What does the principle of sovereign equality mean. States as the main subjects of international law

31. The idea of ​​equality in early Christianity Christianity originated in Judea in the 1st century. n. e. as a sect of Judaism, then became an independent monotheistic religion. Christianity was influenced by Judaism and Roman Stoicism. The creators of the Christian tradition in interpretation

This principle underlies all interstate relations and applies to any areas of such relations; it occupies a special place in the system of principles, in a certain sense creating a legally favorable basis for the formation of other principles and their normal functioning. It is one of the cornerstones of international law and the international legal order. The modern world consists of states, different in size of territory, geographic location, the composition and size of the population, the nature and composition natural resources, level of development, political influence, economic strength, military power etc. Under these conditions, maintaining a certain balance and ensuring cooperation is possible to a large extent due to the existence of legal principle sovereign equality of states. The states monitor its observance especially carefully.

A bit of history: This principle dates back to the Middle Ages, when monarchs sought to legally equalize their international status. For this, the legal formula of the ancient Roman lawyers par in parem non habet imperium (an equal has no power over an equal) was borrowed. It was based on the principle of equality of monarchs - sovereigns.

The modern international community recognizes sovereignty as an inalienable property of every state and essential foundation the existence of an international legal order.

This principle developed as an international legal custom and was subsequently enshrined in the UN Charter (Article 2), final act CSCE August 1, 1975, Outcome Document of the 1989 Vienna Meeting of Representatives of the CSCE Participating States, the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe, the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, in the statutes of international organizations of the UN system, regional international organizations, in a variety of bilateral and multilateral agreements , Outcome Document of the 2005 UN 60th Anniversary World Summit.

The entire international community is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all states. Only mutual respect by states of each other's sovereign equality ensures their cooperation and maintenance of the international legal order.

The Declaration on the Principles of International Law points to the following elements of the principle of the sovereign equality of States:

States are equal legally, those. have equal basic rights and obligations, have the right to participate in international treaties and organizations;

Each state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty, i.e. independently exercises legislative, executive, judicial power on its territory, builds international relations at its own discretion;

Every state has an obligation to respect legal personality other states;

- territorial integrity and political independence l states are inviolable;

Every state has the right to freely choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems;

Each state is obliged in good faith fulfill their international obligations and live in peace with other states.

In the Final Act of the CSCE, states committed themselves not only to respect the principle of sovereign equality, but also to respect the rights inherent in sovereignty.

In their mutual relations, states must respect differences in historical and socio-political development, diversity of positions and views, domestic laws and administrative rules, the right to determine and exercise, at their own discretion and in accordance with international law, relations with other states. States have the right to belong to international organizations, to be or not to be parties to international treaties, including treaties of alliance, and to be neutral.

The principle of the sovereign equality of states, as it were, breaks down into two principles - the principle sovereignty and principle equality of states.

Sovereignty- this is the sovereignty of the state within the country and independence outside.

The sovereignty of states, according to the theory of the social contract (J. LOCKE, T. GOBBS, J.-J. RUSSO), is a secondary phenomenon. Sovereignty belongs to the people (primary sovereignty). The people, in the common interest, under a social contract - the constitution - transfers to the state part of their rights inherent in sovereignty. Thus, the sovereignty of the state is a secondary sovereignty.

It follows from this that peoples themselves determine how they should live, what kind of power they should have, what kind of social system to build and in what direction to develop it. The state is the representative of the people, which is obliged to express its will. State sovereignty extends not only within the territory, but also to objects, actions of individuals / legal entities of the state outside its territory (in part and to the extent that are provided for by international law).

Sovereignty does not mean complete freedom of action, let alone their isolation, since they live and coexist in an interconnected world. The freedom of action of states is limited by law - international law. International law is an instrument of "docking" and ensuring "sovereignty".

On the other hand, an increase in the number of issues that States voluntarily submit to international regulation, does not mean their automatic withdrawal from the sphere of internal competence.

The need to respect the rights inherent in sovereignty is especially often pointed out in connection with the achievements of scientific and technological progress, which should not be used to the detriment of other states. This concerns, for example, the danger of military or any other hostile use of means of influencing natural environment etc.

States are increasingly transferring some of their powers, which were previously considered inalienable attributes of their sovereignty, in favor of international organizations. This happens for various reasons, including in connection with the increase in the number of global problems, the expansion of areas of cooperation and, accordingly, the increase in the number of objects of international legal regulation. But, by transferring part of their powers to organizations, states do not limit sovereignty, but, on the contrary, exercise one of their sovereign rights - the right to conclude agreements. By concluding an agreement, the state exercises sovereignty, restricts freedom of action, but not its sovereign rights. Moreover, the treaty opens up new opportunities for the state that go beyond the agreed limits. Otherwise, states would not enter into legal relations.

EXAMPLE: In a decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice ( predecessor of the International Court of Justice, operated within the framework of the League of Nations) in the Wimbledon case (1923), it was said: "The House refuses to see in the conclusion of any treaty ... a renunciation of sovereignty."

In addition, states, as a rule, reserve the right to control the activities of international organizations.

Quite often the opinion is expressed about the incompatibility of sovereignty with international law. Meanwhile, thanks to sovereign power, states are able to create the norms of international law, give them binding force and ensure their implementation within the country and in international relations.

International law ceases to protect the sovereign rights of states in which the anti-democratic regime violates human rights. The state has no right to issue laws that violate human rights, the people. Violation of a peremptory norm by a bilateral treaty is the business of all states.

Part of the principle of the sovereign equality of states is also the immunity of the state (its persons and things) from the jurisdiction of another state by virtue of the principle “an equal has no power over an equal”.

