: the adoption of a constituent document, the creation of the material structure of the organization, and the convening of the main bodies.
The first step involves convening an international conference to develop and adopt the text of the treaty. Its name may be different, for example, statute (League of Nations), charter (UN, OAS, OAU), convention (UPU, WIPO).
The second stage involves the creation of the material structure of the organization. For these purposes, specially trained bodies are most often used, which prepare draft rules of procedure for future bodies of the organization, process the entire range of issues related to the creation of headquarters, etc.
The convening of the main organs completes the arrangements for the creation of an international organization.
Council of Europe.
The Council of Europe plays an important role in the development of common European legislation and, in particular, in addressing legal and ethical problems arising from scientific and technological progress. The activities of the Council of Europe are aimed at developing conventions and agreements, on the basis of which the unification and changes in the legislation of the member states are subsequently carried out. Conventions are the main elements of interstate legal cooperation that are binding on the states that have ratified them. The number of conventions related to the legal support of entrepreneurial activity includes the convention on laundering, detection, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime.
Twice (in 1993 and 1997) meetings of the heads of state and government of the countries of the Council of Europe were held. Within the framework of the Committee of Ministers, which is the highest body of the organization and meets twice a year as part of the foreign ministers of the member countries, the political aspects of cooperation in these areas are discussed and recommendations are adopted (on the basis of unanimity) to the governments of the member countries, as well as declarations and resolutions on international political issues related to the sphere of activity of the Council of Europe. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, recently created as an organ of the Council of Europe, aims to promote the development of local democracy. Several dozens of committees of experts organize intergovernmental cooperation in areas falling within the competence of the Council of Europe.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is an advisory body of the Council of Europe, and in which parliamentarians of national legislative bodies (including from opposition parties) are represented, is very active. The Parliamentary Assembly is an advisory body and has no legislative powers. It consists of representatives of the parliaments of the member states of the Council of Europe. Each national delegation is formed in such a way that it represents the interests of various political circles in its country, including opposition parties. It is the main initiator of the activities carried out by the Council of Europe and holds its plenary meetings three times a year, adopting by majority vote recommendations to the Committee of Ministers and national governments, organizing parliamentary hearings, conferences, colloquia, forming various committees and subcommittees, study groups, etc. supervising the following economic and social areas:
economic and development issues;
agriculture and rural development;
science and technology;
social issues;
environment.
In all its main areas of activity, the Council of Europe carries out numerous activities that contribute not only to the development of cooperation between member states, but also to the formation of some common guidelines for them in the organization of public life. The number of representatives from each country (from 2 to 18) depends on the size of its population. The Council of the Assembly consists of the Chairman and 17 deputies. Elections of the President of the Assembly are held every year. The Parliamentary Assembly holds its plenary sessions three times a year. It adopts by a majority of votes recommendations to the Committee of Ministers and the governments of the member states, which form the basis of specific areas of activity of the Council of Europe. The Assembly organizes conferences, colloquia, open parliamentary hearings, elects the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and judges of the European Court of Human Rights. In 1989, the Parliamentary Assembly established the status of a specially invited country to grant it to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe before their admission to full membership. This status is still retained by the Republic of Belarus.
The structure of the Council of Europe includes an administrative and technical secretariat, headed by the Secretary General, who is elected for five years.
The international political confrontation that existed on the continent made it impossible for the socialist countries to participate in the Council of Europe. With the end of the Cold War, the activities of this organization were given a new impetus, prompting it to focus on issues of democratic transformation. As a result, even joining the Council of Europe became an additional incentive for their implementation. Thus, the states newly admitted to the Council of Europe had to undertake the obligation to sign the European Convention on Human Rights, which entered into force in 1953, and to accept the totality of its control mechanisms. The conditions for the accession of new members to the Council of Europe are also the existence of a democratic legal system and the holding of free, equal and general elections. It is also important that many questions of the formation of civil society in post-socialist countries have become the subject of attention within the framework of the Council of Europe. Among them are the problems of protecting national minorities, issues of local self-government.
The Council of Europe is an authoritative international organization, the mere participation in which serves as a kind of evidence for all member states of their compliance with the high standards of pluralistic democracy. Hence the possibility of influencing those countries that are members of the Council (or candidates for accession to the Council of Europe), where this or that problem arises on this basis. At the same time, this may raise fears of the countries concerned regarding unacceptable interference in their internal affairs. In other words, the activity of the Council of Europe often turns out to be inscribed in one or another international political context and is viewed by the participants primarily through the prism of their immediate foreign policy interests; Naturally, quite serious collisions can arise as a result. This happened more than once in practice, for example, in connection with the internal political situation in Turkey in Belarus, the problem of the rights of the Russian-speaking population in some Baltic countries, the separatist movement in Chechnya (Russia), when discussing the issue of Croatia joining the Council of Europe.
The European Commission on Human Rights operates within the Council of Europe. European Court of Human Rights, European Youth Centre. Permanent Conference of Local and Regional Authorities in Europe, Social Development Fund.
The Council of Europe develops and adopts pan-European conventions on various issues of cooperation. More than 145 such conventions have already been adopted. Some of them, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, are open only to member states of the Council of Europe, while others, such as the European Convention on Culture, are open to all European states.
The Pompidou Group, an interdisciplinary ministerial cooperation body (including 28 Member States), deals with the fight against drug addiction and illicit drug trafficking.
In the field of environment and regional planning, the Council of Europe has provided a number of normative acts aimed at protecting the environment in Europe and at developing integrated development and planning for the development of the territory.
The Convention on the Conservation of Wildlife and the Environment in Europe, known as the Berne Convention, covers all aspects of nature conservation. It entered into force in 1982.
The European Conference of Ministers Responsible for Regional Planning (CEMAT), convened regularly since 1970, aims to implement a regional planning policy that will ensure sustainable economic and social development and environmental protection in an enlarged Europe.
The European Charter for Regional Planning puts forward a global, functional and long-term concept of regional planning, which, along with others, sets goals: harmonious socio-economic development of regions; environmental protection and rational use of land.
In the social sphere, the Council of Europe aims to improve the level of social protection and promote employment, training and the protection of workers' rights. In 1997 Two recommendations were accepted:
on the organization, activities and role of public employment services;
for the development of small and medium enterprises.
initiatives to create jobs outside the mainstream labor market;
social and economic consequences of structural changes in the economy of European states.
creation of jobs at small and medium-sized enterprises in economically disadvantaged areas;
for vocational training programs;
housing construction and creation of social infrastructures;
environmental protection: treatment facilities, waste processing;
modernization of rural areas - creation of basic infrastructures.
Commonwealth of Nations.
The main activities are:
support for political and economic cooperation;
promoting the sustainable development of the economy of the member countries;
performance of consulting, representative and informational functions;
development and implementation of Commonwealth programs, organization and holding of conferences, seminars, workshops and other events on the following issues: economic and social development, technology, science, education, vocational training, human rights, democracy and others. The conferences adopt declarations on various problems of world politics and economics. So, in 1987. the Declaration on World Trade was adopted; in 1989 – Declaration on the environment; in 1991 – Declaration of Fundamental Rights and others.
Meetings of heads of government of the Commonwealth countries are held once every two years. They discuss issues of the international situation, regional problems, economic, social, cultural issues, programs of the Commonwealth. Decisions are made by consensus. Meetings of ministers of an advisory and consultative nature are held regularly with the participation of the ministers of finance, trade, education, health, labor, etc.
