The principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations. Conscientious fulfillment of an international obligation and its principles Principle of conscientious compliance with international obligations
The principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations, which has come down to us from ancient times, is one of the basic principles of international law. Among the ancient Romans, it was expressed by the formula pacta sunt servanda - “agreements must be fulfilled.” In paragraph 2 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter stipulates that UN member states are obliged to conscientiously fulfill their obligations under the UN Charter, i.e. International obligations must not only be observed, but their requirements must be fulfilled in good faith. Despite the fact that the above provision of the UN Charter literally applies only to members of the UN and the obligations under the Charter of this organization, in international law it is customary to interpret it broadly and apply to all subjects of international law, as well as all types of international obligations. These obligations may arise from general and special international treaties, international custom, and from binding decisions international bodies and organizations (for example, the International Court of Justice, the UN Security Council, etc.).
The concept of faithful fulfillment of international obligations is enshrined in many treaties, resolutions of the UN General Assembly, decisions of the International Court of Justice, and in declarations of states. However, from a legal point of view, the most important international instruments, in addition to the UN Charter, which enshrines this principle, are the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations of 1986. Article 26 of the 1969 Convention states: “Every international treaty in force is binding on its parties and must be implemented by them in good faith.” This Convention goes on to say: “A party (to the agreement - V.K., L.T.) cannot invoke the provisions of its internal law as an excuse for its failure to fulfill the agreement” (Article 27). This rule is aimed at prohibiting unilateral arbitrary refusal to fulfill obligations under the contract. The 1969 Convention also emphasizes that an international treaty must be interpreted in good faith (Article 31), of course, with a view to its fair implementation. Because without a correct understanding of the content of the agreement, one can hardly count on its fair application.
States, as the main subjects of international law, have many obligations arising from various international agreements. According to Art. 103 of the UN Charter, the obligations under this Charter are preferable for states, i.e. if there are contradictions between statutory obligations and obligations under other international treaties, the former must be fulfilled. Today it is widely recognized that states and other subjects of international law should not enter into transactions with each other that are contrary to the UN Charter.
For the current stage of development of international law, the internal aspect of this process also plays an important role in the implementation of the principle of good faith in the fulfillment of international obligations. This means that states must make every effort to harmonize domestic legislation and practice in accordance with international obligations. This need is noted in many documents of the OSCE and the Council of Europe.
The principle of peaceful resolution of disputes
One of the innovations of modern international law is the principle of peaceful resolution of disputes between states. Classical international law did not know such a principle, therefore war was considered a legitimate means of achieving the goal of the foreign policy of states, although certain steps to introduce the rule of peaceful resolution of disputes were made by the international community back in the late 19th - early 20th centuries. The Peace Conference in The Hague in 1899 began the period modern history judicial resolution of international disputes. Various delegations put forward proposals for the creation of a permanent international court. On October 29, 1899, the conference adopted the Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, which codified the law and practice of good offices, mediation and arbitration, and provided for the establishment of a Permanent Court of Arbitration. The Second Peace Conference, which took place in The Hague in 1907, revised this convention, maintaining and strengthening the new court. Ultimately, 47 states acceded to the 1899 Convention, the 1907 Convention, or both.
So, in Art. 2 of the Hague Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes of 1907 stated that states “before resorting to arms” should “seek, as far as circumstances permit,” the peaceful means of good offices and mediation. “However,” as the International Court of Justice noted in its decision in the Norwegian Loan case of July 6, 1957, “the purpose of the said agreement, namely the Second Hague Convention of 1907 for the Limitation of the Use of Force in the Collection of Debts under Treaties, is not to introduce compulsory arbitration; the only obligation imposed by the Convention is that a State cannot resort to force without having tried arbitration."
The Charter of the League of Nations enshrined the provision on the mandatory recourse of states to peaceful means of resolving disputes that “may entail a rupture.” At the same time, this document did not completely exclude war from the means of state policy.
A significant step in the formation of such a principle was made in 1928, with the conclusion of a multilateral agreement - the Paris Treaty on the renunciation of war as a weapon. national policy(Briand-Kellogg Pact). The Pact proclaimed the norm of renunciation of war as a means of resolving international disputes and as an instrument of national policy, and also recognized the need to resolve any disputes by peaceful means.
