State sovereignty and the principle of sovereign equality of states. International law

12.03.2020

The peculiarity of international law is that it is created primarily by states and regulates primarily interstate relations. The international legal appearance of other participants in international relations is also largely determined by states. As creators of international rights and obligations, states act as the main subjects of international law. In this capacity, they have an exclusive and inalienable property, based on the political organization of power, - state sovereignty. The state exercises sovereignty within the framework of international law, taking into account respect for the sovereignty and interests of other states. It follows from this that a state, as a subject of international law, cannot exercise its power in relation to another state (par in parem non habet imperium - an equal has no power over an equal). In particular, this is expressed in the disobedience of one state to the legislation of another: the actions of a state are determined by its own laws and norms of international law. State immunity also covers its non-jurisdiction to the judicial authorities of another state: bringing it before the court of another state can only be carried out with its consent.

The international legal personality of a state is associated with participation in the activities of international organizations. Becoming a member of an organization involves accepting obligations under its charter, recognizing certain powers of the organization and its decisions in accordance with their legal force.

The current Constitution of the Russian Federation now contains a special norm (Article 79), according to which Russian Federation may participate in interstate associations and delegate to them part of its powers in accordance with international treaties (obviously, primarily the constituent acts of such associations), if this does not entail restrictions on the rights and freedoms of man and citizen and does not contradict the fundamentals of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation.
Thus, the state, as a subject of international law, has the ability to establish rights and obligations, acquire rights and bear obligations, and also independently implement them. The participation of the state in international law-making is associated not only with the acceptance of obligations, but also with their implementation, as well as with the desire to ensure that the norms of international law are implemented by all subjects and have legal security. The legal personality of a state exists independently of the will of other subjects of international law and remains as long as the state exists. It is universal, covering all components of the subject of international legal regulation.

Historically, several ways of forming new states as subjects of international law are known: change of states of one historical type others; the emergence of a state as a result of the colonial people achieving their independence; territorial changes associated with the unification of several states into one state, or with the disintegration of a state into several states, or with the separation of one state from another. In these cases, the question arises about the recognition of new states as subjects of international law and their legal succession.

Sovereign equality of states

Principle sovereign equality states developed and was consolidated as a synthesis of traditional legal postulates - respect for state sovereignty and equality of states. Accordingly, it is characterized as a complex, dual principle. The very combination of these two elements gives rise to a new international legal phenomenon - the sovereign equality of states.

In this capacity, it was enshrined in the UN Charter: “The organization is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its members” (Clause 1, Article 2).

According to the Declaration of 1970 and the Final Act of 1975, states have the same (equal) rights and obligations, i.e. they are legally equal. Moreover, according to the Declaration, all states “are equal members of the international community, regardless of differences of an economic, social, political or other nature.”

Each State enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty, and at the same time is obliged to respect the legal personality of other States and their respective rights, including the right to determine and implement at its own discretion mutual relations on the basis of international law. Specific to the Final Act is the wording regarding the right of states “to belong or not to belong to international organizations, to be or not to be parties to bilateral or multilateral treaties...”.

“Equal sovereignty” of states is characterized by the fact that “each state is sovereign within the system of states, the international community, i.e., in conditions of interaction and interdependence of states. The sovereignty of one state is associated with the sovereignty of another state and, as a result, must be coordinated with it within the framework of current international law (the phrase “coordinated sovereignty” is found in the literature). The functions of international law include normative support for such coordination, a kind of streamlining of the implementation of international legal personality based on state sovereignty.

International treaties concluded by states, being the embodiment of the coordination of state wills, reflect the principle of sovereign equality and often contain Direct references to it (for example, the preamble of the Vienna Convention on the Law of international treaties, art. 1 of the Charter of the Commonwealth of Independent States, Art. 1 of the Treaty on Friendly Relations and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Czech Republic dated August 26, 1993).
The principle of sovereign equality also receives a concrete manifestation in such treaty formulations as “each state participating in the treaty has the right...”, “each state participating in the treaty undertakes”, “no state can.”

This principle extends to the entire sphere of implementation of international legal norms - to the operation of the mechanism of international legal regulation, to methods of peaceful settlement of interstate disputes and to the manifestation of the responsibility of states for international offenses.