The Secretariat, established in 1965, is the central coordinating body and head of the intergovernmental structure. and headed by the general secretary. The Secretary-General and his three deputies (for political affairs; for economic and social affairs; for technical cooperation) are appointed by the heads of government. The secretariat develops programs and organizes conferences, seminars and various events. The Secretariat maintains links with almost 300 organizations, of which 200 are non-governmental. In its work, the Secretariat relies on the Commonwealth Fund, which promotes the expansion of links between professional groups in member countries; encourages the formation of associations; provides support for conferences and assistance in the organization of vocational training.
The activities of the secretariat are financed by five different budgets, funds:
financial resources allocated from the Commonwealth budget;
funds allocated from the budget of the Scientific Council of the Commonwealth;
through the Technical Cooperation Fund;
through the Commonwealth Youth Program;
funded by the Technology Management Advisory Group.
Arab League.
The supreme body of the League is the Council, which meets twice a year, in which each member state has one vote. , adopted unanimously, are binding on all countries, adopted by a majority of votes - only for those who voted "for" Since 1964, conferences of heads of state and government of the countries of the League have been regularly convened. Located in Cairo, the General Secretariat of the League ensures its current activities. Within the framework of the Arab League, there are over two dozen different structures - the Economic Council, the Joint Defense Council, the Administrative Tribunal, specialized organizations (dealing with issues of industrial development, agriculture, education, culture, science, telecommunications, crime control, etc.).
The Arab League has founded a number of institutions and specialized organizations, including those that assist in the development of entrepreneurship. This:
Arab Management Organization;
Arab Labor Organization;
Council for Arab Economic Unity;
Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development;
Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa;
Arab Organization for Agricultural Development;
Arab Organization for Standardization and Meteorology;
Arab Academy of Maritime Transport;
Arab Telecommunications Union;
Arab Monetary Fund;
Arab Institute of Petroleum.
In order to resolve issues affecting the interests of the Arab countries, special committees are being formed within the framework of the Arab League (“committee of eight” on the situation in the territories occupied by Israel, “committee of three” on Lebanon, “committee of three” on the Middle East settlement, “committee of seven” on Libya, "committee on Jerusalem", "committee of seven" on Iraq, etc.).
The member states of the League are at the same time members of specialized agencies under the Arab League, such as: Arab Organization for Industrial Development and Extractive Industries, Arab Organization for Agricultural Development, Arab Atomic Energy Organization, Arab Labor Organization, Arab Postal Union, Arab Organization for Satellite Communications (ARABSAT) and etc.
The Arab League provides financial assistance to controlled institutions and organizations. The LAS also has a Council for Economic Affairs, including the ministers of economy and their representatives, who discuss and agree on the economic and social policies of the member countries.
The members of the Arab League are: Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen, Qatar, Comoros, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, UAE, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia.
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
The political significance of the OSCE lies primarily in its uniqueness compared to other international governmental organizations in Europe. It is practically the only European security organization directly involved in early warning, conflict resolution and post-crisis recovery in crisis regions, as well as preventive diplomacy, election observation, and environmental security in Europe.
The founding document of the CSCE/OSCE is the Helsinki Final Act, signed on August 1, 1975 by the USSR, the USA, Canada and 33 European states. This document was intended to consolidate the existing "status quo" on the European continent and continue further movement along the path of detente in relations between the West and the East. It contained the basic principles that determined the norms of mutual relations and cooperation of the participating countries and consisted of three sections (or three "baskets"), corresponding to the number of the main tasks of the Meeting.
55 countries are members of the OSCE. A distinctive feature of the CSCE/OSCE is the universal nature of this organization: not only almost all European states, but also the USSR, the USA and Canada became its participants, and the main basic provisions of the Conference/Organization are aimed at ensuring security in Europe. It is quite obvious that the universal nature of the CSCE/OSCE was also ensured by procedural rules, namely: the principle of consensus in decision-making and the principle of equality of participating countries. The Final Act was also considered as documentary confirmation of the existing balance of power between the two military-political blocs ( NATO and ATS) and non-aligned countries.
After the collapse of the USSR and the end of the ideological confrontation between West and East, the former adversaries attempted to turn the CSCE (and then the OSCE) into a pan-European organization involved in maintaining security in Europe, resolving conflicts, developing new arms control agreements, as well as taking measures to strengthen military confidence. It was at this time that such key documents as the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, the Treaty on Conventional Arms in Europe (CFE Treaty), the Open Skies Treaty, documents on the “third generation of confidence and security building measures” and other agreements were developed and signed. Thus, the participating countries tried to "adjust" the OSCE to the new realities that have developed on the continent after the end of the Cold War.
NATO's eastward expansion and the increased level of cooperation between the North Atlantic Alliance and Russia have led to significant geopolitical changes, without, however, calling into question the role of the OSCE as the only pan-European international governmental organization. This organization is practically inseparable from the “key link” between NATO and the EU; it is often used by individual member countries to indirectly “sound out” their own national interests. For example, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Mikhail Gorbachev and Francois Mitterrand tried to oppose the OSCE to NATO. In fact, Paris and Moscow were not interested in further strengthening NATO, as they did not have sufficient organizational resources to influence the decision-making process within NATO, which is heavily influenced by the United States. Moreover, in 1994, French Prime Minister Edouard Balladur proposed making the CSCE/OSCE the main peacekeeping organization in resolving the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Russia also supported this position and until the 1999 Istanbul summit tried to "promote" the OSCE as the main actor in the field of European security. However, criticism of Russian actions in Chechnya at the OSCE Istanbul Summit, as well as Moscow's increased cooperation with NATO, eventually led to a partial loss of Russian interest in the OSCE as an organization for maintaining security in Europe. At the beginning of the 21st century Russia pursues a pragmatic foreign policy and recognizes NATO as a key organization in the field of European security.
The Permanent Council of the OSCE consists of representatives of the participating States and, in fact, is the main executive body of the OSCE. The Council meets once a week at the Vienna Hofburg Congress Center to discuss the current state of affairs in the OSCE area of territorial responsibility and take appropriate decisions. Like the Council, the Forum for Security Co-operation meets once a week in Vienna to discuss and decide on issues related to the military dimension of pan-European security. This applies in particular to the Confidence and Security Measures. The Forum also deals with issues related to new security challenges and conflict resolution in the OSCE area of responsibility. In turn, the OSCE Economic Forum meets once a year in Prague to discuss economic and environmental issues affecting the security of the participating countries.
The Summit or OSCE Summit is a periodic meeting of the Heads of State or Government of OSCE member states. The main task of the summits is to determine the political guidelines and priorities for the development of the Organization at the highest level. Each meeting is preceded by a preparatory conference during which diplomats from the contracting parties oversee the implementation of key legal commitments made by the OSCE. They agree on the positions of the participants and prepare basic documents for the upcoming summit. During the existence of the OSCE, 6 summits were held. The most significant were:
the Helsinki Summit (1975), which ended with the signing of the Final Act, which is the founding document of the CSCE/OSCE;
The Paris Summit (1990), which culminated in the signing of the Charter for a New Europe and the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The Charter confirmed the decisions of the OSCE Vienna Meeting (1986) and documented the priority of international law over national law, which further led to the strengthening of separatist movements in the USSR and Eastern Europe;
The Budapest Summit (1994) ended with a series of institutional reforms. The CSCE was turned into a permanent organization of the OSCE, the contracting parties paid additional attention to the problems of resolving the Karabakh conflict, etc.;
Istanbul Summit (1999), which ended with the signing of the European Security Charter. During the meeting, the Russian delegation was severely criticized because of Moscow's policy in Chechnya. Russia pledged to reduce its military presence in Transcaucasia and Transnistria.
