The principle of non-use of force and threat of force. The principle of non-use of force or threat of force in the context of intensifying global processes Violation of the principle of non-use of force or threat of force

This principle arose in international law in 1928. In 1928, the Paris Pact was adopted to renounce war as a weapon national policy. According to this pact, states must not use force or the threat of force to achieve their interests in international relations.

After the adoption of the UN Charter, this principle became one of the main ones. According to this principle, the use of force in international relations in any situation is prohibited.

According to the UN Charter, not only the use of armed force is prohibited, but also unarmed violence, which is in the nature of an unlawful use of force. The term “force”, which is contained in paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter, is subject to a broad interpretation. Thus, in paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the Charter we're talking about, first of all, on the prohibition of the use of armed force, but already in The final act The CSCE states the obligation of participating states to “refrain from all manifestations of force for the purpose of coercing another participating state,” and “to refrain from any act of economic coercion.” Consequently, modern international law prohibits the unlawful use of force, both armed and in the broad sense - in any of its manifestations.

However, special attention should be paid to the concept of “lawful use of armed force”. The UN Charter provides for two cases of lawful use of armed force: for the purposes of self-defense (Article 51) and by decision of the UN Security Council in the event of a threat to the peace, a violation of the peace or an act of aggression (Articles 39 and 42).

Articles 41 and 50 of the UN Charter contain provisions authorizing the lawful use of unarmed force. These types of measures include “full or partial break economic relations, railway, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio or other means of communication, as well as severance of diplomatic relations."

The use of armed force in self-defense is lawful in the event of an armed attack on the state. Article 51 of the UN Charter expressly excludes the use of armed force by one state against another if the latter takes economic or political measures. In such situations, or even if there is a threat of attack, a country can resort to retaliatory measures only if the principle of proportionality is respected.

Within the UN structure, one of the main bodies responsible for maintaining international peace and security is the Security Council, which, if it considers the non-armed measures recommended for resolving conflicts to be insufficient, “is authorized to take such action by air, sea or ground forces such as may prove necessary for the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security. Such actions may include demonstrations, blockades and other operations by air, sea or ground forces of Members of the Organization" (Article 42).

The UN Charter does not contain a complete list of specific coercive measures. The Security Council may decide to apply other measures not specifically listed in the Charter.

The principle under consideration also includes a ban on aggressive wars. According to the 1974 Definition of Aggression, the first use of armed force by a state can be qualified as an aggressive war, which is an international crime and gives rise to the international legal responsibility of the state and the international criminal liability of the guilty individuals. The actions of the aggressors were qualified, according to the Charters of the Nuremberg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals, as international crimes.

6. The principle of non-use of force or threat of force. Definition

Aggression. Examples.

Increasing in geometric progression The democratization of international relations inevitably leads to an ever-increasing use of the principle of limiting the use of force and the threat of force. For the first time this objective pattern was enshrined as a principle international law in the UN Charter, in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 2 of which “all Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force either against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the Objectives United Nations".

Subsequently, the above formula of the Charter was specified in documents adopted in the form of UN resolutions. These include the aforementioned Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, the Definition of Aggression of 1974, the CSCE Final Act of 1975 and a number of other documents of the Helsinki Process, as well as the Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Threat or Use of Force in International Relations of 1987.

The obligation not to use force is clearly universal. It applies to all states, since the need to maintain international peace and security requires that all states, and not just UN members, adhere to this principle in their relations with each other.

According to the UN Charter, not only the use of armed force is prohibited, but also unarmed violence, which is in the nature of an unlawful use of force. The term “force”, which is contained in paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, is subject to a broad interpretation. Thus, paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the Charter refers, first of all, to the prohibition of the use of armed force, but already in the Final Act of the CSCE the obligation of participating states is indicated to “refrain from all manifestations of force for the purpose of coercing another participating state,” “to refrain from any act of economic coercion." Consequently, modern international law prohibits the unlawful use of force, both armed and in the broad sense - in any of its manifestations.

However, special attention should be paid to the concept of “lawful use of armed force”. The UN Charter provides for two cases of lawful use of armed force: for the purposes of self-defense (Article 51) and by decision of the UN Security Council in the event of a threat to the peace, a violation of the peace or an act of aggression (Articles 39 and 42).

Articles 41 and 50 of the UN Charter contain provisions authorizing the lawful use of unarmed force. Such measures include “a complete or partial interruption of economic relations, railway, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio or other means of communication, as well as the severance of diplomatic relations.”

The use of armed force in self-defense is lawful in the event of an armed attack on the state. Article 51 of the UN Charter expressly excludes the use of armed force by one state against another if the latter takes economic or political measures. In such situations, or even if there is a threat of attack, a country can resort to retaliatory measures only if the principle of proportionality is respected.

Within the UN structure, one of the main bodies responsible for maintaining international peace and security is the Security Council, which, if it considers the non-armed measures recommended for resolving conflicts to be insufficient, “is authorized to take such actions by air, sea or ground forces as may be necessary.” to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such actions may include demonstrations, blockades and other operations by air, sea or ground forces of Members of the Organization” (Article 42).

The UN Charter does not contain a complete list of specific coercive measures. The Security Council may decide to apply other measures not specifically listed in the Charter.

The principle under consideration also includes a ban on aggressive wars. According to the 1974 Definition of Aggression, the first use of armed force by a state can be qualified as an aggressive war, which is an international crime and gives rise to the international legal responsibility of the state and the international criminal responsibility of the guilty individuals. The actions of the aggressors were qualified, according to the Charters of the Nuremberg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals, as international crimes.

In addition, the literature notes that the normative content of the principle of non-use of force should include: prohibition of occupation of the territory of another state in violation of international law; prohibition of acts of reprisal involving the use of force; provision by a state of its territory to another state, which uses it to commit aggression against a third state; organizing, inciting, assisting or participating in acts of civil war or terrorist acts in another state; organizing or encouraging the organization of armed bands, irregular forces, in particular mercenaries, to invade the territory of another state; violence against international demarcation and armistice lines; blockade of ports or coasts of a state; any violent actions that prevent peoples from exercising their legitimate right to self-determination, as well as other violent actions.

Closer attention should be paid to the Principles of International Law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and expressed in the decision of this Tribunal.

Thus, any person who has committed any action recognized, according to international law, as a crime, is responsible for it and is subject to punishment. The fact that there is no punishment under domestic law for any act recognized as a crime under international law, or that any person who committed an act recognized as a crime under international law was acting as a head of state or a responsible official of government or in Carrying out an order from one's government or superior does not relieve the person who committed the act from liability under international law.

Of particular historical significance is the fact that if a person acted contrary to the norms and principles of international law, despite the fact that a conscious choice between an illegal and a lawful action was actually possible for him, this act does not relieve this person from responsibility under international law. right.

Every person accused of an international crime has the right to a fair hearing based on the facts and law.

The Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal includes the following as international crimes:

1) crimes against peace:

a) planning, preparing, unleashing or waging aggressive war or war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

b) participation in a common plan or conspiracy aimed at carrying out any of the actions;

2) war crimes: violation of the laws and customs of war and, including, but not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for other purposes of the civilian population of occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons at sea , killing hostages or looting cities and villages or devastation not justified by military necessity;

3) crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed against the civilian population, or persecution on political, racial or religious grounds, if such acts are committed or such persecutions take place in the execution of any war crime against peace or any war crime or in connection with such.

7. The principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes. Contents and specific methods of its application. Examples.

This principle of international law is enshrined in paragraph 3 of Article 2 of the UN Charter as follows: “All Members of the United Nations shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner as not to endanger international peace and security and justice.” International law that existed before both world wars recommended that states resort to peaceful means of resolving international disputes, but did not oblige them to follow this procedure.

