International security law concept and principles. Principles of International Security

As rightly noted by L.A. Lazutin, “the law of international security is based on the general principles of modern international law, among which the principle of non-use of force or threat of force, the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes, the principles of territorial integrity and inviolability of borders are of particular importance” Lazutin. L.A. International law: a textbook for universities / ed. G.V. Ignatenko, O.I. Tiunova. S. 272., let's consider them in more detail. The general principles of international law from the point of view of international security law are studied in detail by R.A. Kalamkaryan and Yu.I. Migachev.

The principle of non-use of force or threat of force. Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, and from any other action inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such threat or use of force is a violation of international law and the UN Charter and entails international responsibility. The principle of renunciation of the threat or use of force in international relations is universal in nature and binding, regardless of the political, economic, social or cultural system or allied relations of each state. No consideration can be used to justify the threat or use of force in violation of the UN Charter. States have an obligation not to induce, encourage or assist other states to use force or the threat of force in violation of the Charter. States have an obligation to refrain from armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats directed against the legal personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural foundations. No State shall use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other measures for the purpose of subordinating another State to itself in the exercise of its sovereign rights and obtaining any advantages from this. In accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN, states are obliged to refrain from propaganda of aggressive wars. Neither the acquisition of territory resulting from the threat or use of force, nor any occupation of territory resulting from the threat or use of force in contravention of international law, shall be recognized as a legitimate acquisition or occupation. Members of the world community are called upon to make efforts to build their international relations on the basis of mutual understanding, trust, respect and cooperation. In the parameters of the foregoing, the goal is to develop bilateral and regional cooperation as one of the important means of strengthening the effectiveness of the principle of renunciation of the threat or use of force in international relations.

The principle of peaceful settlement of disputes. Within the established criteria of due conduct, States are guided by their adherence to the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes, which is inextricably linked to the principle of renunciation of the threat or use of force in international relations. States that are parties to international disputes must resolve their disputes exclusively by peaceful means in a manner that does not endanger international peace, security and justice. To this end, they use such means as negotiation, investigation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, litigation, recourse to regional bodies or agreements, or other peaceful means of their choice, including good offices.

The principle of the inviolability of borders consists in the requirement of the absolute inviolability of the established borders, the illegality of changing them without agreement or under pressure, with the use of force and the threat of force. States themselves determine the border crossing regime, the procedure for establishing or lifting any restrictions on border crossing by individuals, goods, services, and so on. In the light of this, the main obligations of states are determined: strict observance of the established borders, dividing or demarcation lines, including armistice lines, settlement of border disputes only by peaceful means, failure to provide assistance to violators of the principle. The main content of the principle of inviolability of borders is reduced to three elements: recognition of existing borders as legally established in accordance with international law, renunciation of any territorial claims now or in the future, renunciation of any other encroachment on these borders, including the threat of force or its application.

The principle of territorial integrity. In accordance with it, the following obligations are imposed on states: to respect the territorial integrity of each of the states, to refrain from any action inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, against the territorial integrity, political independence or unity of any state, to refrain from turning each other's territory into an object military occupation or to the object of acquisition through the use of force or the threat of force.

As for special principles, L.A. Lazutin names two, R.A. Kalamkaryan and Yu.I. Migachev is also called two, S.A. Malinin lists and characterizes the following special principles of international security:

1. the principle of equal security, which includes the following elements: the right of each state to security, ensuring security for all equally, equal consideration of the interests of the contracting parties in the field of security in any negotiation process, reaching agreement on the basis of a balance of interests;

2. the principle of non-damage to the security of states, its elements: it is not allowed to strengthen security at the expense of another, no one can receive unilateral advantages in ensuring security, damage to any state is unacceptable, any activity that causes such damage should be abandoned;

3. The principle of equality and equal security assumes that states and military groupings between which there is a strategic balance are obliged not to disturb this balance, while striving for the lowest possible level of armaments and armed forces.

It is believed that after 1991, when the strategic parity between the two largest military-political blocs is no longer the main factor in ensuring international security due to the disappearance of one of these blocs, and with it the parity, the third principle has been transformed into the principle of reasonable sufficiency. Those. the level of the armed forces of each state must meet the minimum requirements for protecting its own borders.

S.A. Malinin will pay considerable attention to the principles of international security law, we list the ways he proposed to increase the effectiveness of these principles:

1. increasing self-control and self-discipline of states, their responsibility for compliance with obligations to the international community;

2. consolidation of obligations arising from the principles of international law in domestic legislation;

3. development and concretization of principles;

4. improving and increasing the efficiency of the mechanism for the functioning of these norms: the mechanisms of control and coercion.

At the heart of the modern international legal concept of security, emphasis is placed on reducing the role of the factor of force in international relations while strengthening stability in the world. Since the second half of the 20th century, the conviction has gradually formed that the time has passed in the history of human civilization when states could only count on protecting themselves by creating their own powerful defense. Character modern weapons leaves no hope for any state to ensure its security only by military-technical means, by building up armaments and armed forces, since not only the nuclear war itself, but also the arms race cannot be won in this way. It became obvious that the security of states could be ensured not by military, but by political and legal means.

Modern international law is the law of peace, and therefore even those of its provisions, which, it would seem, are not directly related to the prevention of war, should contribute to strengthening international security. Thus, international security is the state of protection of the vital interests of states and the international community from potential and real threats or the absence of such threats.

The goal of international security is the preservation of the state

among other sovereigns, ensuring their own independence and sovereignty. If before the twentieth century. it could really only be about preserving oneself as an international personality, then with the advent of weapons of mass destruction one can already talk about the preservation of the state and its population in the physical sense, and of the entire civilization as a whole.

The experience of the anti-Hitler coalition proved that by joint efforts the states are able to defeat the aggressor and bring him to justice. This gave confidence in their ability to ensure post-war peace and security. The concept of peace and security was embodied in the UN Charter. Its implementation was hampered by the Cold War. In 1975, important decisions were taken by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. In 1986, the USSR proposed the concept of comprehensive international security. Its provisions were supported by the UN in the resolutions of 1986 and subsequent years, dedicated to a comprehensive system of international peace and security.

The modern security system is conceived as comprehensive. It covers not only military and political, but also other aspects - economic, environmental, humanitarian and, of course, legal. Particular importance is attached to democracy in international relations and in states. Preventive diplomacy comes to the fore. Conflict prevention, elimination of threats to peace and security is the most effective way to ensure peace.

One of the main means of ensuring international security is the peaceful means of resolving disputes. The first general convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes was adopted in 1899 at the Hague Peace Conference. There is a corresponding chapter in the UN Charter. Since then, acts devoted to this problem have been adopted repeatedly.

The desire of states to ensure stable peace on earth depends primarily on foreign policy and on the unconditional implementation of the principles and norms of modern international law. The objective need for cooperation between states in matters of ensuring peace led to the process of formation and functioning of a new branch of general international law - the law of international security

It should be borne in mind the changes in the object of legal regulation that have taken place in recent years. Today, along with the continuing danger of conflicts between states, the security threat posed by intrastate conflicts generated by interethnic, interethnic, interreligious contradictions and clashes is becoming more and more serious.

International security law is a system of special principles and norms governing the military-political relations of states and other subjects of international law in order to prevent the use of military force in international relations, limit and reduce armaments.

Like any branch of international law, international security law is based on the general principles of modern international law, among which the principle of non-use of force or threat of force, the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes, the principles of territorial integrity and inviolability of borders, as well as a number of sectoral principles, such as the principle of disarmament, the principle of equal security, the principle of no damage, the security of states, the principle of equality and equal security. Taken together, they constitute the legal basis of international security law.

The principle of disarmament. The modern concept of international security arose in a situation of an arms race between two superpowers - the USSR and the USA. If in the 19th century ensuring security through the improvement of weapons and their buildup was the norm for states, then in the second half of the twentieth century. it became clear that such an armed potential had been accumulated that could destroy all of humanity, so an urgent problem arose - how to get rid of it, while maintaining parity. The principle of disarmament means the progressive movement of states along the path of reducing their own armed potential to the necessary minimum. Such a reduction is only possible on a reciprocal basis.

The principle of equal security. The main content of this principle is the right of every state (without any exceptions) to security. Security is ensured for everyone equally, taking into account the interests of all subjects without any discrimination.

The principle of no prejudice to the security of States. This principle states that one should not strengthen one's own security at the expense of the security of others and that one-sided security advantages should not be gained. States must refrain from any action that could harm the security of another state.

The principle of equality and equal security. The significance of this principle lies in the fact that states and their military associations, between which there is a strategic balance, are obliged not to disturb this balance, while striving for the lowest possible level of armaments and armed forces. This can be seen in the example of relations between the USSR (now Russia) and the USA. During the existence of the USSR, parity was achieved through the creation of two military groups - organizations collective security(NATO and the Warsaw Pact). Equal confrontation at that time was almost the only means of ensuring security. Then, starting in 1991, this confrontation changes: NATO expands its presence in Eastern Europe, the USSR ceases to exist, instead of it, the Russian Federation appears on the political arena. Has parity been maintained? At present, if one can speak of confrontation as ensuring equality and equal security, then it exists between the United States and Russia. One can speak, first of all, of parity in strategic nuclear forces. This parity was confirmed by two treaties on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms (START-1, START-2). But it should be borne in mind that this principle should acquire a global character and, according to S. A. Malinin, will mean the obligation of sovereign subjects to maintain the limits of reasonable sufficiency, however, at an increasingly low level of military potential.

The main source regulating the international legal ways and means of ensuring peace is the UN Charter (Ch. I, VI, VII). The maintenance of international peace and security and the adoption of effective collective measures for this are the main goals of the United Nations (Article 1).

The resolutions of the General Assembly adopted within the framework of the UN, containing fundamentally new normative provisions and focused on concretizing the provisions of the Charter, can also be classified as sources of international security law. For example, "On the non-use of force in international relations and the permanent prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons" (1972) or "Definition of aggression" (1974).

important place in the complex of sources of international security law are interconnected multilateral and bilateral treaties that regulate the legal aspects of ensuring peace. These contracts can be conditionally divided into four groups.

