The principle of faithful compliance with international treaties. The principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations. The term "international treaty"

One of the most important principles of modern international law is the principle conscientious fulfillment international obligations under international law. This principle was preceded principle of compliance with international treaties– pacta sunt servanda, the emergence and development of which is closely connected with Roman law, and then with the emergence and development interstate relations And international law.

Principle faithful observance international treaties have a long history. The conclusion of the first international treaties necessitated their implementation, since violation of the obligations stipulated by international treaties would lead to instability international relations. In the twentieth century, this principle acquired a new legal meaning - it extended its effect to other norms of international law.

Currently, as a generally accepted norm of conduct for entities, this principle is enshrined in the UN Charter, the preamble of which emphasizes the determination of UN members “to create conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and others can be observed.” According to paragraph 2 of Art. 2 of the Charter, “all Members of the United Nations shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed under this Charter in order to ensure to all of them collectively the rights and benefits arising from membership in the Organization.” The content of this principle is revealed in the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, which emphasizes that faithful adherence to the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among States is essential to the maintenance of international law and security.

By virtue of the principle of faithful compliance with international treaties Subjects of international law must fulfill obligations arising from international law in good faith. Fulfillment of obligations must be carried out honestly and accurately. Only in this case can the fulfillment of international legal obligations be qualified as in good faith. The state cannot evade fulfillment of obligations arising from international legal norms, and cannot refer to the provisions of domestic law or other circumstances as a reason for non-fulfillment or refusal to fulfill its obligations. A state may refuse to fulfill international legal obligations, but such refusal must be carried out only on the basis of international law, as reflected in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969.

The significance of the principle of good faith compliance with international obligations is that it is the basis of international law, since without such a principle the validity of international law would be problematic. Due to its significance and role in the system of international law, this principle has acquired the imperative nature of jus cogens.

One of the basic principles. It was preceded by the principle of compliance with international treaties (the emergence and development is closely related to Roman law; pacta sunt servanda (treaties must be respected).

Having a long history in the 20th century, this principle acquired a new legal quality. Why? Because it extended its effect not only to treaty obligations, but also to other norms of international law. The content of this principle is disclosed in the Declaration of Principles of International Law (1970), and the OSCE participating states confirmed these provisions in the final act (1975) “that conscientious observance of the principles of international law relating to friendly relations and commonwealth between states is of the utmost importance values ​​to maintain international peace and safety."

The state cannot evade fulfillment of obligations arising from international legal norms, and cannot refer to the provisions of domestic law or other circumstances as a reason for non-fulfillment or refusal to fulfill its obligations. By virtue of this principle, the subjects of small business are obliged to fulfill their obligations, only then can we talk about good faith.

The meaning of the principle is that it is the basis of international law that without him the activities of the MP would be problematic.

Considering that treaties are the source of all branches of international law (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 and Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations, or between International Organizations 1986). It also acts as a general principle of modern international law and acquired an imperative character (jus cogens).

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

It (the principle) acts as a condition for stability, law and order, consistency, efficiency, etc. With the help of this principle, subjects (MPs) receive a legal basis to mutually demand the fulfillment of conditions and obligations.

One of the signs of this principle is the inadmissibility of arbitrary unilateral refusal of assumed obligations, which raises the question of responsibility and attacks on the principle itself.

The meaning of the principle is that it is a universal and cardinal norm recognized by all states (see the UN Charter), expressing the legal obligation of the subjects of international law. The abolition of jus cogens (peremptory norm) would mean the elimination of all international law.

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

For the first time the recognition and consolidation of the principle as legal in UN Charter, obtained as a result of the interaction of the states of the anti-Hitler coalition in the Second World War and as a criterion for communication in the future in a qualitatively new, more high level interaction than traditional relationship maintenance. Thus, paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the UN Charter declares that one of the goals of the UN is “international cooperation in resolving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, humanitarian nature, education, health care, promoting the implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, the development of international its codification. The principle of cooperation cannot be taken literally. But it must be considered with other principles. In particular, state sovereignty.

The normative content of the principle of cooperation between states is revealed as follows: “states are obliged to cooperate with each other regardless of their political, economic and social systems in various areas international relations, with a view to maintaining international peace and security, promoting international economic stability, progress, the general welfare of peoples and international cooperation free from discrimination based on such differences.”

The legal framework is clearly defined:

1. The duty to cooperate in all areas of international communication, regardless of differences in political systems.

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

3. Promoting international economic stability.

4. Promoting economic growth in developing countries.

This is the subject of Chapter 9 of the UN Charter “International and Social Cooperation” and the Final Act of the Conference (1975) on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The act more specifically specifies the areas of cooperation “to improve the well-being of the people, “to use mutual benefits from scientific and technical progress, social, economic, scientific, technical, cultural, and humanitarian fields.” In this case, the interests of all, in particular developing countries, will be taken into account.” At the same time, mutual understanding and trust, friendly and neighborly relations, security and justice will be achieved.