Equality means that every state is a subject of international law. States interact with each other as equals, despite their actual inequality. Yes, one state is big, the other is smaller; one state is economically powerful, the other is still developing; one state has many international treaties and the international obligations arising from them, the other has fewer; but legally they are equal in rights, equal before international law, have an equal ability to create rights for themselves and assume obligations.

All states have the right to participate in the decision international problems in which they are legitimately interested. At the same time, states do not have the right to impose on other states the established international legal norms.

At the same time, there is no reason to simplify the problem of ensuring equality. The entire history of international relations is permeated with the struggle for influence, for domination. And today, this trend is hurting cooperation and the rule of law. Many scientists believe that the equality of states is a myth. No one, including myself, will deny the actual inequality of states, but this is only emphasizes the importance of establishing their legal equality. People are also unequal in their abilities, but this does not raise doubts about the significance of their equality before the law.

PROBLEM: Are certain international legal regimes a violation of the principle of sovereign equality, say, for example, the position of permanent members of the UN Security Council?

(COMMENT: the number of members of the Security Council is 15. To take decisions on substantive issues nine votes are required, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. It - the "great power unanimity" rule, often referred to as the "right of veto" ( China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States and ) ),

status nuclear powers under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,

(COMMENT : Treaty establishes that a nuclear-weapon state is one that has produced and detonated such a weapon or device before January 1, 1967(i.e. USSR, USA, UK, France, China). The treaty consists of a preamble and 11 articles. The most important are Art. I and II containing main obligations nuclear and non-nuclear states. Art. I obliges states possessing nuclear weapons not to transfer to non-nuclear countries these weapons and control over them, and also not to assist them in their production or acquisition; Art. II obliges non-nuclear participants in the Diaspora not to accept transfers of nuclear weapons from anyone, not to produce them, and not to seek anyone's help for this purpose. Art. III of the treaty speaks of guarantees that non-nuclear states will comply with their obligations not to produce their own nuclear weapons; verification of the fulfillment of their obligations is entrusted to the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, the agreement provides that the required guarantees must not interfere with economic development states or international cooperation in the field of the use of nuclear energy in peaceful purposes and obliges its participants to exchange equipment, materials, scientific and technical information for this purpose, to facilitate the receipt of benefits by non-nuclear states from any peaceful application nuclear explosions (§ 3, Art. III, IV and V)),

(COMMENT : The IMF has a “weighted” vote principle: the ability of member countries to influence the activities of the Fund by voting is determined by their share in its capital. Each state has 250 "basic" votes, regardless of the size of its contribution to the capital, and an additional one vote for every 100 thousand SDRs of the amount of this contribution. This arrangement ensures a decisive majority of votes for the leading states).

Reflecting the real state of affairs, international law in exceptional cases, allows inequality in rights, but at the same time associates special rights with additional responsibilities. All of the above examples refer to specific rights, not sovereign rights. The sovereign status of all states is the same.

In my opinion, these exceptions only confirm the rule and there is no violation of the principle of sovereign equality of states. These are legitimate exceptions. Exceptions agreed between states and enshrined in the norms of international law, bearing additional obligations, special responsibility of states. A legitimate exception to this principle should also be considered a general system of preferences, which provides special benefits and benefits to developing and least developed countries in international trade.

EXAMPLE:

The World Bank provides loans only to poor countries.

Such a system is considered as a way of approaching from the formal equality of states to the actual equality.

Much still depends on the legal activity of the state. Ceteris paribus, more active participation in international legal relations gives the state a wider range of rights and legal opportunities. The reality of the sovereign equality of the state depends to a large extent on the consistency with which it defends it. Sovereign equality must take into account the legitimate interests of other states and the international community as a whole. It does not give the right to block the will and interests of the majority.

Equality of the legal status of states means that all norms of international law apply to them equally, have equal binding force. States have an equal capacity to create rights and incur obligations. According to the International Court of Justice, equality also means equal freedom in all matters not regulated by international law.

All states have an equal right to participate in the solution of international problems in which they have a legitimate interest. The 1974 Charter on the Economic Rights and Duties of States states: “All States are legally equal and, as equal members of the international community, have the right to participate fully and effectively in international process decision making…".

At the same time, one should not turn a blind eye to reality. The actual influence of the major powers on the rule-making process is palpable.

EXAMPLE: Thus, the regime of outer space was determined precisely by them. The creation of treaties in the field of arms limitation depends on them. On this basis, some scholars are of the opinion that equality is more characteristic of the law enforcement stage than at the stage of creating norms of international law. However, international instruments and international practice more and more recognized equal right of all states to participate in the rule-making process. In addition, acts created on the initiative of major powers should take into account the interests of the international community as a whole.

legal tools ensuring the principle of sovereign equality in various areas are "principles-standards": the principle of reciprocity, the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of granting the most favored nation treatment, the principle of granting national treatment, and others.

CONCLUSION: As long as sovereign states exist, this principle will remain essential element system of principles of international law. Its strict observance ensures the free development of every state and people. Sovereign equality is real only within the framework of international law.

The maintenance of international law and order can only be ensured with full respect for the legal equality of participants. This means that each state is obliged to respect the sovereignty of other participants in the system, that is, their right to exercise legislative, executive, administrative and judicial power within their own territory without any interference from other states, as well as independently pursue their foreign policy. The sovereign equality of states is the basis of modern international relations, which is summarized in paragraph 1 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter, which states: "The Organization is founded on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

This principle is also enshrined in the charters of international organizations of the UN system, in the charters of the overwhelming majority of regional international organizations, in multilateral and bilateral agreements of states and international organizations, in legal acts of international organizations. The objective laws of international relations, their gradual democratization led to the expansion of the content of the principle of the sovereign equality of states. In modern international law, it is most fully reflected in the Declaration on the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation between states in accordance with the UN Charter. Later, this principle was developed in the Declaration of Principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Final Document of the Vienna Meeting of Representatives of the States Parties to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1989, the Charter of Paris for a New Europe in 1990 and a number of other documents.