The functions of the OSCE in the economic field are determined by the following provisions:
Strive to achieve sustainable economic development;
Strengthen contacts and practical cooperation on environmental protection;
Contribute to strengthening international peace and security, as well as ensuring fundamental human rights, economic and social progress and the well-being of all peoples.
Cooperation between states;
Conscientious fulfillment of international legal obligations.
Within the framework of the OSCE structures dealing with the observance of human rights, attention should be paid to the office of the High Commissioner on National Minorities (The Hague). This unit deals with the early warning of ethnic conflicts that threaten stability, peace on the continent and friendly relations between the participating States of the CSCE.
A special place in the organizational structure of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is occupied by Confidence and Security Building Measures. This program was created with the aim of easing tension and strengthening mutual trust on the European continent. Within its framework, such documents were signed as: a) CFE (Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe), which establishes quotas for conventional weapons in Europe for the contracting parties; The Open Skies Treaty, which allows the participating states to exercise mutual control over each other's actions, especially in the field of security. As part of the Confidence and Security Building Measures, the Chairman-in-Office appointed his personal representatives to oversee the implementation of a number of articles of the Dayton Peace Accords. The Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, located in Geneva, was established to resolve conflict situations and disputes between the participating States that have signed the OSCE Convention on Conciliation and Arbitration, which is internal to the OSCE.
In 2003 the budget of the OSCE amounted to 185.7 million euros and mainly consists of the membership dues of the participating states. About 84 per cent of all funds are spent on military missions and projects carried out by the Organization in the field.
About 370 employees work directly in the OSCE headquarters, and in various missions and projects of this organization - more than 1,000 international employees and 2,000 citizens of those countries on whose territory these missions are carried out.
One of the fundamentally important issues in the activities of the OSCE concerns the definition of its future role. There is general agreement that it will occupy one of the central places in the organization of international political life in Europe. However, in practice, due to the desire of a large group of countries in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as the Baltic States to join NATO and the European Union, there is a tendency to marginalize the role of the OSCE. Attempts initiated by Russian diplomacy to raise the status and real significance of this organization are often seen only as aimed at setting it in opposition to NATO. The Charter for European Security being developed within the framework of the OSCE could neutralize this trend and contribute to a fuller use of the potential of this organization in the interests of strengthening stability on the continent.
^ BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Gerchikova I.N. International economic organizations: regulation of world economic relations and entrepreneurial activity. M. Publishing house of JSC "Consultbanker", 2001.
A. Kireev "International Economics", part II, Moscow, 1999
World economy. Textbook / Ed. Bulatova A.S., M. ECONOMIST, 2004
World economy. Textbook for universities / Ed. prof. I.P. Nikolaeva, ed.3, - M. UNITY-DANA, 2005
Neshataeva T.N. International organizations and law. New trends in international legal regulation. - M., 1998
Shrepler H.A. . Directory. - M., 1997.
Source: Electronic catalog of the branch department in the direction of "Jurisprudence"
(Libraries of the Faculty of Law) of the Scientific Library. M. Gorky St. Petersburg State University
Makarenko, A. B.
OSCE - Pan-European International
organization of general competence /A. B. Makarenko.
//Jurisprudence. -1997. - No. 1. - S. 156 - 165
- The OSCE is a pan-European international organization of general competence.
Makarenko, A. B.OSCE - Pan-European International Organization of General Competence
A. B. Makarenko*
Adopted at the Summit of States Parties to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in Budapest (5-6 December 1994) a package of documents (Political Declaration "Towards a Genuine Partnership in a New Era" and "Budapest Decisions") 1 contains a number of major decisions aimed at reorganizing the CSCE in accordance with the dictates of the times, significantly increasing its effectiveness and efficiency. The direction of development of the CSCE along the path of its transformation into a full-fledged regional organization is clearly indicated. The first part of the "Budapest Decisions" - "Strengthening the CSCE" - is actually a detailed outline of the Charter of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
An event of great significance was the renaming of the CSCE into the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which is a recognition of the fact that today the CSCE actually has all the features of a regional (uniting Europe with the integrated inclusion of the USA and Canada) international organization of a common competencies.
A feature of the OSCE is that it does not have a single document - a constituent act. The process of creating the organization took a long period of time and is still ongoing, and the set of decisions adopted at the summits of the participating states acts as a constituent act.
The history of the OSCE began on August 1, 1975, when the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), held in Helsinki, ended with the signing by the leaders of 33 European states, the United States and Canada of the final document of the meeting - the Final Act. The participation of the United States and Canada in the European regional meeting was due to the presence of military contingents and military bases of these countries in Europe, as well as the fact that the participation of the United States, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is of great importance for ensuring security in Europe.
The Final Act is rightfully considered one of the most important international documents of our time, since its content includes the following: firstly, the establishment of general principles of international relations between the participating States, which at the same time represent the principles of international law; secondly, a set of agreements to ensure European security and confidence-building; thirdly, agreements on cooperation in the field of economy, science and technology and the environment, humanitarian and other fields; fourthly, a statement of determination to continue the multilateral process initiated by the Meeting and an agreement on activities to be carried out by the participating States after the Meeting; fifthly, the creation of the basis for a system of collective security and cooperation.
The final act has a complex multifaceted structure. In addition to establishing the legal principles of relations between states, it fixes the goals and intentions of its participants, collectively developed and agreed recommendations, and also contains specific legal norms.
By its legal nature, the Final Act is unique, and this gave rise to numerous discussions q: the legal force of this document, and subsequently other agreements within the CSCE. As noted by V. K. Sobakin, this uniqueness makes it impossible to bring the Meeting and the Final Act under the traditional classifications of international meetings and international legal documents. 2
There is no doubt that the Final Document of the Helsinki Conference is not an international treaty. 3 Such a conclusion can be drawn from the text of the Act itself, which states that it "is not subject to registration under Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations." In accordance with this article, all treaties and international agreements concluded by members of the UN must, as soon as possible, be registered with the Secretariat and published by it. The refusal to register deprived the participants of the Meeting of the right to refer to the Final Act as a treaty in any of the UN bodies, from which it can be concluded that the states participating in the CSCE decided not to give this agreement a contractual form.
This fact was a prerequisite for differences of opinion regarding the obligatory nature of the Act for the participating countries. The American International Law Association, when publishing the text of the Final Act, provided it with an explanation stating that the Final Act had no binding force. 4 This approach received a negative legal assessment from the international legal community. Both the Final Act itself and the outcome documents of all subsequent summit meetings within the framework of the CSCE are permeated with statements of the participating countries about their “intention to put into practice”, “determination to give full effect” to the provisions of the Final Act of the Conference. The section of the Act dealing with the principle of good faith fulfillment of obligations under international law states that the participants "will ... take due account of and fulfill(my cursive. - A.M.) provisions of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe”. 5 More decisive is the wording of the Madrid Outcome Document: confidence- and security-building measures will be “mandatory and will be provided with adequate forms of verification appropriate to their content”. 6 In the Final Document of the Vienna Meeting, the participants expressed their determination to “assume responsibility for the full implementation of the obligations contained in the Final Act and other documents of the CSCE”. 7
At present, the attitude to the agreements within the framework of the CSCE as having a binding character has become generally recognized. However, the question of the nature of the binding force of these documents is still a matter of controversy.