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

The UN Charter, in second place, after getting rid of the scourge of war, set the task of “reaffirming faith in fundamental human rights”; “in the promotion and development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all” (clause 3 of Article 1). There is an inextricable link with the adoption of the UN Charter and the preservation of international peace and security in respect of fundamental rights and freedoms. The Charter contains legally binding norms, principles of respect for human rights: dignity and values human personality; equality of peoples; equal rights of men and women, inadmissibility of discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, language and religion.

However, the Declaration of Principles of International Law (1970) did not single out any of the principles as fundamental.

To promote human rights in national law it took entire millennia, epochs and historical events, and in many countries this process is still in its initial stages.

One can also conclude that a violation of any principle will sooner affect violations of human rights and freedoms.

IN last years, even during the period cold war, the world community has adopted a number of important documents in the field of human rights.

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, in two international covenants of 1966 “on civil and political rights"; “on economic, social and cultural rights”; lists the rights and freedoms that states have undertaken to provide to all persons under their jurisdiction through legislative and other measures. So, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation in (1993), “a person, his rights and freedoms are the highest value.” In the Russian Federation, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are “recognized and guaranteed” in accordance with generally accepted principles and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution (Article 17, Part 1). The above article gives grounds to assert that international law is part of the law of a country. In Russia, “laws should not be issued that abolish or infringe upon the rights and freedoms of man and citizen.”

In developing this formula, states recognized in the final document of the Vienna OSCE meeting (1989) that all rights and freedoms are of paramount importance and must be fully implemented in appropriate ways.

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

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

For a long time, the practical implementation of human rights was considered as an area of ​​internal competence. Universal and strict observance of the principle of respect for human rights great damage Attempts to politicize and use them for purposes that have nothing to do with concern for human rights are damaging.

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

Human rights are increasingly being used to put forward unreasonable demands for self-determination (the right to secession), which damages the territorial integrity of the state and infringes on human rights, including the right to life.

What has been said does not in any way lose its international aspect. Each state has the sovereign power to issue rules defining the rights and obligations of citizens, however, the implementation of this power must occur within the framework of the MP, in particular, international control in this area, which does not contradict the principle of non-interference. In the Document of the Moscow meeting of the conference on human dimension OSCE (1991) confirms that “issues relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms constitute one of the foundations of international order.”

The relevant obligations are of “direct and legitimate interest to all participating States and do not relate exclusively to the internal affairs of the State concerned.”

The principle of respect for the individual in national law occupies central position“No laws should be issued that abolish or impede the rights and freedoms of man and citizen” (Article 17, Part 1).

The content of these provisions determines the nature interaction international legal and domestic norms in the field humanitarian cooperation; sets generally accepted standards; puts into effect international means protection of mass attacks; becomes a direct regulator and guarantor of certain elements of the legal status of an individual. This is the role of international law and its branch of international humanitarian law.

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

Each state has the obligation to promote, through independent and joint action, universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, in accordance with the UN Charter (that is, each state and international community has a responsibility to promote universal respect for rights and freedoms);

The state is obliged to respect and ensure to all persons within its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms recognized by international law without distinction: gender, language, race, skin color, religion, political or other beliefs, national and social origin, class;

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

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

Each person has responsibilities towards other people and the society and state to which he belongs;

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

The state guarantees effective legal remedies;

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

Human rights are inextricably linked with issues of democracy. Charter of Paris for new Europe confirms that democracy is recognized by the participants, the only system of government, of the democratic order, both in international relations and in national systems. It is necessary to clarify that human and civil rights in international law mean: rights, freedoms and obligations. Moreover, in many constitutions of foreign countries, freedoms and responsibilities are considered as human and civil rights.

5. Territorial integrity of the state.

Territory is a necessary condition for the coexistence of the state and its material basis. The UN Charter obliges us to refrain from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity (Article 2, paragraph 4). Although there is no direct statement of such a principle in the UN Charter. It is enshrined in the final act (1975).

Territorial integrity (like political independence) is not formally named as a principle of MP. It is only the object of the principle of refraining from the threat or use of force. For example, the seizure of territory; armed invasion not pursuing the goal of territorial seizure; temporary occupation of a part of the territory, that is, its content is reflected in other principles (the principle of not the use of force obliges to refrain from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity, but the equal use of military political, economic or other forms of pressure).

Consequently, territorial integrity and inviolability are provided in a broader form. It is emphasized that the territory of a state should not be subject to military occupation resulting from the use of force in violation of the UN Charter.

The territory should not be object of acquisition, no acquisitions resulting from the threat of force will be recognized as legal. The concept of the territorial integrity of the state was put forward after the Second World War, in response to the desire of the colonial powers (metropoles) to impede the national liberation movement of the colonies.

The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted by the UN General Assembly (12/14/1960), specifically noted that “all peoples have an inalienable right to the integrity of their national territory.”

The Declaration of Principles of International Law (1970) states that the content of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples should not be interpreted as authorizing or encouraging actions that would lead to the dismemberment or partial or complete violation of the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.

A legal change in the territory of a state can take place as a result of the people’s exercise of the right to self-determination, the right to liberation from foreign oppression, if we're talking about about a state acting in compliance with the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples, then its territorial integrity cannot be violated.