The main social purpose of the principle of sovereign equality is to ensure legally equal participation in international relations of all states, regardless of economic, social, political or other differences. Since states are equal participants in international communication, they all have fundamentally the same rights and obligations.

According to the 1970 Declaration, the concept of sovereign equality includes the following elements:

• a) states are legally equal;
• b) each state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty;
• c) each state is obliged to respect the legal personality of other states;
• d) the territorial integrity and political independence of the state are inviolable;
• e) every state has the right to freely choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems;
• f) every state is obliged to fulfill fully and in good faith its international obligations and to live in peace with other states.

In the Declaration of Principles of the CSCE Final Act, states committed themselves not only to respect the principle of sovereign equality as set out in the UN Charter and the 1970 Declaration, but also to respect the rights inherent in sovereignty. The latter means that in their mutual relations, states must respect differences in historical and socio-political development, diversity of positions and views, domestic laws and administrative rules, the right to determine and exercise, at their own discretion and in accordance with international law, relations with other states. Among the elements of the principle of sovereign equality is the right of states to belong to international organizations, to be or not to be parties to bilateral and multilateral treaties, including union treaties, as well as the right to neutrality.

An indication of the relationship between the principle of sovereign equality and respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty simultaneously concretizes and expands the content of this principle, which underlies international cooperation. The noted connection is especially clearly manifested in the field of international economic relations, where the problem of protecting the sovereign rights of developing states is most acute. AT last years the need to respect the rights inherent in sovereignty is especially often pointed out in connection with the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution, which should not be used to the detriment of other states. This concerns, for example, the problem of direct television broadcasting, the danger of military or any other hostile use of means of influencing the natural environment, etc.

The legal equality of states does not mean their actual equality, which is taken into account in real international relations. One example of this is the special legal status permanent members of the UN Security Council.

There are assertions that normal international relations are impossible without limiting sovereignty. Meanwhile, sovereignty is an inalienable property of the state and a factor in international relations, and not a product of international law. No state, group of states or international organization can impose the norms of international law they have created on other states. The inclusion of a subject of international law in any system of legal relations can be carried out only on the basis of voluntariness.

Currently, states are increasingly transferring part of their powers, which were previously considered integral attributes of state sovereignty, in favor of the international organizations they create. This happens for various reasons, including in connection with the increase in the number of global problems, the expansion of the spheres of international cooperation and, accordingly, the increase in the number of objects of international legal regulation. In a number of international organizations, the founding states have moved away from formal voting equality (one country - one vote) and adopted the so-called weighted voting method, when the number of votes a country has depends on the size of its contribution to the budget of the organization and other circumstances related to operational and economic activities of international organizations. Thus, when voting in the Council of Ministers of the European Union on a number of issues, states have an unequal number of votes, and small countries - EU members repeatedly and on official level noted that such a situation contributes to the strengthening of their state sovereignty. The principle of weighted voting has been adopted in a number of international financial organizations of the UN system, in the Council of the International Maritime Satellite Organization (INMARSAT).

There is every reason to believe that the vital need to preserve peace, the logic of integration processes and other circumstances of modern international relations will lead to the creation of such legal structures that would adequately reflect these realities. However, this in no way means a belittling of the principle of sovereign equality in interstate relations. By transferring part of their powers to international organizations voluntarily, states do not limit their sovereignty, but, on the contrary, exercise one of their sovereign rights - the right to conclude agreements. In addition, states, as a rule, reserve the right to control the activities of international organizations.

As long as sovereign states exist, the principle of sovereign equality will remain the most important element in the system of principles of modern international law. Its strict observance ensures the free development of every state and people.

sovereign equality international legal order

The principle of the sovereign equality of states

This principle is, as it were, the starting point of modern
international law as a whole, combining two characterizing
each state of a specific legal feature - inherent
to the state the property denoted by the term "sovereignty" (see Chapter V), and
equality with other states in international communication. That's why
often in treaties between states it is about mutual respect by them
each other's sovereignty. The sovereignty of states predetermines the method
international legal regulation of their relationship - an agreement
between them.

For the first time, the interpretation of the term "sovereign equality" of states was given
at the San Francisco Conference, which adopted the UN Charter. It was contained in
report of Committee I/1 of that Conference, which was subsequently approved by the First
commission and plenum of the Conference.

According to this interpretation, the "sovereign equality" of states must
mean that:

1) states are legally equal;

2) they enjoy all the rights that follow from their sovereignty;

3) the identity of the state must be respected, as well as its territorial
integrity and political independence;

4) the state must, in international communication, conscientiously fulfill
their responsibilities and international obligations.

This interpretation fully retains its meaning to this day.

In turn, according to the Declaration on the Principles of International Law
1970, the main content of the principle under consideration is reduced to
next.

All states enjoy sovereign equality. They have the same
rights and equal duties and are equal members
international community, regardless of differences in economic,
social, political or other nature (clause 1).

The concept of sovereign equality includes, in particular, the following elements:

a) states are legally equal;

b) each State shall enjoy the rights inherent in the full
sovereignty;

c) every state has an obligation to respect legal personality (personality)
other states;

d) territorial integrity and political independence of the state
inviolable;

e) every state has the right freely to choose and develop its
political, social, economic and cultural systems;

f) every State is under an obligation to carry out fully and in good faith its
international obligations and to live in peace with other states.

