Signing of the final act of the meeting in Helsinki. Helsinki process. Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Cooperation in humanitarian and other areas

Final Act The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) was signed in Helsinki on August 1, 1975 by the leaders of 33 European countries, USA and Canada.

The Helsinki Final Act consolidated the political and territorial results of the Second World War and approved ten principles (the Helsinki Decalogue) of relations between states: sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty; non-use of force or threat of force; inviolability of borders; territorial integrity; peaceful settlement of disputes; non-interference in internal affairs; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; equality and the right of peoples to control their own destinies; cooperation between states; fulfillment of international legal obligations.

In addition, the document included the following basic agreements, divided into three “baskets” - three dimensions of security:

- military-political dimension - agreement on a set of confidence-building measures in military field(pre-notification of military exercises, major troop movements, voluntary exchange of observers for military exercises);
- economic and environmental dimension – analysis of the state and development of recommendations for the development of cooperation in the field of economics, science and technology and environment;
- human dimension – political commitments on issues of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of movement, contacts, information, culture and education, and monitoring their implementation in practice.

In the theory of international law it is generally held that the Helsinki Final Act does not have the character international treaty. It is an important political document that was signed by heads of state and government, but was not subject to ratification by parliaments and registration with the UN on the basis of Article 102 of the UN Charter as a “treaty and international agreement”. The Helsinki Final Act and subsequent documents of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) are political declarations, therefore they are not legally binding, which, however, does not deprive them of their legal significance. Created in the years " cold war“The OSCE failed to adapt to the new realities that emerged on the continent after its end and to transform into a full-fledged regional structure.

Interstate agreements grouped into several sections:

· in the international legal field: consolidation of the political and territorial results of the Second World War, outlining the principles of relations between participating states, including the principle of the inviolability of borders; territorial integrity of states; non-interference in the internal affairs of foreign states;

· in the military-political field: coordination of confidence-building measures in the military field (pre-notification of military exercises and major troop movements, presence of observers at military exercises); peaceful settlement of disputes;

· in the economic field: coordination of the main areas of cooperation in the field of economics, science, technology and environmental protection;

· in the humanitarian field: harmonization of commitments on issues of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of movement, contacts, information, culture and education, the right to work, the right to education and health care; equality and the right of peoples to control their own destinies and determine their internal and external political status.

56.Explain the content and political significance of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact of 1939.

August 23, 1939 A Soviet-German non-aggression pact was concluded. On the German side, it was signed by Ribbentrop, who arrived in Moscow for this purpose. The main contents of the agreement were as follows:

1. Both contracting parties undertake to refrain from any violence, from any aggressive action and from any attack against each other, either separately or jointly with other powers.

· In the event that one of the contracting parties becomes the object of military action by a third power, the other contracting party will not support this power in any form.

· The governments of both contracting parties will remain in. in the future in mutual contact for consultation to inform each other about issues affecting their common interests.

· Neither of the contracting parties will participate in any grouping of powers that is directly or indirectly directed against the other party.

· In the event of disputes or conflicts between the contracting parties on issues of one kind or another, both parties will resolve these disputes or conflicts exclusively peacefully, through a friendly exchange of views or, if necessary, by creating a conflict resolution commission.

The Soviet-German non-aggression pact was concluded for a period of ten years. On February 11, 1940, it was supplemented by a Soviet-German trade agreement.

The conclusion of the Soviet-German treaty of August 23 overturned the plans of those reactionary diplomats of England and France who hoped, by isolating the Soviet Union and not providing it with obligations of mutual assistance, to direct German aggression against it. This was the largest diplomatic achievement of the USSR government. On the other hand, by signing a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Germany thereby demonstrated to the whole world its recognition of the power of the USSR and its fear of the possible participation of the Soviet power in the fight against Germany on the side of the Anglo-French bloc. It goes without saying that the agreement with Germany was by no means evidence of the Soviet government’s excessive trust in fascist Germany. He did not in the slightest degree weaken the vigilance of the Soviet government and its tireless concern for strengthening the defense capability of the USSR. “This agreement,” said Comrade Molotov, “is supported by firm confidence in our real forces, in their full readiness in the event of any aggression against the USSR.”

