The principle of compliance with international obligations. The principle of conscientious fulfillment of international treaties. International law and domestic law

The considered principle, as if the final presentation of the basic principles of international law, originated and has acted for a long time as the principle of compliance with international treaties - PACTA SUNT SERVANDA ("contracts must be followed).

In a modern period, from the usual legal norm, it turned into a contractual norm, and its content changed significantly and enriched.

In the preamble of the UN Charter, it is said about the determination of peoples "to create conditions under which justice may be followed and respect for obligations arising from contracts and other sources of international law", and in paragraph 2 of Art. 2 The responsibility of the UN members to conscientiously fulfill the obligations adopted according to the Charter, "to provide them with all the laws and advantages arising from the membership of the organization's members."

An important stage in the contractual consolidation of this principle was the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Contracts of 1969 in it, it is noted that "the principle of free consent and conscientiousness and the PACTA SUNT SERVANDA rate received universal recognition." In art. 26 Installed: "Each valid contract is obligatory for its participants and must be accomplished with them."

This principle has received a detailed characteristic in the Declaration on the principles of international law of 1970, in the final act of the CSCE 1975 and in other documents.

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

The principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations is the criterion for the legality of the activities of states in international and in domestic relations. It acts as a condition of stability, the effectiveness of international law and order agreed with the rule of law of all states.

With this principle, the subjects of international law receive a legitimate basis to mutually require other participants in the international communication to fulfill the conditions related to the use of certain rights and the negligence of relevant duties. This principle allows to accommodate legitimate activities from illegal prohibited. In this aspect, he is pronounced as an imperative norm of international law. The specified principle, as it were, warns the state on the inadmissibility of waste in the contracts concluded from the fundamental establishments of international law, expressing the indigenous interests of the entire international community, emphasizes the preventive function of JUS COGENS norms. The principle of conscientious compliance with international obligations, connecting the imperative norms into a single system of international legal instructions, is their integral part. However, if separate JUS COGENS standards can be replaced by others based on the agreement between states, then such a replacement is not possible in relation to this principle: his abolition would mean the elimination of all international law.

In the development of this principle, it was envisaged that in the implementation of its sovereign rights, including the right to establish their laws and administrative rules, the participating States will be consistent with their legal obligations under international law.

The essential features of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations are the inadmissibility of an arbitrary unilateral refusal of obligations and legal responsibility for violation of international obligations, which occurs in the event of a refusal to fulfill their fulfillment or other actions (or inaction) of a member of the contract with an anti-character. Violation of international obligations generates the question of responsibility not only for departure from the Agreement, but also for encroaching on the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations.

One of the basic principles. He was preceded by the principle of compliance with international treaties (the emergence and development of closely related to the Roman law; Pacta SUNT SERVANDA (contracts should be observed).

Having a long history in the 20th century, this principle has acquired a new legal quality. Why? Because he has spread its effect not only on contractual obligations, but also on other norms of international law. The content of this principle is revealed to the Declaration on the Principles of International Law (1970), and the OSCE participating States confirmed these provisions in the final act (1975) "that the conscientious observance of the principles of international law relating to friendly relations and the Commonwealth between States have the most important Values \u200b\u200bfor maintaining international peace and security. "

The state cannot shy away from the fulfillment of obligations arising from international legal norms, and cannot refer to the provisions of domestic law or other circumstances as the cause of non-execution or refusal to fulfill its obligations. By virtue of this principle, subjects of the MP are obliged to fulfill obligations, only then can we talk about good faith.

The value of the principle is that he is the basis of international lawthat without it, MP would be problematic.

Given that the contracts are the source of all sectors of the MP (Vienna Convention on the Law of International Contracts of 1969 and the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Contracts between States and International Organizations, or between International Organizations in 1986). He also acts as the general principle of modern international law. and acquired an imperative character (jus cogens).

The state may refuse to fulfill international legal obligations, but such a refusal should be carried out only on the basis of MP, which is reflected in the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties (1969).

It (principle) acts as conditions of stability, law enforcement, consistency, efficiency, etc. With this principle, subjects (MP) receive a legitimate basis to mutually require the fulfillment of conditions and obligations.

One of the signs of this principle is the inadmissibility of an arbitrary one-sided refusal of the obligations taken, which generates the question of responsibility and encroachment on the principle itself.

The meaning of the principle is that this is recognized by all states (see the UN Charter) universal and cardinal norm, expressed legal obligation of the subjects of MP. Cancellation of JUS COGENS (imperative norm) would mean the elimination of all international law.

3. The principle of the responsibility of states to cooperate with each other (cooperation of states).

For the first time, recognition and consolidation of the principle as a legal in the UN Charter was obtained as a result of the interaction of the anti-Hitler coalition states in World War II and as a criterion for communicating in the future on a qualitatively new, higher level of interaction than the traditional maintenance of relationships. So in paragraph 3 of Art.1, the UN Charter proclaims that one of the objectives of the UN is "international cooperation in the permitting international problems of an economic, social, cultural, humanitarian nature, education, health care, to promote the implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, the development of MP and His codification. The principle of cooperation cannot be understood literally. And it is necessary to consider with other principles. In particular, state sovereignty.

The regulatory content of the principle of cooperation of states is disclosed as follows: "States are obliged to cooperate with each other, regardless of their political, economic and social systems in various fields of international relations, in order to maintain international peace and security, promoting international economic stability, progress to the general welfare of peoples and international Cooperation free of discrimination, which is based on such differences. "

The legal framework is clearly defined:

1. Responsibility to cooperate in all areas of international communication, regardless of the difference in political systems.