At the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907. The Convention on the Peaceful Resolution of International Disputes was developed and adopted, the purpose of which was to summarize the rules for the use of good offices and mediation, the formation and functioning of international arbitration courts and commissions of inquiry. For example, according to Article 2 of the said Convention, in the event of an important disagreement or conflict, the contracting powers agreed, “before resorting to arms, to have recourse, so far as circumstances permit, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly powers.” Thus, recourse to peaceful means of resolving international disputes depended entirely on the discretion of each of the disputing parties.

The Statute of the League of Nations, adopted in 1919, turned out to be a more progressive document from the point of view of international law - it provided for the mandatory use in certain cases of certain means of peaceful resolution of international disputes (arbitration and judicial proceedings, appeal to the Council or Assembly of the League). A very significant drawback was that it did not contain a clearly formulated principle of the peaceful resolution of international disputes, and also allowed war as a legitimate means of resolving disputes.

Under Article 12 of the Statute, members of the League of Nations were required to submit a dispute “likely to cause a rupture” to arbitration or judicial proceedings or to the Council of the League. At the same time, they pledged not to resort to war within a three-month period after an arbitration or court decision or a report of the Council. According to Article 13 of the Statute, the disputing states agreed to submit disputes of a legal nature that could not be resolved diplomatically to arbitration or judicial proceedings. At the same time, other members of the League pledged not to resort to war against the disputing party that would comply with the arbitration or court decision. Consequently, war against the other disputing party was permitted.

The next step towards recognition of the principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes was the adoption in 1928 of the Paris Treaty on the Renunciation of War (the so-called Kellogg-Briand Pact), Article II of which directly states: “The High Contracting Parties recognize that the settlement or resolution of all powerful disputes or conflicts arising between them, whatever their nature or whatever their origin, must always be sought only through peaceful means.”

Of course, the next stage in the development of the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes was the Charter of the United Nations. According to Article 33 of the UN Charter, parties to a dispute “shall first endeavor to resolve the dispute by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, litigation, recourse to regional bodies or agreements, or other peaceful means of their choice.”

Under modern international law, states are obligated to resolve their disputes only by peaceful means. The general provision of paragraph 3 of Article 2 applies to all disputes, including those the continuation of which may not threaten international peace. According to paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Charter, international disputes must be resolved in accordance with the principles of “justice and international law”, therefore, peaceful means are mandatory for the resolution of any international disputes.

The UN Charter gives the parties to a dispute the freedom to choose such peaceful means as they consider most appropriate to resolve the dispute. Among the peaceful means of resolving international disputes, diplomatic negotiations are most often used, since they best meet the task of quickly resolving an international dispute, guarantee equality of the parties, can be used to resolve both political and legal disputes, best contribute to reaching a compromise, and provide an opportunity to begin settling a conflict immediately upon its occurrence helps prevent the dispute from growing to such a scale that it could threaten international peace and security.

The adoption by the UN General Assembly in 1982 of the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes and in 1988 of the Declaration on the Prevention and Elimination of Disputes and Situations That May Threaten International Peace and Security was essential for the establishment in the practice of international relations of the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes. and about the role of the UN in this area. Both documents certainly played a role important role, recognizing the responsibility of states for the prevention and resolution of disputes and situations, at the same time emphasize the important role that the UN and its bodies can play in this regard.

States are obliged to resolve their international disputes exclusively by peaceful means, and such important subjects of international law simply do not have the right to leave their international disputes unresolved. This means a requirement for a speedy resolution of an international dispute and the need to continue to search for ways of settlement if the method of settlement mutually agreed upon by the disputing parties does not bring positive results.

States have the right to freely choose, by mutual agreement, specific means of peaceful settlement of disputes and conflicts arising between them, which stems from the principles of sovereign equality of states and non-interference in their internal and external affairs.

Various sources of international law solve the problem of choosing peaceful means of resolving international conflicts in their own way. Thus, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea provides for four mandatory dispute settlement procedures, each of which a state party can choose by written declaration when signing or ratifying the Convention: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, international Court UN, arbitration established in accordance with Annex VII to the Convention, special arbitration established in accordance with Annex VIII to the Convention.

Article IX of the 1967 Treaty Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, provides for consultations if any State party to the treaty has reason to believe that the activity or experiment of one State could potentially create harmful interference to the space activities of other states.

The 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects provides a procedure for the settlement of disputes regarding compensation for damage: if negotiations between the parties to a dispute do not lead to a resolution of the dispute within one year, at the request of either party, the dispute is referred to the Claims Commission with the features of a conciliation, investigative and arbitration body.

The member states of the UN, in accordance with the Charter, have undertaken the obligation to “carry out by peaceful means, in accordance with the principles of justice and international law, the settlement or resolution of international disputes and situations that may lead to a violation of the peace” (Clause 1 of Article 1).

According to Article 33 of the UN Charter, states involved in any dispute, the continuation of which might threaten the maintenance of international peace and security, must first seek to resolve the dispute through “negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial proceedings, recourse to regional bodies or agreements.” or by other peaceful means of your choice.”

It seems appropriate to consider in detail each of the means of peaceful settlement of disputes, including good offices not mentioned in the UN Charter:

1. Negotiations are the most accessible and effective means of peaceful resolution of disputes. They play a leading role among other peaceful means. Specific goals, composition of participants and other procedural issues are agreed upon by the disputing parties themselves. In accordance with the basic principles and norms of modern international law, negotiations must be conducted on an equal basis, excluding violation of the sovereign will of the interested parties.

2. Consultations between the parties - began to be used on a large scale after the Second World War. The procedure for mandatory consultations based on the voluntary consent of the parties allows the use of a dual function of consultations: as an independent means of resolving disputes and for the prevention of possible disputes and conflicts, and also, depending on the circumstances, as a means for the disputing parties to reach an agreement on the use of other means of settlement. In the literature, consultations are often called a type of negotiation.

3. An examination is a means of peaceful settlement that is resorted to in cases where the disputing parties disagree in their assessment of the factual circumstances that give rise to the dispute or have led to the dispute. To carry out the examination procedure, the parties create an international investigative commission on a parity basis, sometimes headed by a representative of a third state or an international organization. The commission of inquiry must be established on the basis of a special agreement between the disputing parties. The agreement defines the facts to be investigated, the procedure and period for the formation of the commission, the scope of powers of its members, as well as the location of the commission, its right to move, the period within which each disputing party will have to submit its statement of facts, etc. The results of the commission's work are recorded in a report, which should be limited only to establishing facts. The parties retain complete freedom to use the findings of the investigative commission at their discretion.

4. Reconciliation (conciliation procedure) - not only clarification of factual circumstances, but also the development of specific recommendations of the parties. When applying the conciliation procedure, the parties, as in the case of a survey, form an international conciliation commission on a parity basis, which develops its recommendations, and the conclusions of the conciliation commission are optional, i.e. are not legally binding on the parties involved in the dispute.

5. Good offices are a means of resolving an international dispute carried out by a party not participating in the dispute. These actions can be aimed at establishing contacts between the disputing parties; good offices can be provided either in response to a request from one or both disputing parties, or at the initiative of the third party itself. Good offices often develop into mediation.

6. Mediation - involves the direct participation of a third party in the peaceful resolution of the dispute. By participating in negotiations between the disputing parties, the mediator is called upon to assist in every possible way in developing a solution to the dispute acceptable to these parties. He has the right to offer his own options for such a resolution, although the mediator’s proposals are not binding for the disputing parties.

7. International arbitration is a voluntary agreement of the disputants to submit their dispute to a third party (arbitration), whose decision is binding on the parties to the dispute. The mandatory recognition and execution of the decision is the main thing that distinguishes the arbitration procedure from the above means of peaceful settlement of disputes. There are two types of arbitration bodies: permanent arbitration and ad hoc arbitration. There are three main ways to submit a case to international arbitration: a special agreement (compromise), which submits an existing dispute to arbitration; a special provision (compromise clause) in various contracts providing for the referral to arbitration of disputes that may arise from the interpretation or application of the contract; general arbitration agreements providing for the submission to arbitration of any disputes that may arise between the parties (mandatory arbitration). The parties often stipulate that disputes affecting the vital interests, independence or honor of the parties are not subject to arbitration. A single arbitrator (necessarily outside the disputing states), a group of arbitrators from third states, a group of arbitrators on a parity basis from the states participating in the dispute, with a neutral chairman-super-arbiter, can act as a third party in resolving a dispute. The disputing parties themselves determine the competence of arbitration, limiting it to the scope of the subject of their dispute.