The principle of sovereign equality of states

This principle is, as it were, the original beginning of modern
international law as a whole, combining two characterizing
each state has specific legal characteristics - inherent
to the state the property denoted by the term “sovereignty” (see Chapter V), and
equality with other states in international relations. That's why
often in agreements between states we are talking about mutual respect between them
each other's sovereignty. The sovereignty of states predetermines the method
international legal regulation of their relationships - agreement
between them.

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

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

1) states are legally equal;

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

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

4) the state must, in international relations, fulfill in good faith
their responsibilities and international obligations.

This interpretation fully retains its meaning to this day.

In turn, according to the Declaration of Principles of International Law
1970, the main content of the principle under consideration comes down to
to the next one.

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

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

a) states are legally equal;

b) each state enjoys the rights inherent in full
sovereignty;

c) every state is obliged to respect legal personality (personality)
other states;

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

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

f) each State is obliged to comply fully and faithfully with its
international obligations and live in peace with other states.

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

However, the equality of the rights and obligations of states in general
international law does not mean that states cannot take
undertake new international obligations under local agreements or
obligations clarifying and developing existing norms, if they are not
contradict the basic principles of international law. This is the way
First of all, modern international law develops - from
local norms to universal ones.

§ 3. The principle of non-use of force or threat of force

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

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

The main provisions of this principle, according to the Declaration of Principles
international law of 1970, provide the following.

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

War of aggression constitutes a crime against peace, for which
liability is provided in accordance with international law.

Every State is obliged to refrain from the threat or use of force.
use for the purpose of violating the existing international borders of another
states or as a means of resolving international disputes, in
including territorial disputes, and issues relating to state
borders.

Every State is equally obliged to refrain from the threat of force
or its use for the purpose of violating international demarcation lines,
such as armistice lines established or appropriate
international agreement to which the state is a party
or which that State is obliged to comply with in any other
basis.

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

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

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

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

Basics related to the interpretation and application of this principle
legal problems were discussed by us earlier. * Briefly they
boil down to the following.

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

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

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

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

However, a significant number of States insisted that such
the prohibition also applied to use in interstate relations
measures not related to the use of armed force. But this interpretation
the essence of the principle in question was decisively rejected by others
states as not consistent with the system of collective security,
provided for by the UN Charter.

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

At the same time, it is politically and legally necessary to take into account that when creating
The United Nations, states declared in its Charter on behalf of
their peoples about the determination to live in peace with each other, to unite their
forces for the maintenance of international peace and security, take
principles and establish methods ensuring the use of armed forces
not otherwise than in the general interests.

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

Thus, in the person of the UN, taking into account its goals, functions and powers
a system of collective international security, based on
the idea of using armed forces “no other than in the general interests”,
solely for the maintenance of international peace and only by decision
UN.

The Security Council has the authority to make such decisions, which
member states, now virtually all states of the world, have entrusted
"primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and
security" (Article 24 of the Charter) and agreed to "obey the decisions of the Council
Security and carry them out” (Article 25 of the Charter).

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

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

Consequently, the legitimate use of armed forces is only possible
solely by decision of the UN represented by the Security Council in general
interests of the international community of states, as well as in the event
legitimate self-defense.

And this is also one of the foundations of the modern collective security system,
based on the decisive role of the great powers - permanent members of the Council in
the cause of ensuring international peace and security.

As a result, collective enforcement actions by decision of the Council
Security is possible practically only in the event of a threat to peace, a violation
peace or an act of aggression on the part of a state that is not permanent
member of the Council.

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

However, in real international reality, such a legal order
is being significantly violated, as evidenced by dozens of armed
interstate conflicts in the period after the Second World War. IN
In connection with this, the concept of ineffectiveness of the UN and various
kind of projects for its reform.

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

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

However, alternatives to the international legal order under the Charter
There is no UN and current international law and it is impossible to propose one.

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

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

Found a typo? Select and press CTRL+Enter

02 Oct 2010

The essence of this principle is the rule that the maintenance of international legal order is possible and can be ensured only with full respect for the legal equality of the participants. This means that each state is obliged to respect the sovereignty of other participants in the system, i.e. their right, within their own territory, to exercise legislative, executive, administrative and judicial power without any interference from other states, as well as to independently carry out their foreign policy. The sovereign equality of states forms the basis of modern international relations, which is enshrined in paragraph 1 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter, which states: “The Organization is founded on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members.”