2. Cooperation must be subordinated to the achievement of certain goals.

3. Promoting international economic stability.

4. Promoting the economic growth of developing countries.

The head of the UN International and Social Cooperation and the Final Act of the Meeting (1975) on security and cooperation in Europe is devoted to this. The act more specifies the areas of cooperation "to increase the welfare of the people," use the mutual benefits from NTP, social, economic, scientific, technical, cultural, humanitarian regions. " At the same time, the interests of all, in particular, developing countries will be taken into account. At the same time, mutual understanding and trust, friendly and neighboring relations, security and justice will be achieved.

4. The principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms .

The UN Charter on the second place, after getting rid of the disasters of the war, set the task "to re-approve the faith in the basic human rights"; "In the promotion and development of respect for human rights and basic freedoms for all" (paragraph 3, Article 1). With the adoption of the UN Charter and the preservation of international peace and security in compliance with fundamental rights and freedoms, there is an inseparable connection. The Charter contains legally binding norms, the principles of respect for human rights: the advantages and values \u200b\u200bof the human person; equality of peoples; Equality of men and women, the inadmissibility of discrimination on the signs of race, gender, language and religion.

Nevertheless, the Declaration (1970) on the principles of international law did not allocate any of the principles as a fundamental.

For the approval of human rights, whole millennia, eras and historical events were required, and in many countries this process is still at the initial stage.

This conclusion can also be done that the violation of any principle, the violations of human rights and freedoms will be accidentally affected.

In recent years, even during the Cold War, the world community adopted a number of critical documents in the field of human rights.

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, in the two international packages of 1966 "On Civil and Political Rights"; "On Economic, Social and Cultural Rights"; Listed rights and freedoms that states have committedd to all persons under their jurisdiction by taking legislative and other measures. So in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the (1993) "man, his rights and freedoms are the highest value." In the Russian Federation "the rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen are recognized and guaranteed" according to the generally accepted principles and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution (Art. 17 Part 1). The above article gives reason to argue that international law, part of the country's right. In Russia, laws that abolish or infringerating human rights and freedoms and citizen should not be published.

In the development of this state formula, the OSCE prominent meeting (1989) recognized that all rights and freedoms are of paramount importance and should be fully implemented in appropriate ways.

According to this and other state documents, states pledged: (1) - to prevent rough and massive violations of human rights, arising primarily from international crimes (war crimes, aggression, genocide, apartheid, international terrorism, mass discrimination, segregation, separatism); (2) - guarantee and protect the interests of various categories of citizens and humans (disabled) and organizations; state rights; To guarantee certain categories of rights (labor, family, cultural, freedom of information, freedom of association, the rights of national minorities, migrants, refugees, etc.).

Among international treaties, it is especially significant, is the "European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" with its complementary protocols and the CIS Convention on Rights and Basic Freedoms of Human: World Conference on Human Rights (1993).

For a long time, the practical implementation of human rights was considered as a sphere of internal competence. The ubiquitous and strict compliance with the principle of respect for human rights is greatly damaged to politicization and use in order, nothing in common, with care about human rights.

Some states use the principle of sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs (or socio-economic, religious, ideological and simply national characteristics), - to justify human rights violations.

Human rights are used to be increasingly used to nominate unreasonable requirements for self-determination (the right to department), which causes damage to the territorial integrity of the state, infringement of human rights including the right to life.

The said in no way loses the international aspect. Each state has a sovereign authority to issue norms defining the rights and obligations of citizens, however, the implementation of this power must occur within the MP, in particular, international control in this area, which does not contradict the principle of non-interference. In the document of the Moscow Meeting of the OSCE Human Measurement Conference (1991), it is confirmed that "issues related to human rights, fundamental freedoms constitute one of the foundations of international order."

The relevant commitments are "direct and legitimate interests for all States parties and are not among the exclusively internal affairs of the relevant state."

The principle of respect for a person in national law is central to the central position "the laws that are canceling or pleasing rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen" are not published (Art. 17 h. 1).

The content of these provisions determines the character interaction International legal and domestic standards in the field humanitarian cooperation; establishes generally accepted standards; introduces international funds for the protection of massacrelations; It becomes a direct regulator and a guarantor of certain elements of the legal status of the person. Such is the role of international law and its branch of international humanitarian law.

The main provisions of the principle of respect for human rights (from the analysis of international acts):

Each state is obliged to assist through independent and joint actions to universal respect and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, in accordance with the UN Charter (that is, for each state and the international community is responsible for promoting universal respect for rights and freedoms);

The state is obliged to respect and provide all those within its jurisdiction to persons and freedom, recognized by international law without distinction: sex, language, race, skin color, religion, political or other beliefs, national and social origin, estimates;

recognition of the dignity inherent in all members of the human family, their equal and inalienable rights, freedom, justice and the universal world;

human rights must be protected by the authorities of the law, which will ensure the national world and law and order;

Each person carries responsibility for other people and the society and the state to which it belongs;

The state is obliged to adopt legislative or other measures necessary to ensure internationally recognized human rights;

The state guarantees effective remedies;

the state is obliged to know its rights and human rights and come in accordance with them.

Human rights Inseciously linked to issues of democracy. The Paris Charter for New Europe confirms that democracy is recognized by the participants, the only system of government, democratic order, both in international relations and in national systems. It is necessary to explain that under human rights and citizen in international law are understood: rights, freedoms and duties. Moreover, in many constitutions of foreign countries, freedom and obligations are considered as human rights and citizen.