8. Judicial proceedings are fundamentally similar to arbitration proceedings. However, the decision rendered by the court is final and legally binding on the parties to the dispute.

The first permanent international court was the Permanent Court of International Justice, the Statute of which was adopted by the Assembly of the League of Nations in 1920. The Chamber ceased to exist in 1946. Currently, the main judicial body of the international community is the International Court of Justice. The Court operates on the basis of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, which, in turn, is an integral part of the UN Charter, as well as the Rules of the Court.

Within the United Nations, it is customary to use the following means and methods for resolving international disputes. The UN Security Council, in the event of a dispute or situation, has the power to “recommend an appropriate procedure or methods of settlement”, taking into account the procedure that has already been adopted by the parties. Disputes of a legal nature must, as general rule, be submitted by the parties to the International Court of Justice (Article 36 of the UN Charter).

To prevent the situation from deteriorating in the event of a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression, the Security Council may “require from the parties concerned the implementation of such temporary measures as it finds necessary or desirable” (Article 40). These temporary measures (the creation of fully or partially demilitarized zones, the freezing of the claims of the parties, the withdrawal of troops, the establishment of temporary demarcation lines) must not prejudice the rights, claims or position of the parties concerned.

An analysis of the principle of the peaceful settlement of international disputes, as enshrined in the 1970 Declaration of Principles of International Law and the Final Act of the CSCE, shows that the enshrined duty of states “to make efforts to short term reach a fair solution based on international law”, “continue to seek mutually agreed means of peaceful settlement of the dispute” in cases where the dispute cannot be resolved, “refrain from any action that could worsen the situation to such an extent that it would jeopardize maintaining international peace and security, and thereby making a peaceful settlement of the dispute more difficult" is a progressive achievement.

The content of the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes in last years became the subject of careful analysis at CSCE expert meetings on the peaceful settlement of disputes. The final document of the 1991 Valletta Meeting provided for the creation in Europe of a special body - the “CSCE Dispute Settlement Mechanism”, which can be used at the request of any of the disputing parties and acts as a conciliation body. In addition, the document recommends a wide range of mandatory and optional procedures, from which the disputing parties freely choose those they consider most suitable for resolving a particular dispute.

Consequently, we can note both a qualitative and quantitative increase in peaceful means of resolving international disputes, as well as the desire of states to bring the normative content of the principle of resolving international disputes through peaceful means into line with the needs of social practice.

8. The principle of non-interference in internal affairs, which are essentially within the internal competence of the state. Examples.

The principle of non-interference as a general principle of interstate relations began to take shape in the era of bourgeois-democratic revolutions, although at that time it was applied to a limited extent, since international law in many cases allowed various forms of intervention in the internal affairs of states, including armed intervention.

Currently, the principle of non-interference is defined in paragraph 7 of Article 2 of the UN Charter and in such authoritative international documents as the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, the Final Act of the CSCE, the UN Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Internal Affairs of States, on the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty from December 21, 1965 and others.

In accordance with paragraph 7 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, the Organization does not have the right “to interfere in matters essentially within the internal competence of any state,” and interference is understood as any measures taken by states or international organizations, with the help of which the latter will try to prevent the subject of international law from resolving matters that are essentially within its internal competence.

The resolution of the issue of cases falling within the domestic jurisdiction of states is often controversial in practice. It should be remembered that with the development of international cooperation, the number of issues that states voluntarily subject to international regulation increases. However, the concept of non-intervention does not automatically mean that states can arbitrarily attribute any issues to their internal competence. The international obligations of states, including their obligations under the UN Charter, are a criterion that allows for the correct approach to resolving this issue.

To analyze the control of international security, the priority is to consider the principle of non-use of force or threat of force, first enshrined in the UN Charter (Clause 4 of Article 2 and Article 51).

The idea of ​​​​the inadmissibility of resolving controversial issues between states through war has been expressed by thinkers and politicians in many countries since ancient times. However, it was only able to find its embodiment in contractual form in the twentieth century.

In relation to the realities that arose on the territory of the former Soviet Union after its collapse, the issue of the non-use of force was very acute. As is known, Russian leadership were often accused of being ready to use armed force to restore the USSR or to achieve concessions from their closest neighbors (for example, to change borders). Moreover, some of Russia’s actions in the so-called. “near abroad” were clearly interpreted as aggression against new independent states. It was in this formulation that the Georgian leadership assessed the actions of the Russian military on the territory A Bhazia in the first months of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict; The President of Moldova M. Snegur also spoke about Russia’s “military aggression” after the intervention of the 14th Army in the conflict in Transnistria. Currently, part of the Tajik opposition insists that the presence of the Russian 201st division on the territory of Tajikistan can also be qualified as Moscow’s “aggression” against this country. Accordingly, Russia was accused of violating “generally recognized norms of international law,” including the UN Charter, and from the UN itself, in the person of its Security Council, “victims of aggression” demanded that immediate and most severe measures be taken to punish the aggressor.

Appearing in international law between the two wars, first as a principle prohibiting aggressive war, the principle of non-use of force or threat of force replaced the previously existing jus ad bellum of states. . The interpretation of this principle is given in the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States of 1970, the Manila Declaration for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes1982 ., Definition of aggression adopted by the General And the UN Assembly in 1974 ., the Final Act of the 1975 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Paris Charter of Peace for Europe and the Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, adopted by the General Assembly A UN Assembly on November 18 1987, etc.

According to the principle of the prohibition of the use or threat of force, all UN member states "will refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force, either against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations" ( clause 4 article 2).

A Analysis of documents revealing the content of the principle of non-use of force or threat of force leads to the conclusion that the following are prohibited:

1) any actions constituting a threat of force or direct or indirect use of force against another state;

2) the use of force or threat of force to violate existing international borders another state or to resolve international disputes, including territorial disputes and issues relating to state borders, or to violate international demarcation lines, including armistice lines;

3) reprisals using armed force; These prohibited actions include, in particular, the so-called “peaceful blockade”, i.e. blockade of the ports of another state carried out by armed forces in peacetime;

4) organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed gangs, including mercenaries;

5) organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil war or condoning organizational activities within one’s own territory, aimed at committing such acts, in the case where said acts involve the threat or use of force;

6) military occupation of the territory of a state resulting from the use of force in violation of the UN Charter:

· acquisition of territory of another state as a result of the threat or use of force;

· violent actions that deprive peoples of the right to self-determination, freedom and independence.

The practice of recent years confirms that the task of unconditionally affirming the principle of non-use of force in international life, unfortunately, has not faded away, but, on the contrary, has become even more relevant. Since the creation of the UN, humanity has come a long way, the world has changed significantly. These changes simultaneously bring with them new opportunities and new dangers.

International security, as noted in the Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, approved at the 42nd Session of the General Assembly And the UN assembly in 1987 ., must be based on the principles of non-use of force, peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems and the right of free choice and independent development of each country.

The declaration consistently maintains that international security is made up of security in various regions, and states that states party to regional agreements or bodies should consider making greater use of such agreements and bodies to resolve issues related to the maintenance of international peace and security , in accordance with Art. 52 of the UN Charter. Thus, the declaration reflected the idea, which has not lost its relevance today, that everyone should be involved in the struggle for universal security, to eliminate war from the life of society. international institutions and forms, and above all such a universal body for cooperation between states as the United Nations.