This principle is also enshrined as fundamental in the charters of international organizations of the UN system, in the constituent documents (charters) of the vast majority of regional international organizations, in multilateral and bilateral agreements of states and international organizations, in legal acts international organizations.

In modern international law, this principle is most fully reflected in the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States in accordance with the UN Charter. This principle was later developed in the Declaration of Principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Final Document of the Vienna Meeting of Representatives of the States Parties to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1989, the Charter of Paris for new Europe 1990 and a number of other documents.

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

According to the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations of 1970, the concept of sovereign equality includes the following elements:

1) states are legally equal;

2) each state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty;

3) each state is obliged to respect the legal personality of other states;

4) the territorial integrity and political independence of the state are inviolable;

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

6) each state is obliged to fully and conscientiously fulfill its international obligations and live in peace with other states.

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

At the same time, it should be noted that the legal equality of states does not mean their actual equality, which is taken into account in real international relations. One example of this difference is in the status of permanent and non-permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Sovereignty is an integral property of the state. Thus, no state, group of states or international organization can impose the rules of international law they create on other states. The inclusion of a subject of international law in any system of legal relations can only be carried out on the basis of voluntariness.

Currently, the following trend is observed: states transfer part of their powers, which were previously considered integral attributes of state sovereignty, in favor of the international organizations they create. For example, in a number of international organizations, the founding states moved away from the previously used principle of formal equality in voting (one country - one vote) and adopted the so-called weighted voting method, according to which the number of votes a country has depends on the size of its contribution to the organization’s budget and other circumstances.

The aforementioned 1970 Declaration of Principles of International Law emphasizes that, in interpreting and applying the principles set out therein, they are interrelated and each principle must be considered in the context of all others. Thus, there is a close connection between the principle of sovereign equality of states and their duty not to interfere in matters that are essentially within their domestic competence. The concept of the internal competence of a state is controversial in theory, since it depends on the level of development of international relations. Currently, it is customary to correlate internal competence with the international obligations of each specific state.

Sovereignty as a basic property inherent in a state does not mean complete independence of states, much less their isolation, since they live and coexist in an interconnected world; therefore, it is illogical to talk about absolute, unlimited sovereignty.

8. The principle of non-use of force or threat of force. Definitions: aggression, aggressive intent, armed intervention, peaceful blockade?

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

prohibited:

Prohibition of occupation of the territory of another state in violation of international law;

Prohibition of reprisals using armed force (for example, a “peaceful blockade” - blocking the ports of another state by armed forces in peacetime);

The provision by a state of its territory to another state, which uses this territory for aggression against a third state;

Organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces (i.e., those without a permanent organization, a solid system of recruitment and service) or armed gangs, including mercenaries;

Organizing, instigating, assisting, or participating in acts civil war, terrorist acts in another state or condoning such activities within one’s own territory, aimed at committing such acts, in the case where the mentioned acts involve the threat or use of force;

Violent actions that deprive peoples of the right to self-determination;

The use of force or the threat of force as a means of resolving international disputes over territory and borders, as well as for the purpose of violating borders;

Any other actions that constitute a threat or use of force against another state.

Aggression is a crime against the peace and security of mankind, entailing international responsibility.

Only the UN Security Council can qualify an act as aggression. For this, the criteria of illegality are the principle of primacy (the first use of armed force), the seriousness of intention.

AGGRESSIVE INTENT - in international law, one of the criteria taken into account by the UN Security Council when determining the existence of an act of aggression in a particular situation. By noting an act of aggression, the Security Council ascertains the presence of aggressive intentions in the initially initiated actions of the state, such as, for example, the desire to annex territory using force, military occupation of the territory of another state, etc.

Intervention

(Late Latin interventio - intervention, from Latin intervenio - I come, interfere) in international law, the intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state or in its relations with third states. Modern international law prohibits international law and considers it an international tort. According to the principle of non-intervention, no state (or group of states) has the right to interfere directly or indirectly for any reason whatsoever in the affairs of another state, therefore armed intervention and all other forms of intervention or threats of intervention directed against political independence or territorial integrity any state are a violation of international law.