5. Territorial integrity of the state.

Territory It is a necessary condition for the coexistence of the state and its material basis. The UN Charter obliges to refrain from the threat of strength or its use against territorial integrity (Article 2, paragraph 4). Although in the direct formulation of such a principle in the UN Charter. It is enshrined in the final act (1975).

Territorial inviolability (as well as political independence) is formally not named as the MP principle. It is only the object of the principle of abstinence from the threat of strength or its application. For example, rejection of the territory; Armed invasion not to persecute territorial seizures; The temporal occupation of the part of the territory, that is, its content is reflected in other principles (the principle of not use of force obliges to refrain from the threat of force or its use against territorial integrity, but an equal use of military political, economic or other pressure forms).

Consequently, territorial integrity and integrity is provided in a wider form. Emphasized That the territory of the state should not be the object of military occupation, which caused the result of the use of force in violating the UN Charter.

The territory should not be acquisition object No acquisitions that were the result of the threat of force will not be recognized as legal. The concept of the territorial integrity of the state was nominated after World War II, in response to the desire of colonial powers (metropolies) to impede the national liberation movement of the colonies.

In the Declaration on the provision of independence to colonial countries and peoples adopted by the UN General Assembly (12/14/19, 1960), it was especially noted that "all nations have an integral right to the integrity of their national territory."

The Declaration on the Principles of International Law (1970) it was said that the content of the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples should not be interpreted as authorizing or encouraging actions that would depend on the dismemberment or partial or complete violation of the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states.

The legal change in the territory of the state may occur as a result of the people's right to self-determination, the right to exemption from foreign oppression, if we are talking about the state acting in compliance with the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples, then its territorial integrity cannot be disturbed.

The principle is known when part of the territory is rejected (purchased) by other states. As is known, the rejection of the part of the territory of states carrying responsibility for the unleashing of the Second World War is recognized as the UN Charter (Article 107). (Kaliningrad region, suddans) The final step in the progressive development of this principle was the CSCE documents (1975). In particular in Art. Iv to the Declaration of Principles, the final act of the meeting "On respect for territorial integrity", "Political Independence", "Unity of any State party" is included. That is, the final act allocated "territorial integrity" in a separate principle (independent). Forbidden any actions incompatible with the UN Charter, against territorial integrity. From this it follows, and can there be actions compatible with the charter? Undoubtedly, they include actions in order to implement the right to self-determination.

Independent territory There is also the inadmissibility of using its natural wealth. Every year in the Presidential Message of the Russian Federation, the Federal Assembly said that "territorial integrity covers both space and resources."

The principle of territorial integrity is enshrined in a joint declaration, justifying the relationship between the Russian Federation and the PRC (12/18/1992); In the contract on the basics of interstate relations and cooperation between the Russian Federation and R.Uzbekistan (05/30/1992); in art. 5 Pacts of the League of Arab States. According to Art. 4 Constitution of the Russian Federation Sovereignty of the Russian Federation applies to its entire territory. RF ensures the integrity and inviolability of its territory.

Heads of CIS countries 15.04.1994 Adopted the "Declaration on respecting the sovereignty of the territorial integrity and inviolability of the borders of the CIS participants." Recently, a comprehensive formula has been used more often - the principle of integrity and inviolability of the state territory.

6. The principle of irrevoyability of borders .

This principle complements the principle of territorial integrity. Its value is determined by respecting the existing borders as the necessary condition for peaceful relations between states.

In the Declaration of Principlesinternational Law (1970) The content of principle is set out in the section on the principle of not use of force: "Each state is obliged to refrain from the threat of force or its application in order to violate the existing international borders of another state or as a means of resolving international disputes, including territorial disputes and issues related to state borders."

In the final act of the Safety and Cooperation Meeting in Europe, 1975, the principle was formulated according to which "States Parties are considered as unrealous all borders of each other, like the borders of all states in Europe, and therefore will refrain now in the future from any encroachment on these borders. "

This means the rejection of any territorial claims. States are obliged to refrain from violations of demarcation lines, that is, the temporary or preliminary boundaries of the truce lines set on a contractual basis, or any other basis. (Demarcation line between C. (DPRK) and Yu. Korea).

As an independent, the principle of irrevoyability of borders was formed by the final act of the CSCE (1975). The principle contains the obligations to recognize the inviolability of all state borders in Europe. It is known that the defeated states did not fully recognize the borders established as a result of World War II, which complicated international relations. Thus, it is necessary to recognize that the principle of non-heinsity of the borders was not established in general, international law (there are sharp territorial disputes in Asian, African, American continents -Sm. Section 3).

CSE participating States consider all borders of each other and the borders of all states in Europe as unreasonable. They undertake to refrain now in the future from any encroachments on these borders, as well as from any requirements and actions aimed at seizing and usurpation almost or the entire territory of any State party.

The principle of irrevoyability of borders for the Russian Federation among other principles is the basis of relationship with other states, which is confirmed by its treaties.

For example, in the CIS Creating Agreement (08.12.1991) of the Alma-Ata Declaration (December 21, 1991) confirmed recognition and respect for the inviolability of existing borders. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Poland on friendly and good-neighborly cooperation (05/22/1992) includes: "The parties recognize the unrealistic existing border between them and confirm that they do not have any territorial claims to each other, and they will not put forward such claims in the future "

Contracts between the Russian Federation and Ukraine; RF and Azerbaijan Republic (07/03/1997) about friendship, cooperation and security.

The fundamental act on mutual relations, cooperation and security between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (27.05.1997); The act established the Federal Council of Russia-NATO.

The principle of irrevoyability of state borders means the obligation of states to respect the established, in accordance with international law, the boundaries of each foreign state.