Thus, the provisions of the UN Charter and the declarations developing them oblige all UN members to peacefully resolve all disputes that may threaten international peace and security. The fact that these provisions of the UN Charter reflect profound changes in international law and are of exceptional importance has been widely recognized by both lawyers and governments. Far from being an expression of utopian hopes for the reconstruction of international relations, contained in Art. 2 of the UN Charter legal norms, relating to the use of force, reflect a deep and realistic assessment of the destructive potential of modern war and the greatly increased desire of governments to prevent the occurrence of such war .

The principle of peaceful settlement of disputes is also closely related to the principle of non-use of force. According to him, all disputes between states, whatever their nature and whatever their origin, must be resolved only by peaceful means.

The peaceful settlement (or resolution) of disputes is unanimously regarded as one of the basic principles of international law.

Hardly anyone would object to the assertion that conflict situations arising on the territory of the former Soviet Union should be resolved by peaceful means. The question is different: is it possible to make this principle absolute in relation to post-Soviet realities, and if not, then under what circumstances and under what conditions should this principle be abandoned? Are there any objective criteria for the development of a conflict situation that make the use of forceful methods of conflict resolution acceptable and justified?

The creation of the UN and the adoption of its Charter led to the consolidation of the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes in international law, which became generally recognized and generally binding. It is impossible not to note the fact that “The UN Charter... introduces a major innovation in international law, unconditionally requiring the resolution... of a dispute between states by one of peaceful means and, thus, excluding the possibility of declaring war.” . Consolidating the principle in a more specific and precise form allowed the UN Charter to take a step forward compared to previously existing formulations of the principle, since it, in addition to the obligation of states to resolve all disputes between them only by peaceful means, also recorded the obligation of states not to use force or the threat of force in the settlement their disputes.

In the UN Charter, the provision on the peaceful resolution of international disputes, mentioned in paragraph 1 of Art. 1, paragraph 3 of Art. 2, paragraph 4 art. 3, art. 14, art. 52, in ch. VI, VII, etc. Chapter VI provides the Security Council with the opportunity to “investigate any dispute or any situation which may lead to international friction” and “to recommend such terms for the settlement of the dispute as it may find appropriate”, however, they should not be associated with use of armed forces. In Art. 33 lists the methods for peaceful resolution of disputes: negotiations, investigation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, litigation, recourse to regional bodies or agreements, or other peaceful means at the discretion of the disputing parties. In addition, according to Art. 41 (Chapter VII), the Security Council can apply a set of measures to restore peace, also not related to the use of armed forces, which represent “a complete or partial interruption of economic relations, railway, sea, air, postal, telegraph, radio or other means of communication, as well as the severance of diplomatic relations.”

The UN Charter, therefore, not only enshrined the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes in precise and specific form, but also obliged states to resolve all disputes between them exclusively by peaceful means, without resorting to force or use of weapons.

Before the adoption of the Hague Conventions 1899 and 1907 . international law did not know this principle: after all, it allowed the possibility of resolving disputes between states not only by peaceful but also by non-peaceful means, including war. For the first time at the Hague conferences 1899 and 1907 . special conventions on the peaceful settlement of international conflicts were adopted. Art. 1 of both conventions contained a provision where the contracting powers agreed to make every effort to ensure a peaceful solution to international disagreements. But these conventions contained only an indication of resorting to peaceful means of resolving international disputes, “before resorting to arms,” “as far as circumstances permit” (Article 2).

The Geneva Protocol for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, drafted by the League of Nations in 1924, stated that war constitutes an international crime and that “any state that refused to subject the dispute to the procedure for the peaceful settlement provided for in Art. 13 and 15 of the Charter of the League of Nations, as supplemented by this Protocol, or which refused to comply with a judicial or arbitral decision or with a unanimous adopted resolution Council" (Article 10).

At the same time, the Statute of the League of Nations in certain cases allowed war as a legitimate means of resolving disputes.

The principle of peaceful settlement of disputes was further developed in the resolution of the VI Inter-American Conference of 1928 and various bilateral non-aggression treaties and conciliation procedures, providing for mandatory peaceful resolution of disputes.

The adoption of the Paris Pact on the renunciation of war in 1928 played an important role in the development of the Principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes. In Art. 2 of the Pact expressly stated: “The High Contracting Parties recognize that the settlement or resolution of all disputes or conflicts that may arise between them, whatever their nature or whatever their origin, must always be sought only through peaceful means.”

To analyze the content of the Principle of Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, it seems essential to determine the scope of application of this principle.

In the practice of international legal analysis of disagreements, in addition to the category “dispute”, the category “situation” is also used. At the present stage, there is no clear distinction between the concepts of “dispute” and “situation”, as well as a precise definition of these concepts. The Charter also does not define the concepts of “dispute” and “situation,” and an analysis of those articles of the Charter in which these concepts appear cannot serve as the basis for their clear distinction. These articles can be divided into three groups. Some articles contain only the word “dispute” (clause 3 of article 2; clause 3 of article 27; clauses 1, 2 of article 33; clause 2 of article 35; clause 1 of article 37, article 38 ; paragraphs 2, 3, Article 52, Article 95). Other articles include only the word “situation” (clause 3 of Article 11, Article 14, Article 40). The third group consists of articles with the words “dispute” and “situation” (clause 1 of article 1; clause 1 of article 12, article 34; clause 1 of article 35; clause 1 of article 36).

There are two types of disputes and situations: the continuation of some threatens international peace and security, the continuation of others does not involve such a threat. In the light of the goals of the UN, it is more important to resolve disputes and situations of the first type, however, in the context of the same goals, all disputes and situations must be resolved, because those that do not threaten international peace and are not dangerous still cause international friction. The presence of such friction makes it difficult to develop friendly relations and mutually beneficial cooperation between states and complicates the process of creating comprehensive international security.

The UN Charter does not establish criteria for dividing disputes and situations into these two categories. The resolution of this issue falls within the competence of the Security Council. According to Art. 34 of the Charter, “The Security Council is empowered to investigate any dispute or any situation which may give rise to international friction or give rise to a dispute, with a view to determining whether the continuation of that dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.” The UN has not developed general criteria for dividing disputes and situations into the specified categories. It is not possible to satisfactorily solve this complex problem primarily because the question of whether or not a dispute or situation constitutes a threat to international peace and security is determined by the specific circumstances of each particular dispute, and also depends largely on the nature of the dispute. foreign policy disputing or involved parties. In any case, it seems indisputable that the principle of the peaceful settlement of international disputes includes within its scope all international disputes and situations, whether or not they threaten international peace and security.

The essence of the principle of peaceful resolution of disputes is not only that international disputes should be resolved by peaceful means, but that they should be resolved only by peaceful means, exclusively by peaceful means, i.e. No use of force is acceptable in resolving international disputes. Prof. I.P. Blishchenko and M.L. Entin note that the provisions of the UN Charter and the 1970 Declaration of Principles of International Law that the settlement of an international dispute must be carried out “in such a way as not to endanger international peace and security and justice” and “in accordance with the principles of international law” also indicate into three essential elements characterizing the principle of peaceful resolution of disputes. The result of a peaceful settlement in no case should create a threat to international peace and security, offend the interests of third countries, create new conflict situations or, without resolving the dispute on the merits, without eliminating the causes of the conflict, leave a constant possibility of exacerbation of the “hidden conflict between states” .

The principles of non-use of force or threat of force and peaceful settlement of disputes are reflected in the main empirical provisions on which the international control UN. Principles of consent of the parties, impartiality peacekeeping forces and non-use of force are universally accepted and fundamental to both UN peacekeeping practices and international security monitoring carried out by national governments and international organizations (e.g. Commonwealth Observer Force Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Multinational Force Beirut, A slave defense forces in Lebanon).