“peaceful blockade” - blockade of the ports of another state by armed forces in peacetime

The UN Charter regulates two cases of legitimate use of armed force:

1.Art. 51 of the Charter - self-defense in the event of an armed attack on the state. The use of armed force is excluded in cases where measures of an economic or political nature are applied to the state - the principle of proportionality must be observed.

2. Art. Art. 39 and 42 of the Charter - by decision of the UN Security Council in the event of a threat to peace, a violation of the peace or an act of aggression.

9. The principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes. List ways to peacefully resolve international disputes?

It was first recorded in the Paris Pact for the Renunciation of War of 1928 (Briand-Kellogg Pact) in Art. 2, where the parties recognized that the settlement or resolution of all disagreements or conflicts, regardless of the nature of their origin, should be carried out only by peaceful means.

The principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes is closely related to the principle of non-use of force.

The principle of peaceful resolution of disputes means the obligation of states to resolve all disputes and conflicts arising between them exclusively by peaceful means. In this case, it does not matter, a dispute threatens international peace and safety or not. Any dispute between states, regardless of whether it is global or regional, whether it affects the vital interests of the state or secondary ones, whether it threatens international peace and security or not, is subject only to peaceful resolution.

At the same time, the UN Charter leaves states the freedom to choose peaceful means in resolving a particular dispute.

To implement this principle and increase its effectiveness, international meetings were convened within the framework of the Helsinki Process, at which a generally acceptable method of peaceful settlement was developed, aimed at supplementing existing peaceful methods with new means.

All peaceful means of resolving international disputes can be divided into 2 categories:

means that do not require the participation of a third party (the 3rd subject of the MP, not interested in the outcome of the dispute)

1 peace talks

2 consultations

3 investigative and conciliation commissions - with some stretch. Sometimes they may include experts who are not nationals of the states parties to the dispute. But they act as 3rd parties.

tools requiring the participation of a 3rd party

1 good offices and mediation

2 consideration of the dispute by international judicial bodies

3 consideration of a dispute within an international organization

10.The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states?

The principle of non-interference in the internal rights of states is to ensure the protection of the state's exercise of its internal functions in accordance with international law.

According to the 1970 Declaration, the principle of non-intervention means the prohibition of direct or indirect interference for any reason in the internal or external affairs of any state. According to this Declaration, this principle includes the following:

a) prohibition of armed intervention and other forms of intervention or threat of intervention directed against the legal personality of a State or against its political, economic and cultural foundations;

b) prohibition of the use of economic, political and other measures to achieve the subjugation of another state in the exercise of its sovereign rights and receiving any advantages from it;

c) prohibition of organizing, encouraging, assisting or allowing armed, subversive or terrorist activities aimed at changing the system of another state through violence;

d) prohibition of interference in internal struggles in another state;

e) prohibition of the use of force to deprive peoples of freely choosing the forms of their national existence;

f) the right of a state to choose its political, economic, social and cultural system without interference from other states.

The content of the concept of “matters essentially within the internal competence of any state” changed with the development of international law. In the process of such development, there are more and more cases that, to a certain extent (and, as a rule, not directly, but through the internal law of states) fall under international legal regulation, therefore, cease to relate exclusively to the internal competence of states.

11.The principle of respect for human rights?

The principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is that states ensure the inviolability of human rights on their territory and beyond.

The principle of respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms was enshrined, albeit in a very general form, in the UN Charter. In 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and within the UN, the preparation of international Covenants on Human Rights began, which were adopted General Assembly UN in 1966

The principle of respect for human rights has also been embodied and developed in a number of special conventions adopted within the UN or its specialized agencies (see Chapter 12).

The 1970 Declaration of Principles of International Law does not contain a principle of respect for human rights, but, as already indicated, the list of principles contained in it is not exhaustive. At present, virtually no one disputes the existence of this principle in general international law.

In the Final Act of the Pan-European Conference of 1975, the name of this principle is formulated as follows: “Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.”

The Charter of Paris for a New Europe of 21 November 1990 emphasizes that respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms is “the primary duty of government” and that “their respect and full implementation are the basis of freedom, justice and peace.”

a) all states are obliged to respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all persons within their territories;

b) states are obliged to prevent discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, language and religion;

c) States have an obligation to promote universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and to cooperate with each other in achieving this goal.