I. Treaties that contain the nuclear arms race in spatial terms. These include the Agreement on
Antarctic (1959), Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1968), Treaty on Principles for the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1967), Treaty on the Prohibition of Placement on the Bottom of the Seas and nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction (1971), Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (Tlatelolco Treaty, 1967), South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Raratonga, 1985) g.), etc.

II. Treaties limiting the buildup of armaments in
quantitative and qualitative relations. It's a treaty
on the Prohibition of Tests of Nuclear Weapons in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water (1963), the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1996), the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Means of Influencing natural environment(1977), Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (1993).

III. Treaties prohibiting the production of certain
types of weapons and prescribing their destruction. These are the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (1972), the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Use of Chemical Weapons and Their Destruction (1993), the Treaty between The USSR and the USA on the elimination of their missiles medium range and less
range (1987).

IV. Treaties designed to prevent the accidental (unauthorized) outbreak of war. These are the Agreement on direct communication lines between the USSR and the USA (1963, 1971 rr.) (similar agreements were concluded by the USSR with Great Britain in 1967, France in 1966, Germany in 1986), the Agreement on measures to reduce the danger occurrence nuclear war between the USSR and the USA (1971), Exchange of letters between the USSR and France on the prevention of accidental or
unauthorized use of nuclear weapons (1976),
Agreement between the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the Prevention of Accidental Nuclear War (1977), Agreement between the USSR and the USA on Notification of the Launch of Intercontinental Submarine Missiles (1988) and some others.

Among the sources of international security law, the documents adopted in the framework of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), up to the Code of Conduct on Military-Political Aspects of Security, adopted at the Budapest Summit of the CSCE participating States 5-6 deserve special attention December 1994

As a new branch of modern international law, the law of international security has one important feature which lies in the fact that its principles and norms in the process of regulating international relations are closely intertwined with the principles and norms of all other branches of international law, thus forming a secondary legal structure serving, in essence, the entire system of modern international law. This feature gives reason to say that the law of international security is a complex branch of modern international law.

The concept of "security" has been invested with different content. This, apparently, caused the assertion of some scientists about the impossibility of giving it a clear definition.

Well-known international lawyers in the past contributed to the definition of this concept. Emmer de Vattel wrote that "nations, or states, are political entities, societies of people united to ensure their security by joint efforts." Professor L.V. Komarovsky called the state's right to security "the right to preserve, or the right of unhindered existence." Professor V.M. Koretsky wrote that five basic rights of the state are most often mentioned in the international legal doctrine: the right to exist, to self-preservation, to independence, equality, the right to communicate and trade, the right to respect and honor. At the same time, he emphasized that "every right, which was attributed (in declarations and in legal literature) to fundamental rights, was born in specific historical conditions of the struggle of peoples for peace and security."

Considerable attention is paid to the right of the state to security in international legal acts, for example, in Art. Art. 2 and 51 of the UN Charter.

There are various definitions of the concept of "security". According to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Security" of 1992, which has now lost its force, security was defined as "a state of protection of the vital interests of the individual, society and the state from internal and external threats." However, interests are subject to satisfaction. It is not the interests in themselves that require security, but the object of security (threatened object). Note that these theoretical provisions were rightly not included in the Federal Law of December 28, 2010 N 390-FZ "On Security". Apparently, the authors took into account the old legal dogma: omnis definitio in lege periculosa (any definition in civil law is dangerous).

In general, security should be understood as a twofold state of affairs: the absence of threats to a security object and (or) the presence of authorized systems to counter them. Thus, the concept of security includes the object of security, security threats, the subject of security and security systems, as well as the legal framework for the functioning of the latter.

The objects of security are social objects - a person (individual), the national society of each state, the state itself as a political and legal entity and global community. There are also natural, technical and natural-technical objects that are also subject to protection, including legal and international legal. The division of security objects into social, natural and technical makes it possible to overcome chaos in conceptual apparatus, which exists in various sciences, when often the determining factor in the title with the word "security" is not the protected object itself, but its property, for example, "energy security", "environmental security", "food security", etc., - names, which are widely used in the socio-political sciences and practice. According to the rules of the Russian language, the phrase "being a means of naming ... like words, has a system of forms due to the grammatical nature of the main word that serves as the core of the phrase." The main word in the phrases of this group is precisely "security", and another word acts as its sign. Accordingly, in such phrases we are not talking about the object of security, but about the characteristics of the area of ​​the object's vital activity.

Among the social objects of security, considerable attention is paid to the state, the scientific and practical issues of ensuring the security of which are associated with such concepts as "national security", "state security" and "state security".

The use of the phrase "security of the state" is optimal. It is found in more than 30 international documents, for example, in Art. 34 of the Charter of the International Telecommunication Union 1992, Art. 29 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights of 1981, in the preamble to the Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Southeast Asia in 1995. In domestic legislation, it is mentioned in about 400 legal acts, for example, in Art. Art. 13, 55 and 82 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in federal law dated August 12, 1995 N 144-FZ "On operational-search activities" and others.

When designating the state as an object of security, the most adequate is the use of the concept of "state security", since, unlike the concepts of "national security" and state security, it directly names the object itself. At the same time, the historically established understanding of the security of the state as its security is mainly from military threats now requires rethinking.

Defining the concept of "state security", it is necessary to rely on the understanding of security as the absence of threats to the security object as a whole and (or) the existence of systems to counter these threats.

There are two options for the political-legal and organizational-theoretical development of systems that ensure the security of the state and the world community: 1) the neo-Westphalian order - the UN remains at the center of events, relying on the main regions and regional organizations; 2) post-Westphalian order - the UN is complemented by a new system, where the main role is played by regions and global civil society.

When considering the capabilities of the UN to ensure the security of the state, we note central location Security Council (UN Security Council), which can investigate the threat and take practical steps to ensure the security of the state - protection from aggression, from interference in its internal affairs, from other international crimes, both of the state and individuals. AT recent times The UN Security Council pays considerable attention to such a threat as international terrorism, and there is a positive tendency to take into account the natural connection between the object of security - the state, the quality and characteristics of the threat - terrorism and the definition of authorized security subjects. The UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) established the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC), which is the response of the world community to this international criminal offense.

The resolution requires that the process of combating the terrorist threat be continuous and cover: a) national efforts in anti-terrorism legislation; b) domestic executive and administrative mechanisms; c) international cooperation. Thus, the UN Security Council, independently and represented by the CTC as an auxiliary institutional body, participates in ensuring the security of the state as a social public object of security.

The UN General Assembly (GA) has the following powers in the field of countering threats to the security of the state: 1) considers the general principles of cooperation in maintaining peaceful relations between states, discusses any issues in this area and makes appropriate recommendations, except for cases under consideration by the Security Council; 2) organize research and make recommendations in order to promote international cooperation in the political, economic, social fields, as well as in the development and codification of international law, culture, education, health, human rights.

Most of the international treaties aimed at ensuring the security of states, groups of states and international associations were approved at the UN General Assembly sessions.

The role of other principal organs of the UN is seen in the following. The Economic and Social Council, participating in the implementation of various programs for strengthening cooperation between states, contributes to strengthening their security (for example, the UN Drug Control Program). The International Court of Justice resolves legal disputes between states, thereby promoting peaceful relations between them. General Secretary The UN promotes the resolution of international disputes and conflicts. Thus, the entire mechanism of the UN is empowered, in accordance with the Charter, to promote the safe and peaceful cohabitation of states.

It should also be mentioned organizational structures and international legal framework for the activities of such regional organizations that ensure the security of the state and its elements, such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) .

The provisions of the UN Charter, which provide for the possibility of creating regional organizations, reflected the dialectical combination of UN responsibility for maintaining peace and security in any area the globe and the relative independence of the actions of the participants in regional agreements.

Subjects, international law and international legal means of ensuring the security of the world community

By the beginning of the XXI century. a number of global systemic areas of action of international law have developed, among which the strengthening and protection of international legal order and international legality and ensuring international peace and security of all subjects of international law are priorities. However, now, in the second decade of the 3rd millennium from the Nativity of Christ, ensuring the security of the world community is possible not only by special means, through the law of international security and disarmament, the peaceful resolution of international disputes, but also through the promotion and protection of human rights and freedoms, counteraction to criminal crime. , international cooperation in the economic, humanitarian and intercivilizational fields, as well as through the formation, improvement and application of sanctions forms of international coercion and international legal responsibility. That is, through international law in general.

The system-forming principles of international law in the field of security of the world community include: 1) the principles of international law, in particular the principle of peaceful coexistence and cooperation; 2) the norms and principles of such branches of international law as the law of international security, the law of peaceful means of resolving international disputes, international criminal law. Other branches of modern international law also contribute to the establishment of cooperation, maintaining the rule of law and the rule of law.

A special role in ensuring the functioning of all elements of the world community belongs to international intergovernmental organizations. They (in terms of participation in ensuring the security of the world community) can be divided into two groups: 1) specially created (established) to combat threats to the security of social facilities, including the world community as a whole and its elements (UN, regional collective security organizations, etc. .); 2) international intergovernmental organizations established for the implementation and development of vital and necessary processes for the existence and activity of the world community. The contractual and legal (statutory) foundations of such international organizations must comply with the principles of modern international law, including the principles aimed at the safe existence and development of man.

The role of the UN specialized agencies (there are 17 of them) and related bodies is significant. Their contractual and legal foundations, while ensuring that their activities comply with the laws of socio-economic, political, technological development and activities, thus ensure the successful solution of the relevant regional and global security problems "from within". The most important thing for the safe and successful development of their activities is taking into account and combining with the interests of life and activity of all elements of the world community, humanity and nature as a whole.

Today, the founding documents of most of the specialized agencies of the UN reflect their moral and political responsibility to the world community.

The responsibility (including international legal responsibility) of those specialized institutions that not only promote development (stabilization) in a certain area of ​​human activity, but are also responsible for the security of countries and peoples, such as the IAEA, should be increased.