The principle of conscientious fulfillment by States of its international obligations - One of the most ancient principles of international law, without which it is difficult to submit the very existence of an international legal system. It is no coincidence that at almost the first international treaties appeared the first tools to ensure their collateral. If states could arbitrarily relate to the need to strictly adhere to the obligations assumed, all other norms and principles of international law became senseless. The system of principles as generally binding norms inevitably implies a strict implementation of the relevant rules and only if this condition becomes an effective regulator of international relations. Therefore, it is believed that the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations is the basis of modern international law.

The historically considered principle has appeared as the development of the formula PACTA SUNT SERVANDA (contracts must be executed), which was perceived by international public law from Roman law. It is easy to see that the current formulation of the principle significantly expands the scope of its action. According to the international legal doctrine, states must conscientiously carry out not only contractual, but in general any obligations taken on themselves in accordance with international law (for example, ordinary).

The UN Charter formally does not contain this principle, as it obliges States to strictly fulfill the obligations that are taken by themselves in connection with membership in the organization. For all the importance of such obligations, the range of international duties of any state is not limited. Therefore, the legal content of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations is disclosed in the Declaration of the 1970 principles, the final act of the CSCE 1975, as well as in the Vienna Convention on the Right of International Treaties of 1969. The content of this principle includes the following main provisions.

First, states must fulfill their international obligations in good faith. Under conscientious fulfillment is understood as accurate, timely and complete execution of the obligation accepted in accordance with international law. In particular, States must fulfill international treaties in strict accordance with their spirit and letter, based on the usual interpretation and in accordance with the basic principles of international law.

Secondly, when implementing an international obligation, no state has the right to refer to its national law. On the contrary, this principle requires all states to bring its internal legislation into compliance with international obligations, thereby ensuring the primacy of international law over the national.

Thirdly, the obligation to conscientiously implement international obligations concerns only those obligations that do not contradict the basic principles of international law, and first of all, the system of international legal principles. Any rule of behavior contrary to the spirit and principles of the UN Charter is legally insignificant and by virtue of this should not be executed.

Fourthly, non-fulfillment of international obligations by one state or another entails an offensification of international responsibility - system measures aimed at restoring law enforcement. Protection of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations is carried out through the activities of special international bodies (judicial and arbitration), means of multilateral and bilateral diplomacy, and in some cases - voluntarily offenders.

Fifth, international law contains an exhaustive list of grounds for which the state is entitled to avoid fulfilling its international obligations. For example, the Vienna Convention on the right of international treaties permits in strictly defined cases the State party to refuse its execution. Such cases cannot be considered a violation of the principle under consideration, as they are allowed by the international law.

The practical implementation of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations was often, as already noted, conflicts with the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of the sovereign state. It should be emphasized once again: the obligations adopted by the state before the world community have an absolute priority before its national interests and, by virtue of this, cannot be attributed to the internal affairs of this state. Therefore, the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations should be considered as the foundation of the system of international legal principles and international law as a whole. It is no coincidence that the commitment of this principle in one form or another is enshrined in many international documents. For example, Article 1 Declaration on the Fundamental Relations between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Kingdom of Spain in 1994 contains the intention of the parties to build its relationship based on "... voluntary fulfillment of international obligations assumed in accordance with international law."

In a modern period, from the usual legal norm, it turned into a contractual norm, and its content changed significantly and enriched.

This principle has received a detailed characteristic in the Declaration on the principles of international law of 1970, in the final act of the CSCE 1975 and in other documents.

The essential features of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations are the inadmissibility of an arbitrary unilateral refusal of obligations and legal liability for violation of international obligations, which occurs in the event of a refusal of their fulfillment or other actions (either inaction) of a member of the contract with an illegal nature. Violation of international obligations generates the question of responsibility not only for departure from the Agreement, but also for encroaching on the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations.

Kolosov

4. The principle of irrevoyability of state borders

The principle of non-heins of state borders is one of the most important basics of the safety of European states.

The idea of \u200b\u200birrevoyability of borders for the first time received its legal registration in the USSR Treaty with Germany from August 12, 1970, and then in the Poland contracts, GDR and CCHR

with Germany. Since that time, the irrevoyability of the borders has become the norm of international law, legally binding for States parties to the said contracts. Two essential elements are expressed in these treaties: recognition of existing borders and rejection of any territorial claims.

The principle of non-heinsity of the borders was formulated in the final act of the Security and Cooperation Meeting in Europe in 1975: "States Parties are considered as unreasonable all borders of each other, like the borders of all states in Europe, and therefore they will refrain now and in the future from any encroachment On these borders. "

Acapproaching to state borders is one-way actions or requirements aimed at changing the position of the boundary line, its legalization or the actual position of the boundary line on the ground. Therefore, the recognition of this principle means also the rejection of any territorial claims, that is, as they refer to the text of the principle, the state, they will respectively refrain from any requirements or actions aimed at the seizure or usurpation of the part or the entire territory of any State party " .

States participants in the CSE, thereby expressed their recognition or confirmation of the existing borders of European states. This recognition is internationally legal, which entails certain legal consequences, in particular this recognition cannot be canceled. International legal recognition of the actually established boundaries is equal to the agreement of states relative to the existing border.

Thus, the main content of the principle of irrevoyability of borders can be reduced to three elements: 1) recognition of existing borders as legally established in accordance with international law; 2) rejection of any territorial claims at the moment or in the future; 3) Refusal from any other encroachments on these borders, including the threat of force or its application.