The Document of the Moscow CSCE Meeting of 1991 stated that issues of respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law are of an international nature, since they constitute one of the foundations of the international order.

12. The principle of equality and self-determination of peoples?

The principle of equality and self-determination of peoples and nations is ensuring the rights of this category of subjects of international law to choose a political status, to free economic development, cultural identity, and participation in international relations.

a) all peoples have the right to freely determine, without outside interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development;

b) all states are obliged to respect this right;

c) all states are obliged to promote, through joint and independent actions, the exercise by peoples of the right to self-determination;

d) all states are obliged to refrain from any violent actions that deprive peoples of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence;

e) in their struggle for independence, colonial peoples can use all necessary means;

f) the subjection of the people to foreign domination is prohibited.

The principle of self-determination of nations and peoples does not mean that a nation (people) is obliged to strive to create an independent state or a state uniting the entire nation. The right of a nation to self-determination is its right, not its obligation.

It also follows that the principle in question does not prejudge international legal status of one or another nation (people). A nation (people) has the right to freely associate with another or with other nations (peoples), and in this case, depending on the nature of the association, the corresponding national entity will or will not act in international relations as a subject of international law.

The modern content of this principle includes economic aspects(the right to freely dispose of one’s natural wealth and resources), the right to cultural development, etc. In addition, we are talking not only about the rights of peoples, but also about the responsibilities of states, expressed in respect for the rights of peoples and promotion of them.

The principle of self-determination is a right, not an obligation, and its implementation should not be associated with a violation of the territorial integrity and political unity of sovereign states.

13. The principle of the territorial integrity of states, the principle of the inviolability of state borders?

The principle of territorial integrity of states is the protection of the state’s right to the integrity and inviolability of its territory, for which legal and other means, including national ones, may be used permissible by international law.

This principle is specified in the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, where it is interpreted as part of the principle of sovereign equality of states and as part of the principle of non-use of force or threat of force. Indeed, this principle is closely related to both of these principles. The Declaration states: “The territorial integrity and political independence of the state are inviolable.”

However, the principle of the territorial integrity of states is so important that in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe it is highlighted as an independent principle of international law: “The participating states will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating states.”

CSCE Final Act 1975 contains a separate and most complete formulation: “The participating states will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating states. Accordingly they will abstain:

From any action incompatible with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, against the territorial integrity, political independence or unity of any participating state;

From turning each other's territory into the object of military occupation or other direct or indirect measures of force in violation of international law or into the object of acquisition through such measures or the threat of their implementation."

The principle of the inviolability of state borders is the definition of methods and forms of cooperation between states in terms of ensuring and protecting borders, including the conclusion of agreements on their delimitation and demarcation, collective self-defense, resolution of border disputes and the development of appropriate mechanisms.

The principle of the inviolability of state borders was also formulated for the first time in the Final Act of the CSCE. “The participating States regard as inviolable all of each other’s borders, as well as the borders of all states in Europe, and they will therefore refrain now and in the future from any encroachment on these borders” - that is, from extraneous actions or demands for changes in the position of the border line, its legal registration or actual situation on the ground.

The normative content of this principle is as follows:

Recognition of existing borders as legally established in accordance with international law;

Refusal of territorial claims (for the moment and the future);

Refusal of other encroachments on borders, including the threat or use of force.

It is necessary to distinguish the principle of the inviolability of state borders from the principle of inviolability of borders - we are talking about observing the existing border line on the ground, crossing it without the appropriate rules. Moreover, if the principle of inviolability operates in Europe, the USA and Canada, then the inviolability of borders is a principle of general international law and operates regardless of special agreements on this matter.

14. Subjects of modern international law. Content of the concept, international legal personality?

The definition of the concept of a subject of international law is associated primarily with the assessment of the subject of international legal regulation.

Modern. Extends the understanding of the subject in the general theory of law to international law. In other words, the subject is a participant in relations regulated by international legal norms; bearer of the rights and obligations established by these norms.

In this case, the circle of subjects includes legal entities and individuals, business associations and non-governmental organizations, as well as parts (units) of federal states. This theory divides the subjects of international law into law-creators (these include “traditional subjects”) and law-enforcers; the circle of the latter, of course, is much wider than the former.