The advantage of international control based on the above principles is obvious. It is distinguished by the ability to achieve control goals with minimal material costs and the use of a small number of military observers or military contingents. In addition, adherence to the principles of impartiality and neutrality tends to provide support local population, without which all the efforts of peacekeepers may be fruitless (this is clearly demonstrated by the experience of peacekeeping operations in Somalia and former Yugoslavia, Russian peacekeeping forces have shown themselves to be best side), and, just as importantly, guarantees the day-to-day security of military bases and personnel.

However, in the event of an escalation of violence, this approach does not provide real opportunities to influence the conflicting parties. Its negative side was demonstrated in a very brutal way during the crisis in the Middle East in 1967 . - the expulsion of the UN Emergency Force (UNEF I) from Egypt and the subsequent outbreak of war between Israel and nearby Arab countries. Did not prevent disruption of order, foreign aggression and the seizure of UN controlled areas in Cyprus in 1972 and in Lebanon in 1982.

The obvious limitations of the principles of impartiality and non-use of force, the desire to get rid of the inherent shortcomings of international control and the urgent need to resolve flaring conflicts have led to a shift in emphasis towards forceful methods.

It is impossible to deny the successes that the UN has achieved through the use of force. Thus, the successful conduct of elections in Namibia in 1989 . was ensured, among other things, by the approval of UN representatives or, at least, their tacit consent to the use of force against agents of the Organization of the People of the South-West A freaks. The preventive deployment of troops in Macedonia, which is, in fact, openly military operation, helped prevent possible attacks on this former Yugoslav republic by Albanian militants. UN approved war in Persian Gulf V 1991 . and bomb strikes A TO on Serbian positions in the former Yugoslavia in 1995 . certainly made it possible to achieve the goals of the ongoing operations and prevent further escalation of conflicts. However they raised next questions, to which, at the moment, it is not possible to obtain unambiguous answers. Presence of SS A to A Afghanistan did not achieve its goals. So at the UN hearings in March 2005 . It was noted that the number of opium poppy crops in A In Afghanistan, not only did it not decrease, but on the contrary, it doubled, which led to a sharp increase in the production and sale of drugs, the proceeds from the sale of which go to finance international terrorist organizations, which today pose the greatest threat to international security. US Invasion A Iraq also resulted only in a surge in terrorist activity. The situation is even more depressing due to the fact that this invasion was not authorized by the UN.

To what extent does abandoning the principles of non-use of force and peaceful settlement of disputes meet the goals and objectives of the United Nations? And isn’t international control, in this case, simply a flexible technique, the legal basis, goals and method of implementation of which can be subject to radical “adjustment” depending on current political interests? Is it even worth using the peacekeeping mechanism and using UN troops in situations that obviously require a forceful approach? Resolving these issues would make it possible to give new impetus to peacekeeping operations and bring them to a new qualitative level.

It is no less relevant for the problem of conflict resolution in the post-Soviet space. By conceptually distinguishing between peacekeeping actions and combat operations, this decision, it seems, would allow Russia to develop a more balanced and definite approach to resolving conflicts in the CIS. It would prevent Russia from becoming involved in situations like Tajikistan, where peacekeeping missions are assigned to regular combat units simultaneously with the tasks of protecting borders and preventing third parties from becoming involved in the conflict. Such a confusion of tasks inevitably leads to uncertainty and lack of legitimacy of the status of peacekeepers, and willy-nilly forces them to take the side of the existing regime. Blishchenko I.P., Entin M.L. Peaceful resolution of disputes between states is one of the most important principles of international law // International legal forms of cooperation between states in Europe. M., 1977, art. 60.

Global and regional systems of collective security at the present stage (international legal aspects): Author's abstract. dis. ... Doctor of Law. Sciences / Mahammad Tahir. - S.-Pb., 2004. P. 34.

For analysis peacekeeping activities The priority is to consider the principle of non-use of force or threat of force, first enshrined in the UN Charter (Clause 4 of Article 2 and Article 51).

The idea of ​​​​the inadmissibility of resolving controversial issues between states through war has been expressed by thinkers and politicians in many countries since ancient times. However, it was only able to find its embodiment in contractual form in the twentieth century.

In relation to the realities that arose on the territory of the former Soviet Union after its collapse, the issue of the non-use of force was very acute. As is known, the Russian leadership was often accused of being ready to use armed force to restore the USSR or to achieve concessions from its closest neighbors (for example, to change borders). Moreover, some of Russia’s actions in the so-called. “near abroad” were clearly interpreted as aggression against the newly independent states. It was in this formulation that the Georgian leadership assessed the actions of the Russian military on the territory of Abkhazia in the first months of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict; The President of Moldova M. Snegur also spoke about Russia’s “military aggression” after the intervention of the 14th Army in the conflict in Transnistria. Currently, part of the Tajik opposition insists that the presence of the Russian 201st division on the territory of Tajikistan can also be qualified as Moscow’s “aggression” against this country. Accordingly, Russia was accused of violating “generally recognized norms of international law,” including the UN Charter, and from the UN itself, in the person of its Security Council, “victims of aggression” demanded that immediate and severe measures be taken to punish the aggressor.

Appearing in international law between the two wars, first as a principle prohibiting aggressive war, the principle of non-use of force or threat of force replaced the previously existing right of states to war (jus ad bellum).

According to the principle of the prohibition of the use or threat of force, all UN member states "will refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force, either against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations" ( clause 4 article 2).

Analysis of documents revealing the content of the principle of non-use of force or threat of force leads to the conclusion that the following are prohibited:

1) any actions constituting a threat of force or direct or indirect use of force against another state;

2) the use of force or the threat of force to violate the existing international borders of another state or to resolve international disputes, including territorial disputes and issues relating to state borders, or to violate international demarcation lines, including armistice lines;

3) reprisals using armed force; These prohibited actions include, in particular, the so-called “peaceful blockade”, i.e. blockade of the ports of another state carried out by armed forces in peacetime;

4) organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed gangs, including mercenaries;

5) organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil war or condoning organizational activities within one’s own territory aimed at the commission of such acts, in the case where said acts involve the threat or use of force;

6) military occupation of the territory of a state resulting from the use of force in violation of the UN Charter:

acquisition of territory of another state as a result of the threat or use of force;

violent actions that deprive peoples of the right to self-determination, freedom and independence.

The practice of recent years confirms that the task of unconditionally affirming the principle of non-use of force in international life, unfortunately, has not come to naught, but, on the contrary, has become even more urgent. Since the creation of the UN, humanity has come a long way, the world has changed significantly. These changes simultaneously bring with them new opportunities and new dangers.

International security, as noted in the Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, approved at the 42nd session of the UN General Assembly in 1987, should be based on the principles of non-use of force, peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems and the right of free choice and independent development of each country.

The declaration consistently maintains that international security is made up of security in various regions, and states that states party to regional agreements or bodies should consider making greater use of such agreements and bodies to resolve issues related to the maintenance of international peace and security , in accordance with Art. 52 of the UN Charter. Thus, the declaration reflected the idea, which has not lost its relevance today, that in the struggle for universal security, to exclude war from the life of society, all international institutions and forms should be involved, and above all such a universal body of cooperation between states as the United Nations Nations.

Thus, the provisions of the UN Charter and the declarations developing them oblige all UN members to peacefully resolve all disputes that may threaten international peace and security. The fact that these provisions of the UN Charter reflect profound changes in international law and are of exceptional importance has been widely recognized by both lawyers and governments. Far from being an expression of utopian hopes for the reconstruction of international relations, contained in Art. 2 of the UN Charter, the legal rules relating to the use of force reflect a deep and realistic assessment of the destructive potential of modern war and the significantly increased desire of governments to prevent the occurrence of such war.

The principle of peaceful settlement of disputes is also closely related to the principle of non-use of force. According to him, all disputes between states, whatever their nature and whatever their origin, must be resolved only by peaceful means.

The peaceful settlement (or resolution) of disputes is unanimously regarded as one of the basic principles of international law.