The principle of irrevoyability of borders has a lot in common with the traditional principle of international law - the inviolability of state borders. The content of the latter includes the responsibility of the states to comply with the existing border line on the ground: to prevent arbitrary movement of the boundary line on the ground and its intersection without the appropriate permission or outside the established rules. It also includes the right of each sovereign state to control the intersection of its borders and vehicles.

The principle of non-heinsity of the borders and the principle of inviolability of boundaries differ in the geographical sphere of their action. The principle of invisibility of borders, according to the final act of 1975, is valid only in the relations of the States participants of this act, that is, European states, as well as the United States and Canada. The principle of inviolability of borders has a wider scope of action, since it is the principle of general international law and operates on all continents, regardless of whether or not there are special agreements on this issue.

6. The principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes

According to paragraph 3 of Art. 2 UN Charter, "All members of the United Nations allow their international disputes by peaceful means in such a way as not to threaten the International Peace and Security and Justice." The evolution of the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes was marked by a series of international treaties and agreements, which, as they limited the right to apply to war, gradually developed funds for the peaceful resolution of international disputes and established the legal obligation of states to use such funds.

Common international law first only encouraged States to refer to peaceful means of resolving international disputes, but did not oblige them to follow this procedure. Article 2 of the Hague Convention on the Peaceful Decision of International Collisions of 1907 did not prohibit the appeal to the war ("before resorting to weapons"), did not oblige to refer to civilians ("to seek how much circumstances allow") and recommended a very narrow circle of civilians (good Services and mediation).

In accordance with Art. 33 UN Charter Parties involved in the dispute, "must first try to resolve the dispute through negotiations, surveys, mediation, reconciliation, arbitration, trial, appeal to regional authorities or agreements or other civilians in their choice."

In accordance with the modern concepts of international law, states are obliged to allow their disputes only by peaceful means. At international conferences, representatives of some countries sometimes resort to an arbitrary interpretation of the UN Charter in order to prevent the inclusion of the word "only" in the wording of the principle. At the same time, they argue that the charter does not so much establish that the disputes must be resolved by peaceful means, how much requires that, in the resolution of international disputes, the threat of the world and security of states is not created.

However, the provisions of the Charter speak about the opposite. The general position of paragraph 3 of Art. 2 applies to all disputes, including those continued which may not threaten the international world. According to paragraph 1 of Art. 1 Charter, international disputes must be resolved in accordance with the principles of "justice and international law". According to the majority of states, references in the charter on justice emphasize that peaceful means are mandatory to resolve any international disputes.

The UN Charter provides parties involved in the dispute, freedom to choose such peace funds that they consider the most appropriate to resolve this dispute. The practice of discussing this issue at international conferences shows that many states in the system of civilians prefer to diplomatic negotiations with which most disputes are allowed.

Immediate negotiations in the best way to meet the challenge of the rapid resolution of the international dispute, guarantee the equality of the parties, can be used to solve both political and legal disputes, best contribute to the achievement of a compromise, make it possible to proceed to the settlement of the conflict immediately according to its occurrence, allow you to prevent A dispute to such scales when it can threaten international peace and security.

At the same time, the development of international relations, especially in recent years, was noted by the desire of states to go beyond the negotiations and create other acceptable means of resolving disputes that would be based on the appeal to third parties or international bodies. Often, questions are raised related to the role of the UN International Court of Just.

Attempts by some Western states to fix the mandatory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, as a rule, they meet a sharp reference from many states. These states consider the jurisdiction of the court an optional, and such a position accurately corresponds to Art. 36 of the statute of the court, according to which states may (but not obliged) to make a statement on the obligation of jurisdiction of the International Court. The overwhelming majority of states have not yet recognized the jurisdiction of the court obligatory.

Analysis of the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes recorded in the Declaration on the principles of international law of 1970 and the final act of the CSCE, shows that, despite resistance, it was possible to defend a number of important provisions that are undoubtedly the further development of the relevant provisions of the UN Charter.

Among them is the responsibility of the states "make efforts to come to a fair solution based on international law", the duty "to continue to look for mutually agreed way of peaceful settlement of the dispute" in cases where the dispute cannot be resolved, "refrain from Any actions that may worsen the situation to such an extent that will threaten the maintenance of international peace and security, and thereby make a peaceful settlement of the dispute more difficult. "

The regulatory content of the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes in recent years has become a subject of careful analysis at meetings of CSCE experts on the peaceful settlement of disputes. Thus, the meeting in Valletta (Malta, 1991) recommended the parameters of the pan-European system of peaceful settlement of international disputes. The final document of the meeting provides for the creation of a special body in Europe - the "SCEE settlement mechanism for the settlement of disputes", which can be used at the request of any of the arguing parties and acts as a conciliatory body. In addition, the document recommends a wide range of mandatory and optional procedures, of which the archers are freely choosing those that they consider the most appropriate to permit a specific dispute.

The mandatory procedures recommended by the Meeting do not apply if one of the arcing parties believes that the dispute affects the "territorial integrity or national defense, the right to sovereignty over the territory of sushi or simultaneous claims to jurisdiction over other districts ..."

In general, it can be assumed that recent years have been marked, on the one hand, an increase in the specific gravity of peaceful means of resolving international disputes, and on the other hand, the constant desire of states to lead the regulatory content of the principle in line with the needs of public practice.

8. The principle of universal respect for human rights

The formation of the principle of universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all as one of the main international legal principles is related to post-war time and is associated directly with the adoption of the UN Charter, although the very concept of human rights has appeared in political and legal terminology since the end of the XVIII century and is associated with Epoch of bourgeois revolutions.