The conclusion of a non-aggression pact between the USSR and Germany sparked a new violent campaign against Soviet Union.

The reactionary press in England and France screamed about the unnatural alliance of communism and fascism. Agency

Reuters radio reported that the Soviet government itself officially explained the break in negotiations with England and France by the fact that it had concluded an agreement with Germany.

In his interview, published on August 27 in Izvestia, Comrade Voroshilov decisively refuted all these fabrications.

“Not because,” he said, “military negotiations with England and France were interrupted because the USSR concluded a non-aggression pact with Germany, but, on the contrary, the USSR concluded a non-aggression pact with Germany as a result, among other things, of the fact that military negotiations with France and England has reached a dead end due to insurmountable differences."

Issues related to security in Europe

States participating in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe,

reaffirming its goal of promoting improved relations between them and providing conditions in which their peoples can live in genuine and lasting peace, being protected from any threat or attempt on their safety;

Convinced of the need to make efforts to make détente both a continuous and increasingly viable and comprehensive process, universal in scope, and that the implementation of the results of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe will be one of the largest contributions to this process;

Considering that solidarity between peoples, as well as the common desire of the participating States to achieve the goals as set forth by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, should lead to the development of better and closer relations between them in all areas and thus to overcoming opposition arising from the nature of their relationship in the past, and towards better mutual understanding;

mindful of your general history and recognizing that existence common elements in their traditions and values ​​can help them develop their relationships, and are willing to seek, fully taking into account the uniqueness and diversity of their positions and views, opportunities to unite their efforts in order to overcome mistrust and strengthen trust, to resolve the problems that divide them , and cooperate in the interests of humanity;

Recognizing the indivisibility of security in Europe, as well as their common interest in developing cooperation throughout Europe and among themselves, and expressing their intention to make efforts accordingly;

Recognizing the close link between peace and security in Europe and the world as a whole, and aware of the need for each to contribute to the strengthening of international peace and security and to the promotion of fundamental rights, economic and social progress and the well-being of all peoples;

accepted the following:

a) Declaration of Principles to Guide the Participating States in mutual relations

States Parties,

reaffirming its commitment to peace, security and justice and the process of developing friendly relations and cooperation;

Recognizing that this commitment, reflecting the interests and aspirations of peoples, embodies for each participating State a responsibility now and in the future, enhanced by past experience;

Reaffirming, in accordance with their membership in the United Nations and in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, their full and active support for the United Nations and for enhancing its role and effectiveness in promoting international peace, security and justice and in promoting resolution international problems, as well as the development of friendly relations and cooperation between states;

Expressing their general commitment to the principles set out below and which are in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as well as their general will to act, in the application of these principles, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

declare their determination to respect and apply in the relations of each of them with all other participating States, regardless of their political, economic and social systems, as well as their size, geographical location and level economic development, the following principles, which are all of paramount importance and by which they will be guided in their mutual relations:

I. Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty

The participating States will respect each other's sovereign equality and identity, as well as all rights inherent in and covered by their sovereignty, which include, in particular, the right of each State to legal equality, to territorial integrity, to freedom and political independence. They will also respect each other's right to freely choose and develop their own political, social, economic and cultural systems, as well as the right to establish their own laws and administrative regulations.

Under international law, all participating States have equal rights and responsibilities. They will respect each other's right to determine and carry out at their own discretion their relations with other states in accordance with international law and in the spirit of this declaration. They believe that their borders can be changed, in accordance with international law, peacefully and by agreement. They also have the right to belong or not belong to international organizations, to be or not to be a party to bilateral or multilateral treaties, including the right to be or not to be a party alliance treaties; they also have the right to neutrality.