Hardly anyone would object to the assertion that conflict situations arising on the territory of the former Soviet Union should be resolved by peaceful means. The question is different: is it possible to make this principle absolute in relation to post-Soviet realities, and if not, then under what circumstances and under what conditions should this principle be abandoned? Are there any objective criteria for the development of a conflict situation that make the use of forceful methods of conflict resolution acceptable and justified?

The creation of the UN and the adoption of its Charter led to the consolidation of the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes in international law, which became generally recognized and generally binding. It is impossible not to note the fact that “the UN Charter... introduces a major innovation into international law, unconditionally requiring the resolution... of a dispute between states by one of peaceful means and, thus, excluding the possibility of declaring war.” Consolidating the principle in a more specific and precise form allowed the UN Charter to take a step forward compared to previously existing formulations of the principle, since it, in addition to the obligation of states to resolve all disputes between them only by peaceful means, also recorded the obligation of states not to use force or the threat of force in the settlement their disputes.

In the UN Charter, the provision on the peaceful resolution of international disputes, mentioned in paragraph 1 of Art. 1, paragraph 3 of Art. 2, paragraph 4 art. 3, art. 14, art. 52, in ch. VI, VII, etc. Chapter VI provides the Security Council with the opportunity to “investigate any dispute or any situation which may lead to international friction”, and “to recommend such terms for the settlement of the dispute as it may find appropriate”, however, they should not be associated with use of armed forces. In Art. 33 lists the methods for peaceful resolution of disputes: negotiations, investigation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, litigation, recourse to regional bodies or agreements, or other peaceful means at the discretion of the disputing parties. In addition, according to Art. 41 (Chapter VII), the Security Council can apply a set of measures to restore peace, also not related to the use of armed forces, which represent “a complete or partial interruption of economic relations, railway, sea, air, postal, telegraph, radio or other means of communication, as well as the severance of diplomatic relations."

The UN Charter, thus, not only enshrined the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes in a precise and specific form, but also obliged states to resolve all disputes between them exclusively by peaceful means, without resorting to force or use of arms.

To analyze the content of the Principle of Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, it seems essential to determine the scope of application of this principle.

In the practice of international legal analysis of disagreements, in addition to the category “dispute,” the category “situation” is also used. At the present stage, there is no clear distinction between the concepts of “dispute” and “situation”, as well as a precise definition of these concepts. The Charter also does not define the concepts of “dispute” and “situation,” and an analysis of those articles of the Charter in which these concepts appear cannot serve as the basis for their clear distinction.

There are two types of disputes and situations: the continuation of some threatens international peace and security, the continuation of others does not involve such a threat. In the light of the goals of the UN, it is more important to resolve disputes and situations of the first type, however, in the context of the same goals, all disputes and situations must be resolved, because those that do not threaten international peace and are not dangerous still cause international friction. The presence of such friction makes it difficult to develop friendly relations and mutually beneficial cooperation between states and complicates the process of creating comprehensive international security.

The UN Charter does not establish criteria for dividing disputes and situations into these two categories. The resolution of this issue falls within the competence of the Security Council. According to Art. 34 of the Charter, “The Security Council is empowered to investigate any dispute or any situation which may give rise to international friction or give rise to a dispute, with a view to determining whether the continuation of that dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.” The UN has not developed general criteria for dividing disputes and situations into the specified categories. It is not possible to satisfactorily solve this complex problem primarily because the question of whether or not a dispute or situation constitutes a threat to international peace and security is determined by the specific circumstances of each particular dispute, and also largely depends on the nature of the foreign policies of those disputing or involved in the situation sides In any case, it seems indisputable that the principle of the peaceful settlement of international disputes includes within its scope all international disputes and situations, whether or not they threaten international peace and security.

The essence of the principle of peaceful resolution of disputes is not only that international disputes should be resolved by peaceful means, but that they should be resolved only by peaceful means, exclusively by peaceful means, i.e. No use of force is acceptable in resolving international disputes. Prof. I.P. Blishchenko and M.L. Entin note that the provisions of the UN Charter and the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970 that the settlement of an international dispute must be carried out “in such a way as not to endanger international peace and security and justice” and “in accordance with the principles of international law” also indicate into three essential elements characterizing the principle of peaceful resolution of disputes. The result of a peaceful settlement in no case should create a threat to international peace and security, offend the interests of third countries, create new conflict situations, or, without resolving the dispute on the merits, without eliminating the causes of the conflict, leave a constant possibility of exacerbation of the “hidden conflict between states.”

The principles of the non-use of force or threat of force and the peaceful settlement of disputes are reflected in the basic empirical principles on which UN peacekeeping activities are based. The principles of consent of the parties, impartiality of peacekeeping forces and non-use of force are generally accepted and fundamental both to UN peacekeeping practice and to peacekeeping operations conducted by national governments and international organizations (for example, the British Commonwealth Observer Force in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, the Multinational Force in Beirut, Arab forces defense in Lebanon).

The advantage of peacekeeping operations based on the above principles is obvious. They are distinguished by the ability to achieve the objectives of the operation with minimal material costs and the use of a small number of military observers or military contingents. In addition, adherence to the principles of impartiality and neutrality, as a rule, ensures the support of the local population, without which all the efforts of peacekeepers may be fruitless (this is clearly demonstrated by the experience of peacekeeping operations in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia), and, no less important, guarantees the daily safety of the military bases and personnel.

However, in the event of an escalation of violence, this approach does not provide real opportunities to influence the conflicting parties. Its negative side was demonstrated in a very brutal way during the crisis in the Middle East in 1967 - the expulsion of the UN Emergency Force (UNEF I) from Egypt and the subsequent outbreak of war between Israel and a number of Arab countries. The presence of the UN in Cyprus in 1972 and in Lebanon in 1982 did not prevent the breakdown of order, foreign aggression and the seizure of territories.

The obvious limitations of the principles of impartiality and non-use of force, the desire to get rid of the inherent shortcomings of peacekeeping and the urgent need to resolve flaring conflicts have led to a shift in emphasis towards forceful methods.

It is impossible to deny the successes that the UN has achieved through the use of force. Thus, the successful holding of elections in Namibia in 1989 was ensured, among other things, by the approval of UN representatives, or at least their tacit consent to the use of force against the agents of the Organization of the People of South West Africa. The preventive deployment of troops in Macedonia, which is, in fact, an overtly military operation, made it possible to prevent possible attacks on this former Yugoslav republic. The UN-approved Gulf War in 1991 and NATO bombing attacks on Serbian positions in the former Yugoslavia in 1995 certainly made it possible to achieve the goals of the operations and prevent further escalation of conflicts. However, they raised the following questions, to which, at the moment, it is not possible to obtain clear answers.

To what extent does abandoning the principles of non-use of force and peaceful settlement of disputes meet the goals and objectives of the United Nations? And isn’t peacekeeping, in this case, simply a flexible technique, the legal basis, goals and method of implementation of which can be subject to radical “adjustment” depending on current political interests? Is it even worth using the peacekeeping mechanism and using UN troops in situations that obviously require a forceful approach? Resolving these issues would make it possible to give new impetus to peacekeeping operations and bring them to a new qualitative level.

It is no less relevant for the problem of conflict resolution in the post-Soviet space. By conceptually distinguishing between peacekeeping actions and combat operations, this decision, it seems, would allow Russia to develop a more balanced and definite approach to resolving conflicts in the CIS. It would prevent Russia from becoming involved in situations like Tajikistan, where peacekeeping missions are assigned to regular combat units simultaneously with the tasks of protecting borders and preventing third parties from becoming involved in the conflict. Such a confusion of tasks inevitably leads to uncertainty and lack of legitimacy of the status of peacekeepers, and willy-nilly forces them to take the side of the existing regime.

The principle of territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination

In a single formulation with the principle of non-use of force or threat of force, paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the UN Charter enshrines the principle of the territorial integrity of states. The Charter obligated all UN members to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of states.