In the preamble of the Charter, the UN member confirmed "faith in the basic human rights ... in equality of men and women ..." in Art. 1 As the purpose of members of the organization refers to cooperation between them "In the promotion and development of respect for human rights and basic freedoms for all, without distinguishing races, gender, language and religion." The most important value is Art. 55 Charter, according to which "United Nations promotes: a) raising the standard of living, full employment of the population and the conditions of economic and social progress and development; ... c) universal respect and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone ..." Art. 56 It is envisaged that "all members of the Organization undertake to take joint and independent activities in collaboration with the organization to achieve the goals specified in Art. 55".

It is not difficult to note that the obligations of states are set out here in the most general form, therefore, from the moment of the adoption of the Charter, until now, the states seek to concretize the regulatory content of the principle of universal respect for human rights. This is done with the greatest completeness and universality in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and two Cards adopted in 1966: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

An analysis of numerous international human rights instruments shows that in modern international law there is a universal norm, in accordance with which States are obliged to respect and respect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinguishing race, gender, language and religion.

The noted duty is universal. This means that human rights and freedoms are subject to compliance in all states and operate in relation to all persons without any discrimination. At the same time, the purpose of international cooperation in this area is not the unification of national legislation, but the development of standards (models), which serve for states a kind of starting point for the development of their own national legislation.

Thus, direct regulation and protection of human rights and freedoms still remain the internal affair. International human rights standards in the overwhelming majority cannot be used directly in the territory of the state and require certain steps from it on their implementation. Provisions, for example, the human rights packets directly require the state of taking action, including legislative, to ensure the individuals of the rights provided for by the Pacts.

As a rule, international documents do not determine how the state will fulfill its obligations. At the same time, the behavioral standards contained in international documents to a certain extent associate freedom of behavior of states in the field of national legislation. Moreover, the analysis of the development of the regulatory content of the principle of universal respect for human rights shows that the individual gradually becomes a direct subject of international law.

First of all, we are talking about coarse and massive violations of human rights, when the intra-political situation in a particular country allows us to talk about "systematic, reliably confirmed gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms" (res. Ecosos 1503 of May 27, 1970). Such phenomena as genocide, apartheid, racial discrimination, etc., are already qualified by the international community as international crimes and, by virtue of this, cannot be considered as cases included in the internal competence of the state.

Modern international law encourages an individual to more actively participate in the struggle for compliance with international human rights standards. For example, the final document of the meeting of the CSE participating States in Vienna prescribes States to "respect the right of their citizens, independently or together with others, to make an active contribution to the development and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms," provides for "the right to observe the implementation and facilitate the implementation of the provisions of documents CSCE and join the other for this purpose. "

The CEOPENGAGENT CSCE document obliges the state to "ensure that individuals have been allowed to carry out the right to the Association, including the right to create, join and effectively participate in the activities of non-governmental organizations, which seek to encourage and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including trade unions and monitoring groups Compliance with human rights. "

9. The principle of self-determination of peoples and nations

Unconditional respect for the right of every people freely choose the paths and forms of their development is one of the fundamental foundations of international relations. This right is reflected in the principle of self-determination of peoples and nations.

The emergence of the principle of self-determination of peoples was preceded by the proclamation of the principle of nationality, under the flag of which is economically and politically hardened bourgeoisie fought with fat feudalism. However, the principle of nationality did not become dominant even in the international law of the era of bourgeois revolutions, since it was assumed by self-determination only on the basis of nationality. The content of the principle of self-determination varies depending on the historical situation. There was a time when self-determination was reduced to the problem of the formation of independent national states, since the nation historically developed after states. The desire of a nation to form our own state, therefore, is associated with a specific phase of social development.

The principle of self-determination of peoples and nations as a mandatory norm was developed after the adoption of the UN Charter. One of the most important objectives of the UN is "to develop friendly relations between nations based on respect for the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples ..." (paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Charter). This goal is specified in many provisions of the Charter. In art. 55, for example, it is closely associated with the task of improving the standard of living, the solution of international problems in the economic and social fields, in the areas of health, education, culture, respect for human rights, etc.

The principle of self-determination has repeatedly obtained its confirmation in the UN documents, in particular in the Declaration on the provision of independence to colonial countries and the peoples of 1960, the Covenants on Human Rights of 1966, Declaration on the principles of international law of 1970. In the Declaration of Principles of the Final Act of the CSCE, the right of peoples to dispose of their fate is particularly emphasized. After the colonial empire collapses, the question of self-determination of nations in the sense of education of independent national states is mainly resolved.

At the same time, the principle of self-determination is the main one in solving the problems of colonial and affiliates, which are stated in the chapters of the XI-XIII of the UN Charter, since the subject of self-determination is not the state, but nations and nations.

In resolution 1514 (XV) dated December 14, 1960, the General Assembly directly pointed out that "the further existence of colonialism prevents the development of international economic cooperation, delays the social, cultural and economic development of dependent peoples and is contrary to the ideal of the United Nations in a universal world. ". According to the same resolution and many other documents of the United Nations, insufficient political, economic and social preparedness or insufficient education preparedness should not be used as an excuse for refusing independence.

The United Nations documents expressed in the regulatory content of the principle of self-determination. Thus, in the Declaration on the principles of international law of 1970, it is emphasized: "The creation of a sovereign and independent state, free accession to an independent state or association with it, or the establishment of any other political status, freely defined by the people, is the formations of the authorities of the right to self-determination."

The right of national self-determination does not disappear if the nation formed an independent state or became part of the Federation of states. The subject of the right to self-determination is not only dependent, but also sovereign nations and peoples. With the achievement of national independence, the right to self-determination only changes its content, which is reflected in the relevant international legal norm.