II. Non-use of force or threat of force

The participating States will refrain in their mutual, as in general in their international relations from the use of force or threat 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 and with this Declaration. No considerations can be used to justify resorting to the threat or use of force in violation of this principle.

Accordingly, participating States will refrain from any action that constitutes a threat of force or the direct or indirect use of force against another participating State. Likewise, they will refrain from all manifestations of force for the purpose of coercing another participating State to renounce the full implementation of its sovereign rights. Likewise, they will also refrain in their mutual relations from any acts of reprisal by force.

No such use of force or threat of force will be used as a means of settling disputes or matters that may give rise to disputes between them.

III. Inviolability of borders

The participating States regard as inviolable all of each other's borders, as well as the borders of all states in Europe, and will therefore refrain now and in the future from any encroachment on these borders.

They will accordingly also refrain from any demands or actions aimed at the seizure and usurpation of part or all of the territory of any participating State.

IV. Territorial integrity of the state

The participating states will respect the territorial integrity of each participating state.

Accordingly, they will refrain from any action inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations against the territorial integrity, political independence or unity of any participating State and, in particular, from any such action constituting the use or threat of force .

The participating States will likewise refrain from making each other's territory the subject of military occupation or other direct or indirect measures of force in violation of international law, or the subject of acquisition by means of such measures or the threat thereof. No occupation or acquisition of this kind will be recognized as legal.

V. Peaceful settlement of disputes

The participating States will resolve disputes between them by peaceful means in a manner that does not jeopardize international peace and security and justice.

They will endeavor in good faith and in a spirit of cooperation to short term reach a fair solution based on international law.

For these purposes, they will use such means as negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, litigation or other peaceful means of their own choice, including any settlement procedure agreed upon before the occurrence of disputes to which they were parties.

In the event that the parties to a dispute do not reach a resolution of the dispute through one of the above-mentioned peaceful means, they will continue to seek mutually agreed upon means of peacefully resolving the dispute.

The participating States that are parties to a dispute between them, like other participating States, will refrain from any action that may aggravate the situation to such an extent as to jeopardize the maintenance of international peace and security, and thereby make a peaceful settlement of the dispute more difficult.

VI. Non-interference in internal affairs

The participating States will refrain from any interference, direct or indirect, individual or collective, in the internal or external affairs of another participating State, regardless of their relationship.

They will accordingly refrain from any form of armed intervention or threat of such intervention against another participating State.

They will likewise, in all circumstances, refrain from any other act of military or political, economic or other coercion designed to subordinate to their own interests the exercise by another participating State of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thereby secure for themselves advantages of any kind .

Accordingly, they will, inter alia, refrain from providing direct or indirect assistance to terrorist activities or subversive or other activities aimed at the violent overthrow of the regime of another participating State.

VII. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief

The participating States will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.

They will promote and develop the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other rights and freedoms which all flow from the inherent dignity human personality, and are essential for its free and full development.

Within this framework, the participating States will recognize and respect the freedom of the individual to profess, alone or in community with others, a religion or belief, acting in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience.

The participating States on whose territory there are national minorities will respect the right of persons belonging to such minorities to equality before the law, will provide them with full opportunity to effectively enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms and will thus protect their legitimate interests in this area.

The participating States recognize universal significance human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for which is an essential factor for peace, justice and prosperity, necessary to ensure the development of friendly relations and cooperation between them, as among all states.

They will respect these rights and freedoms at all times in their mutual relations and will endeavor, jointly and individually, including in cooperation with the United Nations, to promote universal and effective respect for them.

They affirm the right of individuals to know their rights and responsibilities in this area and to act in accordance with them.

In the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms, participating States will act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They will also fulfill their obligations as set out in international declarations and agreements in this area, including, but not limited to, the International Covenants on Human Rights, if bound by them.

VIII. Equality and the right of peoples to control their own destinies

The participating States will respect the equality of rights and the right of peoples to control their own destinies, acting at all times in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and relevant rules of international law, including those relating to the territorial integrity of States.