The principle is known when part of the territory is seized (acquired) by other states. As is known, the seizure of part of the territory of states, responsible for starting the Second World War, is recognized by the UN Charter (Article 107). (Kaliningrad region, Sudetes) The final step in the progressive development of this principle was the CSCE documents (1975). In particular in Art. IV in the Declaration of Principles, the final act of the Conference “on respect for territorial integrity”, “political independence”, “unity of any participating state” is included. That is, the final act highlighted “ territorial integrity"into a separate principle (independent). Any actions incompatible with the UN Charter and against territorial integrity are prohibited. It follows from this, can there be actions compatible with the Charter? Undoubtedly, these include actions in the exercise of the right to self-determination.

Inviolability of territory also means the inadmissibility of using its natural resources. Annually in the message of the President of the Russian Federation Federal Assembly it was said that “territorial integrity embraces both space and resources.”

The principle of territorial integrity is enshrined in the joint declaration, justifying the relationship between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China (12/18/1992); In the Treaty on the Fundamentals of Interstate Relations and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Uzbekistan (05/30/1992); in Art. 5 of the Pact of the League of Arab States. According to Art. 4 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the sovereignty of the Russian Federation extends to its entire territory. The Russian Federation ensures the integrity and inviolability of its territory.

Leaders of the CIS countries 04/15/1994 adopted the “Declaration on the observance of the sovereignty of the territorial integrity and inviolability of the borders of the CIS participants.” IN Lately More often a complex formula is used - the principle of integrity and inviolability of state territory.

6. The principle of inviolability of borders .

This principle complements the principle of territorial integrity. Its meaning is determined by respect for existing boundaries, as necessary condition peaceful relations between states.

In the Declaration of Principles international law (1970), the content of the principle is set out in section on the principle of no use of force:“Every state has the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate existing international borders another state or as a means of resolving international disputes, including territorial disputes and issues relating to state borders».

The Final Act of the 1975 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe formulated the principle that “the participating States regard as inviolable all the borders of each other, as well as the borders of all States in Europe, and will therefore refrain now and in the future from any encroachment to these borders."

This means a renunciation of any territorial claims. States are obliged to refrain from violating demarcation lines, that is, temporary or preliminary boundaries of armistice lines established on an agreed basis or on any other basis. (Demarcation line between North Korea and South Korea).

As an independent principle, the principle of the inviolability of borders was formed by the Final Act of the CSCE (1975). The principle contains obligations to recognize the inviolability of all state borders in Europe. It is known that the defeated states did not fully recognize the borders established as a result of the Second World War, which complicated international relations. Thus, it must be recognized that the principle of the inviolability of borders has not been established in general international law (there are acute territorial disputes on the Asian, African, and American continents - see section 3).

CSCE participating States consider all borders of each other and the borders of all states in Europe as indestructible. They undertake to refrain, now and in the future, from any encroachment upon these frontiers, and from any demands and actions aimed at seizing and usurping almost or all the territory of any participating State.

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

For example, the Agreement on the Creation of the CIS (12/08/1991) and the Alma-Ata Declaration (12/21/1991) confirm the recognition and respect for the inviolability of existing borders. The agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Poland on friendly and good-neighborly cooperation (05/22/1992) includes: “the parties recognize the inviolable border existing between them and confirm that they do not have any territorial claims against each other, and will not make such claims in the future "

Treaties between the Russian Federation and Ukraine; Russia and the Republic of Azerbaijan (07/03/1997) on friendship, cooperation and security.

Founding Act mutual relations, cooperation and security between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (05/27/1997); The act established a permanent Russia-NATO Council.

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

Principle pacta sunt servanda(“treaties must be respected”), which is the result of an agreement between states, has remained a customary legal norm for many centuries. It was first formulated in a multilateral London Protocol of European Powers, signed on March 19 (March 31), 1877 by representatives of Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia and France, who were trying to peacefully resolve the long-standing “Eastern Question” and problems in the Ottoman Empire. The said Protocol emphasized that no power could exempt itself from treaty obligations or change them otherwise “than with the consent of the contracting parties, achieved through a friendly agreement.” The consolidation of this principle did not prevent its immediate violation. On March 29 (April 10), 1877, the Ottoman Empire rejected the Protocol, assessing its provisions as interference in its internal affairs. The Porte's refusal to accept the Protocol was the reason for starting Russian-Turkish war 1877–1878

In a similar way, the agreements of the member states of the League of Nations were violated, which declared in its Statute that no power could exempt itself from treaty obligations or change them except “with the consent of the contracting parties achieved through friendly agreement.”

IN Preamble to the 1919 League of Nations Statute it was established that the member states of the League would “strictly observe the requirements of international law, which are now recognized as a valid rule of conduct for states.”

In modern international law principle of faithful implementation of international treaties was enshrined in UN Charter, which obliges all UN members to conscientiously fulfill the international obligations adopted under the Charter (clause 2 of Article 2). Although the Charter refers only to those international obligations that states have accepted in relation to the rules contained in it, it has been perceived as binding in relation to other international agreements. Principle pacta sunt servanda was subsequently fixed:

• – in the Vienna Conventions on the Law of International Treaties of 1969 and 1986;
• – Declaration of Principles of International Law 1970;
• – The final act Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe 1975;
• – other international legal documents.