However, the principle of peaceful resolution of disputes was first enshrined in paragraph 1 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter: “All Members of the United Nations shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means so as not to endanger international peace and security and justice.” Subsequently, this principle was confirmed in the charters and documents of regional organizations (League of Arab States, Organization of American States, Organization of African Unity, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, etc.), in resolutions of the UN General Assembly, in particular in the Declaration of Principles of International Law 1970
The essence of this principle boils down to the duty of states to resolve any international disputes that threaten international peace or do not threaten it, global and regional, vital and secondary, exclusively by peaceful means. The procedure and specific means for the peaceful resolution of international disputes in accordance with the UN Charter remain at the discretion of states. Most often, states resort to diplomatic negotiations to resolve an international dispute. If an international dispute cannot be resolved by one means, another (or others) should be used. In particular, international judicial and arbitration bodies may be involved to resolve international disputes, regional organizations. Thus, within the OSCE there is a certain normative base for the peaceful resolution of international disputes - the CSCE Convention on Conciliation and Arbitration of 1992. This convention provides for such conciliation mechanisms as the Conciliation Commission, the Arbitration Tribunal for the consideration of disputes and the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Moreover, this document contains a large list of mandatory and optional procedures to be chosen by the parties to the dispute to resolve a specific international dispute, taking into account its specifics.
12. PRINCIPLE OF FAIR PERFORMANCE OF OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
One of the most important principles of modern international law is the principle of conscientious fulfillment of 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 of 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 of 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 other sources of international law 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 relating to 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.
This text is an introductory fragment. From the book Customs Code of the Russian Federation author Laws of the Russian FederationArticle 169. Application to international customs transit of the rules provided for by this Code in relation to internal customs transit 1. In case of international customs transit, the procedure for issuing a permit for international customs clearance by the customs authority
From the book Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Part one author Laws of the Russian FederationArticle 302. Claiming property from a bona fide purchaser 1. If property was acquired for compensation from a person who did not have the right to alienate it, which the acquirer did not know and could not know about (a bona fide purchaser), then the owner has the right to claim it
From the book Customs Code of the Russian Federation author State DumaArticle 169. Application to international customs transit of the rules provided for by this Code in relation to internal customs transit 1. In case of international customs transit, the procedure for issuing a permit for international customs clearance by the customs authority
From the book Civil Code Russian Federation. Parts one, two, three and four. Text with changes and additions as of May 10, 2009 author Team of authors From the book Jurisprudence author Shalagina Marina Alexandrovna29. Fulfillment of obligations. Responsibility for violation of obligations. Unilateral refusal to fulfill an obligation Fulfillment of an obligation is the completion of the action provided for in it, for example, transfer a thing, pay a sum of money, perform
From the book Customs Code of the Russian Federation. Text with changes and additions for 2009 author author unknownARTICLE 169. Application to international customs transit of the rules provided for by this Code in relation to internal customs transit 1. In case of international customs transit, the procedure for issuing a permit for international customs clearance by the customs authority
From the book Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Parts one, two, three and four. Text with changes and additions as of November 1, 2009. author author unknownArticle 302. Claiming property from a bona fide purchaser 1. If property was acquired for compensation from a person who did not have the right to alienate it, which the acquirer did not know and could not know about (a bona fide purchaser), then the owner has the right to claim it
From the book Civil Judge's Handbook author Tolcheev Nikolay Kirillovich6. Legal status of a bona fide acquirer A person who actually owns property has the right to demand in court that he be recognized as the owner of this property according to the acquisition limitation period (Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). However, such a person cannot bring a claim to court
From the book Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Parts one, two, three and four. Text with changes and additions as of October 21, 2011 author Team of authorsARTICLE 302. Claiming property from a bona fide purchaser 1. If property was acquired for compensation from a person who did not have the right to alienate it, which the acquirer did not know and could not know about (a bona fide purchaser), then the owner has the right to claim it
From the book Prosecutor's Supervision: Cheat Sheet author author unknown From the book Civil Code of the Russian Federation by GARANT From the book Cheat Sheet on Roman Law author Isaycheva Elena Andreevna47. Features of the protection of bona fide possession Bona fide possession arose when the owner of a thing did not have the right to own the thing, since it had an owner, but did not know that he did not have this right. The basis of ownership, having once arisen, could not change: the thief did not
From the book Reader alternative resolution disputes author Team of authorsOn the methodology for preparing teams for competitions in simulated international commercial arbitration E. P. DIVER, Candidate of Legal Sciences Currently, Russian law universities have increased interest in participating in international competitions in simulation (judicial)