Subjects of international law are participants in international relations who have international rights and obligations, exercise them on the basis of international law and, when necessary, bear international responsibility.

A subject of international law is an entity capable of having rights and obligations and defending its rights by making international claims.

The usual types of subjects of law in international relations are states and organizations.

The classification of subjects of international law is carried out on various grounds.

Primary subjects are created in the historical process; Having arisen, they inevitably come into contact with each other, creating for themselves the rules of mutual communication.

Derivative entities are created by primary ones, the scope of their international legal capacity depends on the desire of the creators and, as a rule, is determined by an international treaty.

Established subjects of international law:

The state is the most important category of subjects of international law, the main political organization society. In international relations, where there is no supreme power dictating rules of conduct for states, they themselves are both the main creators and guarantors of compliance with international law.

a state as a subject of international law must have the following characteristics:

Resident population

Specific territory

Government

The ability to enter into relations with other states, the so-called independence criterion.

international legal personality is the simultaneous:

a)possession of international rights and obligations;

b)subordination to international law;

c) ability to participate in international legal relations

The main characteristics inherent in international legal personality are:

Ability to make claims regarding violations of international law;

Ability to conclude internationally valid treaties and agreements;

15. An individual is a subject of international law. Vatican. TNK.

A subject of international law is a bearer of international rights and obligations; this is a person (in a collective sense) whose behavior is governed by international law and who can enter into international public legal relations and protect his rights by directly filing claims with international bodies. The subject of international law must be directly subordinate international regulation and have international public status.

The generally recognized subjects of international law are states and interstate organizations. The legal personality of nations and peoples fighting for the creation of an independent state is not so clearly recognized. As an exception, there are atypical subjects - the Vatican, the free city.

The concept of a subject is inextricably linked with such categories of law as legal capacity, legal capacity and delictual capacity.

Whether an individual is a subject of international law depends on what characteristics that subject must have. If we assume that a subject of international law is a person who is subject to international legal norms and who is endowed with subjective rights and obligations by these norms, then the individual is certainly a subject of international law. There are many international legal norms that can directly guide individuals (European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War 1949, Additional Protocols I and II thereto 1977, New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958, etc. .d.).

International law directly creates rights and obligations for the individual. There are a number of crimes under international law: piracy, genocide, apartheid, which can be directly charged as an international crime in the implementation of international criminal justice over an individual through the International Criminal Court or a specially created International Criminal Tribunal.

Astronauts have a special status, who are both individuals and citizens of a certain state, but at the same time are recognized as envoys of humanity into space. However, in all these cases, the rights received by the individual are mediated by states and do not apply without their consent. An individual may perform certain actions prescribed by a separate agreement, or not perform them.

If we consider individual as the direct addressee of many international legal norms, if we take into account the developing branch of international protection of human rights and international humanitarian law, and take into account the facts of the implementation of international criminal justice in relation to international criminals, we can conclude that in some cases an individual has limited international legal personality and, therefore, is a special subject of international law.

State-like entities (Vatican City) (hereinafter - GPO) are traditional, secondary, derivative, basic, partially sovereign, atypical, universal, law-creating and law-enforcing subjects of international law. GPOs are created by states on the basis of an international treaty, therefore they are secondary subjects; the scope of their international legal personality is determined by states and is derivative in nature. Based on international agreement, GPOs have partial sovereignty. Like MFN, they do not always exist in principle on the international stage, and therefore are also atypical entities.

signs of state-like entities:

) territory;

) permanent population;

) citizenship;

) legislative bodies;

) government;

) international treaties

The Vatican is a city-state that is the seat of the center of the Catholic Church - the Holy See. Due to established custom, it has a specific international legal personality. It participates in international relations under the name "Holy See". Its unique position in the system of subjects of international law, its special legal nature and religious specificity determine the methods of its activities in the international arena, the direction of foreign policy goals and priorities. The main vector of the papacy's policy is the protection of human rights and freedoms, primarily religious, and the church as a whole, as well as activities to prevent international conflicts.

A transnational company implies the transnationality of the capital of a given subject of private legal activity; the capital does not belong to individuals of one country.

Each State has the right to regulate and control the activities of transnational corporations within its national jurisdiction and to take measures to ensure that such activities are consistent with its laws, rules and regulations and are consistent with its economic and social policies. Transnational corporations should not interfere in the internal affairs of the host state. Each State must, with full regard to its sovereign rights, cooperate with other States in the implementation of this right.