According to Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969“Every contract in force is binding on its participants and must be carried out in good faith by them.” Moreover, “a party may not invoke its internal morals as a justification for its non-compliance with the contract.”

Declaration of Principles of International Law 1970, reaffirming the obligation of each UN member state to faithfully fulfill the obligations assumed by it in accordance with the UN Charter, as well as those arising from generally recognized norms and principles of international law, emphasized the obligation of the state to also fulfill obligations arising from international treaties valid in accordance with generally recognized principles and norms of international law .

IN Final Act of the 1975 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The participating States agreed to “comply in good faith with their obligations under international law, both those obligations which arise from generally accepted principles and rules of international law and those obligations which arise from treaties or other agreements consistent with international law to which they are parties.”

IN large number international treaties and resolutions of the UN General Assembly have been consolidated integrity concept, according to which good faith means that the relevant contractual obligation is performed honestly, promptly, accurately, in accordance with its intended meaning. According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, good faith is the performance of a treaty which is interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the treaty. The principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations applies only to agreements concluded in accordance with international law.

The principle in question, as if concluding the presentation of the basic principles of international law, originated and for a long time operated as the principle of compliance with international treaties - pacta sunt servanda ("treaties must be respected").

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

The preamble of the UN Charter speaks of the determination of peoples “to create conditions under which justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be observed,” and in paragraph 2 of Art. Article 2 establishes the obligation of UN members to conscientiously fulfill the obligations assumed under the Charter, “in order to ensure to all of them collectively the rights and benefits arising from belonging to the membership of the Organization.”

An important stage in the contractual consolidation of this principle was the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties of 1969. It notes that “the principle of free consent and good faith and the norm of pacta sunt servanda have received universal recognition.” In Art. 26 states: “Every valid agreement is binding on its participants and must be carried out in good faith by them.”

This principle received a detailed description in the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, in the Final Act of the CSCE of 1975 and in other documents.

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

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

With the help of this principle, subjects of international law receive a legal basis to mutually demand from other participants in international communication the fulfillment of conditions associated with the enjoyment of certain rights and the performance of corresponding obligations. This principle allows us to distinguish legal activities from illegal, prohibited ones. In this aspect, it clearly manifests itself as a peremptory norm of international law. This principle, as it were, warns states about the inadmissibility of deviations in the treaties they conclude from the cardinal provisions of international law, expressing the fundamental interests of the entire international community, and emphasizes the preventive function of jus cogens norms. The principle of conscientious compliance with international obligations, linking mandatory norms into a single system of international legal regulations, is their integral part. However, if individual norms of jus cogens can be replaced by others on the basis of agreement between states, then such a replacement is impossible in relation to this principle: its abolition would mean the elimination of all international law.

In the process of developing this principle, it was provided that in the exercise of their sovereign rights, including the right to establish their own laws and administrative regulations, participating States would be consistent with their legal obligations under international law.

Essential features of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations are the inadmissibility of arbitrary unilateral refusal of undertaken obligations and legal liability for violation of international obligations, which occurs in the event of refusal to fulfill them or other actions (or inaction) of a party to the agreement that are unlawful in nature. Violation of international obligations raises the question of responsibility not only for departure from the agreement, but also for an attack on the very principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations.

This principle is based on the norm ras1a]ing zeguapya, known since ancient times (meaning contracts must be respected). Article 2 of the UN Charter speaks of the obligation of UN members to comply with their obligations. This principle was enshrined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties of 1969, the Declaration of 1970, the Helsinki Final Act of the CSCE of 1975 and other documents.

14. The concept of subjects of public international law.

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

Any subject of international law has legal capacity, legal capacity and delictual capacity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Types of subjects of international law:

1) a state with sovereignty;

2) nations and peoples fighting for independence;

3) international universal organizations;

4) state-like organizations.

15. The state as a subject of international public law

States are the original and main subjects of international law, which determined its emergence and development. The state, unlike other subjects of international law, has universal legal personality, independent of the will of other subjects. Even unrecognized state has the right to defend its territorial integrity and independence, to govern the population on its territory.

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

The characteristics of the state are:

Sovereignty;

Territory;

Population;

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

A state is a subject of international law from the moment of its establishment. Its legal personality is not limited by time and is the largest in scope. States can enter into treaties on any subject and at their discretion. They develop norms of international law, promoting them progressive development, ensure their implementation and terminate these norms.

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

16.Legal personality of peoples and nations.

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

Political status means either the creation of a state, if the nation did not have one, or annexation or unification with another state. If there is a state within a federation or confederation, a nation can secede from it.

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

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

17.Legal personality of international organizations.

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

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

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

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

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

18.Legal personality of state-like entities.

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

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

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

19.International legal personality of individuals

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

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

Back at the beginning of the 20th century. F. F. Marten took approximately the same position. Individual individuals, he wrote, are not subjects of international law, but have certain rights in the field of international relations that arise from: 1) human personality taken in itself; 2) the position of these persons as subjects of the state 3.