The modern regulatory content of self-determination includes both the rights of peoples and the corresponding responsibilities of states. Thus, the right of peoples are free, without any interference from the outside to determine their political status and implement economic, social and cultural development corresponds to the obligation of states not only to respect this right, but also to promote him through joint and individual actions.

Without strict respect and compliance with the principle of self-determination of peoples, it is impossible to fulfill many vital tasks facing the UN, for example, the task of promoting universal respect and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone, without distinguishing races, gender, language and religion. Without severe compliance with the specified principle, it is impossible to maintain the relations of peaceful coexistence between states. Each state in accordance with the 1970 Declaration is obliged to refrain from any violent actions that could prevent the peoples to implement their right to self-determination. An important element of the principle is the right of peoples to ask and receive support in accordance with the objectives and principles of the UN Charter in the event that they are deprived of the rights to self-determination by violent means.

The principle of self-determination of peoples and nations is the right of peoples and nations, but not a duty, and the implementation of this right can be multivariate. Self-determination should not be carried out from separatist positions to the detriment of the territorial integrity and political unity of sovereign states. On the other hand, if the people create a body that officially represents and performs public-legal functions, then any violent actions that hinders from the outside of the process of self-determination can be considered as violating the principles of non-interference and sovereign equality of states.

The right of peoples and nations on self-determination is closely associated with freedom of political choice. Self-determined peoples freely choose not only their internal political status, but also their foreign policy orientation. Respect for freedom of political choice becomes the foundation of cooperation, not rivalry and confrontation. This, in particular, is connected by the right of liberated States to conduct non-aligned policies, to participate in the decision of both global and regional problems. Self-determination means the right of peoples to choose this path of development, which mostly corresponds to their historical, geographical, cultural, religious (, etc.) traditions and ideas.

10. Principle of cooperation

The idea of \u200b\u200binternational cooperation of states regardless of differences in their political, economic and social strict in various fields of international relations to maintain international peace and security is the main position in the system of the norms contained in the UN Charter.

After the adoption of the UN Charter, the principle of cooperation was recorded in the charters of many international organizations, in international treaties, numerous resolutions and declarations.

Representatives of some international law schools argue that the obligation of states to cooperate is not legal, but declarative. Such statements no longer correspond to real reality. Of course, there was a time when cooperation was a voluntary act of state power, but subsequently the requirement of developing international relations led to the transformation of a voluntary act in a legal obligation.

With the adoption of the Charter, the principle of cooperation took its place in a number of other principles, mandatory for compliance according to modern international law. Thus, in accordance with the Charter of the state, it is obliged to "carry out international cooperation in the permitting international problems of an economic, social, cultural and humanitarian nature," and must "maintain international peace and security and to take effective collective measures for this purpose."

The principle of cooperation as the legal category follows from other provisions of the Charter, in particular from the provisions of Art. 55 and 56. For example, the content of Art. 55 shows two types of duties of UN members: the responsibilities of states to cooperate with each other in achieving the goals provided for by the Charter, and their obligations to cooperate with the UN to achieve the same goals.

Of course, concrete forms of cooperation and its volume depend on the states themselves, their needs and material resources, domestic legislation and international obligations assumed. However, the analysis of political and legal instruments reflecting the intentions of states (such as the 1970 Declaration and the Declaration of the Principles of the Final Act of the CSCE) show the desire of states to make the principle of cooperation universal in nature.

The obligation of all states to act in accordance with the principles of the UN is clearly implies their obligation to cooperate in solving various international problems, "as this may be necessary to maintain international peace and security."

The duty of states to cooperate with each other, naturally, implies conscientious compliance by states of the norms of international law and the UN Charter. If any state ignores its obligations arising from the generally accepted principles and norms of international law, then this state undermines the basis of cooperation.

11. The principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations

The principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations arose in the form of international legal customs of the PACTA SUNT SERVANDA in the early stages of the development of statehood, and is currently reflected in numerous bilateral and multilateral international agreements.

As a generally recognized norm of the behavior of the subjects, the specified principle is enshrined in the UN Charter, the preamble of which emphasizes the determination of UN members "to create conditions under which justice may be followed and respect for obligations arising from contracts and other sources of international law." According to paragraph 2 of Art. 2 Charter, "All members of the United Nations conscientiously fulfill their commitment to themselves under this Charter in order to provide them with all the laws and advantages arising from membership in the organization's members.

The development of international law is clearly confirmed by the universal nature of the principle under consideration. According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Contracts, "every valid contract is obligatory for its participants and must be conscientious by them." Moreover, "the participant cannot refer to the provisions of his internal law as an excuse for non-fulfillment of the treaty."

The scope of the principle under consideration was noticeably expanded in recent years, which was reflected in the wording of relevant international legal instruments. So, according to the Declaration on the principles of international law of 1970, each state must conscientiously fulfill the obligations adopted by him in accordance with the UN Charter, obligations arising from generally accepted norms and principles of international law, as well as obligations arising from international treaties, valid according to generally accepted principles and international law standards.

The authors of the declaration sought to emphasize the need for conscientious observance primarily those commitments that are covered by the concept of "generally accepted principles and norms of international law" or derive from them.

In the Declaration of Principles of the Final Act of the CSCE of 1975, the participating States agreed "in conscientiously to fulfill their obligations under international law, both those commitments that arise from the generally accepted principles and norms of international law and those obligations that arise from the relevant international law agreements or other agreements whose participants they are. "

Obligations "on international law" certainly wider commitments, "resulting from generally accepted principles and norms of international law." In addition, in recent years, states are adopted, in particular, at the regional level, important documents that, strictly speaking, are not their obligations "on international law", but which they nevertheless intend to strictly perform.