Let us clarify that the expression that states “have the same rights and
the same duties”, refers to the rules of general international law, i.e.
norms established by the international community of states as a whole. Now
they are generally recognized as not only conventional, but also
customary rules.

However, the similarity of the rights and obligations of states under the general
international law does not mean that states cannot take
assume new international obligations under local agreements or
obligations clarifying and developing existing norms, if they are not
contrary to the basic principles of international law. It is in this way
first of all, modern international law is developing - from
local norms to universal ones.

§ 3. Principle of non-use of force or threat of force

This principle is a novelty of modern international law. Previously
the principle of non-aggression, in force since the time of the League of Nations, had a significant
other content.

Now this is a generally recognized principle of international law, set out in paragraph 4
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 of Principles
international law 1970 provide the following.

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

Aggressive war constitutes a crime against peace for which
responsibility under international law.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat of force or its
use for the purpose of violating the existing international borders of another
state or as a means of settling international disputes,
including territorial disputes, and issues relating to state
borders.

Likewise, every state has an obligation to refrain from the threat of force
or its use for the purpose of violating international lines of demarcation,
such as armistice lines, established or relevant
international agreement to which the state is a party
or which that State is bound to observe in any other
basis.

States have an obligation to refrain from acts of reprisals related to
the use of force.

The territory of the state cannot be the object of military occupation,
resulting from the use of force in violation of the provisions of the UN Charter.
The territory of the state must not be the object of acquisition by another
state as a result of the threat or use of force. None
territorial acquisitions resulting from the threat of force or its
applications should not be recognized as legal.

However, nothing in the above provisions shall be construed as
expanding or limiting in any way the scope of action
provisions of the UN Charter concerning cases in which the use of force
is legal.

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

Essential, related to the interpretation and application of this principle
legal problems, we have considered earlier. * Briefly they
come down to the following.

* See: Ushakov N.I. Legal regulation of the use of force in
international relations. M., 1997.

During the development and adoption of the Declaration on the principles of international law
1970 organized by the international community of states represented by
United Nations has been indisputably established and
It is generally accepted that the norm-principle under consideration prohibits the use of
armed force (armed forces) or the threat of its use by the state
in its relations with other states.

The only exception to this prohibition under
the provisions of Art. 51 of the UN Charter is the self-defence of the state in the event of
armed attack on him by another state until
The Security Council will not take the steps necessary to maintain
international peace and security.

With this interpretation of the principle prohibiting the threat of force or its
application in interstate relations, everyone agreed
States that have unanimously approved the Declaration on Principles of International
rights.

However, a significant number of states insisted that such
the prohibition also applied to the use in interstate relations
measures not related to the use of armed forces. But such an interpretation
essence of the principle under consideration was strongly rejected by others
states as inconsistent with the system collective security,
provided for by the UN Charter.

A compromise was found as a result of the inclusion in the Preamble of the Declaration
paragraph recalling "the obligation of States to abstain in their
international relations from military, political or any other
forms of pressure directed against political independence or
territorial integrity of any state.

At the same time, it is politically and legally necessary to take into account that, by creating
the United Nations, states declared in its Charter on behalf of
their peoples about the determination to live in peace with each other, to unite their
forces to maintain international peace and security, take
principles and establish methods to ensure the use of armed forces
except in the general interest.

Accordingly, the main goal of the organized international community
states represented by the UN is to maintain international peace and
security, in particular through the adoption of effective collective measures
to prevent and eliminate threats to peace and suppress acts of aggression
or other violations of the peace (clause 1, article 1 of the Charter).

Thus, in the person of the UN, taking into account its goals, functions and powers
a system of collective international security based on
idea of ​​the use of armed forces "not otherwise than in the general interest",
exclusively for the maintenance of international peace and only by decision
UN.

The Security Council is empowered to make such decisions.
member states, now practically all the states of the world, entrusted
"primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and
security” (Article 24 of the Charter) and agreed to “obey the decisions of the Council
Security and fulfill them” (Article 25 of the Charter).

The Security Council is called upon to determine "the existence of any threat to the peace,
any breach of the peace or act of aggression" and to decide "what measures should be
undertake”, not related to the use of armed forces or
using them to maintain or restore
international peace and security (Article 39 of the Charter).

The principle of unanimity of the great powers operates in the Security Council -
its permanent members, in other words, the right of veto of each of them
making decisions other than procedural ones. Politically and legally, this means
that the Council's decision on enforcement measures against a permanent member
cannot be accepted.

Consequently, the legitimate use of the armed forces is possible only and
exclusively by decision of the United Nations represented by the Security Council in general
interests of the international community of states, as well as in the case of
legal self-defence.

And this is also one of the foundations of the modern system of collective security,
coming from decisive role Great Powers, Permanent Members of the Council of
to ensure international peace and security.

As a result, collective enforcement actions by decision of the Council
Security is practically possible only in the event of a threat to peace, a violation
peace or an act of aggression on the part of a non-permanent State
member of the Council.

This is the essence of the concept of collective security embodied in the Charter
UN and modern international law.

However, in real international reality, such a legal order
is substantially violated, as evidenced by dozens of armed
interstate conflicts in the aftermath of World War II. AT
In this regard, the concepts of UN inefficiency and various
kind of reform projects.

Indeed, almost immediately after the entry into force of the UN Charter
started" cold war» namely between the permanent members of the Council
Security, China's UN seat has long been usurped
Taiwanese regime, the great powers unleashed an unprecedented
arms race, the notorious brinkmanship began,
those. global catastrophe.

In international legal terms, both states and doctrine were
an attempt was made to substantiate the legitimacy of the use of armed
forces in interstate relations in cases that clearly do not correspond to
provided for in the UN Charter and existing international law.