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

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

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

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

Japanese professor S. Oda believes that “after the First World War, a new concept was formulated, according to which individuals can be held accountable for violations against international peace and law and order, and they can be prosecuted and punished under international procedure” 3 .

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

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

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

Among the regional treaties, we note the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 and 11 protocols to it; The CIS Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1995. Similar conventions exist in other regions of the world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN Russian Federation the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are recognized and guaranteed in accordance with generally accepted principles and norms of international law(Article 17 of the Constitution).

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

enshrined in the Treaty on Friendly Relations and Cooperation between the RSFSR and the Hungarian Republic of 1991.

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

According to the Convention on the Non-Applicability of the Statute of Limitations for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, 1968, in the event of the commission of any crime, namely war crimes and crimes against humanity, whether or not they were committed during the war or V Peaceful time, as defined in the Charter of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, no statute of limitations applies.

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

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

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

2. Granting an individual the right to apply to international
new judicial institutions. According to Art. 25 European Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, any person or
a group of persons has the right to send a petition to the European Commission
on human rights. Such a petition must contain convincing
evidence that these individuals are victims of violations
the relevant State Party to the Convention
right Applications are deposited Secretary General
Council of Europe 1. The commission may accept the case for consideration
only after, in accordance with generally accepted
the norms of international law have exhausted all internal
means of protection and only for six months from the date of adoption
final internal decision.

According to Art. 190 UN Convention on maritime law 1982, an individual has the right to bring a claim against a state party to the Convention and demand a hearing before the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

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

3. Determination of the legal status of certain categories of individuals
Dov. According to the 1951 Refugee Convention, personal
The status of a refugee is determined by the laws of the country of his domicile or,
if he does not have one, by the laws of his country of residence. Con
Venice enshrines the right of refugees to gainful employment, choice
professions, freedom of movement, etc.

International convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, 1990 states: Every migrant worker and every member of his family everywhere has the right to recognition of his legal personality. We are talking, of course, first of all about the recognition of international legal personality, since, according to Art. 35 of the Convention, states must not interfere with the international migration of workers and members of their families.

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

The above examples give reason to assume that states, for a number of problems (even if only a few), endow individuals with the qualities of international legal personality. The scope of such legal personality will undoubtedly increase and expand, because each historical era gives rise to its own subject of international law.

For a long time the only full-fledged subjects of international law were only states. In the 20th century new subjects are involved - intergovernmental organizations, as well as nations and peoples fighting for their independence. In the 21st century the scope of legal personality of individuals will be expanded, and the legal personality of other collective entities (for example, international non-governmental entities, transnational corporations, church associations) will be recognized.

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

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

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

20. The concept of recognition and its legal consequences.

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

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

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

In principle, an application for the establishment of diplomatic relations is a classic form of recognition of a state, even if the proposal for the establishment of such relations does not contain a statement of official recognition.

Recognition does not create a new subject of international law. It may be complete, final and official. This type of recognition is called recognition of her ^ge. Incomplete recognition is called ye Gas1o.

Confession be Gas1o (actual) occurs in cases where the recognizing state does not have confidence in the strength of the recognized subject of international law, and also when it (the subject) considers itself a temporary entity. This type of recognition can be realized, for example, through the participation of recognized entities in international conferences, multilateral treaties, international organizations. For example, in the UN there are states that do not recognize each other, but this does not prevent them from participating normally in its work. Recognition of a country, as a rule, does not entail the establishment of diplomatic relations. Trade, financial and other relations are established between states, but there is no exchange of diplomatic missions.

Since recognition is temporary, it can be withdrawn if the missing conditions required for recognition are not met. Retraction of recognition occurs when recognizing the yoke of a rival government that has managed to gain a strong position, or when recognizing the sovereignty of a state that has annexed another state. For example, Great Britain withdrew recognition of Ethiopia (Abyssinia) as an independent state in 1938 due to the fact that she admitted<1е ]иге аннексию этой страны Италией.

Confession yeah doge (official) is expressed in official acts, for example, in resolutions of intergovernmental organizations, final documents of international conferences, in government statements, in joint communiqués of states, etc. This type of recognition is realized, as a rule, through the establishment of diplomatic relations, the conclusion of agreements on political , economic, cultural and other issues.

In the practice of recognizing states, there have been many cases where the form of recognition was directly indicated in the application for recognition. For example, in a note from Great Britain dated February 2, 1924, it was noted that the British government no longer recognizes the government of the USSR within the territory of the former Russian Empire, which is subject to its authority. Moreover, this note emphasized that “recognition of the Soviet Government of Russia automatically brings into force all agreements concluded between both countries before the Russian revolution, with the exception of those whose terms have formally expired.”

Recognition ai Nos is a temporary or one-time recognition, recognition for a given occasion, a given purpose.

Recognition of states. According to the fair opinion of D.I. Feldman, recognition of a state is at the same time a kind of offer to establish legal relations with the recognized state. Nevertheless, in principle, recognition is a political act of two states - the recognizing and the recognized 1. In the science of international law, the following two theories are formulated to explain the role and significance of recognition of states.