Based on the principle of equality and the right of peoples to decide their own destinies, all peoples always have the right, in complete freedom, to determine, when and how they wish, their internal and external political status without outside interference and to exercise their political, economic, social and cultural affairs at their own discretion. development.

The participating States reaffirm the universal importance of respect and the effective implementation of equality and the right of peoples to control their own destinies for the development of friendly relations between them, as among all states; they also remind us of the importance of exceptions for any form of violation of this principle.

IX. Cooperation between states

The participating states will develop their cooperation with each other, as with all states, in all areas in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. By developing their cooperation, the participating states will attach special meaning areas as defined by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, each of them contributing in full equality.

They will strive, by developing their cooperation as equals, to promote mutual understanding and trust, friendly and good neighborly relations among themselves, international peace, security and justice. They will equally strive, by developing their cooperation, to enhance the welfare of peoples and contribute to the realization of their aspirations, taking advantage, in particular, of the benefits flowing from increasing mutual knowledge and from progress and achievements in the economic, scientific, technical, social, cultural and humanitarian fields. They will take steps to promote conditions conducive to making these benefits available to all; they will take into account the interests of all in reducing differences in levels of economic development and, in particular, the interests developing countries worldwide.

They confirm that governments, institutions, organizations and people can play appropriate and positive role in helping to achieve these goals of their cooperation.

They will strive, by expanding their cooperation as defined above, to develop closer relations among themselves on a better and more solid foundation for the benefit of the people.

X. Faithful fulfillment of obligations under international law

The participating States will fulfill in good faith their obligations under international law, both those obligations that arise from generally accepted principles and norms of international law, and those obligations that arise from treaties or other agreements consistent with international law to which they are parties.

In the exercise of their sovereign rights, including the right to establish their own laws and administrative regulations, they will be consistent with their legal obligations under international law; they will, in addition, take due account of and implement the provisions of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

The participating States confirm that, in the event that the obligations of Members of the United Nations under the Charter of the United Nations are found to be in conflict with their obligations under any treaty or other international agreement, their obligations under the Charter, in accordance with Article 103 of the UN Charter, shall prevail.

All the principles stated above are of paramount importance and, therefore, they will be equally and strictly applied when interpreting each of them in light of the others.

The participating States express their determination to fully respect and apply these principles, as set out in this Declaration, in all aspects of their mutual relations and cooperation, so as to secure to each participating State the benefits arising from the respect and application of these principles by all.

The States Parties, having due regard to the principles set out above and in particular the first sentence of the tenth principle, “Compliance in good faith with obligations under international law,” note that this Declaration does not affect their rights and obligations, nor those of relevant treaties and other agreements and arrangements.

The participating States express the conviction that respect for these principles will contribute to the development of normal and friendly relations and the progress of cooperation between them in all fields. They also express the belief that respect for these principles will contribute to the development of political contacts between them, which, in turn, will contribute to a better mutual understanding of their positions and views.

The participating States declare their intention to conduct their relations with all other States in the spirit of the principles set forth in this Declaration.

Open current version document right now or get full access to the GARANT system for 3 days for free!

If you are a user of the Internet version of the GARANT system, you can open this document right now or request by Hotline in system.

Helsinki Accords 1975

Introduction. 3

1. International situation in the late 1960s - early 1970s. 5

2. Helsinki process. eleven

3. Consequences of the Helsinki process and new round tension. 14

Conclusion. 22

List of used literature... 25

On July 3, 1973, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe began in Helsinki, on the initiative of the Warsaw Pact Organization. All European countries, with the exception of Albania, agreed to take part in the work of the Meeting. The purpose of the event was to soften the confrontation between both blocs - NATO and the European Community, on the one hand, and the Warsaw Pact Organization and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, on the other. Despite all the political contradictions, the planned meetings were supposed to help defuse tensions and strengthen peace in Europe.