However, alternatives to the international legal order under the Charter
There is no UN and existing international law and it is impossible to offer it.

Such an alternative will obviously be possible under conditions of universal and
complete disarmament under effective international control, why,
By the way, one of the points of the principle of non-use of force and threat
force of the 1970 Declaration. But this, apparently, is still a very distant
perspective.

The modern system of international security will be devoted
special chapter (ch. XIV).

Found a typo? Select and press CTRL+Enter

This principle forms the basis of the international legal order, its goal is to make all states legally equal participants in international communication, having the same rights and obligations.

Each state must respect the sovereignty of another state. Sovereignty is the right of the state, without any interference within its own territory, to exercise legislative, executive and judicial power, as well as independently pursue its foreign policy. Thus, sovereignty has two components: internal (independent exercise of power on its territory) and external (independent foreign policy). The internal component of sovereignty is protected by the principle of non-interference in internal affairs.

According to the 1970 Declaration concept of sovereign equality includes the following elements:

All states are legally equal;

Each state enjoys the rights inherent in
full sovereignty; every state is obliged to respect the legal personality
ness of other states;

Territorial integrity and political independence
the dependence of the state is inviolable;

Every state has the right to freely choose
and develop their political, social, economic
skye and cultural systems;

Every state has an obligation to fulfill in good faith
their international obligations and live in peace with others
our states.

A state has the right to be or not to be a party to international treaties and international organizations, and also, according to the 1970 Declaration and the 1975 CSCE Final Act, a sovereign state must respect the positions and views, internal laws of another state. When a state transfers part of its powers to international organizations it creates, it does not limit its sovereignty, but only exercises one of the sovereign rights - the right to create and participate in the activities of international organizations.

Principle of non-use of force and threat of force

According to paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter, "All states 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 addition to the UN Charter and the 1970 Declaration, the principle of the non-use of force and the threat of force is enshrined in the Declaration on Enhancing the Effectiveness of Renunciation of the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations of 1987, the statutes of the Tokyo and Nuremberg Tribunals.

The UN Charter provides for two instances of the lawful use of armed force:

In self-defence, if there was an armed
attack on the state (art. 51);

By decision of the UN Security Council in the event of a threat
call for peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression (art. 42).

The normative content of the principle of non-use of force and threat of force includes: 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, coasts of the state; violent acts preventing peoples from exercising their right to self-determination, and other violent acts.

The principle of territorial integrity of states

The principle of the territorial integrity of states is designed to ensure stability in interstate relations, to protect the territory of the state from any encroachment. It is enshrined in the UN Charter, in the 1970 Declaration, which obliges states "to refrain from any action aimed at violating the national unity and territorial integrity of any other state."

The Declaration of 1970 and the Final Act of the CSCE of 1975 supplement the above-mentioned provisions with a ban on turning the territory of a state into an object of military occupation. Territory should also not be the object of acquisition by another state as a result of the use of force or the threat of force. Such acquisitions should not be recognized as legal, which does not mean that all conquests of foreign territories that took place before the adoption of the UN Charter were illegal.

The principle of universal respect for human rights in modern international law

The principle of universal respect for human rights in modern international law occupies a special place, since its very assertion has made changes to the concept of international law, giving the international community the opportunity to control the observance of human rights in a separate state and the implementation of the sovereign power of the state in relation to the population living on its territory.

The legal content of the principle is enshrined in the following documents: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948;

Human Rights Covenants 1966;

Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989;

Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide
and punishment for him in 1948;

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Dissent
crimes in 1966;

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination in
against women in 1979, as well as numerous international
international treaties and charters of international organizations
tions, in particular the CSCE-OSCE. The most regulated
we have the rights and obligations of states to comply with the principles
on universal respect for human rights in today's international
international law in Final document of the Vienna meeting
1989 and the Outcome Document of the 1990 Copenhagen Meeting.

In case of violation of their fundamental rights, an individual can seek help not only from national courts, but also, in some cases, from international bodies. Human rights committees and commissions have been set up to protect this principle.

A characteristic feature of the principle is that both states and individuals are responsible for its violation.

The principle of cooperation

The principle of cooperation is as follows:

1) states are obliged to cooperate with each other in order to
for the maintenance of international peace;

2) the cooperation of states should not depend on the times
lychee in them social systems;

3) states must cooperate in the matter of economy
economic growth around the world and help developing
countries.

Principle conscientious performance international obligations

At the heart of this principle lies the norm of rasta]ipg zeguapea, which has been known since ancient times (meaning that agreements must be respected). Article 2 of the UN Charter speaks of the obligation of UN members to comply with their obligations. This principle was enshrined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the 1970 Declaration, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the CSCE and other documents.

14. The concept of subjects of international public law.

The subjects of international law are the bearers of international rights and obligations arising from international treaties and international customs. This property is called legal personality.

Any subject of international law has legal capacity, capacity to act and tortiousness.

The legal capacity of a subject of international law means his ability to have legal rights and obligations.

The legal capacity of a subject of international law is the acquisition and exercise by the subject independently, by his actions of rights and obligations. Subjects of international law bear independent responsibility for their actions, i.e. have tortiousness.

The following can be distinguished signs of subjects of international law:

1) the ability to act independently, to
dependent exercise of international rights and is obliged
news;

2) the fact of participation or the possibility of participation in international
native legal relations;

3) participation status, i.e. specific nature of participation
in international legal relations.

Subject of modern international law- it is a real or potential subject of international legal relations, possessing international rights and obligations, certain norms of international law and capable of bearing international legal responsibility.