It is also necessary to change the international legal responsibility of specialized institutions in the field of security of the world community in those provisions where it comes to assisting, encouraging or informing states and organizations in special areas. The security of the world community is indivisible.

Particularly responsible is the role of international legal means of ensuring the security of the world community as a whole and its individual elements.

Political and legal aspects of collective security of a universal nature

The international legal means of ensuring the security of the state and the world community include a number of measures, the central place among which is occupied by the system of collective security.

The main goals of creating a collective security system are the prevention of wars and armed conflicts of an international and non-international character, the maintenance or restoration of international peace. In the broadest sense, almost all the normative material of modern international law is intended to contribute to the achievement of these goals. In a narrower sense, the norms of the law of international security serve to solve the problems of ensuring peace - the branch of international law, which is based on the principles of the non-use of force and the threat of force; resolution of international disputes exclusively by peaceful means; sovereign equality states; non-interference in internal affairs, etc.

As one of the organizational and legal forms of ensuring international security, the concept of collective security is the most developed in the theoretical and in practical terms. Collective security is understood as such a system of interstate cooperation in which an act of aggression against one of the participants is regarded as aggression against the entire community of states that have established the corresponding system.

The system of collective security is characterized by the organizational unity of the states participating in the system. This is either an organization (UN), or another expression of unity: the establishment of advisory or coordinating bodies, the provision of systematic meetings, meetings.

The collective security system can be universal and regional, i.e. collective security system of a certain geographical area.

Before the idea of ​​collective security received its international legal consolidation in the UN Charter, it took a complex and lengthy process of formation in the public legal consciousness of ideas about the means and methods of ensuring international security, the military-political and legal content of this concept, a process of understanding the problems of war and peace was necessary. , correlation of law and force in international relations, features of the relationship between international and national security.

The 1st Hague Peace Conference held in 1899 was of particular importance in understanding and practical solution of the problems of war and peace. It was a forum that was originally conceived by its initiator - the Government of Russia - as an international conference on limiting the arms race.

The 1899 Hague Conference did not achieve its original purpose. At the same time, it was essentially the first attempt to resolve the issue of disarmament on the basis of multilateral diplomacy. For the first time, the question of disarmament was linked to the problem of securing peace.

In 1919, the League of Nations was established - the first interstate peacekeeping organization in history. The creation of the League of Nations brought about significant changes in the system of international relations. For the first time in history, an attempt was made to replace the practice of creating military-political alliances of states based on the balance of power with a system of collective security.

The Statute of the League of Nations, which not only limited the right of the member states of the League to resort to war, but also provided for the application of sanctions against those members who would enter the war in violation of its decisions, became an important stage in the formation of the principle of the non-use of force, the prohibition of aggressive war.

The next step in this direction was the adoption in 1928 of the Paris Treaty on the Renunciation of War as an instrument of national policy. In Art. Article 1 of the Treaty states that its parties "condemn the resort to war to settle international disputes and renounce it in their mutual relations as an instrument of national policy."

The UN Charter further developed the principle of the non-use of force. According to paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter, all members of the UN shall refrain in their international relations "from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." AT post-war period this provision has acquired the character of an imperative norm of modern international law and formed the basis of the legal mechanism for ensuring international security of a universal nature, enshrined in the UN Charter. However, the content of paragraph 4 of Art. 2
still remains, perhaps, one of the most controversial provisions of the UN Charter.

The UN itself is the universal organization of the collective security system. The main task of the UN, according to its Charter, is the maintenance of international peace and security, for which it is authorized "to take effective collective measures to prevent and eliminate threats to the peace and to suppress acts of aggression or other violations of the peace and to carry out by peaceful means, in accordance with the principles of justice and international rights, settlement or resolution of international disputes or situations that may lead to a breach of peace" (clause 1, article 1 of the UN Charter). The Charter provides for both preventive and coercive measures in relation to states violating the peace.

The functions of maintaining international peace and security, according to the UN Charter, are entrusted primarily to the General Assembly and the UN Security Council, whose powers in this area are clearly demarcated. The General Assembly has the right to discuss any issues or matters related to the maintenance of international peace and security, including considering the general principles of cooperation in this area and making recommendations in respect of them to the states and the Council before or after the discussion (Article 10).

The Security Council is entrusted with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security (art. 24). It is the only body which, based on the provisions of Ch. VII of the Charter, have the right to take measures of a coercive nature: temporary measures to stop the violation of the peace that the Security Council deems necessary or desirable: a ceasefire, withdrawal of troops, etc. (Art. 40); measures not related to the use of armed forces: complete or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraph and other means of communication, severance of diplomatic relations (Article 41); measures related to the use of armed forces to suppress the aggressor and restore international peace and security (art. 42).

In accordance with Art. 43 all members of the UN are obliged to place at the disposal of the Security Council, at its request and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements (which determine, in particular, the number and type of troops, their position), the armed forces necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security, assistance and appropriate facilities, including the right of way.

Agreements shall be concluded as soon as possible by the Security Council and the Members of the Organization, or between the Security Council and groups of Members of the Organization, and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory States in accordance with their constitutional procedure.

In accordance with the UN Charter, all issues related to the creation and use of armed forces are decided by the Security Council, relying on the assistance and advice of the Military Staff Committee (MSC), consisting of the chiefs of staff of the permanent members of the Council or their representatives (Article 47). At the same time, only the Security Council "determines the existence of any threat to the peace, any violation of the peace or act of aggression and makes recommendations or decides on what measures should be taken in accordance with Articles 41 or 42 to maintain or restore international peace and security" ( article 39).

All states are obliged to obey the decisions of the Security Council and carry them out (Art. 25).

Unfortunately, in the post-war period, in the context of the Cold War, the provisions of Art. Art. 42, 43, 47 of the Charter failed to be fully implemented in practice. The collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s and the associated change in the balance of power in the international arena also did not lead to their resuscitation. At the same time, there was a tendency for the leadership of the United States and its NATO allies to further depart from the model of collective security provided for in the UN Charter, and those new parameters of UN peacekeeping activities that were defined in its official document"An Agenda for Peace", approved by the Security Council on January 31, 1992.

Note, however, that Art. 41 was used by the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Rhodesia in 1966, 1968, 1970, South Africa - in 1977, Iraq - in 1990, Yugoslavia - in 1991 - 1996, Libya - in 1992 - 1996 ., Somalia - in 1992, Rwanda - in 1994, etc.

Based on Art. 42 The Security Council took decisions on the use of force, in particular in 1950, when the DPRK attacked South Korea, and in 1990, when Iraq attacked Kuwait.

The UN adopted a number of resolutions and declarations aimed at strengthening the legal foundations and increasing the effectiveness of the UN peacekeeping mechanism. Notable among these are the 1970 Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security, the Definition of Aggression adopted by General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of December 14, 1974, the Declaration on the Prevention and Elimination of Disputes and Situations which May Threaten International Peace and Security, and on role of the United Nations in this field 1988, General Assembly Resolution 44/21 of November 15, 1989 on the strengthening of international peace, security and international cooperation in all its aspects in accordance with the UN Charter, the 1994 Declaration on the Improvement of Cooperation between the UN and Regional Agreements or Bodies in the Field of Maintaining International Peace and Security, etc.

The Report contains a clear explanation and affirmation of the right to self-defence; guidelines on the use of force, which should help the Security Council, if necessary, act more decisively and in a timely manner; consensus on the definition of terrorism; proposals aimed at preventing an avalanche of nuclear proliferation and at increasing the level of biological safety. It also contains a number of practical proposals for renewing the UN bodies and increasing the effectiveness of this organization in meeting the challenges it faces.

peacekeeping operations

Peacekeeping operations (hereinafter referred to as PKOs) are one of the measures developed by the practice of the UN and taken in pursuance of the provisions of the UN Charter on the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security.

The maintenance of international peace and security is the main goal of the UN, formulated in its Charter. Achieving this goal is the task of the Organization and all its organs. PKO is just one of the means to achieve the main goal of the UN.

The peculiarity of this particular tool is that its content is not disclosed either in the Charter, where it is not even mentioned, or in any other legally binding act.

Chapter VII of the UN Charter provides for the creation of coalition forces formed from the military contingents of UN member states and used by decision of the UN Security Council and under its leadership in the implementation of coercive measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. For this purpose, the UN Charter obliges all Members of the Organization to place at the disposal of the Security Council, at its request and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance and related facilities. Such coalition forces, as follows from the Charter, are not permanent and are formed at the request of the Security Council and on the basis of its decision on the use of force in a particular situation.

The legal basis for the allocation of national contingents to the disposal of the Security Council should be the mentioned agreements concluded between the Council, on the one hand, and individual members or groups of UN members, on the other, subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their constitutional procedures.

With regard to the planning of the use of coalition forces and their use and command, the UN Security Council should be assisted by the Military Staff Committee (MSC), consisting of the chiefs of staff of the permanent members of the Council or their representatives.

In practice, the provisions of the UN Charter on the procedure for the formation and use of armed forces under the command of the UN have not yet been applied, not a single agreement between the Security Council and UN members on the provision of military contingents has been signed, and the HSC does not perform the functions assigned to it by the Charter. This happened largely due to the political and ideological contradictions of the Cold War period, and later - due to the financial and organizational problems that the UN faced. Under these conditions, methods were developed for the formation and use of military contingents under the UN flag, different from those provided for by the Charter.

In its original sense, PKOs involved the non-violent use of military contingents to contain and assist in conflict resolution, which distinguishes such operations from coercive action as defined in the UN Charter. The so-called first generation PKOs were carried out by groups of military observers.

Military observer missions are made up of unarmed military personnel, usually officers, assigned by various states to the UN. They are created by a decision of the UN Security Council to monitor the implementation of armistice or ceasefire agreements, the disengagement of the armed forces of the warring parties, their withdrawal from the contact zones, etc. through fact-finding and reporting to direct command and the UN Security Council.

Freedom of movement must be guaranteed to military observers by local authorities or bodies of the parties to the conflict, but the exercise of the functions of military observers depends on the cooperation of the opposing parties.