In the Convention on Transnational Corporations, the concept of “transnational corporation” includes various transnational structures, including financial and industrial groups, companies, concerns, holdings, joint ventures, joint stock companies with foreign participation, etc.

The Corporation has the right to carry out any types of activities in the territories of the parties that are not prohibited by the legislation of the parties.

Corporation members can be legal entities of any organizational and legal form, including from third countries.

State-owned enterprises may be participants in the corporation in the manner and under the conditions determined by the owner of their property.

A corporation is created voluntarily, either on the basis of intergovernmental agreements or in any other way not prohibited by law. The procedure for registering a corporation is determined by the legislation of the state where it is registered.

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

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

The modern international community recognizes sovereignty as an integral property of every state and the most important basis for the existence of the international legal order.

This principle developed as an international legal custom and was subsequently enshrined in the UN Charter (Article 2), the Final Act of the CSCE on August 1, 1975, the Final Document of the Vienna Meeting of Representatives of the CSCE Participating States in 1989, the Charter of Paris for a New Europe of 1990, the Charter economic rights and obligations of states, in the charters of international organizations of the UN system, regional international organizations, in many bilateral and multilateral agreements, the Final Document of the World Summit dedicated to the 60th anniversary of the UN in 2005.

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

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

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

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

Every state is obliged to respect legal personality other states;

- territorial integrity and political independence b states are inviolable;

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

Every State has a duty in good faith fulfill its international obligations and live in peace with other states.

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

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

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

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

The sovereignty of states, according to the theory of the social contract (J. LOCKE, T. HOBBS, J.-J. RUSSO), is a secondary phenomenon. Sovereignty belongs to the people (primary sovereignty). The people, in the general interests of the social contract - the constitution - transfer to the state part of their rights inherent in sovereignty. Thus, the sovereignty of the state is secondary sovereignty.

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

Sovereignty does not mean complete freedom of action, much less their isolation, since they live and coexist in an interconnected world. The freedom of action of states is limited by law - international law. International law is a tool for “docking” and ensuring “sovereignties.”

On the other hand, an increase in the number of issues that states voluntarily subject to international regulation does not mean their automatic removal from the sphere of domestic competence.

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

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

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

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

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

International law ceases to protect the sovereign rights of states in which an anti-democratic regime tramples human rights. The state does not have the right to issue laws that violate human rights and people. Violation of a peremptory norm by a bilateral treaty is a matter for all states.

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

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

All states have the right to participate in solving international problems in which they have a legitimate interest. At the same time, states do not have the right to impose established international legal norms on other states.

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

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

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

status nuclear powers under the Non-Proliferation Treaty nuclear weapons 1968

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

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

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

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

EXAMPLE:

The World Bank provides loans only to poor countries.

Such a system is seen as a way to move from formal equality of states to actual equality.

Much also depends on the legal activity of the state. Other things being equal, more active participation in international legal relations gives the state a wider range of rights and legal opportunities. The reality of a state's sovereign equality depends to a large extent on the consistency with which it defends it. Sovereign equality must be carried out taking into account the legitimate interests of other states and the international community as a whole. It does not give the right to block the will and interests of the majority.

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

All states have an equal right to participate in solving international problems in which they have a legitimate interest. The 1974 Charter of Economic Rights and Responsibilities of States states: “All states are legally equal and, as equal members of the international community, have the right to participate fully and effectively in international decision-making...”

At the same time, we should not close our eyes to reality. The actual influence of major powers on the rule-making process is palpable.

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

Legal tools ensuring the principle of sovereign equality in various fields are “principles-standards”: the principle of reciprocity, the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of granting most favored nation treatment, the principle of granting national treatment and others.

CONCLUSION: As long as sovereign states exist, this principle will remain the most important element systems of principles of international law. Strict adherence to it ensures the free development of every state and people. Sovereign equality is only real within the framework of international law.

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

1) states are legally equal;

2) each state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty;

3) each state is obliged to respect the legal personality of other states;

4) the territorial integrity and political independence of the state are inviolable;

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

6) each state is obliged to fully and conscientiously fulfill its international obligations and live in peace with other states.