Types of subjects of international law:

1) a state with sovereignty;

2) nations and peoples fighting for independence;

3) international universal organizations;

4) state-like organizations.

15. State as a subject of international public law

States are the initial and main subjects of international law, which determined its emergence and development. The state, unlike other subjects of international law, has a universal legal personality that does not depend on the will of other subjects. Even an unrecognized state has the right to defend its territorial integrity and independence, to govern the population on its territory.

The first attempt to codify the international legal features of the state was made in the 1933 Inter-American Convention on the Rights and Duties of the State.

State features are:

Sovereignty;

Territory;

Population;

The determining role of states is explained by their sovereignty - the ability to independently carry out foreign policy in the international arena and power over the population of their territory. This implies the equal legal personality of all states.

The state is a subject of international law since its inception. Its legal personality is not limited by time and the largest in scope. States can conclude treaties on any subject and at their own discretion. They develop the norms of international law, contributing to their progressive development, ensure their implementation and terminate these norms.

States create new subjects of international law (international organizations). They determine the content of the object of international legal regulation, contributing to its expansion by including issues that previously belonged to their internal competence (for example, human rights).

16. Legal personality of peoples and nations.

A nation, or people (a general term referring to a multinational population), is a relatively new subject of international law, recognized as a result of the principle of self-determination of peoples enshrined in the UN Charter. The right of the people to self-determination, according to the 1970 Declaration, means the right to freely, without any outside interference, determine their political status and carry out economic, social and cultural development.

Political status is understood as either the creation of a state if the nation did not have one, or the accession or unification with another state. If there is a state within the framework of a federation or confederation, the nation can withdraw from their composition.

Not all nations and peoples can be recognized as subjects of international law, but only those of them that are really fighting for their independence and have created authorities and administrations that are able to represent the interests of the entire nation, people in international relations.

Thus, the legal personality of the nation is closely connected with the achievement of self-determination of the state. It manifests itself in the conclusion of agreements with other states on assistance, participation in the activities of international organizations as an observer.

17. Legal personality of international organizations.

International intergovernmental organizations are derivative subjects of international law. They are called derivative entities because they are created by states by concluding an agreement - a constituent act, which is the charter of the organization. The scope of legal personality, as well as its provision, depends on the will of the founding states and is enshrined in the charter of an international organization. Therefore, the scope of legal personality of international organizations is not the same, it is determined by the constituent documents of the international organization. The United Nations has the largest amount of legal personality. Its members are 185 states. The Republic of Belarus is one of the 50 founding states of the UN, having signed its Charter at the San Francisco Conference in 1945.

The legitimacy of any international organization is determined by the conformity of its statutory principles with the principles of the UN Charter. In the event of a conflict between the state's international obligations under the UN Charter, priority is given to the UN Charter.

The legal personality of an international organization exists regardless of the will of the member states, even if its constituent documents do not expressly state that an international organization has legal personality, and a special one at that, i.e. limited by the goals of the organization and its charter.

As a subject of international law, any international intergovernmental organization has the right to conclude agreements, but only on issues stipulated by the UN Charter, to have representation in member states (for example, the UN office in the Republic of Belarus).

Thus, an international (interstate) organization is an association of states created on the basis of an international treaty to fulfill certain goals, having an appropriate system of bodies, having rights and obligations that are different from the rights and obligations of member states, and established in accordance with international law.

18. Legal personality of state-like entities.

State-like formations are endowed with a certain amount of rights and obligations, act as participants in international communication, and have sovereignty.

Examples of state-like entities include free cities (Jerusalem, Danzig, West Berlin), whose status was determined by an international agreement or a resolution of the UN General Assembly (for Jerusalem). Such cities had the right to conclude international treaties and were subject only to international law. These subjects were characterized by demilitarization and neutralization.

The state-like entity is the Vatican, established on the basis of the Lateran Treaty in 1929. It participates in a number of international organizations and conferences, and is headed by the head of the Catholic Church - the Pope.

19. International legal personality of individuals

The problem of recognizing an individual as a subject of international law is debatable, in many ways controversial. Some authors deny the legal personality of an individual, while others recognize for him certain qualities of a subject of international law.

Thus, A. Ferdross (Austria) believes that “individuals, in principle, are not subjects of international law, since international law protects the interests of individuals, however, it does not directly endow rights and obligations. individuals, but only of the state of which they are citizens” 2 . Other experts believe that an individual can only be a subject of international legal relations. “Individuals, being under the rule of the state, do not act in the international arena on their own behalf as subjects of international law,” writes V. M. Shurshalov. “All international treaties and agreements on the protection of the individual, fundamental human rights and freedoms are concluded by states, and therefore specific the rights and obligations arising from these agreements are for States, not for individuals. Individuals are under the protection of their state, and those norms of international law that are aimed at protecting fundamental human rights and freedoms are mainly implemented through states” 1 . In his opinion, according to the current norms of international law, an individual sometimes acts as a subject of specific legal relations, although he is not a subject of international law 2 .

As early as the beginning of the 20th century. approximately the same position was held by F. F. Marten. Separate individuals, he wrote, are not subjects of international law, but have certain rights in the field of international relations, which follow from: 1) the human person, taken by itself; 2) the status of these persons as citizens of the state 3 .

The authors of the seven-volume "Course of International Law" refer the individual to the second category of subjects of international law. In their opinion, individuals, “having a certain rather limited range of rights and obligations under international law, do not themselves directly participate in the process of creating norms of international law” 4 .

conflicting position in this issue is occupied by the English international lawyer Y. Brownlie. On the one hand, he rightly believes that there is general norm, according to which individual cannot be a subject of international law, and in certain contexts the individual acts as a subject of law in the international plane. However, according to J. Brownlie, “it would be useless to classify an individual as a subject of international law, since this would imply that he has rights that do not actually exist, and would not eliminate the need to distinguish between an individual and other types of subjects of international rights" 5 .