In fact, monitoring teams are often denied freedom of movement by local authorities; they become targets of attacks by criminal groups that seize their property and means of transport; they are taken hostage, cases of their death are not uncommon.

For the first time in UN practice, military observers were sent to the Middle East in 1948 to act as part of the Armistice Supervision Authority in Palestine. Currently, military observers do not form independent missions; as a rule, they are an integral part of an integrated operation.

The first military contingents involved in PKOs had only light weapons, which they could use exclusively for self-defense (the so-called second generation of PKOs). They were tasked with separating the parties to the armed conflict in order to ensure the observance of the truce. For the first time, such contingents, called the UN Emergency Forces, or PEF-1, were formed in 1956 and played the role of a buffer between Israeli and Egyptian troops. They deployed with the consent of the parties to the conflict and after reaching a ceasefire agreement and carried out their activities guided by the principles of impartiality, neutrality and non-interference in the internal affairs of the opposing forces.

Later, the troops began to be vested with the right to use force in the event of an armed obstruction in the performance of their duties, and their equipment changed accordingly. Heavy armored vehicles began to be used in UN operations (for example, tanks as part of the UN Protection Force in former Yugoslavia) and attack helicopters(for example, the Russian helicopter group as part of the UN Mission in Sierra Leone).

Modern PKOs are complex, multi-component in nature and include the solution of not only military, but also political, humanitarian, social and economic tasks. Along with military personnel, civilians participate in them - police officers, human rights and election observers, specialists in humanitarian assistance, demining, etc. A feature of modern PKOs is that they are established to promote the settlement of not only interstate, but, more and more often, internal conflicts. Some missions are given transitional administration, law enforcement and transitional justice functions. The permissible limits for the use of force by the military component of the PKO are also expanding. Quite often the powers given to missions are based simultaneously on ch. VI and VII of the UN Charter, i.e. include both diplomatic and other non-violent methods of conflict resolution, as well as coercive measures using force. Of the operations now being established, it is hardly possible to single out even one that can be attributed to one or another "generation".

Even the very term "peacekeeping operations" in UN documents is increasingly adjacent to the concept of "peace operations", which, according to supporters of its use, better reflects the complexity and multicomponent nature of modern missions.

The PKO is established by a decision of the UN Security Council, which determines the mandate of the operation, and the forces and means are provided by the states on a voluntary basis. In the practice of the UN, there have been cases when, instead of the Security Council, which was unable to take the necessary decision, it was taken by the General Assembly. Thus, CHVS-1 was established in 1956 and ONUC (United Nations Operation in the Congo) in 1960.

The general leadership of the PKO is carried out by the UN Secretary General, the political leadership on the ground is the special representative of the Secretary General, and the operational military command is the commander of the mission forces.

The financing of the PKO is carried out by sharing in the costs of all UN member states. Each PKO usually sets its own budget. A special scale is used to determine the rates of contributions, with higher levels of contributions for the five permanent members of the Security Council and significant reductions for the least developed countries. In some cases, funding comes from voluntary contributions.

International personnel participating in operations are subject to the applicable provisions of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of February 13, 1946, as well as agreements on the status of operations (forces) to be concluded between the UN and the host country. Special legal protection is granted to personnel in accordance with the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel of December 9, 1994 and its Optional Protocol of December 8, 2005. Personnel participating in an operation are required to comply with the rules of conduct and discipline developed by the Secretariat UN; persons violating them may be repatriated with a subsequent ban on participation in UN operations. Special Administrative Act - Bulletin of the UN Secretary-General "Compliance by UN forces with the norms of international humanitarian law" dated August 6, 1999 - obliges military personnel participating in operations to be guided by these norms in cases where the mandate of the operation allows the use of armed force for self-defense or enforcement her tasks. The use of weapons is governed by the Rules of Engagement of Force and Directives on the Use of Force, which govern respectively the military and police components of the operation. The UN Secretariat concludes bilateral agreements with the governments of member states, providing for the early reservation by states of national military contingents, police and civilian personnel, and other resources and maintaining them at an agreed level of readiness as a possible contribution to operations.

With regard to military enforcement actions, none of the operations that are in any way sanctioned by the UN (granting the UN flag to forces that sided with South Korea during the conflict on Korean peninsula, authorizing the use of force by the multinational coalition against Iraq following its armed attack on Kuwait, the implementation of stabilization and peace settlement in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the multinational force under NATO control) was not a UN operation carried out in strict accordance with its Charter.

At its 19th session, the UN General Assembly established, as its subsidiary body, the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations (Committee of 34), instructing it to comprehensively consider the issue of PKOs. The Special Committee continues to function, reporting to the General Assembly from time to time on the progress made in developing harmonized guidelines for the conduct of operations. In turn, the Security Council has developed a set of operational principles according to which PLOs should be carried out. It is "the existence of a clear political purpose and a precise mandate, subject to regular review and change, in so far as its nature and duration, only by the Council itself; the consent of the government and, where appropriate, the parties concerned, except in cases of exceptional character; facilitation political process or peaceful settlement of a dispute; impartiality in the implementation of the decisions of the Security Council; the willingness of the Security Council to take appropriate action against parties that do not comply with its decisions; the right of the Security Council to authorize all necessary means by the UN to carry out its mandate and the inalienable right of the UN forces to take action in self-defence "(UN Doc. S/25869, 28 May 1993).

As part of the UN Secretariat, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Field Support were formed, the heads of which hold the positions of the UN Under-Secretary-General.

Conceptual and practical issues of preparing and conducting PKOs were also developed in later UN documents, in particular in the Report of the Panel on UN Peace Operations (UN Doc. A/55/305-S/2000/809, August 21, 2000), also known as the "Brahimi Group" and the Report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (UN Doc A/59/565, 2 December 2004).

One should distinguish between PKOs established by the UN Security Council, on the one hand, and sanctioned by it, on the other. The latter are approved by the Council, but are held under the command of other organizations or states. Thus, in 2001, the Security Council authorized an international coalition to carry out military presence in Afghanistan, while establishing its own political mission to assist the transitional government. Previously, in 1999, the Council had authorized an operation to restore security in East Timor, initially led by Australia, which later led an international coalition, which was replaced by a UN-established and led PKO.

Since the 1990s, regional organizations have been playing an increasingly active role in conducting PKOs, either in cooperation with the UN or independently. In parallel and in cooperation with the UN, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and currently continue to be held by the European Union, NATO, the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States. Regional organizations such as the African Union, the European Union, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Commonwealth of Independent States have a developed regulatory framework for conducting PKOs. Their statutory documents, treaties, and other acts provide for the procedure for preparing and conducting PKOs, the powers of the main bodies in this area, and the creation of special bodies to address these issues.

The most relevant applied legal problems in the preparation and conduct of modern weapons of mass destruction include the problems of the status of the mission forces, the use of force by the military and police components, ensuring the safety of the personnel of the organization conducting the WTO and the personnel involved, the application of the norms of international humanitarian law responsibility of the organization for the actions of its personnel.

Political and legal features of regional systems of collective security

Along with the universal system of collective security, the UN Charter provides a basis for the creation of similar systems of a regional nature "to resolve such issues for the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action" (Article 52).

In international law, the word "region" is associated with the development of the legal status of international regional agreements and organizations that ensure international peace and security in accordance with the UN Charter.

When the United Nations was created, the Dumbarton Oaks (USA) draft UN Charter determined that no regional agreement could act in matters of maintaining peace and security without prior coordination of its actions with the United Nations. This provided for the normative consolidation of the UN right to the final solution of all issues in any part of the world. An attempt was made to correct the abnormal situation established by the Statute of the League of Nations, which actually contributed to the creation of military alliances under the guise of regional associations. However, this direction was not fully supported for various reasons by the majority of the delegations that gathered in San Francisco (USA) in April 1945 to adopt and sign the Charter of the Organization, although in the main the idea of ​​subordination of regional agreements to the UN Charter was put into practice.

Describing the provisions of Ch. VIII and Art. 51 of the UN Charter, we can say that they reflected the desire of the founders of the world security organization to find justifications for the possibility of a dialectical combination of principles that establish the main responsibility of the UN for maintaining peace and security in any area of ​​the globe, and norms that make it possible for relatively independent actions of participants in regional agreements.

The following requirements for regional agreements follow from the provisions of the UN Charter:

• agreements of a regional nature must be created and operate on the basis of and in accordance with the goal-setting principles of the founding documents of the United Nations and the specific regulations of Ch. VIII and Art. 51 of the UN Charter;
• states of a certain region of the world can be their subjects;
• the scope of the agreements is strictly limited.

When analyzing the UN Charter, most authors come to similar conclusions about the requirements imposed by the world security organization on regional agreements, but it should be noted that if a number of scientists insisted on the unconditional compliance of regional agreements with all three of the above requirements, then most Western authors put the second one at the forefront. and the third condition, concerning the definition of the circle of members and the scope of the agreement (and even then with significant "interpretations"), only noting the first requirement.

Thus, the words "region", "regional agreement" in international law are filled with legal meaning, are associated with issues of ensuring international peace and security, with the problems of the balance of powers of the international community represented by the UN and regional international associations.

The most important elements of these systems are the following regional organizations of collective security: on the American continent - the Organization of American States (OAS); on the African continent - the African Union (AU, the former Organization of African Unity - OAU); in the Near and Middle East - the League of Arab States (LAS); in Europe - OSCE, CIS; in the North Atlantic - NATO; in Eurasia, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are currently operating - modern models of regionalism in the field of security. The statutes of these organizations contain a legal mechanism for ensuring security at the regional level.

In order to exclude the possibility of substituting the Security Council, the Charter clearly defines the position of regional security organizations in relation to the UN body, which is entrusted with the main responsibility for maintaining international peace. The Security Council must be fully informed about the actions not only taken, but also planned by virtue of regional agreements to maintain international peace and security (Article 54). In addition, the consequences of the activities of regional organizations should not affect the interests of both states belonging to other regions and the world community as a whole.