On August 1, 1975, after two years of negotiations, the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference was finally signed, in which European countries were guaranteed the immutability of borders, territorial integrity, peaceful resolution of conflicts, non-interference in internal affairs, non-use of violence, equality and equality of sovereignty. In addition, the document contained a commitment to respect the right of peoples to self-determination and human rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of belief.

Consideration international situation on the eve of the conclusion of the Helsinki Agreements, i.e. in the late 1960s - early 1970s;

Determination of the main prerequisites for international “detente”;

Consideration of the consequences of the conclusion of the Helsinki Accords;

Determination of the main results of the Helsinki Pan-European Conference.

When writing test work To achieve this goal, the author performs an analysis teaching aids By world history, history of Russia and the USSR, history of state and law foreign countries, and scientific works some domestic and foreign authors.

As a result of the analysis of information sources, the author examined in detail the process of signing the Helsinki Agreements, their prerequisites and main results.

In October 1964, when the new leadership of the USSR took power into its own hands, the liabilities of Khrushchev’s foreign policy were: the unity of the socialist camp, shaken due to the split with China and Romania; strained relations between East and West due to Cuban missile crisis; finally, the unresolved German problem. The decisions of the XXIII Congress of the CPSU in 1966 confirmed the trend towards tougher foreign policy: peaceful coexistence was now subordinated to a higher priority class task - strengthening the socialist camp, solidarity with the international working class and the national liberation movement.

Regaining full control over socialist camp The Soviet leadership was hampered by difficulties in relations with China, Cuba, as well as events in Czechoslovakia. Here, in June 1967, the Writers' Congress openly opposed the party leadership, followed by mass student demonstrations and strikes. The growing opposition forced Novotny to cede leadership of the party to Dubcek in January 1968. The new leadership decided to carry out a number of reforms. An atmosphere of freedom was established, censorship was abolished, and the Communist Party of Human Rights agreed to alternative elections of its leaders. However, the traditionally Soviet “exit” was imposed: “at the request of the Czechoslovak comrades” on the night of August 20-21, 1968, troops of five countries participating in the Warsaw Pact entered Czechoslovakia. It was not possible to immediately pacify discontent; protest demonstrations against the occupation continued, and this forced the Soviet leadership to remove Dubcek and his entourage from the leadership of the country and put G. Husak at the head of the Communist Party of Human Rights (April 1969), a supporter of the USSR. By forcefully suppressing the process of reforming Czechoslovak society. The Soviet Union stopped the modernization of this country for twenty years. Thus, using the example of Czechoslovakia, the principle of “limited sovereignty,” often called the “Brezhnev Doctrine,” was implemented.

A serious situation also arose in Poland due to price increases in 1970, which caused mass unrest among workers in the Baltic ports. Over the next ten years, the economic situation did not improve, which gave rise to new wave strikes, which was led by the independent trade union "Solidarity" headed by L. Walesa. The leadership of the mass trade union made the movement less vulnerable and therefore the leadership of the USSR did not dare to send troops into Poland and shed blood. The “normalization” of the situation was entrusted to a Pole, General Jaruzelski, who introduced martial law in the country on December 13, 1981.

Although there was no direct intervention of the USSR, its role in “calming” Poland was noticeable. The image of the USSR in the world was increasingly associated with the violation of human rights both within the country and in neighboring states. Events in Poland, the emergence of Solidarity there, which covered the entire country with a network of its organizations, indicated that the most serious breach had been made here in the closed system of Eastern European regimes.

In relations between the West and the East in the early 70s there was a radical turn towards a real detente. It became possible thanks to the achievement of approximate military parity between the West and the East, the USA and the USSR. The turn began with the establishment of interested cooperation between the USSR, first with France, and then with Germany.

At the turn of the 1960-1970s, the Soviet leadership moved to implement a new foreign policy course, the main provisions of which were stated in the Peace Program adopted at the XXIV Congress of the CPSU in March - April 1971. The most significant point of the new policy should be considered the fact that neither The Soviet Union and the West did not abandon the arms race. This process was now acquiring a civilized framework, which was an objective need on both sides after the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. However, such a turn in East-West relations made it possible to significantly expand the areas of cooperation, primarily Soviet-American, caused a certain euphoria and raised hopes in the public consciousness. This new state of the foreign policy atmosphere was called “detente of international tension.”