A more balanced position is taken by E. Arechaga (Uruguay), according to whom, “there is nothing in the very structure of the international legal order that could prevent states from granting individuals certain rights arising directly from any international treaty, or providing for them any then international remedies” 1 .

L. Oppenheim noted back in 1947 that “although states are normal subjects of international law, they can consider individuals and other persons as directly endowed with international rights and obligations and, within these limits, make them subjects of international law.” Further, he clarifies his opinion as follows: “The persons involved in piracy were subject to the rules established primarily not by the domestic law of various states, but by international law” 2 .

Japanese professor Sh. Oda believes that “after the First World War, new concept according to which individuals may be liable for violations against international peace and order and they may be prosecuted and punished according to the international procedure” 3 .

Professor of Oxford University Antonio Cassis believes that, in accordance with modern international law, individuals are inherent in the international legal status. Individuals have limited legal personality (in this sense, they can be put on a par with other, apart from states, subjects of international law: rebels, international organizations and national liberation movements) 4 .

Of the Russian international lawyers, the most consistent opponent of the recognition of the legal personality of an individual is S. V. Chernichenko. The individual "does not and cannot possess any element of international legal personality", he believes 5 . According to S. V. Chernichenko, an individual “cannot be “introduced into the rank” of subjects of international law by concluding agreements that allow direct appeals of individuals to international bodies» 6 As noted above (§ 1 of this chapter), the subjects of international law must: firstly, be real (active, acting) participants in international relations; secondly, to have international rights and obligations; thirdly, to participate in the creation of norms of international law; fourthly, to have the authority to ensure the implementation of international law.

Currently, the rights and obligations of individuals or states in relation to individuals are enshrined in many international treaties. The most important of these are the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 1949; Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 1949; Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949; Charter of the International Military Tribunal 1945; Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948; Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948; Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, 1956; Convention on the Political Rights of Women, 1952; Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984; numerous conventions endorsed by the ILO 1 . For example, Art. 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 states: "Everyone, wherever he may be, has the right to recognition of his legal personality."

From regional treaties, we note the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 and 11 protocols to it; CIS Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1995. There are similar conventions in other regions of the world.

These treaties establish the rights and obligations of individuals as participants in international legal relations, grant the individual the right to appeal to international judicial institutions with a complaint against the actions of subjects of international law, determine the legal status of certain categories of individuals (refugees, women, children, migrants, national minorities, etc.). .).

The international rights of individuals, arising from the generally recognized principles and norms of international law, are enshrined in approximately 20 multilateral and a number of bilateral treaties.

For example, according to Art. 4 of the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, 1956, a slave who has taken refuge on a ship of a state party to this Convention, 1p50 GSh, becomes free. The 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes the right of every person to: a) participate in cultural life; b) use the results of scientific progress and their practical use; c) enjoying the protection of moral and material interests arising in connection with any scientific, literary or artistic works of which he is the author.

In accordance with Art. 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, the right to life is the inalienable right of every person. This right is protected by law. No one can be arbitrarily deprived of life. Thus, in this article, international law guarantees the individual the right to life. Article 9 of the Covenant guarantees the individual the right to liberty and security of person. Anyone who has been a victim of unlawful arrest or detention is entitled to enforceable compensation. According to Art. 16 Every person, wherever he may be, has the right to recognition of his legal personality.

The 1995 CIS Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states: “Every person, wherever he is, has the right to recognition of his legal personality” (Article 23).

international Court The UN, in its decision of June 27, 2001 in the case of the Lagrand brothers v. USA, noted that the violation of Art. 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Agreements of 1963 by the United States constitutes a violation of the individual rights of the Lagrand brothers 1 .

The Russian Federation recognizes and guarantees the rights and freedoms of man and citizen in accordance with generally recognized principles and norms of international law(Article 17 of the Constitution).

The question of the legal personality of individuals is enshrined in bilateral treaties of the Russian Federation. For example, in Art. Article 11 of the 1993 Treaty of Friendly Relations and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and Mongolia states that the parties will do their best to expand contacts between the citizens of both states. Approximately the same rate

enshrined in the Treaty of Friendly Relations and Cooperation between the RSFSR and the Republic of Hungary in 1991

1. International responsibility of individuals. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal of 1945 recognizes the individual as the subject of international legal responsibility. According to Art. 6 leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices who participated in the formulation or implementation of a general plan or conspiracy aimed at committing crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity, are responsible for all actions committed by any persons with a view to the implementation of such a plan. The official position of the defendants, their position as heads of state or responsible officials of various government departments should not be considered as a basis for exemption from liability or mitigation of punishment (Article 7). The fact that the defendant acted at the behest of the government or the order of his superior does not relieve him of liability (art. 8).

Under the 1968 War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Convention, in the event of the commission of any crime, namely war crimes and crimes against humanity, whether or not committed during war or in peacetime, as defined in the Charter of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, no statute of limitations applies.

The subjects of liability are representatives of public authorities and private individuals who act as perpetrators of these crimes or accomplices in such crimes or directly incite others to commit such crimes or participate in a conspiracy to commit such crimes, regardless of their degree of completion, as well as representatives of state authorities allowing them to be committed (art. 2).

The Convention obliges States parties to take all necessary domestic measures, legislative or otherwise, aimed at in accordance with international law create all conditions for the extradition of persons referred to in Art. 2 of this convention.