This principle was further developed in the Declaration of Principles of 1970, although it did not mention its name and did not separately set out its content. Nevertheless, the content of the first principle of the Declaration literally reproduces the wording of paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, which combines two principles: the principle of non-use of force or threat of force and the principle of the territorial integrity of states. Expanding the content of paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, the Declaration reflected many elements of the principle of territorial integrity, in particular, it established that each state “must refrain from any actions aimed at violating the national unity and territorial integrity of any state or country.” It was also noted that the territory of a state should not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in violation of the use of force, in violation of the provisions of the UN Charter,” and that “the territory of a state should not be the object of acquisition by another state as a result of the threat or use of force.”

Despite the seemingly obvious ambiguity of this principle, its application to problems arising in the territory of the former Soviet Union has raised and continues to raise numerous questions. Being one of the most important signs of independence and statehood, territorial integrity became one of the most painful problems that arose after the transition of the USSR as an integral political entity to fifteen new independent states. The main difficulty lies in changing the status of “internal”, essentially administrative borders in the former Soviet Union, to state ones. The fact that many of these borders are not perceived as legal could not but become a serious challenge to the relations between the newly formed states. In this situation, any real or potential claims inevitably become a source of serious conflicts at the interstate level.

This problem manifested itself most dramatically in the armed clashes in Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria and Chechnya. Russia has been directly involved to a greater or lesser extent in the last four conflicts.

Thus, Russia faces pressing conceptual issues directly related to the principle of territorial integrity. What specific actions of Russia towards neighboring states can be interpreted as an encroachment on their territorial integrity? For example, how true are the assertions of Ukrainian leaders that a number of resolutions of the Russian State Duma regarding the situation in Crimea are nothing more than encouraging separatism and undermining the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state? Or statements of some politicians Latvia and Estonia in the sense that Russia's support for the Russian-speaking population of these countries is incompatible with the principle of territorial integrity of states?

One of current problems modern international law is the problem of the relationship between the principle of territorial integrity and the principle of self-determination of peoples and nations, which often underlies many ethnic conflicts.

According to E.A. Lukasheva, “interethnic relations are one of the burning problems of our time. The preservation of peace on our planet, the protection of the rights and freedoms of humans and peoples largely depends on its solution... The end of the 20th century raised real questions related to the right of peoples to self-determination, with on the one hand, and with the preservation of territorial integrity and inviolability of borders, on the other; they require a solution to the problem of the legal status of national minorities, harmonious combination human rights and people's rights, legal regulation of interethnic conflicts."

The principle of self-determination of peoples as a mandatory norm was developed after the adoption of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, it should be noted that one of the most important goals of the UN is to develop friendly relations between nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..." (Clause 2 of Article 1). This goal is specified in many provisions of the Charter. In Article 55 , for example, she in the closest possible way associated with the task of raising living standards, solving international problems in economic and social areas, in the areas of healthcare, education, culture, human rights, etc.

For some time after the adoption of the UN Charter, Western doctrine of international law expressed doubts about the legal basis for the principle of self-determination of peoples. However, the intensive process of decolonization in the late 50s and early 60s and the adoption of the Declaration of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples on December 14, 1960, put an end to such doubts. The Declaration began to be regarded as the official UN interpretation of the content of the principle of self-determination of peoples.

Without dwelling in detail on the evolution of views on the principle of self-determination, since this is not part of our task, we can state that its content, based on the analysis of documents and doctrine, by the end of the 70s included the following main elements:

a) all peoples and nations have the right to self-determination;

b) all participants in international communication are obliged to respect this right;

c) it is realized through the free expression of the will of a given people or nation;

d) its implementation excludes any pressure, coercion or outside interference;

e) it means the possibility of choosing between the state separation of a given people or nation and his (her) entry into another state on certain conditions, that is, a free choice of political status;

e) it also means the possibility of choosing the form of state (i.e. the form of government, government structure, political regime);

g) it finally means the possibility of choosing a socio-economic system and ways of development.

Naturally, these elements are interrelated, and one choice may predetermine another. For example, the entry of a people (or nation) into a state also means the choice of the socio-economic system existing there, etc.

It should be noted that in relation to the principle of self-determination of peoples, both Western and Russian researchers split into two opposing camps. Some exalt the role and importance of the right of nations to self-determination, others view it as a manifestation of outright nationalism and separatism.

During " cold war", in the context of the East-West confrontation, the interpretation of the principle of self-determination of peoples was highly politicized. The USSR and its allies actively supported the anti-Western interpretation of this principle.

Various resolutions of UN bodies, directly or indirectly, have repeatedly emphasized the right of states and the international community as a whole to provide assistance to peoples fighting for their liberation. So, in Art. 7 of the Definition of Aggression, approved by the UN General Assembly on December 14, 1974, states: “Nothing in this definition may in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence arising from the Charter of peoples who are forcibly deprived of this right, in particular the peoples under the domination of colonial and racist regimes or other forms of foreign domination, as well as the right of these peoples to fight for this purpose and to seek and receive support..."

In Western legal practice, there was disagreement that foreign states have the right to provide material assistance to national liberation movements. Western countries believed that assistance should be limited to moral and diplomatic support, while Afro-Asian and former socialist states interpreted the term “support” used in the definition of aggression to also include material support (for example, weapons).

However, by the end of the 80s - early 90s. Western and Russian positions on the issue of self-determination of peoples began to converge. During this period, both in Western and Russian literature, the opinion began to be expressed that state secession is not the form of self-determination that plays the main role in the implementation of the right to self-determination. So, Yu.A. Reshetov supports the point of view of M. Kampelman (USA), who believes that the right to secession is not a right under international law, although it may be part of the constitutional procedure, and calls the reduction of the right to self-determination to the right to secession an extremist interpretation of this right. At the same time, S.V. Chernichenko does not agree with the categorical denial that the right to self-determination includes the right to secession. In his opinion, the right to secession is not always a mandatory component of the right to self-determination. In other words, the right to self-determination may include the right to secede only under certain conditions.

The inadmissibility of national self-determination leading to the destruction of national unity and territorial integrity of the country is emphasized in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 1960. It states: “... Any attempt aimed at partially or completely destroying national unity and the territorial integrity of the country, is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations...".

The same provision was reflected in the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights on June 25, 1993. In this document, after provisions confirming the right of all peoples to self-determination and, accordingly, their right to take any lawful action in accordance with the Charter UNO for its implementation, states: "Subject to the Declaration of Principles of International Law..., the foregoing shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which violates or undermines, in whole or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States which respect the principle equality and self-determination of peoples and therefore have governments that represent the interests of all the people on their territory without any distinction."

To understand the principle of self-determination, the conclusions reached by A. Eide, a member of the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in his study on minorities are important. It asserts that the right to self-determination belongs to peoples living in colonial territories outside Europe that have been subject to colonial or similar control by European states or states subsequently settled by Europeans. Attempts to use the concept of colonialism in other situations complicate the issue and should not be considered within the framework of the concept of “decolonization.” He goes on to say that the right to self-determination belongs to peoples living in territories occupied or annexed after the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945.

In his opinion, members of federations have the right to leave if this right is enshrined in their constitutions. At the same time, he emphasizes that: “In such situations, the right to self-determination, based on the principle of voluntary association, is applicable only to the union republics, and not to smaller entities that may have had different regimes of autonomy under the pre-existing order.”

“In other cases, the question of a unilateral right to self-determination is extremely doubtful. This right is secondary in comparison with the fundamental principle of territorial integrity, provided that the state respects the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples and has a government composed of representatives of the entire population, without any - differences based on race, creed or color. It should be remembered that the basis of the principle of self-determination is the right of the people to participate in the government as an entity. When the government does not create opportunities for the participation of all sections of the population and all peoples, then the question of the right to self-determination of various groups of the population becomes more pressing."

Thus, it appears that the question of secession can only be raised when a state does not respect the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and when the people concerned are not given the opportunity to participate in the governance of that state.