There are two main points of view on this issue: according to the first, the acts of the CSCE are in the nature of political agreements, and their binding force is of a moral and political nature; 8 the second recognizes the legal force of these associate professors, the content of international legal norms in them. 9 Recent trends in the development of the CSCE process, qualitative changes in it, the essence of which will be described below, have proved the correctness of the second point of view.
The international legal doctrine proceeds from the theory of concordance of the wills of states as a way of creating international legal norms. The most common source of international law is an international treaty, however, it cannot be considered as the only form of agreement of wills. In addition, there are other generally recognized sources, such as international customs and mandatory normative resolutions of international organizations, as well as a special form of harmonization of the wills of states - the final documents of international conferences, to which the Final Act belongs. Its legal force is not diminished by the fact that the prescriptions contained in it are different in the nature of their binding nature. It contains both legal norms and non-normative provisions, both imperative and non-normative provisions coexist. But the combination of normative and non-normative provisions in one document does not eliminate its qualification as a source! law, since the rules of law are still present in it. 10
The interpretation of CSCE documents as sources of international law is of particular importance in connection with the gradual transition of the CSCE into a new quality - the quality of an international organization of a regional nature. Throughout the history of the existence of the CSCE, a sequence of steps in this direction can be traced.
The meeting in Helsinki laid the foundation for the organizational process of building a system of security and cooperation in Europe. In the section of the outcome document “Following the Meeting”, the participating States expressed their desire to continue the multilateral process initiated by the Meeting and to implement the provisions of the Final Act.
A whole series of meetings of representatives of states at various levels was planned. Even then, in the aggregate of these meetings, some organizational unity was seen, as well as the possibility of giving the process a more organized form.
The first was the Belgrade Meeting of the States Parties to the Pan-European Conference, held in the capital of Yugoslavia from October 4, 1977 to March 9, 1978. At this meeting, an in-depth exchange of views took place on the implementation of the Final Act and on the development of the detente process in the future. The final document of the Belgrade meeting, adopted on March 8, 1978, emphasized the determination of the participating countries "to implement in a unilateral, bilateral and multilateral manner all the provisions of the Final Act." eleven
At the Madrid meeting, the participating states managed to reach agreements that create new opportunities for expanding their cooperation in various fields, for intensifying their efforts in the interests of strengthening European and global peace. The meeting ended on September 9, 1983 with the adoption of the final document, which was fully based on the principles and provisions of the Helsinki Final Act. The final document confirmed that it is necessary to strictly and rigorously respect and implement in practice the ten Helsinki principles, by which the states participating in the all-European meeting pledged to be guided in their mutual relations. The intention was also confirmed to take further steps to reduce or gradually eliminate all kinds of obstacles to the development of trade, to expand economic, scientific and technical ties.
An important agreement reached at the Madrid meeting was the decision to convene a conference of states on confidence-building, security and disarmament measures in Europe, which began on January 17, 1984, in Stockholm. The main achievement of this conference was the adoption of a set of complementary confidence- and security-building measures. The document of the Stockholm Conference is a politically significant achievement, and the measures contained in it are an important step in efforts aimed at reducing the danger of military confrontation in Europe. 12
The next main stage of the CSCE process was the Vienna meeting of the representatives of the states-participants of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The meeting was held from November 1986 to January 1989. It brought to the fore one of the main elements of the CSCE process - the human dimension, which had not been in the spotlight before, in contrast to the military issue. The final document of the Vienna meeting significantly expanded the provisions of the Final Act concerning human rights and humanitarian cooperation. 13 It is of fundamental importance that a permanent mechanism has been established to monitor the fulfillment of obligations in this area by participating States - the so-called Vienna Mechanism. On this occasion, significant differences arose between East and West. The question arose whether the human dimension mechanism would not contradict the basic principle of international law - non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. This principle continues to be one of the fundamental foundations of international communication. However, states, voluntarily assuming appropriate obligations, can to a certain extent limit the scope of their internal competence, which is not subject to interference. The primacy of universal human values over national or group values is also directly related to ensuring human rights. The above is of particular importance in connection with the issue of recognizing the binding force of agreements within the framework of the CSCE.
The essence of the Vienna Mechanism was the decision of the participating States:
1) exchange information and respond to requests for information and representations made to them by other participants on matters relating to the human dimension of the CSCE;
2) to hold bilateral meetings with other participating States in order to study issues relating to the human dimension of the CSCE, including situations and specific cases, with a view to resolving them;
3) that any participating State that considers it necessary may draw the attention of other participating States through diplomatic channels to situations and cases concerning the human dimension of the CSCE;
4) that any participating State may provide contact information in accordance with the above paragraphs at CSCE meetings. 14
The Vienna Conference decided that three Human Dimension Meetings should be held. Three meetings-conferences on the human dimension were held: in Paris - in 1989, in Copenhagen - in 1990 and in Moscow - in 1991. These meetings significantly strengthened and expanded the Vienna Mechanism, creating a system of international non-violent action to protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
The Copenhagen Document strengthened the Vienna Mechanism by setting specific deadlines for responding to requests for information. 15 It was followed by the Moscow Document, whose three main parts, concerning respectively the strengthening of the human dimension mechanism, the rule of law and human rights obligations, supplemented and reinforced the Copenhagen Document. For the first time, its preamble stated unequivocally that "questions relating to freedoms, democracy and the rule of law are of an international character" and that "the commitments made by them v areas of the human dimension of the CSCE, are issues of direct and legitimate interest to all participating States, and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the respective state”, 16 The innovation of the Moscow Conference was the possibility of sending independent missions of experts and speakers, in including against the will of the state that violates human rights. To achieve this goal, the participating States took an important step - they came into conflict with an important principle of the CSCE: the rule of consensus (see below). Thus, the foundations for the procedure of international control were laid.
On November 19-21, 1990, a meeting of the heads of state and government of 34 CSCE member countries took place in Paris. The main question that was discussed at it was this: what should be the future of Europe and pan-European cooperation.
The outcome of the meeting was the adoption of a document called the Charter of Paris for a New Europe. It noted the profound changes and fundamental socio-political changes that had taken place in Eastern Europe, and contained the statement that "the era of confrontation and division of Europe is over." 17 The participants of the meeting reaffirmed their adherence to the ten principles of the Final Act and stated that from now on their relations will be based on mutual respect and cooperation. The Charter clearly states the right to equal security for all and the freedom to choose how to ensure one's own security.
Let us especially note this meeting in connection with the fact that it marked the beginning of a new stage in the institutionalization of the pan-European process and the transition of the CSCE to a new quality. In the section of the Charter of Paris entitled “New Structures and Institutions of the CSCE Process”, the participating States stated that “joint efforts to ensure respect for human rights, democracy and promote unity in Europe require a new quality of political dialogue and cooperation and thus , development of CSCE structures”. The organizational and procedural conditions for the establishment of these structures were contained in the "Supplementary Document", which was adopted together with the Charter of Paris. Thus, there was a transition from the general principles of creating a system of security and cooperation in Europe, proclaimed by the Final Act of 1975, to building specific structures of the system.