One of the most important tasks of regional organizations is to ensure the peaceful resolution of disputes between their members before the disputes are referred to the Security Council, which in turn should encourage this method of dispute resolution.

Coercive measures with the use of armed force can only be taken to repel an attack that has already been committed against one of the participants in the collective security system, i.e. in accordance with Art. 51 of the UN Charter.

The creation of a modern system of pan-European security is associated with the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), held in Helsinki in 1975. The Final Act adopted at it contains a set of international legal principles and defines practical measures to ensure European security. The provisions of the Final Act relating to security issues were further developed in the documents adopted during the Helsinki process.

Thus, in a document adopted in 1994 at the Budapest Summit of the CSCE, which transformed the Conference into the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), it is noted that the purpose of the transformation was "to increase the contribution of the CSCE to the security, stability and cooperation of the CSCE region so that it plays a central role in the development of a space of common security based on the principles of the Helsinki Final Act."

In November 1999, at the OSCE summit in Istanbul, the Charter for European Security was adopted. It emphasizes that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law, disarmament, arms control and confidence- and security-building measures are central to the OSCE concept of comprehensive security; The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) must remain the cornerstone of European security.

By reinforcing the position that within the OSCE no state, no group of states or organization can be vested with primary responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE region or consider any part of this region as its sphere of influence, the framers of the Charter specifically noted the primary role of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security, its key value in ensuring security and stability in the OSCE region. The Charter reaffirms the rights and obligations of Member States under the UN Charter, including the obligation not to use or threaten to use force.

The goals of creating the legal basis for the collective security system of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) are the CIS Charter of 1993, the Collective Security Treaty (CST) of 1992, as well as a number of agreements adopted in its development.

The issues of military-political cooperation and ensuring collective security are discussed in Sec. III of the Charter of the CIS. In particular, it emphasizes that in the event of a threat to the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of one or more Member States or to international peace and security, the Member States will immediately resort to using the mechanism of mutual consultations in order to coordinate positions and take measures to eliminate the emerging threats. Such measures can be peacekeeping operations, as well as the use, if necessary, of the armed forces in the exercise of the right to individual or collective self-defense in accordance with Art. 51 of the UN Charter. The decision on the joint use of armed forces is made by the Council of Heads of State of the Commonwealth or the interested member states of the Commonwealth, taking into account their national legislation (Article 12).

One of the important areas in the framework of the military-political cooperation of the Commonwealth countries, where tangible results were achieved, was peacekeeping operations.

Relations related to the implementation of such operations are regulated by the Agreement on Military Observer Groups and Collective Peacekeeping Forces in the CIS dated March 20, 1992 (Agreement 1992) and three protocols to it, adopted in Tashkent on May 15 and July 16, 1992 .: on the status of Military Observer Groups and Collective Peacekeeping Forces in the CIS; on acquisition, structure, logistical and financial support Groups of Military Observers and Collective Peacekeeping Forces in the CIS; on the temporary procedure for the formation and engagement of Groups of Military Observers and Collective Peacekeeping Forces in conflict zones between states and in the CIS member states.

NATO occupies special place among regional collective security organizations, which is connected both with the goals and objectives that NATO currently sets in matters of ensuring common and regional security, and with its subject composition, as well as with the changing geopolitical situation in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

If in the 50s - 60s of the XX century. NATO relied on the concept of bloc military confrontation, but since the 1990s, the member countries of this organization have conceptually reoriented towards ensuring security through cooperation, which means: negotiations instead of confrontation, renunciation of intimidation, openness instead of secrecy and closeness, prevention instead of suppression, and, finally, , reliance on interaction instead of force dictate. In practice, not everything works out for NATO member countries, but certain positive shifts are visible: NATO relies on the ideas and principles of collective security and collective defense and proceeds from the need to ensure individual security (human rights) and spread stability in the region and the world.

The disadvantage of these approaches is that the developers of this concept consider NATO the only true model of a security system based on cooperation, and the Western way of life in the countries - members of the Organization - the only one worthy of imitation and dissemination. Hence the methods used to ensure international security: attempts to expand the circle of NATO members at the expense of the former republics of the USSR (Ukraine and Georgia) and the creation of a missile defense system in Europe without the Russian Federation, as well as interference in the internal affairs of various states under the pretext of protecting human rights and ensuring stability in European region, Mediterranean region, Middle East.

Thus, while formally remaining a regional organization for maintaining international security and making a certain contribution to the development and implementation of the concept of ensuring security through cooperation, NATO remains primarily military-political bloc that ensures the security of the United States and other member countries of the Organization.

The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) also declared their reliance on the concept of ensuring international security through cooperation.

According to Art. 4 of the Collective Security Treaty (CST), if one of the member states is subjected to aggression by any state or group of states, then this will be considered as aggression against all states parties to the Treaty.

In the event of an act of aggression against any of the participating States, all other participating States will provide it with the necessary assistance, including military assistance, and will also support it with the means at their disposal in order to exercise the right to collective self-defense in accordance with Art. 51 of the UN Charter.

On the measures taken on the basis of Art. 4 of the Treaty, the participating States undertake to immediately notify the UN Security Council. Documents aimed at developing military-political cooperation often had a declarative character right up to the creation of the CSTO.

The Charter and the Agreement on the Legal Status of the CSTO were signed on October 7, 2002 in Chisinau. The charter largely repeats the documents already adopted within the framework of the Collective Security Treaty. In particular, the goals of the CSTO are the strengthening of peace, international and regional security and stability, the protection on a collective basis of the independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the member states, in achieving which the member states give priority to political means.

In order to achieve the goals of the organization, the member states take joint measures to form within its framework an effective system of collective security, create coalition (regional) groupings of troops and command and control bodies, military infrastructure, train military personnel and specialists for the armed forces, provide them with the necessary weapons and military equipment. The Charter establishes the obligation of the parties to coordinate and unite their efforts in the fight against international terrorism and extremism, illicit drug trafficking.

On June 23, 2006, at the session of the Collective Security Council (CSC) in Minsk, an important Declaration was adopted on further improvement and increase in the efficiency of the Organization. The Declaration reaffirms adherence to previously adopted principles and formulates some new approaches to strengthening the system of collective security. In particular, the document lists the following principles:

• commonality of goals and objectives in the formation of a collective security system in the area of ​​responsibility of the CSTO;
• coordination of actions, non-damage to the interests of collective security;
• priority of allied obligations of the CSTO member states, respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and authority of each of them;
• mutual respect and consideration of national interests and positions of the CSTO member states in the field of foreign policy and security;
• coordination of foreign policy, protection and provision of collective and national interests of the CSTO member states in the international arena.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as a regional security organization, went through two stages of its formation through the cooperation of the participating countries.

The formation of the SCO was preceded by the work of the "Shanghai Five" mechanism, which arose in 1996 on the basis of an agreement on the development and strengthening of confidence-building measures in the military sphere in the border areas, signed in Shanghai between China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. A year later, a five-sided Agreement on the Mutual Reduction of Armed Forces in the Border Areas was signed in Moscow, which supplemented the 1996 document and also contributed to strengthening mutual trust in security matters.

On July 3, 1998, the Alma-Ata Declaration was approved, which noted that the development of bilateral and multilateral cooperation of the participating countries is an important factor in the stability and security of all of Asia. In August 1999, the heads of state signed the Bishkek communique, which noted satisfaction with the results of cooperation between the five countries since their meeting in Shanghai in 1996, assessed as positive practical steps to strengthen regional security and cooperation, and reiterated that cooperation within the framework of The "Shanghai Five" is open and not directed against other countries. At the Dushanbe summit on July 5, 2000, the parties exchanged views on the situation in the region, on international issues, and also "reached full understanding regarding the construction of a great edifice of good neighborly friendship and peaceful cooperation in the 21st century." The activities of the "Shanghai Five" also prepared the organizational and legal formalization of the SCO.

In June 2001, in Shanghai, Uzbekistan joined the "Shanghai Five" and signed the Declaration on the Establishment of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Shanghai Convention on Combating Terrorism, Separatism and Extremism.

In other words, the SCO arose from the desire of states to resolve security issues and develop confidence-building measures in border regions, and subsequently its activities spread to the spheres of political, economic and humanitarian cooperation.

In 2002, in St. Petersburg, the heads of the SCO member states signed three documents: the Declaration on the Establishment of the SCO, the Charter (Charter) and the Agreement on the Regional Antiterrorist Structure (RATS).

The Charter and the Declaration named as the basic principles of the Organization such principles of international law as respect for independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference in internal affairs, mutual non-use of military force or threats to use force; equality of all members of the Organization. They also declared non-alignment with alliances, non-direction against other states and organizations, openness and readiness to conduct dialogues, exchanges and cooperation in various forms with other states, relevant international and regional organizations.

According to the fundamental documents of the SCO, it is not directed against other states or multilateral associations, and the Organization does not provide for a military component, which is rather unusual for regional security organizations.

In the political and security spheres, the goals of cooperation between the SCO states are:

• development of multidisciplinary cooperation in order to maintain and strengthen peace, security and stability in the region;
• interaction in the prevention of international conflicts, their peaceful settlement;
• joint counteraction to terrorism, separatism and extremism in all its manifestations;
• coordination of efforts on issues of disarmament and arms control, etc.

It should be emphasized that, in accordance with the statutory documents of the SCO and its structures, they are not directed against other states and international associations and, most importantly, the military component of cooperation is not provided for. Moreover, the SCO advocates a new type of interstate relations: partnership, not alliance.

Disarmament and arms limitation

Concept. Disarmament is considered to be a set of measures aimed at stopping the build-up of means of warfare, their limitation, reduction and elimination. The general international legal basis for disarmament is contained in the UN Charter. Paragraph 1 of Art. 11 lists "principles governing disarmament and arms regulation" as one of the "general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of peace and security". Consideration of these principles falls within the competence of the General Assembly, which makes recommendations on these issues to the Security Council and the UN member states. The Security Council is responsible for formulating "plans for the creation of a system of arms regulation" (Article 26); in accomplishing this task he is assisted by the Military Staff Committee, which gives advice and provides assistance on issues relating to "the regulation of armaments and possible disarmament" (clause 1 of article 47).

