The exponentially growing democratization of international relations inevitably leads to an ever-increasing use of the principle of limiting the use of force and the threat of force. For the first time, this objective pattern was enshrined as a principle of international law in the UN Charter, in accordance with paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of which "all Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Subsequently, the stated formula of the Charter was specified in the documents adopted in the form of UN resolutions. Among them are the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law, the 1974 Definition of Aggression, the 1975 Final Act of the CSCE and a number of other documents of the Helsinki Process, as well as the 1987 Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle of Renunciation of the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations d. In the latter document, the normative content of the principle is most fully expressed.

The duty not to use force is clearly universal. It extends to all states, since the need to maintain international peace and security requires that all states, and not just members of the UN, adhere to this principle in their relations with each other.

The UN Charter prohibits not only the use of armed force, but also unarmed violence, which is the unlawful use of force. The term "power", which is contained in paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter is subject to broad interpretation. Thus, in paragraph 4 of Art. Article 2 of the Charter refers, first of all, to the prohibition of the use of armed force, however, already in the Final Act of the CSCE, the obligation of the participating States is indicated "to refrain from all manifestations of force with the aim of coercion of another participating State", "to refrain from any act of economic coercion". Consequently, in modern international law, the illegal use of force, both armed and in a broad sense, in any of its manifestations, is prohibited.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the literature notes that the normative content of the principle of non-use of force should include: the prohibition of the occupation of the territory of another state in violation of international law; the prohibition of acts of reprisals involving the use of force; granting by a state of its territory to another state that uses it to commit aggression against a third state; organizing, inciting, assisting or participating in acts of civil war or terrorist acts in another state; organizing or encouraging the organization of armed bands, irregular forces, in particular mercenaries, to invade the territory of another state; violent actions against international demarcation lines and truce lines; blockade of ports or coasts of the state; any violent actions that prevent peoples from exercising their legitimate right to self-determination, as well as other violent actions.

Closer attention should be paid to the Principles of International Law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and found expression in the decision of this Tribunal.

So, any person who has committed any act recognized, according to international law, as a crime, bears responsibility for it and is subject to punishment. The fact that domestic law does not impose a penalty on any act recognized as a crime under international law, or that any person who committed an act recognized as a crime under international law acted as Head of State or a responsible government official or in the execution of the order of his government or superior does not relieve the person who committed this act from liability under international law.

Of particular historical significance is the fact that if a person acted contrary to the norms and principles of international law, despite the fact that a conscious choice between an illegal and lawful act was actually possible for him, this act does not relieve this person from responsibility under international law .

Every person charged with an international crime has the right to a fair trial on the basis of facts and law.

The Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal refers to international legal crimes:

1) crimes against peace:

a) planning, preparing, initiating or waging a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

b) participation in a common plan or conspiracy aimed at the implementation of any of the actions referred to in subpara. "a";

2) war crimes: violation of the laws and customs of war and, including, but not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or removal for slave labor or for other purposes of the civilian population of the occupied territory, killing or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons at sea , killing of hostages or looting of towns and villages or devastation not justified by military necessity;

3) crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts committed against the civilian population, or persecution for political, racial or religious reasons, if such acts are committed or such persecution takes place in the performance of any war crime against or in connection with peace or any war crime.

Previous

Principle of non-use of force or threat of force

This principle is a novelty of modern international law. The principle of non-aggression, which had previously been in force since the time of the League of Nations, had a significantly different content.

Now it is a generally recognized principle of international law, set out in paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter and having at the same time the force of customary law.

The main provisions of this principle, according to the Declaration on the Principles of International Law of 1970, provide for the following.

Every state is obliged to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other way inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. Such threat or use of force is a violation of international law and the UN Charter and should never be used as a means of settling international problems.

Aggressive war constitutes a crime against peace, for which responsibility is provided in accordance with international law.

Each state is obliged to refrain from the threat or use of force in order to violate the existing international borders of another state or as a means of resolving international disputes, incl. territorial disputes, and questions concerning state borders.

Likewise, every State has an obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or consistent with an international agreement to which that State is a party or to which that State is otherwise bound to observe.

States have an obligation to refrain from acts of reprisal involving the use of force.