One of the bodies created at the Paris meeting was the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the CSCE member states. On January 30-31, 1992, a meeting of the Council took place in Prague, at which the process of institutionalization was continued and changes were made regarding certain bodies and procedures.
This important milestone was followed by the next one - the Helsinki Meeting of Heads of State and Government of the CSCE participating countries, which took place in the capital of Finland on July 9-10, 1992 (Helsinki-2). The document “The Challenge of Change” adopted at the Helsinki meeting consolidated the main results of the first stage of the CSCE's transition to a new quality - the quality of an international organization. 18 The CSCE received broad powers to take practical measures and various means of their implementation. The Helsinki Document includes the Summit Declaration and a package of decisions on the structure and main activities of the CSCE. The Helsinki Document continues to develop structures to ensure that crises are overcome by political means and creates new mechanisms for conflict prevention and crisis management.
In the field of the human dimension, the meeting in Helsinki demonstrated the growing concern of the participating States about violations of the rights of persons belonging to national minorities, the growing number of refugees and displaced persons. An important place was occupied by provisions aimed at strengthening the obligations of the participating states in these areas.
Agreements were reached on intensifying economic, scientific, technical and environmental cooperation in the CSCE region.
The Helsinki-2 meeting played an important role in creating the necessary prerequisites for the practical use of the CSCE as an instrument for maintaining peace, stability and security in the region.
On December 14-15, 1992, a regular meeting of the CSCE Council took place in Stockholm. At this meeting, a document was adopted that summed up the 20-year efforts of the participating states of the pan-European process to develop a comprehensive system for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. 19 Work on it was carried out at regular meetings of the CSCE participants, as well as at four special expert meetings (Montreux, 1978; Athens, 1984; La Valette, 1991; Geneva, 1992). At the last meeting, final recommendations were developed, which were adopted by the CSCE Council at the Stockholm meeting.
And finally, on December 5-6, 1994, another meeting was held in Budapest, in which the heads of state and government of 52 CSCE countries, as well as Macedonia as an observer, took part, and which today is the last major step towards the formation OSCE.
The process of transforming the Helsinki process from a forum of predominantly political dialogue into a regional Euro-Atlantic organization for maintaining military-political stability and developing cooperation is characterized by three main features: the institutionalization of the CSCE, changes v its powers and changes in procedure.
As noted above, the beginning of a new stage of institutionalization, namely, the creation of permanent bodies, the presence of which is one of the main features of an international organization, was initiated at the Paris Summit in 1990. Then the following permanent bodies were created:
1. Council of Foreign Ministers - the central forum for regular political consultations within the framework of the CSCE process. Its competence included the consideration of issues related to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the adoption of appropriate decisions, as well as the preparation of meetings of the Heads of State and Government of the participating States and the implementation of the decisions adopted at these meetings,
2. Committee of Senior Officials (CSO), whose function was to prepare meetings of the Council, draw up the agenda and implement its decisions, review current problems and consider issues of the future work of the CSCE with the right to make decisions on them, including in the form of recommendations to the Council.
3. Secretariat- body of administrative service of consultations of all levels.
4. Center for Conflict Prevention to assist the Council in reducing the risk of conflict. Its role was to promote the implementation of the confidence- and security-building measures developed at the Stockholm Conference. These measures included a mechanism for consultation and cooperation regarding unusual military activities, the exchange of military information, a communication network, annual performance review meetings, and cooperation regarding dangerous incidents of a military nature.
5. Bureau of Free Elections to facilitate contacts and exchange of information on elections in the participating States.
6. Parliamentary Assembly as a body uniting members of parliaments of all participating states.
Subsequently, the composition of the bodies and their powers were repeatedly changed towards expansion in order to make them more effective.
Thus, at the Prague meeting, the Council of Foreign Ministers of the CSCE participating States transformed the Bureau for Free Elections into Bureau for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODHR) giving it additional features. 20 This was done with the aim of expanding practical cooperation between participating States in the field of the human dimension.
At the Prague meeting was created within the framework of the Committee of Senior Officials Economic Forum, to give a political impetus to the dialogue on the transition to a free market economy and its development and to propose practical steps towards the development of free market systems and economic cooperation.
For the Center for Conflict Prevention established at the Paris Meeting, the Prague Document set new tasks and measures to strengthen the functions and improve the working methods of the CPC.
At the meeting of heads of state and government in Helsinki in 1992, decisions were made according to which the Council and the Committee of Senior Officials as the agent of the Council became the institutional core of the CSCE. 21 The role of the central and governing body of the CSCE was assigned to the Council, and along with the adoption of operational decisions, the CSO was entrusted with the functions of management and coordination. Direct the day-to-day activities of the CSCE entrusted to the Chairman-in-Office, who shall bring the decisions of the Council and the CSO to the attention of the institutions of the CSCE and give them, if necessary, appropriate recommendations on these decisions.
To assist the President, a Troika Institute(composed of the previous, current and subsequent chairmen acting jointly), as well as ad hoc task forces set up on a case-by-case basis, in particular for conflict prevention, crisis management and dispute resolution, and personal representatives of the Chairperson.
The post was established CSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, which operates under the auspices of the CSO and should contribute to the prevention of conflicts at the earliest possible stage.
CSCE Forum for Security Co-operation was established as a permanent body of the CSCE to solve the following main tasks: conducting new negotiations on arms control, disarmament and confidence and security building; expansion of regular consultations, intensification of cooperation on issues related to security; reducing the risk of conflict.
An important milestone in the process of institutionalization and expansion of the powers of the CSCE was the Convention on Conciliation and Arbitration within the CSCE adopted on December 14-15, 1992 in Stockholm and the Regulations on the CSCE Conciliation Commission. 22 The Convention provides for the creation Courts of Conciliation and Arbitration for the settlement by conciliation and, where appropriate, arbitration of disputes referred to it by the CSCE participating States.
At the Budapest meeting, the Committee of Senior Officials was transformed into Leadership Council. Its functions include the discussion and formulation of guiding principles of a political and general budgetary nature. The Governing Council also convenes as an Economic Forum.
In addition to the institutionalization of the CSCE process and the acquisition of new powers, one more main sign of its acquisition of a new quality can be cited: there has been a dynamic development of both formal and internal CSCE principles and procedures, which have undergone significant changes.
Let us consider the fundamental changes that have been made to the cornerstone of the CSCE - the rule of consensus.
As mentioned above, the rules of procedure developed in the Final Recommendations of the Helsinki consultations provided that decisions at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe would be taken by consensus. This was of great importance, as it encouraged the participating States to resolve differences of opinion regarding the content of any provisions. As a result, there were always such formulations that no state opposed, although it took a long time to achieve this.
The use of consensus in dealing with critical issues is generally positive. “The use of consensus,” writes A. N. Kovalev, “is intended to serve to prevent the imposition of someone else's will on states with the help of a mechanical majority. At the same time, the consensus rule contains the potential for abuse by those who seek to delay, slow down the adoption of agreements, and obstruct the achievement of agreement. 23 However, in view of the potential for unproductive use of consensus, the participating States of the CSCE agreed that the rules of procedure of the Helsinki meeting would be applied by subsequent meetings.
The rule of consensus is closely connected with another fundamental principle of the CSCE - the principle of non-interference in internal affairs (principle VI of the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference). 24 This principle has often been used as a sort of caveat: some states have viewed exposure of human rights violations in these countries as unacceptable interference in their internal affairs. In addition, the special nature of territorial conflicts, as well as conflicts related to minority problems and the collapse of states, requires the ability of international organizations to participate in their elimination in order to protect peoples and peoples.