21.Types of recognition

There is a distinction between recognition of states and recognition of governments.

For recognition of states There are two theories: constitutive and declarative. The first proceeds from the fact that only recognition makes a state a subject of international law. According to the second, most recognized, recognition only states the emergence of a new state and facilitates contacts with it.

There is no obligation to recognize a state, but prolonged non-recognition can seriously complicate relations between states. Recognition can be explicit (a statement by a government recognizing a state), but can sometimes be seen in certain actions - for example, in a proposal to establish diplomatic relations.

There are two forms of recognition of states: de jure and de facto.

De jure recognition is complete, final, entails the establishment of diplomatic relations.

De facto recognition does not entail the establishment of diplomatic relations, and is an expression of uncertainty that this entity will exist for a long time.

Recognition of governments is a voluntary act of the government of an already recognized state, indicating that it, firstly, considers the government of another state capable of representing this state and, secondly, intends to maintain official relations with it. Government recognition can be either complete and final, or temporary, limited to certain conditions.

De jure recognition of the new government is expressed in a declaration and such recognition; it is retroactive.

De facto recognition does not mean full recognition of the competence of individual authorities; it can be expressed in the signing of agreements that are temporary or limited in nature.

22. The concept of succession

Succession- This is a transfer of rights and obligations as a result of the replacement of one state by another in bearing responsibility for the international relations of a territory. For example, the unification of Germany, the separation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia from the USSR in 1991, the collapse of the USSR, etc. In all these cases, the question arises about the impact of changes on international obligations, about the fate of property or, in other words, about legal succession.

Under the auspices of the UN, two conventions on succession have been adopted: the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in Respect of Treaties of 1978 and the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Public Archives and Public Debts of 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the 1983 Convention). Both of these conventions have not become effective, but are actually being applied even without the required number of ratifications.

23.Succession in relation to international treaties.

Succession does not apply to treaties establishing borders and their regime, as well as obligations regarding the use of any territory established in favor of a foreign state.

When a part of the territory passes from one state to another, the the principle of fluidity of contractual boundaries, according to which the scope of the treaty is reduced or expanded along with the borders of the state. The exception is those treaties that are directly related to the ceded territory. This also applies to UN membership. As for the state formed on the seceded territory, when deciding on the obligations of the new state under the treaties of the predecessor state, political factors play a large role, but traditionally the new state does not bear obligations under the treaties of the predecessor state.

24.Succession in relation to state property.

Basic rules on succession in relation to state property are contained in the 1983 Convention. These rules apply only to state property of the predecessor state. The succession regime does not apply to the rights and obligations of individuals and legal entities.

With regard to compensation for property passing to the successor State, the transfer of ownership must take place without compensation, unless otherwise agreed by the States concerned or provided for by a decision of the relevant international body (Article 11 of the 1983 Convention). However, the 1983 Convention provides that its provisions are without prejudice to any question of just compensation between the predecessor State and the successor State which may arise as a result of succession upon the division of a State or the separation from it of part of a territory.

The rules of succession establish a different regime for the transfer of movable and immovable property. When states unite, all state property of the predecessor states passes to the successor state. When a state is divided and two or more successor states are formed on its territory:

Immovable property of the predecessor state
nick passes to that successor state in the territory
the torii of which it is located;

Immovable property located outside of
lamy of the predecessor state, passes to the sovereign
successor States, as specified in the 1983 Convention,
"in fair shares";

movable property of the predecessor state
ka related to its activities in relation to the territories,
being the object of succession, passes to the corresponding
to the respective successor state; other movable property
ownership passes to successors “in equal shares.” In the event of the transfer of part of the territory of one state to another, the transfer of state property is regulated by an agreement between these states.

The provisions on succession to state property do not apply to nuclear weapons, which are also such property.

25.Succession in relation to state archives.

Concerning state archives, then the 1983 Convention provides for the obligation of the predecessor state to take measures to prevent damage to or destruction of archives that pass to the successor state. Succession does not concern archives that are located on the territory of the predecessor state, but belong to a third state according to the internal law of the predecessor state (Article 24 of the 1983 Convention). When states unite and one successor state is formed, the state archives of the predecessor states pass to it. When a state is divided, when several successor states arise in its place, part of the archives of the predecessor state, which must be located on the territory of the successor state for the purpose of normal administration of this territory, passes to this state. Another part of the archives that is directly related to his territory also goes to him.

When a part of its territory is separated from a state on which a new state is formed, part of the archives of the predecessor state, which for the purposes of normal administration of the separated territory must be located on this territory, passes to the successor state. Similar rules apply when the seceded part of the state merges with another state. By agreement between the predecessor and successor states, different rules of succession regarding state archives may be established, but the right of the peoples of these states to development and information about their history and cultural heritage must not be violated.

26.Succession in relation to public debts.

The 1983 Convention also regulates issues of succession of states in relation to government debts. Succession, except in special cases, does not prejudice the rights of those who provided the loan. When states unite and form one successor state, the public debts of the predecessor states are transferred to it.