However, there is no generally recognized and universal obligation to disarm in contemporary international law. The International Court of Justice, in its 1986 decision in Nicaragua v. the United States, wrote: "There are no norms in international law, with the exception of those recognized by the states concerned by treaty or otherwise, according to which the level of armaments of a sovereign state can be limited, and this principle applies to all States without exception." The essence of the main obligation in this area is to "negotiate in good faith ... on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control" (Article VI of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons). Reference to such an obligation or to Art. VI of the said Treaty is contained in many contemporary arms limitation treaties, as a rule, in their preambles.

The main source of norms in this area are international treaties: universal (for example, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1968), regional (for example, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe of 1990), bilateral (for example, the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States on measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive arms in 2010). Treaties in this area can also be classified according to their purpose and object (treaties on the limitation of armaments or on the limitation of activities related to them; treaties relating to weapons of mass destruction or relating to conventional weapons).

The growing role of international organizations determines the growing importance of their resolutions as auxiliary in the field of disarmament. Separate resolutions of the UN General Assembly on disarmament issues can be considered as containing rules of law that are in the process of formation. In some cases, resolutions of the UN General Assembly are an additional means of implementing treaty norms.

International organizations often play the role of forums where norms are worked out in the field of disarmament and arms limitation. Within the framework of the UN, these issues are dealt with by the General Assembly and one of its main committees - the First (on disarmament and security). The General Assembly formed an auxiliary deliberative body - the Disarmament Commission. An independent body, although formed by the General Assembly and using the services of the UN Secretariat, is the Conference on Disarmament. The attention paid by the UN Security Council to disarmament issues is growing.

Certain norm-setting functions are performed by bodies established by disarmament and arms limitation treaties, such as the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, established by the 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction or, at the regional level, the Agency for the Prohibition nuclear weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean formed by the 1967 Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean.

To date, a set of norms has been formed and is in force, defining partial measures for disarmament. The essence of partial measures is to prohibit and eliminate certain types weapons, prohibition of their production, accumulation, deployment and use, limitation of certain types of weapons in quantitative and qualitative terms, narrowing the possibility of qualitative improvement of weapons, reducing the scope or areas of deployment various kinds weapons. They are joined by confidence- and security-building measures that do not directly provide for arms limitation, but create favorable conditions for its implementation.

Weapons of mass destruction. The most developed set of norms relating to weapons of mass destruction. As defined by the United Nations as early as 1948, such weapons "should be defined to include atomic explosive weapons, radioactive weapons, deadly chemical and biological weapons and any future developed weapon having characteristics comparable in destructive effect to the atomic bomb and the other weapons mentioned above."

Current international law prohibits the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water (Treaty on the Prohibition of Tests of Nuclear Weapons in the Atmosphere, Outer Space and Under Water, 1963). This ban may become complete if the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty enters into force.

Any nuclear explosions, as well as the stationing of nuclear weapons, are prohibited in Antarctica (Antarctic Treaty 1959), Latin America (Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean of 1967, known as the Tlatelolco Treaty), the South Pacific (Treaty nuclear-weapon-free zone in the South Pacific 1985, known as the Treaty of Rarotonga), in Southeast Asia (Treaty on the Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Southeast Asia, 1995, known as the Bangkok Treaty), in Africa (Treaty on the Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Africa, 1996, known as the Treaty of Pelindaba), in Central Asia (Treaty on the Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia, 2006, also known as the Treaty of Semipalatinsk), on on the seabed and in its subsoil (Treaty on the Prohibition of the Deployment of Nuclear Weapons and Other Types of Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Bottom of the Seas and Oceans and in its Subsoils of 1971), on the Moon and other Celestial Bodies (Treaty on the Principles of Activities of States in Research Science and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 1967).

The existing norms (the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) are aimed at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and preventing their acquisition by any state other than the five recognized as possessing them (the United States, Russia as the successor state of the USSR, Great Britain, France and China).

An urgent problem is the regulation of strategic nuclear weapons. The term " strategic weapons" is conditional and covers intercontinental ballistic missiles, heavy bombers as carriers of bombs, ballistic and cruise missiles, ballistic missiles launched from submarines, as well as strategic missile defense. Comparable tasks are capable of solving long-range sea-launched cruise missiles.

Until 2002, in relations between Russia and the United States, there was a ban on the deployment of anti-missile defense systems on the territory of the country or the creation of the basis for such a system, and certain quantitative and qualitative restrictions were applied to permitted systems (Treaty between the USSR and the United States on the limitation of anti-missile defense systems of 1972 (ABM Treaty)). The United States unilaterally withdrew from this Treaty, which, in turn, made it impossible for Russia to be bound by an obligation to refrain from actions that could deprive the object and purpose of the Russian-American Treaty on the Further Limitation and Reduction of Strategic Offensive Arms of 1993. Russia ratified him in 2000, which the US never did.

Strategic nuclear weapons of Russia and the United States are limited to certain total levels, within which each side determines the composition and structure of its strategic offensive weapons (Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States on measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive arms, 2010).

Even before the demise of the USSR, on the basis of its agreement with the United States, their ballistic and cruise missiles of medium and shorter range were eliminated, i.e. having a flight range in the range from 500 to 5500 km (Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, 1987).

In addition to nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction include chemical and biological weapons.

Biological weapons are under a comprehensive ban: not only can they not be used in war, but also developed, produced and stockpiled, and the stocks are subject to destruction or diversion to peaceful purposes (Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and about their destruction in 1972).

Since 1925, chemical weapons have been illegal as a means of warfare (Protocol on the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Similar Gases and Bacteriological Means, 1925). The 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction no longer provides for a partial, but a comprehensive ban on chemical weapons, similar to that under which bacteriological weapons are located. The mechanism of the Convention has demonstrated its efficiency in the implementation in 2013-2014. Russian-initiated chemical demilitarization of Syria.

The universal norm prohibits the military or any other hostile use of means of influencing the natural environment with a destructive potential comparable to weapons of mass destruction (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Means of Influencing the Natural Environment, 1977).

Nonproliferation regimes for weapons of mass destruction. The 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons did not become an insurmountable obstacle in the way of states striving to acquire nuclear weapons. For example, in 1998, India and Pakistan tested nuclear warheads. There are serious grounds for believing that a number of other states, primarily Israel and North Korea, have nuclear weapons. The circle of states whose industrial and technological potential can enable them to develop and start production of their own nuclear weapons is even wider.

Strengthening the regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, as well as other types of weapons of mass destruction, is achievable through the universalization of participation in the treaties that established them, as well as supplementing them with means of more reliable prevention of proliferation and coercion against violators.

However, by themselves, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Conventions on the Prohibition of Bacteriological and Chemical Weapons outlaw the transfer and acquisition of only, respectively, nuclear weapons, military pathogens and toxic chemicals and certain types of technologies and related equipment, but not their means of delivery, primarily rockets. The so-called Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which arose in 1987 and is based on non-legal agreements to limit the supply of relevant products and technologies, is aimed specifically at solving the problem of missile nonproliferation. The weakness of the MTCR lies in the fact that it is far from universal in terms of participation (at the end of 2014 - 34 states), not all exporting states are represented in it, and there are practically no importers. A wider circle of participants (in 2014 - 137 states) developed within the framework of the MTCR International Code of Conduct to Prevent the Spread of ballistic missiles 2002 - a political document that could contribute to the development of an international legal act on the global missile nonproliferation regime.

An informal agreement called the Proliferation Security Initiative of 2003 is aimed at countering the illicit proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their components, technologies, delivery vehicles by intercepting and detaining ships and aircraft suspected of carrying these cargoes.

The mechanism for the harmonization of export controls aimed at preventing the transfer of dual-use materials, technologies and equipment that can be used for the production of chemical and bacteriological weapons is the Australia Group, formed in 1984.

conventional weapons. The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe of 1990 CFE obliges the European member states to reduce their conventional weapons and equipment within Europe to certain agreed levels that do not allow for a surprise attack and start large-scale offensive operations. Simultaneously with the Treaty, the Final Act of Negotiations on the Number of Personnel of Conventional Armed Forces in Europe of 1992, a political document establishing limits on the number of military personnel deployed by each State Party within the area of ​​application of the Treaty, entered into force.

In order for the Treaty to meet the conditions that have changed since its conclusion (the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the demise of the USSR, the emergence of new states in the area of ​​application of the Treaty), in 1999 the Agreement on the Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed, which Agreement of significant changes, amendments and additions. However, the delay in the entry into force of the Agreement in the context of the continued expansion of NATO, including at the expense of states whose armaments and military activities were not regulated by the Treaty, active US measures to prepare for the deployment of missile defense in Europe, forced Russia to suspend, starting from December 12, 2007. , acting for itself under the CFE Treaty, without withdrawing from it and leaving the possibility of resuming the operation of the treaty regime if the partners take into account its concerns.

A comprehensive ban on one type of conventional weapon is provided for in the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer anti-personnel mines and about their destruction in 1997.

While the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, and its Protocols are primarily within the scope of rules governing the conduct of armed conflicts, some of its measures are to arms control measures.

Strengthening control over the proliferation of small arms and light weapons is becoming increasingly important. In this area, there are a number of recommendations and rules that do not have the property of legal obligations developed within the framework of the UN and other organizations. In connection with the danger of terrorist attacks against air transport, limiting the spread of portable anti-aircraft missile systems (MANPADS) is a separate problem. Along with some multilateral decisions, the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States on cooperation in the field of strengthening control over MANPADS of 2005 is aimed at countering this threat.

Demilitarization and neutralization. Along with the limitation and reduction of armed forces and armaments, the goal of disarmament can be achieved through the demilitarization and (or) neutralization of the territory.

Demilitarization is a treaty established by the international legal regime of a certain territory or spatial sphere, prohibiting their use for military purposes in Peaceful time. This measure involves the elimination of military fortifications and installations in the area and a ban on keeping armed forces there.