From the book Civil Law. Part 2, 3. Cheat sheet author Borisova Sofya Alexandrovna1. Concept, elements and types of purchase and sale agreement. Rights and obligations of the parties Sale and purchase is an agreement under which one party (seller) undertakes to transfer an item (goods) into the ownership of the other party (buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this goods and pay for
From the book Criminal Law of Ukraine. Zagalna part. author Veresha Roman Viktorovich§ 3. The principle of justice (individualization) of individuality and the principle of economy of criminal repression This principle means that punishment, as a stagnation of the court to an individual criminal, may be between the law, specific and individual with regard to the gravity of the offense
From the book International Legal Models of the European Union and the Customs Union: comparative analysis author Morozov Andrey Nikolaevich§ 2. Features of the fulfillment of contractual obligations by the European Union Since European Union according to its constituent treaties, is endowed with the legal capacity to conclude international treaties on issues within the competence of the Union, it can be concluded that
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 general principle 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 a legal principle in the UN Charter was 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 fields of international relations, with the aim of 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 separate categories 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 make unreasonable demands for self-determination (the right to secede), which is detrimental to territorial integrity state, violation of 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 legal status personality. 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 responsibility to promote, through individual 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 the 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 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 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 progressive development This principle was laid down in 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 singled out “territorial integrity” as 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. Every year, the message of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly stated that “territorial integrity covers 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 inviolability of borders was formed The final act 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 relationships. 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 on 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.
This principle is special: it contains the source of legal force of the entire MP. International law, with all its foundations and every rule, is based on the principle of conscientious fulfillment of obligations.
The principle entered international law from Roman law as custom “pacta sunt servanda” “contracts must be respected.”
Subsequently, it was consolidated and developed in many international acts:
in the preamble to the Statute of the League of Nations;
UN Charter (preamble, art. 2, 103);
Statute of the International Court of Justice (Article 38);
Declaration of principles of MP;
Final Act of the CSCE;
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 (preamble, art. 26, 31, 46);
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations, 1986, etc.
According to the Declaration of Principles of MP, this principle includes the responsibility in good faith meet commitments:
a) arising from the norms and principles of international business;
b) arising from international treaties;
c) adopted in accordance with the UN Charter.
The principle of “pacta sunt servanda” (“contracts must be respected”) is therefore only part of the principle of faithful performance of obligations. At the same time, it remains an independent industry principle law of international treaties.
If treaty obligations conflict with obligations under the UN Charter, obligations under the UN Charter shall prevail.
It should be borne in mind that international obligations may arise from certain acts international organizations , from unilateral acts of MP subjects.
An integral part of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of obligations is the principle integrity. It means that states must approach the application and selection of international law norms honestly, accurately and responsibly, and be sensitive to the interests of partners and all international community, taking into account the factual circumstances, the letter and spirit of the law, to prevent abuse of law.
States should not assume obligations that conflict with existing obligations to third countries.
The internal law of states must be consistent and harmonized with the obligations under the international law. States are not entitled to invoke their legislation to justify failure to comply with international obligations.
From the Law “On International Treaties”
Russian Federation" 1995
...The Russian Federation stands for strict compliance with treaty and customary norms, reaffirms its commitment to the fundamental principle of international law - the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations...
If obligations under MP are not fulfilled or are performed in bad faith, sanctions must follow and liability must arise (provided that there are no circumstances that exempt from liability).
The principle of faithful fulfillment of international legal obligations is closely related to the principle reciprocity. If a state violates its obligations under some norm of international law, then it should not lay claim to the rights that flow from the norm.
Denying a state that has violated a norm the right arising from this norm is the most common sanction (reprisal) for offense .
In 2005, some Ukrainian officials announced a possible unilateral revision (for worse) of the conditions of stay of the Russian navy in the city of Sevastopol on the Black Sea. These conditions are contained in the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, which, among other things, recognized the current border between the countries.
Ukraine’s unilateral revision of the conditions for the stay of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea can (and should) entail a revision of borders, bearing in mind that Sevastopol and Crimea are primordially Russian territories.
The question of the fate (return) of Sevastopol and Crimea to our country should also be raised if Ukraine enters into NATO and/or EU .