With the establishment of the Vienna Mechanism (1989), the foundations for the international control procedure were laid. The emergence of a mechanism of emergency and preventive measures meant that "there was an opportunity for international non-violent action to protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law." 25 The end of the period of confrontation between the two systems made possible further progress in this direction: the result of the Moscow Conference on the Human Dimension was the possibility of sending a commission of experts also against the will of the state violating human rights. To achieve this goal, it was necessary to come into conflict with the CSCE principle named above: the rule of consensus.
The next important step towards modifying the consensus principle was the Prague meeting of the CSCE Council, at which, in order to protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law, an important decision was made that “the Council or the Committee of Senior Officials may, if necessary, - and without the consent of the state concerned, in cases of clear, flagrant and uncorrected violation of relevant CSCE commitments - appropriate action is taken.
Such actions will consist of political statements or other political steps that will be taken outside the territory of such a state.” 26 As we can see, a new mechanism has appeared, called “consensus minus one”.
Returning to the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, it should be noted that the participating States formulated their attitude to this issue in the preamble of the Moscow Document of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, which stated that “issues relating to human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of of law, are of an international character” and that “the commitments they have made in the field of the human dimension of the CSCE are matters of direct and legitimate interest to all participating States and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the state concerned” .
The principle of consensus does not apply when decisions are taken in the CSCE Parliamentary Assembly, where a majority of votes is required, as well as when the mechanism of emergency measures and the mechanism of preventive measures for resolving crisis situations, adopted in Helsinki, are put into operation (the consent of 11 states is sufficient). gifts).
A major change is the adoption at the Stockholm meeting of the CSCE Council of the “Regulations on directive reconciliation”. 27 According to this instrument, the Council of Ministers or the Committee of Senior Officials may order any two participating States to resort to conciliation in order to assist them in resolving a dispute which they have failed to resolve within a reasonable period of time. . However, “the parties to a dispute may exercise any rights they normally have to participate in all discussions within the Council or the CSO regarding the dispute, but they will not participate in the adoption by the Council or the CSO of a decision directing the parties to resort to conciliation proceedings. ". This element of the peace settlement system was called by the CSCE participants the "consensus minus two" procedure.
Examples can be used to trace an important trend in the development of the all-European process - the modification of the rules of procedure during the transition of the CSCE to a new quality.
The above changes that have taken place in the pan-European process since the convening of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975 to the present day give reason to say that at present the CSCE corresponds to the signs of international organizations identified in the international -legal research. So, according to X. Shermers, an international organization is characterized by three main features: 1) the contractual basis of the organization, i.e. the existence of an international agreement of states on the creation of an organization that determines its functions and powers; 2) the presence of permanent bodies; 3) subordination of its establishment and activities to international law. 28
E. A. Shibaeva noted that the concept of an international organization she formulated allows us to speak about five of its constituent features: 1) a contractual basis; 2) the presence of certain goals; 3) appropriate organizational structure; 4) independent rights;) and duties; 5) establishment in accordance with international law. 29
It should be noted that the first and last signs in this definition repeat each other, since any international treaty must comply with international law.
The broadest definition was given by E. T. Usenko, who believes that the signs of an international organization developed by the theory and practice of international relations cover the following: 1) the organization was created and operates on the basis of an interstate agreement; 2) its members are the states themselves; 3) it has its own will; 4) it has organs that form and express its will; 5) it must be lawful; 6) it promotes the cooperation of states or organizes the cooperation of states in the field of their exercise of their sovereign rights. thirty
The main, integral and necessary features of an international organization are the contractual basis of the organization, the presence of permanent organs and its own will. An international organization is characterized by the organizational and legal unity of its member states, which can only be achieved on the basis of an agreement between them, which is usually referred to as a constituent act. Although, as a rule, such a constituent act is an interstate treaty in the sense given to this concept by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the creation of an international organization on the basis of the so-called “informal treaty” does not change the essence of the matter. 31 In the case of the CSCE, we have a number of interstate agreements and, although none of them is a constituent act in the literal sense, in the aggregate they contain all the necessary provisions characteristic of constituent documents, namely: 1) the goals of an interstate association; 2) functions and powers; 3) conditions of membership; 4) organizational structure of the organization; 5) competence of bodies; 6) the procedure for the adoption by the bodies of acts within their powers.
The specificity of the CSCE process is that the transition to the quality of an international organization occurred gradually and most of the signs of a constituent act listed above appeared in the documents of the Conference only after the Paris Summit in 1990. Permanent bodies were created at this meeting, the presence which is one of the main features of the organization. Another important condition that characterizes the essence of an international organization is the compliance of its activities with international law.
According to Art. 2 of the UN Charter, the United Nations acts in accordance with the principles set forth in this article, that is, in accordance with the basic principles of international law. As for regional organizations, in paragraph 1 of Art. Article 54 of the UN Charter requires that “such agreements or bodies and their activities” be “consistent With Goals and Principles of the Organization”. A statement on this issue is contained in paragraph 25 of the Declaration of the Helsinki Summit of the CSCE in 1992, which, in particular, states that “reaffirming the commitment to the Charter of the United Nations, which was proclaimed by our states, we declare that we consider the CSCE as a regional a national agreement in the sense of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations...Rights and duties remain unaffected and are preserved in full. The CSCE will carry out its activities in close cooperation with the United Nations, especially in the field of conflict prevention and settlement”. 32
It is also necessary to note such a sign as the possession of an international organization by its own will. In this regard, the above modification of the consensus rule is of great importance. With the change in this principle, the CSCE began to have its own will, which does not always coincide with the will of all its members.
Thus, the recent major meetings of the CSCE, namely the Paris Summit, which marked the beginning of a new stage of institutionalization, the Berlin, Prague and Stockholm meetings of the Council, the Helsinki and Budapest meetings of heads of state and government, summed up and consolidated the main results of the first stage. transforming the OSCE, in terms of its capabilities, status and competence, into a regional organization for maintaining military-political stability and developing cooperation in Europe. As a basis, a comprehensive vision of the problems of ensuring security is preserved, accordingly, the OSCE mandate is confirmed to intensify not only political and military cooperation, but also interaction in the sphere of the human dimension; in the field of economics, ecology, science and technology. The OSCE has received broad powers to take practical measures and various means of their implementation.
The necessary adjustments will be made to the functioning of the OSCE, as it acquires the relevant experience. Work will continue on improving the mechanisms for resolving disputes and settling conflicts, on improving interaction with other organizations. However, the necessary prerequisites have already been created for the practical use of the OSCE as an instrument for maintaining peace, stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic region.
*Postgraduate student of St. Petersburg State University.
©A.B. Makarenko, 1997.
1 Meeting Heads of State and Government of the CSCE Member States // Diplomatic Bulletin. No. 1. 1995.
2 Sobakin V.K. Equal security. M., 1984.
3 Talalaev A. N. Helsinki: Principles and Reality. M., 1985.
4 For details, see: Mazov V. A. Helsinki principles and international law. M, 1979. S. 16.
5 In the name of peace, security and cooperation: On the results of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, held in Helsinki on July 30 - August 1. 1975 M., 1975.
7 final document of the 1986 Vienna meeting of the representatives of the participating states of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. M, 1989.