The territory of a state must not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in violation of the provisions of the UN Charter. The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State as a result of the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.

However, nothing in the foregoing provisions shall be construed as extending or limiting in any way the scope of the provisions of the UN Charter affecting cases in which the use of force is lawful.

The above provisions concerning the essence of the principle of non-use of force or threat of force in interstate relations are the foundation of the modern system for maintaining international peace and security.

The principle of non-use of force or threat of force - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Principle of non-use of force or threat of force" 2015, 2017-2018.

Principle of non-use of force or threat of force appeared in international law between the two world wars, first as a principle of the prohibition of aggressive war. This principle replaced the earlier right of a state to war (jus ad bellum) in international law, according to which each state could resort to war against another state in the event of any dispute between them.

The principle of the prohibition of the use of force or the threat of force- regulation of social relations related to the non-violation of peace, with respect for the right of all members of the international community and the individual to live in a non-violent world, with a ban on resolving controversial issues of international relations by force.

For the first time, the principle of non-use of force or threat of force was proclaimed in the UN Charter. Paragraph 4 of Art. Article 2 of the Charter states: "All Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

An authoritative interpretation of the principle of the non-use of force or the threat of force is given in such documents as the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, 1970, the Definition of Aggression adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1974, the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975 and the Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle of Renunciation of the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1987.

After analyzing these documents, we can conclude that the following are prohibited:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 1974 definition of aggression establishes a list (not exhaustive) of these acts prohibited by international law, which are the most serious and dangerous forms of the illegal use of force, aggression.

One of the important norms of modern international law, closely related to the principle of the prohibition of the use of force or the threat of force, is the right to self-defence. This rule is formulated in Art. 51 of the UN Charter; it provides, inter alia: "The present Charter shall in no way affect the inalienable right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the Organization until such time as the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security" .

The International Court of Justice, in its decision in the Nicaragua-US case, rejected the US allegation that it had used armed force against Nicaragua in self-defense. The Court stated: "In the case of the right to individual self-defence, the exercise of this right can only take place if the state concerned was the victim of an armed attack. Of course, in the case of collective self-defence, this condition also remains."

The 1987 Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Threat or Use of Force in International Relations states: "States have an inalienable right to individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs, as provided for in the Charter of the United Nations."

It is very important to keep in mind that paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter contains a general prohibition on the use of force or the threat of force in relations between states. The 1974 definition of aggression establishes the most common cases of the prohibited use of armed force and, finally, Art. 51 of the UN Charter highlights the most dangerous use of armed force - armed attack, providing in this case the right to self-defense.

As stated in Art. 51 of the UN Charter, States may use the right to self-defence in the event of an armed attack "until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Thus, when Iraq committed aggression against Kuwait in the summer of 1990, Kuwait and, at its request, any other state could use the right to self-defense.

After the Security Council accepted the case of Iraq's aggression against Kuwait for its consideration, further actions against the aggressor were carried out in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council.

The principle of non-use of force does not apply to actions taken on the basis of a decision of the Security Council on the basis of Ch. VII of the UN Charter. The use of armed force against Iraq is one important example of the use of this provision of the UN Charter.

Naturally, the principle of non-use of force does not apply to events occurring within a state, since international law does not regulate domestic relations.

An integral part of the principle of non-use of force or threat of force is the prohibition of war propaganda, which can also be considered as an independent norm. The 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law states: "In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have an obligation to refrain from propaganda of aggressive wars." This is confirmed in the 1987 Declaration.