When the state is divided into several parts, and unless the successor states agree otherwise, the public debt passes to them in an equitable share, taking into account the property, rights and interests that pass to them in connection with the public debt. A similar rule, in the absence of an agreement, applies when part of the territory of a state is separated and a successor state is formed on it, or when the separated part of the territory is united with another state, as well as when part of the territory is transferred from one state to another.

27.Succession in relation to the citizenship of individuals

Succession of states in relation to the nationality of individuals. As New Zealand lawyer O'Connell rightly notes, “the consequences of a change in sovereignty for the citizenship of the inhabitants (of the territory affected by succession) represent one of the most difficult problems in the field of legal rules on state succession” 1.

The problem of citizenship in the case of state succession requires the development and adoption of a universal convention. Although citizenship is primarily governed by the domestic law of a state, it has a direct bearing on the international legal order. It is no coincidence that on May 14, 1997, the Council of Europe adopted the European Convention on Nationality, which contains, in particular, provisions relating to the loss and acquisition of nationality in cases of state succession. Another body of the Council of Europe, the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), adopted in September 1996 the Declaration on the Effects of State Succession on the Nationality of Natural Persons.

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the first international document to establish “the right of every person to a nationality.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 recognize the right of every child to acquire a nationality.

The UN International Law Commission has developed the “Draft Articles on the Nationality of Natural Persons in Connection with the Succession of States.” The main provisions of this document are as follows.

Any person who, at the date of State succession, had the nationality of the predecessor State, regardless of the manner of acquiring that nationality, is entitled to the nationality of at least one of the States concerned. Moreover, it does not matter whether they acquired the citizenship of the predecessor state by birth, by virtue of the principle D13 $oI (right of soil) or.

The affected States shall take all appropriate measures to prevent persons who, at the date of State succession, had the nationality of the predecessor State from becoming stateless as a result of such succession. Every time international treaty, providing for the transfer of territory, regulations must be included to ensure that no person becomes stateless as a result of such transfer.

Each State has the duty to enact legislation relating to nationality and other related matters arising in connection with State succession without undue delay. This is exactly what happened in the case of the emergence of a number of new independent states. For example, simultaneously with the division of Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic adopted the Law on the Acquisition and Loss of Citizenship on December 29, 1992, and Croatia, with the declaration of its independence on June 28, 1991, adopted the Law on Citizenship.

The granting of citizenship in connection with the succession of States occurs on the date of the succession of States. The same applies to the acquisition of nationality through the exercise of an option if, during the period between the date of the succession of States and the date of the exercise of such an option, the persons concerned would become stateless. The successor State is not obliged to grant its nationality to the persons concerned if they have their habitual residence in another State and also have the nationality of that or any other State. The successor State shall not grant its nationality to affected persons having their habitual residence in another State against the will of the affected persons unless they would otherwise become stateless.

When the acquisition or loss of nationality due to State succession affects the unity of a family, the States concerned shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the family remains united or reunified. In treaties concluded after the First World War, the general policy was to ensure that members of a family acquired the same nationality as the head of the family, whether the latter acquired it automatically or by option. The principle of family unity, for example, was enshrined in Art. 37, 85, 91, 116 and 113 of the Peace Treaty between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany of 1919; Art. 78-82 Peace Treaty between the Allied and Associated Powers and Austria, 1919; Art. 9 of the Tartu Peace Treaty of December 11, 1920 regarding the cession of the Petsamo region by Russia to Finland; Art. 21 and 31-36 of the Treaty of Lausanne 1923

When part or parts of the territory of a State are separated from that State and form one or more successor States, while the predecessor State continues to exist, the successor State grants its nationality to: a) the persons concerned having their habitual residence in its territory; b) having a proper legal connection with the administrative-territorial entity of the predecessor state, which became part of this successor state.

The principle of habitual residence was applied in the creation of the Free City of Danzig (Article 105 of the Treaty of Versailles, 1919) and the dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (Article 70 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain, 1919). It was later used during the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan in 1971, and when Ukraine (Article 2 of the Law on Citizenship of Ukraine 1991) and Belarus (Article 2 of the Law on Citizenship of the Republic of Belarus 1991) became independent after the collapse of the USSR. The "place of birth" criterion was applied in the case of the separation of Eritrea from Ethiopia in 1993.

28.The law of international treaties, its sources and codification.

Law of international treaties - This is a branch of international law, which is a set of international legal norms governing the relations of subjects of international law regarding the conclusion, execution and termination of international treaties.

The main sources of the law of international treaties are the conventions developed by the UN International Law Commission:

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
1969;

Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Relation
agreement on international treaties of 1978;

UN Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between Governments
donations and international organizations in 1986

The term "international treaty"

According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, the term "treaty" means an international agreement concluded between States in writing and governed by international law, whether such agreement is contained in a single document, in two or more related documents, and also regardless of its specific name.

Law of the Republic of Belarus dated October 23, 1991 No. 1188-ХП “On international treaties of the Republic of Belarus” (as amended by the Law dated November 15, 2004 .\ g d 331-3 defines an international treaty of the Republic of Belarus as an interstate, intergovernmental or international agreement of interdepartmental nature, concluded in writing by the Republic of Belarus with a foreign state (foreign states) and (or) with an international organization (international organizations), which is governed by international law, regardless of whether the agreement is contained in one document or in several related documents, and also regardless of its specific name and method of conclusion (treaty, agreement, convention, decision, pact, protocol, exchange of letters or notes, etc.).