8 Lukashuk I.I. International political norms for the conditions of detente // Soviet state and law. 1976. No. 8.
9 Malinin S. A. Meeting in Helsinki (1975) and international law // Jurisprudence. 1976. No. 2. S. 20-29; Ignatenko G.V. The final act of the all-European meeting in Helsinki // Ibid. No. 3.
10 For more on this, see: Malinin S. A. Meeting in Helsinki (1975) and international law; Ignatenko G.V. The final act of the all-European meeting in Helsinki.
11 Talalaev A. N. Helsinki: Principles and Reality. S. 184.
12 For more see: Alov O. Stockholm Conference on Confidence, Security and Disarmament Building Measures in Europe // International Yearbook: Politics and Economics. M., 1985.
13 final document of the Vienna meeting in 1986 of the representatives of the states-participants of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
14 Ibid. pp. 50-51.
15 Document Copenhagen Meeting, 5-29 June 1990: Conference on Human Change of the CSCE. M., 1990.
16 For more see: Kofod M. Moscow meeting on human change // Moscow Journal of International Law. 1992. No. 2. S. 41-45.
17 Pan-European Summit, Paris, November 19-21, 1990: Documents and materials. M.. 1991.
18 CSCE. Helsinki Document 1992 II Moscow Journal of International Law. 1992. No. 4. S. 180-204.
19 results CSCE Meetings on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes (Geneva, October 12-23, 1992) // Moscow Journal of International Law. 1993. No. 3. S. 150 171.
20 Prague document on the further development of CSCE institutions and structures // Moscow Journal of International Law. 1992. No. 2. S. 165-172.
21 CSCE. Helsinki Document 1992.
22 results CSCE Meeting on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes (Geneva, October 12-23, 1992).
23 Kovalev A. N. ABC of diplomacy. M., 1977. S. 251.
24 In the name of peace, security and cooperation: On the results of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, held on 8 Helsinki 30 July - 1 Aug. 1975, p. 20.
25 Kreikemeier A. On the way to a unified system of values within the framework of the CSCE // Moscow Journal of International Law. 1993. No. 3. S. 66.
26 Prague document on the further development of CSCE institutions and structures.
27 results meeting of the CSCE on the peaceful settlement of disputes (Geneva, October 12-23, 1992).
28 Schermer H. international institutional law. Leiden, 1972. V.I.
29 Shibaeva E. A. Law of international organizations. M., 1986.
30 Usenko E. T. The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance is a subject of international law // Soviet Yearbook of International Law, 1979. M, 1980. S. 20, 42.
31 For details, see: Ibid. pp. 22-23.
32 CSCE. Helsinki Document 1992.
Information updated:24.04.2000
Related materials:| Books, articles, documents
The basic law of evolution says that there is nothing more fickle than success. Paradoxically, the most prosperous firms today become the most vulnerable tomorrow. A company whose core competencies, assets, distribution channels, and mentality are perfectly matched to meet existing needs and fend off competitive attacks risks losing ground as soon as consumer needs change.
The strategy determines the direction in which the company moves, performing its tasks. At the heart of the strategy are marketing and innovation solutions. The most important strategic decision is the choice of markets, on the development of which the main efforts will be directed. The second most important is the decision about positioning, about what competitive advantages will provide the company with a leading position in the market. Strategic decisions determine the core competencies required by the company, the set of its product lines, production and distribution infrastructure.
Usually the mission statement of diversified companies is formulated in rather general terms, which are often perceived as parental instructions, devoid of specific content and development incentives. Many business unit managers develop their own mission statements that describe in greater detail the unit's goals, perspectives, core employee competencies, and competitive advantages. Like the company's mission statement, they are aimed at instilling in employees a sense of pride in their work, involvement in common goals, as well as determining the direction of SBU development and developing internal priorities.
After the company's management has determined the strategic direction of development and the required core competencies, the company begins work on acquiring new skills.
Increasing competition has forced companies to focus on their core business. During the boom years of the 1960s and 1970s many companies were engaged in a wide variety of completely unrelated activities. Oil companies were interested in retail, tobacco companies in insurance, grocery companies were acquiring electronics businesses. However, as competition and economic conditions tightened, conglomerates were found to be experiencing a shortage of core competencies. Company leaders have realized that maintaining competitive advantage is determined by focusing on core competencies in a limited area of the market and technology.
First, firms maximize returns on internal resources by focusing their investment and effort on exactly what the firm does best. Secondly, a well-developed core competency creates formidable barriers to existing and potential competitors seeking to penetrate the company's interests, thus maintaining and protecting the strategic advantages of occupied market share. Third, perhaps the greatest impact is achieved by the fact that the company gets the maximum benefit from the investments, innovations and specific professional abilities of suppliers, which would be prohibitively expensive or even simply impossible to duplicate again on their own. Fourth, in a rapidly changing market and technology environment, collaborative strategies reduce risk, shorten cycle times, reduce required investment, and create the conditions for a more efficient response to customer needs.
The manager's understanding of reality can turn out to be erroneous not only as a result of changes that have taken place in the world around him, but also because the company has moved into a new field of activity where the game is played by different rules. When a company achieves significant success in a sector that does not provide opportunities for further growth, it often tries to apply its core competencies to other markets that at first glance seem very similar. At the same time, she does not notice the hidden differences of the new market, requiring from her a different approach than before.
The search for and mobilization of factors for increasing revenues is, to a certain extent, within the competence of the top management of the company, as well as its marketing service, the role of the financial service is reduced mainly to substantiating a reasonable pricing policy, evaluating the feasibility and economic efficiency of a new one, monitoring compliance with internal benchmarks in terms of profitability in relation to existing and new industries.
This model takes into account all three parameters for selecting a business - the attractiveness of the market, the competitiveness of the business, the degree of connection with the core competencies of the corporation. On fig. 5.1 shows an example of a business portfolio of one of the small Russian engineering plants. The main production - machine tools - is in the area of low attractiveness, although it is included in the core competencies of the company and the strength of the company is great. Another type of production and, accordingly, another business - the production of auto-
A classic example of companies with integrated analyzers can be branches of the world's leading audit and consulting companies (PriceWaterhouseCooper, Deloitte And Touche and others) operating in the Russian market. The main competence of such companies is the availability of proven work algorithms and a high level of confidence on the part of Western investors. This is what allows companies to set prices for their services, on average, significantly higher than the prices of Russian audit and consulting firms.
If we consider the firm as a set of core competencies and focus on products and markets that are secondary or indirect to the main organizational units of the firm, then it is possible to go beyond the existing market of the firm. For example, Motorola was considered the market leader in wireless communication (core competency). Then, in addition to its existing products and markets (such as mobile phones and pagers), it explored other markets in search of opportunities to use its core competency - the global positioning of satellite receivers. Similarly, the search for "white space" between major organizational units has allowed Kodak to explore the gap between traditional chemical products (photographic film) and electronic imaging devices (photocopiers) and carve out a new market for photo storage and viewing. Accordingly, the concept of the company is to develop a process that allows you to view photos on TV.
The third favorable condition for creating your share of a new market is the possibility of realizing the company's existing strengths. For example, asio, using its core competencies in microelectronics, moved from making calculators to making watches. Marx and Spener's reputation as a reliable and trustworthy retailer has led it to create low-risk, medium-return investment trust funds.