This norm means that the states are obliged not to allow propaganda of war by their bodies; in addition, states are obliged to take measures to ensure that war propaganda is not carried out on their territory by private individuals, organizations, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 7. Norms of international law, their features and types. juscogens norms. Codification in international law.
  • 8. Rulemaking in international law. The theory of coordinating the wills of states.
  • 11. Decisions of international organizations, their features, types, legal force
  • 12. The concept and features of the basic principles of international law, their place in the hierarchy of international legal norms
  • 13. The principle of respect for state sovereignty and the sovereign equality of states
  • 14. Principle of non-use of force and threat of force. Definition of aggression. Self-defense in international law.
  • 15. Principles of territorial integrity of states and inviolability of state borders
  • 16. The principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes. Legal content and formation of the principle. Concept of international dispute and situation
  • 18. The principle of equality and self-determination of peoples and nations. Content and meaning. Correlation with the principle of territorial integrity of states
  • 19. Subjects of international public law: concept, types, content and features of international legal personality
  • 21. International organizations as subjects of international law: concept, signs, types, features of legal personality
  • 22. Recognition of states and its legal consequences. Types of recognition
  • 23. Succession in international law. Objects of succession. General characteristics of conventions. Succession in connection with the collapse of the former USSR
  • 24. The problem of the international legal personality of an individual. Basic concepts.
  • 25. International legal means of resolving international disputes.
  • 26. Judicial resolution of international disputes. international courts.
  • 27. Dispute resolution procedure within the UN.
  • 28. International treaty: concept, types. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969.
  • 29. Stages of conclusion of international treaties. Ratification and other means of expressing consent to be bound. Entry into force. Registration.
  • 30. Form and structure of international treaties. Reservations. Invalidity, termination and suspension of international treaties. Denunciation.
  • 31. Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948: content and evaluation.
  • 32. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 and optional protocols to it. control mechanism.
  • 33. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Human Rights 1966 control mechanism.
  • 34. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 and optional protocols to it. control mechanism
  • 35. International legal protection of women and children. Brief description of the conventions
  • 36. Right to file an individual complaint with international bodies. Examples
  • 37. UN Human Rights Council: legal status, composition, competence.
  • 38. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950: structure, protocols, control mechanism, significance.
  • 40. Convention for the Prohibition of Torture 1984: concept of torture, powers of the Committee against Torture.
  • 41. Internal and foreign bodies of external relations of states. legal status. Show on the example of Russia.
  • 42. Diplomatic missions: concept, composition, functions. The procedure for the appointment and recall of heads of diplomatic missions. Agreman.
  • 43. Classes and ranks of diplomatic representatives. Diplomatic privileges and immunities. Diplomatic corps.
  • 44. Consular offices: concept, types, composition, functions. consular district.
  • 45. Classes of consuls. Honorary Consul. Consular immunities and privileges. Order of appointment and recall of consuls. Consular patent and exequatur.
  • 46. ​​International Labor Organization (ILO). ILO conventions for the protection of labor and social human rights.
  • 47. UN: history of creation, goals and principles. Structure and content of the UN Charter. UN system.
  • 48. UN General Assembly: composition, types of sessions, structure, working order, legal force of decisions.
  • 49. UN Security Council: composition, voting procedure, peacekeeping powers, sanctions, legal force of decisions. Examples.
  • 50. International Court of Justice: composition, formation procedure, competence, jurisdiction. Examples of Judgments and Advisory Opinions of the Court
  • 51. UN specialized agencies: concept, types, connection with the UN. Activities. Examples
  • 52. Legal status of the UN International Law Commission, brief description of activities, contribution to the development of international law
  • 54. International legal prohibition of bacteriological and chemical weapons. conventions
  • 55. International legal regulation of the prohibition of nuclear weapons tests.
  • 56. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 1968 Mechanism for monitoring compliance with its provisions
  • 58. International economic organizations. World Trade Organization: a brief description. Wto and Russia.
  • 59. Types of international economic agreements. Resolution of interstate economic disputes within the framework of the WTO. Resolution of international investment disputes
  • 60. Types of territories in international law
  • 61. State territory: concept and types. Legal grounds and methods of change. State borders
  • 62. Legal regime of the Arctic. "Sector" theory. Legal status of maritime spaces in the Arctic. Northern Sea Route. Arctic continental shelf
  • 63. International legal regime of Antarctica. 1959 Antarctic Treaty system Control mechanism
  • 65. Internal sea waters, "historical" waters: concept, legal regime. Examples.
  • 66. Territorial sea: concept, width, legal regime. The right of innocent passage and the procedure for its implementation
  • 68. Continental shelf: concept, width reference, legal regime. Sovereign rights of coastal states. Rights of third states. Legislation of the Russian Federation on the continental shelf
  • 69. High seas: concept, principles of freedom of the high seas. Rights and obligations of the flag state. hot pursuit
  • 70. International legal fight against piracy
  • 71. Legal regime of the International Seabed Area. International Seabed Authority. Procedure for the development of the resources of the Area
  • 73. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO): goals, structure, activities. Conventions and regulations
  • 75. International legal regime of outer space, the Moon, space objects. Legal status of astronauts.
  • 77. International legal protection of the oceans.
  • 78. International legal protection of atmospheric air, the ozone layer and cooperation in combating climate change.
  • 80. International crimes. The concept and types of crimes of an international nature.
  • 81. Types and forms of combating international terrorism.
  • 82. Crimes against civil aviation.
  • 83. Interpol: history of creation, structure and main activities. RF and Interpol.
  • 85. International criminal liability f/l. International Criminal Court: creation, competence, jurisdiction. Activities of the International Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda

  • A qualitatively new stage in the development of the principle under consideration was the adoption of the UN Charter, which was not limited to the prohibition of aggressive war, but proclaimed in paragraph 4 of Art. 2: "All Members of the UN shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."

    In the UN Charter, the normative content of this principle, as well as other principles of international law, is not developed. This was done primarily in the resolutions of the UN General Assembly: the Declaration on the Principles of International Law of 1970 and the Definition of Aggression of 1974. The Final Act of the CSCE of 1975 contributed to its further development. The content of this principle is most fully disclosed in the Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle renunciation of the threat or use of force in international relations, adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1987.

    The duty of non-use of force extends to all states, since the maintenance of international peace and security requires that all states, and not just UN members, adhere to this principle in their relations with each other.

    The UN Charter prohibits not only the use of armed force, but also unarmed violence, which is the unlawful use of force.

    The term "force", contained in paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the Charter, like the principle itself, cannot be considered in isolation, but must be interpreted in the totality of the rights and obligations of states defined by the Charter. The OSCE Final Act (section concerning the implementation of the agreed principles) expressly states that the participating States will "refrain from all manifestations of force with the aim of coercion of another participating State", "refrain from any act of economic coercion".

    All this undoubtedly indicates that modern international law prohibits the unlawful use of force in any of its manifestations.

    The principle of the non-use of force provides above all for the prohibition of aggressive wars. According to the "Definition of Aggression 1974" the first use of armed force by a state can be qualified as an aggressive war, which is an international crime and gives rise to international legal responsibility of states and international criminal responsibility of guilty individuals. In the postwar years, the content of the principle included the duty of states to refrain from propaganda of aggressive war.

    In addition to the concept of aggression, international law distinguishes the concept of "armed attack". Despite the similarity of the actions of states in both cases, the legal consequences of their commission may be different, since the UN Security Council can qualify as aggression actions that are not related to a direct armed attack.

    Violation of the principle of non-use of force should also be considered violent actions against international demarcation lines and armistice lines, blockade of ports or coasts of the state, any violent actions that prevent peoples from exercising their legitimate right to self-determination, as well as a number of other violent actions.

    The normative content of this principle is as follows:

    1) every state must refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, as well as from any other action inconsistent with the purposes of the UN;

    2) states are obliged not to induce, encourage or assist other states in the use of force or threat of force in violation of the UN Charter;

    3) states should refrain from organizing, inciting, aiding or participating in paramilitary, terrorist or subversive activities, including those of mercenaries, in other states and from condoning organizational activities aimed at committing such activities within their territory;

    4) states are obliged to refrain from armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempts to threaten against the legal personality of the state or against its political, economic and cultural foundations;

    5) no state should encourage the use of economic, political or any other measures in order to achieve the subordination of another state in the exercise of its sovereign rights and receive any advantages from this.

    Despite the imperative nature of the principle of non-use of force or the threat of force, a number of states often, under a far-fetched pretext, use their armed forces to invade the territory of other states, thereby violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of such states. For example, in March 2003, the troops of the international coalition (USA, UK, Germany, Italy, etc.) invaded Iraqi territory.

    Self-defence in international law is the use of force by a state in response to an armed criminal attack by another country. In order to exercise the right to self-defence, each state, in accordance with Art. 51 of the UN Charter may resort to military force until such time as the UN Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international security and peace. An article of the UN Charter emphasizes the importance of this right, stating its inalienability. The right of self-defence in international law belongs exclusively to the country - the victim of the attack, which must inform the UN Security Council about the fact of an armed attack on it.