The individual is subject to international legal responsibility, and under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, persons who commit genocide or any other act (for example, complicity in genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide) are punished regardless of whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, officials or by private persons Persons accused of committing genocide and other similar acts must be tried by the competent court of the State in whose territory the act was committed, or by an international criminal court. Such a court may be established by the States Parties to the Convention or the UN.

2. Giving an individual the right to appeal to an international
other judicial institutions. According to Art. 25 European Convention
on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, any person or
a group of persons has the right to send a petition to the European Commission
on human rights. Such a petition must contain persuasive
evidence that these individuals are victims of violations
respective State party to the Convention of their
rights. Applications are deposited Secretary General
Council of Europe 1 . The Commission may consider the case
niyu only after, in accordance with generally recognized
international law exhausted all internal
means of protection and only within six months from the date of adoption
final internal decision.

According to Art. 190 UN Convention on maritime law 1982, an individual has the right to sue a state party to the Convention and demand that the case be heard by the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

The individual's right to appeal to international judicial bodies is recognized in the constitutions of many states. In particular, paragraph 3 of Art. 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states: everyone has the right, in accordance with the international treaties of the Russian Federation, to apply to international bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms, if all available domestic remedies have been exhausted (art. 46).

3. Determination of the legal status of certain categories of individuals
dov. According to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, personal
The status of a refugee is determined by the laws of the country of his domicile or,
if he does not have one, the laws of his country of residence. Kon
venice secures the right of refugees to work for hire, the choice
professions, freedom of movement, etc.

international convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, 1990 states that every migrant worker and every family member everywhere has the right to recognition of his legal personality. This, of course, is primarily about the recognition of international legal personality, since according to Art. 35 of the Convention, states must not interfere with the international migration of workers and members of their families.

International law also determines the legal status of a married woman, a child, and other categories of individuals.

The above examples give grounds to assume that states, for a number of problems (even a few), endow individuals with the qualities of international legal personality. The volume of such legal personality, no doubt, will grow and expand, because each historical epoch gives rise to its own subject of international law.

For a long time the only full-fledged subjects of international law were only states. In the XX century. new subjects - intergovernmental organizations, as well as nations and peoples fighting for their independence. In the 21st century the scope of the legal personality of individuals will be expanded, the legal personality of other collective entities (for example, international non-governmental entities, transnational corporations, church associations) will be recognized.

Opponents of recognizing an individual as a subject of international law as the main argument in support of their position refer to the fact that individuals cannot conclude international public law treaties and thus cannot participate in the creation of international law norms. Indeed, this is a fact. But in any area of ​​law, its subjects have inadequate rights and obligations. For example, in international law, treaty capacity is fully inherent only in sovereign states. Other entities - intergovernmental organizations, state-like entities, and nations and peoples fighting for independence - have limited contractual capacity.

As Prince E.N. Trubetskoy noted, anyone who is able to have rights is called a subject of law, regardless of whether he actually uses them or not 1 .

Individuals have international rights and obligations, as well as the ability to ensure (for example, through international judicial bodies) that the subjects of international law comply with international legal norms. This is quite enough to recognize in an individual the qualities of a subject of international law

20. The concept of recognition And its legal consequences.

International legal recognition- it is a unilateral voluntary act of the state in which it states that it recognizes the emergence of a new subject and intends to maintain official relations with it.

The history of international relations knows cases of immediate recognition of new states and governments, as well as stubborn refusals to recognize it. For example, the United States was recognized in the 18th century. France at a time when they had not yet completely freed themselves from dependence on England. The Republic of Panama was recognized by the United States in 1903 literally two weeks after its formation. The Soviet government was recognized by the United States only in 1933, that is, 16 years after its formation.

Recognition usually takes the form of a state or group of states addressing the government of the emerging state and declaring the extent and nature of its relationship with the newly emerged state. Such a statement, as a rule, is accompanied by an expression of a desire to establish diplomatic relations with the recognized state and to exchange representations. For example, in a telegram from the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR to the Prime Minister of Kenya dated December 11, 1963, it was noted that the Soviet government “solemnly declares its recognition of Kenya as an independent and sovereign state and expresses its readiness to establish diplomatic relations with it and exchange diplomatic missions at the level of embassies ".

In principle, a declaration of the establishment of diplomatic relations is the classical form of recognition of a state, even if the proposal for the establishment of such relations does not contain a declaration of official recognition.

Recognition does not create a new subject of international law. It can be complete, final and official. This kind of recognition is called the recognition of her ^re. An inconclusive confession is called ye gasto.

Confession be Gaso (actual) takes place in those cases when the recognizing state does not have confidence in the strength of the recognized subject of international law, and also when he (the subject) considers himself a temporary entity. This type of recognition can be implemented, for example, through the participation of recognized entities in international conferences, multilateral treaties, international organizations. For example, there are states in the UN that do not recognize each other, but this does not prevent them from participating normally in its work. As a rule, the recognition of s!e Gasto does not entail the establishment of diplomatic relations. Trade, financial and other relations are established between states, but there is no exchange of diplomatic missions.

Since the recognition of an unemployed is temporary, it may be withdrawn if the missing conditions required for recognition are not met. The withdrawal of recognition takes place when recognizing ye. ("the yoke of a rival government that managed to win a strong position, or when recognizing the sovereignty of a state that has annexed another state. For example, Great Britain took back in 1938 the recognition of Ethiopia (Abyssinia) as an independent state in connection with the recognition<1е ]иге аннексию этой страны Италией.

Confession ye dogge (official) is expressed in official acts, for example, in resolutions of intergovernmental organizations, final documents of international conferences, in government statements, in joint communiqués of states, etc. This type of recognition is realized, as a rule, by establishing diplomatic relations, concluding agreements on political , economic, cultural and other issues.