“Détente” began with a significant improvement in relations between the USSR and France and Germany. France's withdrawal in 1966 military organization NATO has become an impetus for the development of bilateral relations. The Soviet Union tried to enlist the mediation assistance of France in resolving the German question, which remained the main obstacle to the recognition of post-war borders in Europe. Mediation, however, was not required after Social Democrat Willy Brandt became Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany in October 1969, proclaiming the “new Ostpolitik.” Its essence was that the unification of Germany ceased to be a prerequisite in relations between East and West, but was postponed to the future as the main goal of multilateral dialogue. This made it possible, as a result of Soviet-West German negotiations on August 12, 1970, to conclude the Moscow Treaty, according to which both parties pledged to respect the territorial integrity of all European states within their actual borders. In particular, Germany recognized the western borders of Poland along the Oder-Neisse. At the end of the year, corresponding agreements on borders were signed between the Federal Republic of Germany and Poland, as well as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic.

An important stage of the European settlement was the signing in September 1971 of a quadripartite agreement on West Berlin, which confirmed the groundlessness of the territorial and political claims of the Federal Republic of Germany to West Berlin and stated that West Berlin is not integral part The Federal Republic of Germany will not be governed by it in the future. This was a complete victory for Soviet diplomacy, since all the conditions that the USSR had insisted on since 1945 without any concessions were finally accepted.

This development of events strengthened the confidence of the Soviet leadership that a radical change in the balance of forces had occurred in the world in favor of the USSR and the countries of the “socialist commonwealth.” The positions of the United States and the imperialist bloc in Moscow were assessed as “weak.” The USSR's confidence was built on a number of factors, the main of which were the continued growth of the national liberation movement and the achievement in 1969 of military-strategic parity with the United States in terms of numbers. nuclear charges. Based on this, the buildup of weapons and their improvement, according to the logic of the Soviet leadership, became an integral part of the struggle for peace.

Achieving parity put on the agenda the issue of arms limitation on a bilateral basis, the goal of which was the regulated, controlled and predictable growth of the most strategically dangerous type of weapons - intercontinental ballistic missiles. The visit of US President R. Nixon to Moscow in May 1972 was extremely important. During this visit, by the way, the first visit to the USSR by a US President, the process of “détente” received powerful impulse. Nixon and Brezhnev signed the “Fundamentals of Relations between the USSR and the United States of America,” stating that “in nuclear age there is no other basis for relationships other than peaceful coexistence.” On May 26, 1972, the Interim Agreement on Measures in the Field of Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (SALT) was concluded for a period of 5 years, later called the SALT-1 Treaty. In the summer of 1973, during Brezhnev's visit to the United States, an agreement on the prevention of nuclear war was also signed.

Against the backdrop of “scattered” instability on the periphery of the world, Europe looked like an island of peace and reconciliation. In the summer of 1975, the second and third stages took place Pan-European meeting, and on August 11 in Helsinki at the CSCE meeting on top level The solemn signing of the CSCE Final Act (Helsinki Act) took place. The document was signed by 35 states, including two North American ones - the USA and Canada.

The basis of the Final Act was the results of the work of three commissions, in which diplomats agreed upon principles of relations between states acceptable to all participating countries. The first commission discussed a range of European security problems. In the second, documents were developed on economic, scientific and technical cooperation and cooperation in the field of the environment. The third commission considered cooperation in the field of ensuring humanitarian rights, culture, education and information. The agreements within the framework of the three commissions were called the “three baskets”.