For Europe, these are the documents taken within the framework of the Helsinki process. In the final document of the Vienna meeting of representatives of the CSE participating States, they say that they "reaffirmed their determination to fully fulfill in one-way, bilateral and multilateral order all the provisions of the final act and other CSCE documents."

In various legal and socio-cultural systems, there is an understanding of good faith, which is directly reflected on the observance by States of the obligations adopted. The concept of good faith received consolidation in the large number of international treaties, resolutions of the UN General Assembly, in the declarations of states, etc. However, it should be recognized that the definition of the exact legal content of the concept of good faith in real situations may cause difficulties.

It seems that the legal content of good faith should be output from the text of the Vienna Convention on the right of international treaties, mainly sections "Application of contracts" (Art. 28-30) and "Interpretation of Contracts" (Article 31-33). The application of the provisions of the Treaty is largely determined by its interpretation. From this point of view, it is logical to assume that in good faith will be the use of a contract, which is interpreted in good faith (in accordance with the usual meaning, which should be given to the terms of the contract in their context, as well as in the light of the object and objectives of the contract).

The principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations is applied only to valid agreements. This means that the principle under consideration applies only to international treaties concluded voluntarily and on the basis of equality.

Any inequal international agreement primarily violates the sovereignty of the state and as such violates the UN Charter, since the United Nations is founded on the principle of sovereign equality of all its members, "which, in turn, has committed themselves to" develop friendly relations between respect for respect The principle of equality and self-determination of peoples. "

It should be considered generally recognized that any contract contrary to the UN Charter is invalid, and no state can refer to such an agreement or enjoy its advantages. This position corresponds to Art. 103 Charter. In addition, any contract cannot contradict the imperative norm of international law, as it is determined in Art. 53 The Vienna Convention on the Law of International Contracts.

In legal and policy-legal documents of recent times, it is increasingly indicated by the relationship between the responsibility of conscientious compliance with international treaties and the internal rulemaking of states. In particular, the participants of the Vienna meeting in the final document of 1989 agreed "to ensure that their laws, administrative rules, practices and policies consolidate them with their obligations under international law and were harmonized with the provisions of the Declaration of Principles and other CSCE obligations."

Such formulas indicate the expansion of the scope of application of the principle of conscientious compliance with international obligations.

Principle pACTA SUNT SERVANDA. ("Contracts should be followed"), which is the result of the State Agreement, for many centuries remained the usual legal norm. It was first formulated in multilateral London European Power Power ProtocolSigned 19 (March 31) of 1877. Representatives of Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia and France, trying to peacefully resolve the solar "Eastern Question" and problems in the Ottoman Empire. In this protocol, it was emphasized that no power can free themselves from contractual obligations or change them otherwise, "as with the consent of the Contracting Parties reached through friendly persuasion." The consolidation of this principle did not put it an immediate violation. On March 29 (April 10), 1877, the Ottoman Empire rejected the Protocol, assessing its provisions as interference in his internal affairs. Refusal of ports to accept the protocol has become a reason for the beginning of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878.

Similarly, the arrangements of the League Member States were violated, which proclaimed in their statute, that no power can free themselves from contractual obligations or change them otherwise, "as with the consent of the Contracting Parties reached through friendly persuasion."

IN preamble of the Statute of the League of Nations 1919 It was established that the members of the League will "strictly comply with the prescriptions of international law recognized by from now on the actual rule of the behavior of the states."

In modern international law the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international treaties Was fixed in UN Charter, which obliges all members of the UN in conscientiously to fulfill international obligations adopted according to the Charter (paragraph 2 of Art. 2). Although the Charter speaks only about those international obligations that are adopted by States regarding the norms contained in it, it will be perceived as mandatory and with respect to other international agreements. Principle pACTA SUNT SERVANDA. was subsequently fixed:

- in the Vienna Conventions on the right of international treaties 1969 and 1986;
- Declaration on the principles of international law 1970;
- the final act of the Safety and Cooperation Meeting in Europe 1975;
- other international legal instruments.

According to The Vienna Convention on the Right of International Contracts of 1969 "Each valid contract is obligatory for its participants and must be accomplished by them." Moreover, "the participant cannot refer to the provisions of his internal gear as an excuse for non-fulfillment of the contract."

Declaration on the principles of international law 1970, Reaffirming the duty of each UN member state in conscientiously to fulfill the obligations adopted by him in accordance with the UN Charter, as well as arising from the generally recognized norms and principles of international law, emphasized the duty of the state to also commit the obligations arising from international treaties, valid according to generally accepted principles and norms of international law. .

IN Final Act of Safety and Cooperation Meeting in Europe 1975 States parties agreed to "conscientiously fulfill their obligations under international law, such as obligations that arise from generally accepted principles and norms of international law and those obligations that arise from the relevant international law of contracts or other agreements that they are participants."

In the large number of international treaties and resolutions of the UN General Assembly received consolidation concept of conscientiousness, According to which good faith means that the appropriate contractual obligation is carried out honestly, in a timely manner, accurately, in accordance with the meaning provided for in it. According to the Vienna Convention on the Right of the International Treaty, conscientious will be the fulfillment of the contract, which is interpreted in accordance with the usual meaning, which should be given to the terms of the contract in their context, as well as in the light of the object and objectives of the contract. The principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations is applied only to agreements concluded in accordance with international law.