Neutralization is understood as a contractually established prohibition of conducting military operations in a certain territory or in a spatial sphere and using them as a base for military operations. The purpose of neutralization is to prevent the outbreak of war in or out of a given area, or, if hostilities somewhere nearby could not be prevented, the withdrawal of such an area from the theater of operations.

Confidence measures. Related to arms limitation and disarmament are confidence- and security-building measures, which can be broadly defined as special, contractual or otherwise conditional measures taken to ensure that the actions of one side are not intended to harm the security of the other side, in especially if these actions can be understood and evaluated as preparation for a surprise attack or its beginning, and really do not cause such damage. Such measures are not measures of real disarmament and do not replace them, but taken on their own or as ancillary measures, they create favorable conditions for the opening of negotiations or contribute to progress in negotiations already under way.

Confidence and security measures, which were originally limited to improving communication between the parties, ensuring maritime navigational security, over time began to include notifications and other information about military activities, exchange of observers and inspections at the sites of military activities. Confidence-building functions began to be assigned to bodies created in accordance with treaties on measures to limit and reduce arms.

The measures agreed in the 1960s and 1970s were mainly aimed at reducing the risk of armed conflict with the use of nuclear weapons, while subsequent measures were also intended to reduce the risk of conventional forces clashing. Recently, confidence-building and security measures have been transformed from military-technical measures, limited to providing information about the lack of preparation for a surprise attack, into comprehensive measures, characterized by the presence of such a degree of confidence that allows partners to develop and apply not only notification, but also deterrence, and in perspective and restrictive measures. This, in particular, is facilitated by the regime of aerial surveillance over vast areas of the territories of 34 states - parties to the 1992 Open Skies Treaty.

The good experience gained in the implementation of confidence- and security-building measures in Europe is being used in other regions. Thus, the formation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in 2001 was preceded by the conclusion of an Agreement between the USSR and the PRC on the guiding principles for the mutual reduction of armed forces and the strengthening of confidence in military area in the area of ​​the Soviet-Chinese border in 1990, followed by the Agreement between Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, China and Tajikistan on the strengthening of confidence in the military field in the border area in 1996 and the Agreement between the same states on the mutual reduction of armed forces in the border area 1997

The goal of forming a pan-Asian forum similar to the OSCE is pursued by the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia, which is based on the Declaration of Principles of 1999 and the Alma-Ata Act of 2002.

Compliance check. In its most general form, verification can be defined as a set of methods for monitoring the implementation of contractual obligations and analyzing the data obtained. Verification is carried out by providing each party to the agreement with information about the fulfillment of obligations by other participants, contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the agreement, preventing and detecting violations of its provisions and providing confidence in compliance with its provisions.

In the post-World War II period, for a long time, disagreements between states on verification issues were an obstacle to real disarmament, and were also used as a pretext against taking meaningful measures in this area.

Partial resolution of the contradiction between the need to limit armaments and the difficulty of coordinating verification measures became real with the development of national technical means for collecting data on objects located within state territories. These means were primarily artificial satellites Earth, although they also included seismic stations and other equipment that made it possible to monitor the activities of states from the outside (outside a given territory, outside its borders). These funds are called "national technical means control" (NTSC). For a long time they were the main method of verifying compliance with arms limitation agreements. Subsequently, other means were also used, in particular on-site inspections carried out by both national and international teams of inspectors.

To date, experience has been accumulated in developing, coordinating, translating into a treaty norm and functioning various mechanisms for verifying the fulfillment of obligations under agreements on the limitation and reduction of arms. As technology improves, so does the reliability of NTSC. The current agreements prohibit the interference with these means, the use of deliberate camouflage measures that make it difficult to monitor the fulfillment of contractual obligations. A number of treaties include additional measures, such as equipping regulated weapons systems with special identification marks, demonstrating the distinctive features of new and converted strategic offensive weapons. It is also envisaged that the audited party NTSC assist the other party in situations specified by the agreement.

Experience gained from a number of treaty and other measures demonstrates the feasibility of developing and implementing on-site inspections, i.e. visits by teams of inspectors from one side to the territory of the other side or its facilities in another territory to verify compliance with agreed obligations. As the disarmament process develops, it embraces new systems, the specification of obligations, while at the same time the growth of trust between partners, their confidence in the expediency and reality of arms reduction, states show a growing readiness to accept more and more penetrating inspections. Thus, the 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons provides, among other types of inspections, inspections of any facility upon request without the right to refuse.

A number of treaties provide for a combination of national and international means of verification. Provisions in this regard are contained, for example, in the 1971 Treaty on the Prohibition of the Placement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Bottom of the Seas and Oceans and in Its Subsoil, according to which the verification system consists of several stages and can be carried out unilaterally , collectively by several participants or through international procedures within the UN and in accordance with its Charter. The same Treaty, as well as the 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Means of Influencing the Environment, provides for recourse for verification purposes to consultative mechanisms in which experts act in their personal capacity.

There is experience in the use of multilateral forms of verification of compliance with contractual obligations. Thus, in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1968, verification of its observance by non-nuclear-weapon states is assigned to the IAEA, which provides guarantees and carries out international inspections. In other cases, the parties to the Treaty create a special body, which they endow with verification functions. For example, in addition to the verification of compliance with obligations under the Treaty of Tlatelolco by the IAEA, the relevant functions, including on-site inspections, are performed by the OPANAL agency established under the Treaty. The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention established the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), whose functions include the implementation of the provisions on international verification of compliance with the Convention. The OPCW played a key role in the chemical demilitarization of Syria in 2013-2014. A similar institution should be created on the basis of the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

LAW OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

International security law- a set of principles and norms governing the military-political relations of states in order to maintain peace and security, prevent and suppress acts of aggression and armed intervention, ensure international stability and preserve international law and order.

To this end, a number of specific measures have been developed in the practice of international relations: 1) the creation of collective security systems, 2) disarmament and arms limitation, 3) confidence-building measures and international control.

The law of international security is based on the basic (generally recognized) principles of international law, among which the principle of non-use of force or threat of force in international relations, the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes, the principle of the territorial integrity of states, the principle of inviolability of state borders are of particular importance. The principle of equal and equal security, the principle of indivisibility of international security, the principle of non-damage to the security of other states, the principle of disarmament can be named as special (sectoral) principles.

The main sources regulating the international legal ways and means of ensuring peace are international treaties. These primarily include: the UN Charter (Chapter I, VI, VII, VIII), multilateral and bilateral treaties aimed at prohibiting or limiting the use of specific weapons, arms reduction. Resolutions of the UN General Assembly, the provisions of which are of a normative nature, can be classified as sources of international security law. Among the regional sources of international security law, one can single out collective security treaties adopted within the framework of regional international organizations (the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949, the Arab League Collective Security Treaty of 1955, the CIS Collective Security Treaty of 1992, etc.).

2. Collective security: concept, types. The system of collective security provided for by the UN Charter.

Collective Security is a system of joint actions of states established by the UN Charter with the aim of maintaining international peace and security, preventing or suppressing acts of aggression. In international law, there are 2 types of collective security system: universal and regional.

In the post-war period, a worldwide system of collective security (SCS) was created in the form of the UN. The system of collective measures provided for by the UN Charter in order to maintain international peace and security includes:

Measures to prohibit the threat or use of force in relations between states (clause 2, article 2 of the Charter);

Measures for the peaceful resolution of international disputes (Chapter VI);

Disarmament measures (arts. 11, 26, 47);

Measures for the use of regional security organizations (Chapter VIII);

Compulsory security measures without the use of armed forces (Article 41 Chapter VII), as well as those associated with their use (Article 42).

The UNSC is carrying out two main functions:

1) preventive - aimed at preventing a threat to international peace and security;

2) forced - aimed at restoring international peace and security.

The subjects of the UN collective security mechanism are: UN member states, UN bodies - the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Secretary General, as well as regional international organizations by virtue of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter. The competence of each subject is strictly delimited.

Security Council - main body United Nations responsible for maintaining international peace and security. It is the Security Council that exercises both the preventive and punitive functions of the UN collective security system.

The Security Council is authorized to investigate any dispute or situation that may lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuation of this dispute or situation may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security (Article 34 of the UN Charter).

At any stage of a dispute, the continuation of which could threaten the maintenance of peace or security, or a situation of a similar nature, the Security Council may recommend to States the appropriate procedure or methods of settlement listed in Art. 33 of the Charter. If the parties to a dispute do not resolve it by the means specified in this article, and the Security Council considers that the continuation of the dispute may in fact threaten the maintenance of peace and security, it may itself determine the terms for the settlement of the dispute. Council decisions at this stage are advisory character.

If the dispute has not been resolved by means of the indicated means and measures, or if there is already a threat to peace or security, or if it has already been violated, the Security Council must qualify the situation, i.e. determine whether he is dealing with a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression. Depending on this, he decides what measures should be taken under Art. 41 and 42 of the Charter to maintain or restore international peace and security. The Security Council at this stage has the right to decide on any provisional measures under Art. 40 of the Charter to prevent the deterioration of the situation. Such provisional measures shall not prejudice the rights, claims or position of the parties concerned.

If the previous measures taken by the Security Council have not led to positive results, or the Council has decided that it is dealing with a breach of the peace or an act of aggression, it may proceed to coercive measures:

Not related to the use of armed forces under Art. 41 (complete or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraph, radio or other means of communication, as well as the severance of diplomatic relations);

Associated with the use of armed forces under Art. 42 if the Council considers that the measures provided for in Art. 41 may not be enough, or have already been found to be insufficient.

Art. 43 of the Charter determines the procedure for the provision by UN members to the Security Council of the necessary armed forces, assistance and appropriate facilities, including the right of passage on the basis of a special agreement (agreements) concluded by the Council with UN member states with their subsequent ratification. Such agreements are concluded at the request of the Council, which has the character of a decision. Leadership of the Armed Forces in accordance with Art. 47 of the Charter is implemented by the Military Staff Committee under the Security Council, which includes the chiefs of staff of the permanent members of the Council or their representatives. However, neither Article 43 nor Art. 47 were never put into effect due to disagreements between the permanent members of the Security Council throughout the entire period of its existence. This led to the virtual cessation of the activities of the HSC since 1947, to the absence of armed forces subordinate to the Security Council and, as a result, to the extra-statutory practice of the UN in the field of creation and use of armed forces.