In the first direction, the most important part (“first basket”) of the Final Act was the section called “Declaration of principles that will guide the participating states in mutual relations.” This document in some of its positions (♦) anticipated historical development, thanks to which the provisions of the Final Act remained relevant until the early 90s. The Declaration was a commented list of the following 10 principles: sovereign equality and respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty; non-use of force or threat of force; inviolability of borders; territorial integrity of states; peaceful settlement of disputes; non-interference in each other's internal affairs; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief; equality and the right of peoples to control their own destinies; cooperation between states; conscientious execution obligations under international law.

A quick glance is enough to see how much of a compromise this list was. It combines the directly contradictory positions of the USSR and Western countries. But thanks to competent wording, the Declaration is a coherent document, which countries that differed greatly in their guidelines were able to sign.

The most important groups of contradictions were two. The first was determined by the semantic differences between the principle of the inviolability of borders and the right of peoples to independently decide their own destinies. The Soviet Union insisted on the first, meaning the consolidation of the post-war borders that existed in Europe. On the second - Western countries, who wanted to secure the fundamental possibility of unifying Germany in the future on the basis of the free expression of the will of the Germans. Formally, this formulation of the question did not contradict the principle of the inviolability of borders, since inviolability was understood as the unacceptability of changing them through force. Indestructibility did not mean immutability. Thanks to the formulations found in 1975, it turned out that in 1990, when the time came for Germany to unite, the political and legal side of the unification process was fully consistent with the letter of the Helsinki Act.

The second group of semantic disagreements concerned the relationship between the principle of territorial integrity of states and the right of peoples to control their own destinies. The first one consolidated the territorial unity of each of the states that signed the act, including those that had separatist tendencies (Great Britain, Yugoslavia, the USSR, Spain, Italy, France, Canada). The principle of the right of peoples to control their own destinies could be almost equivalent in meaning to the right to self-determination, as understood by V. Wilson, who advocated the creation of independent nation states. That is why in the early 90s, during the period of a sharp increase in separatism in Yugoslavia, European countries did not feel bound by the obligation to resist it, and Yugoslavia could not appeal to the Final Act to justify its centralization policy.

In general, the Declaration was a success in consolidating the status quo in Europe. It did not solve all the problems in relations between the West (♦) and the East, but it meant raising the threshold of conflict in Europe and reducing the likelihood of European countries resorting to force to resolve disputes. In fact, a pan-European non-aggression convention was signed in Helsinki, the guarantors of which were four of the five great powers in the world, including the USSR and the USA. Diplomacy of the 20th century had never seen such outstanding success before.

The Declaration was closely related to one section of the Final Act, which was called “Document on Confidence-Building Measures and Certain Aspects of Security and Disarmament.” It revealed the content of the concept of “confidence building measures”, the most important of which included: mutual advance notification of major military exercises ground forces or their redeployments, exchange on a voluntary basis and on a reciprocal basis of military observers sent to such exercises. In the 80s, the development and application of confidence-building measures grew into an independent area of ​​diplomacy.

The agreements on the “second basket” concerned issues of cooperation in the fields of economics, science and technology, and the environment. In this sense, the parties agreed to promote the introduction of the most favored nation regime in trade and economic relations between themselves. This did not automatically mean that the USSR and other socialist countries secured themselves the acquisition of such status in relations with Western countries.

Much attention in the Final Act was paid to agreements on the “third basket” - cooperation related to issues of ensuring individual rights of citizens, primarily humanitarian ones. The Final Act spoke in detail about the need for convergence of approaches to regulating such issues as the right to reunite families that find themselves separated state borders; marriage of one's choice, including marriages with foreign citizens; leaving your country and returning freely; development international relations and mutual visits between relatives. Particular attention was paid to interaction in matters of information exchange, establishing scientific contacts and cooperation in the field of education, cultural exchanges, free radio broadcasting.