29. Procedure for concluding contracts.

The conclusion of an international treaty consists of two stages:

1) agreement of wills regarding the text of the agreement;

2) agreement of wills regarding obligation before
dialect

First stage concluding a bilateral treaty consists of conducting negotiations between the parties and reaching agreement with the developed text, and when concluding a multilateral treaty, this stage consists of developing and adopting the text of the treaty by an international conference or body of an international organization.

To participate in negotiations, a representative must have authority. Without the need to present credentials, the following are considered to represent their state:

a) heads of state, heads of government and ministers
foreign affairs - for the purpose of carrying out all acts regarding
those seeking to conclude an agreement;

b) heads of diplomatic missions - for the purpose of
adoption of the text of the agreement between the accrediting state
state and the state in which they are accredited;

c) representatives authorized by states to
present them at an international conference or in an international
native organization, or in one of its bodies, - for the purpose of
adoption of the text of the treaty at such a conference, in such
organization or such body.

Once the text of the contract has been agreed upon and adopted, it becomes necessary to somehow record that this text is final and is not subject to change by the authorized representatives. The procedure by which the adopted text of a treaty is declared final is called establishing the authenticity of the text. This is a special substage in the conclusion of an international treaty, since every government, before taking on obligations under the treaty, must know exactly what its final content is. The procedure for establishing the authenticity of a text is determined either in the text itself, or by agreement between the contracting states. Currently, the following forms of establishing the authenticity of the text of international treaties are used: initialing, inclusion of the text of the treaty in the final act of the international conference at which it was adopted, inclusion of the text of the treaty in the resolution of an international organization, etc. In addition, if after the adoption of the text of the international treaty there is its signing, then the conclusion of the contract, as it were, bypasses the stage of establishing the authenticity of the text.

Initialing - This is the authentication of the text of a treaty by the initials of the authorized contracting states as evidence that this agreed text of the treaty is final. Initialing can only apply to individual articles and is usually used when concluding bilateral agreements. Since it is not essentially a signing, since it does not express the state’s consent to be bound by an international treaty, no special powers are required for this procedure. Its purpose is to be evidence of the final agreement on the text of an international treaty. Once initialed, the text cannot be changed even by agreement between the authorized representatives. Initialing allows you to avoid possible disputes and misunderstandings regarding the final wording of the provisions of the contract. This is also its importance. But initialing does not replace signing a contract.

Second stage The conclusion of an international treaty consists of individual actions of states, which, depending on the terms of a particular treaty, may be different.

The consent of a state to be bound by a treaty can be expressed by signing the treaty, exchanging documents forming the treaty, ratifying the treaty, accepting it, approving it, joining it, or in any other way agreed upon by the parties.

Signing the contract depending on the terms of the agreement, it may be the completion of the process of its conclusion (if the agreement comes into force from the moment of signing) or one of the stages of conclusion (if the agreement requires ratification or approval). Ratification - This is the act of approval of a treaty by one of the highest bodies of the state, which expresses consent to be bound by the treaty. Treaties that provide for it or in respect of which the corresponding intention of the parties is otherwise established are subject to mandatory ratification. Approval, acceptance those agreements are subject to which the parties have provided for this procedure and which are not subject to ratification. Joining - It is the act of consenting to be bound by a treaty already concluded by other states. The possibility of accession must be provided for in the agreement itself or agreed upon with its participants.

30.Form and structure of the agreement.

The form of the contract (oral or written) is chosen by the parties, but the dominant form is the written form.

An international treaty can be called differently: convention, agreement, pact, exchange of notes.

The agreement consists of three parts:

preamble(contains an indication of the motives and purposes of the agreement);

main part(determines the subject of the agreement, the rights and obligations of the parties);

final part(establishes the procedure for the entry into force of the agreement and the duration of its validity).

The language of the agreement is determined by the parties. Usually these are the languages ​​of both contracting parties and one more - neutral. Treaties can also be concluded in the official languages ​​of the UN. The so-called alternative rule: in any listing of contracting states, their representatives, and capitals, the first place should always be the state (representative, etc.) that owns this copy of the treaty, which includes texts in both languages.

31. Duration of the agreement.

In international law, the principle “agreements must be respected” operates, according to which a party to a treaty must not only comply with this agreement, but also not enter into new ones that contradict an already concluded one. Failure to comply with this principle can lead to international legal liability.

The parties cannot rely on their internal law to justify non-fulfillment of the contract.

As for the validity of the treaty in time and space, according to the terms, contracts are divided into fixed-term, open-ended, indefinite-term, and according to the scope of validity in space - into universal (can apply to states around the world) and regional (the participation of states of one region is assumed).

III. Philosophy requires a science that determines the possibility, principles and scope of all a priori knowledge

IV. Write-off, change in the amount of an estimated liability

Lt;question>What principles should be followed during standardization?

V. All theoretical sciences based on reason contain a priori synthetic judgments as principles