An example of this practice is the creation of a multinational force under the UN flag and the conduct of peacekeeping operations.

3. UN peacekeeping operations: essence, principles and evolution.

From Art. 40 of the Charter implies the right of the Security Council to control the implementation of the decision on provisional measures. Based on this article, the practice of creating and applying peacekeeping operations(OPM). This institution originated in 1948 with the creation of the Palestine Truce Supervision Authority (UNTSO). It was a mission of UN military observers from unarmed officers - "blue berets". In 1956, during the operation of the first Emergency Armed Forces in the Middle East (UNEF - 1), the armed forces ("blue helmets") of the UN member countries were used. Starting with the UN operation in the Congo (ONUC) in 1960-64. civilian personnel became widely used, and during the work of the United Nations Transitional Assistance Group in Namibia (UNTAG), 1,500 police officers from different countries were included in the PKO for the first time.

The tasks that have been solved with the help of OPM over the years have been reduced to the following:

a) investigation of incidents and negotiation with the conflicting parties in order to reconcile them,

b) verification of compliance with the ceasefire agreements,

c) contributing to the maintenance of law and order,

d) protecting humanitarian action during conflict,

e) monitoring the situation.

Depending on the forthcoming PKO tasks can be military observer missions and peacekeeping forces, including contingents of troops with light weapons used only for self-defense.

Since the first deployment of military observers in 1948, United Nations peacekeeping has evolved steadily. As a result, PLOs have become not only multicomponent in composition, but also multifunctional in the nature of their activities. The established principles and practices of peacekeeping are rapidly adapting to the demands of the times, while the basic conditions for success remain unchanged:

1) a clear and realistic mandate;

2) cooperation of the parties in the implementation of this mandate;

3) consistent support from the Security Council;

4) readiness of states to provide the necessary military, police and civilian personnel, including specialists;

5) effective leadership from the United Nations at Headquarters and in the field;

6) proper financial and logistical support.

In most cases, UN peacekeeping operations have prevented the escalation of regional conflicts and brought an element of stability to dangerous situations in many regions. At the same time, in a number of cases, PKOs have suffered major setbacks and even failures when operations were carried out in the absence of an agreement between the conflicting parties. Contributing to the failures were vague and conflicting mandates from the Security Council, the assignment of tasks to the PKO that went beyond peacekeeping, for example, the requirement to undertake coercion in the face of insufficiently strong political leadership from the Security Council, lack of personnel, equipment, and funding.

The fundamental principles of international security are the principle of equal security and the principle of non-damage to the security of states.

These principles are reflected in the Charter of the PLO, Resolution of the General Assembly of the PLO 2734 (XXV), Declaration on the strengthening of international security of December 16, 1970, Declaration on strengthening the effectiveness of the principle of renunciation of the threat or use of force in international relations (November 18, 1987 .), Resolutions of the UN General Assembly 50/6, Declaration on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations of October 24, 1995, Declaration on the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter of October 24, 1970. , and other international legal documents.

Thus, in accordance with the UN Charter, all members of the UN shall resolve their international disputes by peaceful means in such a way as not to endanger international peace and security and justice, refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force as against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

The principles of international security are also reflected in the Declaration on Strengthening the Efficiency of the Principle of Renunciation of the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations (November 18, 1987). In accordance with the Declaration, every state is obliged to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, as well as from any other action inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such threat or use of force is a violation of international law and the UN Charter and entails international responsibility. The principle of renunciation of the threat or use of force in international relations is universal in nature and binding, regardless of the political, economic, social or cultural system or allied relations of each state. No considerations can be used to justify the threat of force or its use in violation of the Charter.

States have an obligation not to induce, encourage or assist other states to use force or the threat of force in violation of the Charter.

By virtue of the principle of equality and self-determination embodied in the Charter, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without outside interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State is bound to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. States must comply with their obligations under international law to refrain from organizing, inciting, aiding or participating in paramilitary, terrorist or subversive activities, including those of mercenaries, in other States and from condoning organized activities aimed at the commission of such activities, within the limits its territory.

States have an obligation to refrain from armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats directed against the legal personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural foundations.

No state shall use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other measures with a view to subordinating another state to itself in the exercise of its sovereign rights and obtaining any advantages from this. In accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN, states are obliged to refrain from propaganda of aggressive wars.

Neither the acquisition of territory resulting from the threat or use of force, nor any occupation of territory resulting from the threat or use of force in contravention of international law, shall be recognized as a legitimate acquisition or occupation.

All member states of the world community are called upon to make efforts to build their international relations on the basis of mutual understanding, trust, respect and cooperation. In the parameters of the foregoing, the goal is to develop bilateral and regional cooperation as one of the important means of strengthening the effectiveness of the principle of renunciation of the threat or use of force in international relations.

Within the established criteria of due conduct, States are guided by their adherence to the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes, which is inextricably linked to the principle of renunciation of the threat or use of force in international relations. States that are parties to international disputes must resolve their disputes exclusively by peaceful means in a manner that does not endanger international peace, security and justice. To this end, they use such means as negotiation, investigation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, litigation, recourse to regional bodies or agreements, or other peaceful means of their choice, including good offices.

In furtherance of their obligations under the UN Charter, states take effective measures in order to prevent the threat of any armed conflict, including conflicts in which nuclear weapons could be used, to prevent an arms race in outer space and to stop and reverse the arms race on Earth, to reduce the level of military confrontation and strengthen global stability.

Building on their stated commitment to strengthening the rule of law and order, States are cooperating at the bilateral, regional and international levels to:

• - prevention of international terrorism and fight against it;
• - Actively contributing to the elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism.

In order to ensure a high level of trust and mutual understanding, states seek to take concrete measures and create favorable conditions in the field of international economic relations in order to achieve international peace, security and justice. At the same time, the interest of all countries in reducing the gap in the levels economic development and in particular the interests of developing countries around the world.

The principles of international security were also enshrined in the Declaration on the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation between states in accordance with the UN Charter. Thus, in accordance with the Declaration, each state in its international relations is obliged to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other way inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. Such threat or use of force is a violation of international law and the UN Charter and should never be used as a means of settling international issues.

Aggressive war is a crime against peace, which entails responsibility under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN, states are obliged to refrain from propaganda of aggressive wars. Every state has an obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international frontiers of another state or as a means of settling international disputes, including territorial disputes and matters relating to state frontiers. Likewise, every state has an obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or consistent with an international agreement to which that state is a party or to which that state is otherwise bound to comply. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicial to the positions of the parties concerned with respect to the status and consequences of the establishment of such lines under their special regimes, or as violating their temporary nature.

States have an obligation to refrain from acts of reprisal involving the use of force. Each state is obliged to refrain from any violent actions that deprive the peoples, which are referred to in the specification of the principles of equality and self-determination, of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. Each state has an obligation to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands, including mercenaries, to invade the territory of another state.

Every state has an obligation to refrain from organizing, inciting, assisting or participating in acts of civil war or terrorist acts in another state or from condoning organizational activities within own territory aimed at the commission of such acts, when the acts involve the threat or use of force.

The territory of a State must not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in violation of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a state must not be the object of acquisition by another state as a result of the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force should be recognized as legal. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as violating:

• a) the provisions of the Charter or any international agreement concluded prior to the adoption of the Charter and having legal force in accordance with international law; or
• b) the powers of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter.

All States must negotiate in good faith with a view to the speedy conclusion of a universal treaty on general and complete disarmament under effective international control and strive to take appropriate measures to ease international tension and build confidence among states.

All States must, on the basis of the universally recognized principles and norms of international law, fulfill in good faith their obligations in relation to the maintenance of international peace and security and strive to improve the efficiency based on the Charter of the United Nations security system.

Nothing within the parameters of the foregoing shall be construed as extending or limiting in any way the scope of the provisions of the Charter relating to cases in which the use of force is lawful.

States shall resolve their international disputes by peaceful means in such a way as not to endanger international peace and security and justice. Each State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner as not to endanger international peace and security and justice.

States should therefore strive for the speedy and just settlement of their international disputes through negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial trial, recourse to regional bodies or agreements, or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement, the parties must agree on such peaceful means as are appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to the dispute are obliged, in case they fail to reach a settlement of the dispute by one of the aforementioned peaceful means, to continue to seek the settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed between them.

States that are parties to an international dispute, as well as other States, must refrain from any action that may worsen the situation so as to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, and must act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the PLO.

International disputes are resolved on the basis of the sovereign equality of states and in accordance with the principle of the free choice of means for the peaceful settlement of disputes. The application of, or acceptance of, a dispute settlement procedure freely agreed between States in relation to existing or future disputes to which they are parties shall not be considered inconsistent with the principle of sovereign equality.

States have an obligation not to interfere in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. No state or group of states has the right to interfere, directly or indirectly, for whatever reason, in the internal and external affairs of another state. As a consequence, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or any threat directed against the legal personality of a State or against its political, economic and cultural foundations are a violation of international law.

No State may apply or encourage the use of economic, political measures or measures of any other nature for the purpose of subordinating another State to itself in the exercise of its sovereign rights and obtaining from it any advantages whatsoever. No state shall also organize, assist, incite, finance, encourage or permit armed, subversive or terrorist activities aimed at changing the order of another state through violence, or intervene in the internal struggle in another state.

The use of force to deprive peoples of the form of their national existence is a violation of their inalienable rights and the principle of non-intervention.

Every State has the inalienable right to choose its own political, economic, social and cultural system without any form of interference from any other State.

The principle of the sovereign equality of states, including in the sphere of security, enshrined in this Declaration, is also important. All states enjoy sovereign equality. They have the same rights and obligations and are equal members of the international community, regardless of economic, social, political or other differences.

In particular, the concept of sovereign equality includes the following elements:

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