In the final sections of the Helsinki Act, the parties expressed their intention to deepen the process of detente, to make it continuous and comprehensive. It was decided to continue the pan-European process through regular multilateral meetings between all European states further. These meetings actually became a tradition, which resulted in the transformation of the CSCE into a permanent institution in the 90s - the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

In the USSR, opposition forces for the purpose of promoting the provisions of the “third basket” created “Helsinki groups” in 1975, whose tasks included collecting facts and materials about violations (♦) of the provisions of the Final Act and making them public. The USSR intelligence services systematically suppressed the activities of these groups, which caused outbreaks of criticism of the Soviet Union abroad. In 1975, Academician A.D. Sakharov was awarded the Nobel Prize peace.

Agreement of 35 European States and North America, which established the principles of peace-loving and humane international order in Europe. This agreement was the result of highest point"Détente" policy.

Participating countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Vatican, Great Britain, Hungary, East Germany, Germany, Greece, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland, Spain, Italy, Canada, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, USA, USSR, Turkey, Finland, France, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, Sweden, Yugoslavia.

On July 3, 1973, in Helsinki, on the initiative of the superpowers, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe began, which was supposed to resolve all the international problems that arose during the Cold War in Europe. The meeting was attended by representatives of almost all European countries, as well as the USA and Canada.

September 18, 1973 - July 21, 1975 negotiations took place in Geneva with the participation of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, German Democratic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland, Spain, Italy, Canada, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Holy See, United Kingdom, United States States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Turkey, Finland, France, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, Sweden and Yugoslavia.

On August 1, 1975, the heads of these states, meeting in Helsinki, solemnly signed the Final Act of the meeting. This was the moment of triumph of the policy of peace, peaceful and good-neighborly coexistence of countries with different social systems.
The Act addressed a wide range of international issues, including trade, industrial cooperation, cooperation in science and technology, environmental protection, cultural and interpersonal relations.

The states that signed the Act pledged to “respect each other’s sovereign equality and identity”… “each other’s right freely to choose and develop their political, social, economic and cultural systems, as well as the right to establish their own laws and administrative regulations.”

An important provision that remains relevant today was that “borders may be changed, in accordance with international law, peacefully and by agreement. They also have the right to belong or not to belong to international organizations, to be or not to be a party to bilateral or multilateral treaties, including the right to be or not to be a party to union treaties; they also have the right to neutrality”...

The participating States promised to refrain in international relations "from the use or threat 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 and with this Declaration."

“The participating States regard as inviolable all of each other's borders, as well as the borders of all states in Europe, and will therefore refrain now and in the future from any encroachment on these borders.

They will accordingly also refrain from any demands or actions aimed at the seizure and usurpation of part or all of the territory of any participating State.”

Chapter VII was specifically devoted to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.

In the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms, participating States will act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

There was a contradiction between the principles of non-interference in each other's internal affairs and guarantees of civil rights - after all, in order to guarantee rights, it was necessary to intervene in the affairs of countries that violate them.

In those countries where civil rights were violated, they continued to be trampled upon, and attempts by other states were criticized domestic policy governments violating human rights were declared interference in internal affairs.

To monitor compliance Helsinki Agreement The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was created. In some countries of Eastern Europe, including the USSR, public Helsinki groups arose that exposed violations of the agreement in the field of human rights on the territory of socialist countries. Members of these groups were persecuted by the authorities, and in the early 80s. most of them were destroyed.

The act became the apogee of “Détente”, after which relations between the USSR and the USA began to gradually deteriorate.

In 1979, due to disputes over deployment in Europe nuclear missiles medium range two blocks, and also due to the input Soviet troops to Afghanistan, Soviet-American relations deteriorated again, “Détente” ended, and the “Cold War” resumed.

Historical sources:

Akhromeev S., Kornienko G. Through the eyes of a marshal and a diplomat. M., 1992;

In the name of security and cooperation. To the results of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, held in Helsinki on July 30 - August 1, 1975. M., 1975;

Dobrynin A. Purely confidential. Ambassador to Washington under six US presidents (1962-1986). M., 1996;

L.I. Brezhnev. 1964-1982. Bulletin of the Presidential Archive. Special edition. M., 2006;

Kissinger G. Diplomacy. M., 1997.