Among the most important Danish companies, the concept of technology ratings has attracted interest from executives who have found such ratings to be an important tool that they lack. Although some financial institutions have rated technologically advanced firms using their own methodology, most often they have focused on technology rather than other aspects. Traditionally, financial institutions in the Netherlands served the market only for a small number of technologically advanced firms, which was stimulated by the government or was part of their core competence. And now, however, they have decided to change their approach to technologically advanced firms. Technology ratings have come to be seen by these financial institutions as adding value to the marketplace, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises.
White spots. These opportunities include creating new products or services and entering new markets in other ways using the company's core competencies. Such an opportunity for Sony was the Walkman audio player. The parent company outsourced its business capabilities to the tape recorder and headphone business units.
One of the ways to prolong the period of obtaining super profits from technological leadership is innovative competence. The more numerous and complex the technological parameters of a new product, the more difficult it is for competitors to determine the main characteristics with which to compete. And if we add to complex technologies a special internal culture of the company, which in itself generates innovations, it is almost impossible to imitate this product. In addition to this, innovators always seek to establish close relationships with suppliers and distributors, which enhances the competence and know-how of the company. The main competitive strategies for maximizing the profitability of innovation are discussed in detail in Chapter 3, Planning for Innovation.
By using other firms as providers of a variety of inputs, a company can benefit in a variety of ways. Given that the resources for any firm are limited, there is a need to collaborate with other organizations. Modern business requires a focus on core competencies where competitive advantage can be developed (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990). Companies need to invest their resources in the core, core business. Those areas of activity that are not key can be fairly easily delegated (or transferred through alliances) to external organizations that are able to produce the required product or service at the proper level. Even within the core competencies, there may be opportunities for cooperation where it is much more difficult to manage alone, or where the internal resources of the firm are simply not enough. An important advantage that firms should not easily ignore is being the first to market with a new or improved product or service. By concentrating on core competencies and collaborating with other organizations that specialize in other areas, a firm can simultaneously benefit from both economies of scale and economies of differentiation or variety. Alliances and partnerships can free up scarce resources for core functions, allowing them to be performed more effectively by organizations that focus more on core competencies. It is important to understand that other companies that have already explored this area may be able to perform some functions more effectively. Duplication of work already done by others and the invention of the bicycle are unlikely to lead to significant growth of the company and increase its profitability. And, although in most cases such a conclusion may sound paradoxical, dependence on external organizations may well be the basis of firm independence (Lewis, 1995). Following or relying on the internal or organic growth of an organization is just one of the possible alternatives. A very diverse range of options is formed on the basis of general self-confidence, on the one hand, and on the basis of the trust of resources, on the other hand. Firms should consider all options and choose the best one that can help develop and maintain long-term competence in the areas of the company's key activities.
Competencies that are most likely to predict long-term career success for candidates that are difficult to develop through training or work experience. This includes core competencies, such as achievement or impact orientation and influencing, which are better made as a selection criterion than later developed. For example, a company hiring technical people might want to hire 10% of newcomers for the influence and influence competencies. By selecting some candidates who not only have good grades, but have a history as a captain of a sports team or leader of a student organization, the company will receive a reserve of technical employees with sufficient competencies to become managers in the future.
In addition, as we reviewed the information we received, we also reconsidered our initial assumptions about whether the particular case was indeed a serious corporate error that caused the company to fail. For example, many people say that when developing the original concept of the PC in 1979, IBM made a blunder by leaving operating systems to Microsoft, and microprocessors to Intel. While there is no doubt that operating systems and microchips account for the lion's share of the industry's value, it seems unreasonable to us that IBM should have known this almost twenty-five years ago. Few of us, no matter who we are, have a magical crystal that allows us to see into the future. In addition, IBM's strategy of outsourcing the operating system and microprocessor - both areas outside of the hardware company's core competencies - reflects a desire to focus on the core business, ha-
The company's core competency - product innovation - laid the foundation for its resounding success. Rubbermaid's innovative spirit and ability to bring innovations to market quickly gave Rubbermaid a monopoly in many product categories, allowing its products to establish themselves before competitors could even copy their designs. By the end of the 1980s, Rubbermaid was producing 365 titles a year, a record that testified to a well-established new product development process that allowed the company to close the gap between the moment an idea was born and its physical embodiment on the counter as much as possible. The main components of this process - close contact with consumers, a minimum of market testing and the creation of cross-functional teams - provided a deadly combination of speed and innovation.
Are Mergers and Acquisitions Your Core Competence Successful companies always have a set of core competencies that help them execute their chosen competitive strategies. Accordingly, M&A companies must develop the core competencies that will enable them to become effective acquirers. This problem cannot be solved if each acquisition is treated as an exceptional phenomenon. The experience gained by people involved in a particular transaction needs to be captured, shared with others, and complemented by knowledge gained from subsequent mergers and acquisitions, as iso, GE, Eaton and other recognized experts in this field do.
This concludes our story of negative transference. It is possible that many of our readers will be able to draw a parallel between these stories and what is happening in their own companies, for which, in fact, this whole conversation was started. Familiarity with negative transference helps us learn a serious lesson experience and intellectual potential are not always beneficial, moreover, in some cases, experience becomes a source of great trouble. Negative transference can exist in a wide variety of forms, sometimes masked by the immaculate logic of core competencies. Therefore, we should always remember how carefully we need to approach the definition of these competencies. In the next section, we will move from negative values to zero, and consider
Despite solidarity with the Libyan side, expressed by eight members of OPEC and including practical proposals from the Andra, Iran, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates to provide it with immediate assistance by sending oil personnel, Saudi Arabia vetoed the draft resolution, stating that, due to its political nature, this issue is not included to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. However, the most important real value, in our opinion, is still not Saudi demarches of this kind, but the preservation of the advantages for the shareholders of Aramco, which are enjoyed by the privileged counterparties of this Arabian monarchy. It seems that the access of outsider firms in one form or another to the development of its oil resources, the largest in the capitalist world, has not been significantly facilitated by the nationalization of the main concession. Having strong rears here and being largely protected from competition, the leading American energy concerns can afford a tougher raw materials policy towards other newly-free states than the bulk of independent companies.
In the late 1990s a survey of the world's leading firms was conducted on the identification and development of core competencies1. CEOs and other executives from companies such as Boeing, Citicorp, Lockheed Martin, Okidata and others have attempted to articulate their core technology competencies, processes and key relationships and envision ways to strengthen and develop core competencies. The most popular way to maintain the reliability of processes was recognized as the creation of a corporate culture aimed at maintaining standards for the performance of operations, minimizing waste in every sense. The most popular method of strengthening external relations was recognized as the absorption of other firms and the use of the potential of relations accumulated by them. As for technological competencies, here the opinions of the leaders of the world's leading corporations are divided to the greatest extent. A significant part of the leaders pointed to the need to fully take into account all factors of the economic and technological environment when planning and developing technological know-how. However, almost the same proportion of executives emphasized the need to partially or completely ignore prevailing opinions about existing technological or operational constraints in the production and marketing of products.
Particular attention should be paid to the analysis of the third question. Here it can be pointed out that the CSD tends to become more and more a purely investment company, concentrating on investments in high technology areas. This is both a strength and a weakness of the chosen development model. The concentration of all investments in one, although very promising sector (high technology), makes the company vulnerable to all the perturbations of this sector. Indeed, in March 2001, CSD Industries published its financial results Marketing Management (2001) -- [
Search
We may notify you of new articles,