However, the question is how states that believe that the people living within their borders cannot claim the right of secession must prove that they respect the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and that their governments represent the entire people, without distinction of race, creed or skin color, is not amenable to detailed legal regulation and remains open at the moment.

The relationship between the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination of nations is by no means only theoretical problem international law, it is no less relevant for UN peacekeeping practice. First of all, this is due to the tendency that emerged in 1991 towards an increase in the importance of territorial problems as a source of conflict. Since 1990, all major armed conflicts in Europe have been related in one way or another to territorial issues. This statement is also true for Asia and the Near and Middle East.

On the one hand, bitterness high level violence and a large number of refugees, which characterize ethnic conflicts, require decisive measures from the UN to resolve them; on the other hand, difficulties in achieving agreement between the conflicting parties, the lack of sustainable agreements and high risk for UN military personnel (the risk of turning from peacekeepers into hostages, as was the case in the former Yugoslavia) lead to the conclusion that a more cautious and thorough approach is needed when developing the mandate for such operations. And first of all, this concerns the conceptual approach.

How productive can UN involvement in ethnic and territorial conflicts be? As very recent experience shows, the presence of the UN could not stop mass extermination Hutu in Rwanda, the international community is also ambiguously perceived by the UN participation in the operation in the former Yugoslavia. What goals should such operations pursue: in this situation, is it not a violation of the right of nations to self-determination to stabilize the conflict, since in such cases it is beneficial to the official government? At what point does the right of nations to self-determination turn into separatism?

The practice of UN peacekeeping does not provide answers to these questions; moreover, it reveals the complexity and ambiguity of this problem. As an illustration, it is enough to cite the problem of the Kurdish population in Iraq and Turkey. The world community, and in particular the UN Security Council, approve of the measures taken by the United States to protect the Kurdish population in Iraq: US air flights over Iraqi territory, the creation of special zones and even bombing attacks on Baghdad. However, the same problem with the same national minority in Turkey does not make the world community want to take such drastic measures to resolve it and does not go further than discussing human rights violations in Turkey. Thus, one example is enough to illustrate that support for the right of a national minority to self-determination is not always caused by the true concern of the world community about it; sometimes it is hidden behind the national interests of one or more powers that advocate compliance with international law.

The issue of self-determination remains very acute for the entire post-Soviet space. According to statistics, about 25 million ethnic Russians and over 11 million representatives of other ethnic groups who consider Russian their native language found themselves outside Russian Federation, and the total number of people who found themselves after the collapse of the Soviet Union outside the territories that they could consider as “theirs” according to national criteria exceeds 70 million. As a result, a huge part of the population of all former Soviet republics faced serious psychological difficulties in adapting to new conditions. In addition, the situation is worsened by the fact that, on the one hand, states that have national minorities or autonomies living compactly on their territory are extremely sensitive to the idea of ​​self-determination, even to the point of secession (the problem of Karabakh in Azerbaijan and Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia). On the other hand, in many cases, the underdevelopment of democratic institutions and political ethnocentrism actually exclude minorities from the governance process (for example, it is no secret that the political elite of Kazakhstan is predominantly monoethnic, despite the clearly multiethnic nature of the state and the formal equality of all citizens of Kazakhstan before law).

In addition, the presence of ethnically similar groups on the territory of neighboring countries, which are also subject to discrimination, creates a temptation to emphasize the principle of self-determination. And first of all, such a situation poses a danger for Russia, where arguments in favor of using force to protect Russians meet with widespread support among certain political circles. It is unclear how the safety of millions of Russians, who could become potential or actual victims of conflicts in the near abroad, will be ensured with the help of regular armed forces, but it is quite obvious that the approval of such a policy would cause irreparable damage to both Russia’s international prestige and the entire post-Soviet development.

The principle of sovereign equality, human rights and the problem of interference in the internal affairs of states

The basis of modern international relations is the sovereign equality of states, which is reflected in the most general form in paragraph 1 of article 2 of the UN Charter. This clause states that "The Organization is founded on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

In relation to new states formed on the territory of the former Soviet Union, the issue of state sovereignty is especially acute. Despite numerous statements by the political leaders of these new formations about independence and sovereignty, it is not yet possible to talk about the finally formed statehood of at least some of these countries. This is primarily due to the lack of experience and structures among most of them to form an independent state apparatus; economic crisis; unformed national armies, whose loyalty is expressed more at the local than at the national level; lack of experience in decision-making in the military sphere; unresolved territorial and regional disputes. To a lesser extent, these issues are relevant for Russia, the Baltic countries, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

Nevertheless, the political and economic instability of the situation even in the established republics of the former Soviet Union, aggravated by numerous armed conflicts flaring up in close proximity to their borders, raise a number of questions directly related to the problem state sovereignty. To what extent can Russia or other post-Soviet states interfere in the internal affairs of their neighbors without violating the principle of sovereign equality? What forms should this intervention take if it is deemed necessary? To what extent and at what point is it necessary for international organizations to intervene in conflicts in the post-Soviet space?

In addition, a number of aspects of peacekeeping operations also directly affect the principle under consideration. In theory, in multilateral peacekeeping operations (such as in Tajikistan), all participating states should bear equal responsibilities and have equal rights. In fact, multilateral peacekeeping operations in the CIS are transnational, i.e. in essence, they are carried out by Russia with one or another symbolic participation of other Commonwealth states. Is it acceptable to raise the question of sovereign equality - including with regard to the management of peacekeeping operations - in the context of the clearly unequal contribution of individual participants in the conduct of these operations?

In this regard, the interpretation of the principle of sovereign equality and its reflection in UN peacekeeping practice seems especially important for post-Soviet states.

The classic interpretation of the concept of sovereign equality, reflected in the 1970 Declaration of Principles, includes the following elements:

a) states are legally equal;

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

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

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

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

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

Other elements of the principle of sovereign equality include the right of states to belong to international organizations, to be or not to be parties to bilateral and multilateral treaties, including union treaties, as well as their right to neutrality. It should be noted that attempts to compile a complete list of elements of the principle under consideration are futile, bearing in mind the dynamics of international relations.

In the classical interpretation of sovereignty, instability and unrest were considered to be a serious obstacle to the formation of a durable society, which could only be overcome with the help of a strong and viable government that established “sovereignty” over the territory and its people with a firm hand. Although the forms of government could be different - monarchy, aristocracy, democracy - it was essential that governments retained the ability to restore order precisely by establishing and strengthening sovereignty.

However, at the moment, the objective patterns of development of international relations and their gradual democratization have led to a significant narrowing of the content of the concept of sovereignty. The increasing interdependence of countries in the world, the globalization of all ongoing processes lead to the fact that fragmentation and, especially, disintegration of individual countries are becoming more and more dangerous and have a greater impact on the system of international relations as a whole; under these conditions, even great powers become more dependent in making their decisions on less developed and weaker states. In addition, moral and legal recognition of the importance of such areas as the protection of human rights, the limitation of weapons and the preservation of the environment create the preconditions for expanding states' understanding of their national interests. All this leads to the need for the world community to intervene in conflicts that were previously within the internal competence of states.

Moreover, according to many experts, it is internal conflicts at the present stage that pose the main danger to international peace and security. Apparently, all global politics The end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries will be characterized more by internal upheavals, civil wars and social cataclysms in individual countries than by wars between them. Maintaining and even strengthening stability at the level of international relations may, under these conditions, turn out to be a dangerous illusion hiding destabilization at other levels. [Some authors believe that many recent interstate conflicts are de facto internal conflicts or, at least, directly generated by the latter. According to one study, of the 200 largest conflicts that occurred after World War II, 85% were internal rather than interstate.]

Such a prospect could give rise to new difficulties in the activities of the United Nations, since the UN Charter does not provide for the participation of the Organization in resolving internal conflicts. Moreover, in paragraph 7 of Art. 2 states that “the present Charter in no way gives the United Nations the right to intervene in matters essentially within the internal competence of any state,” except in cases related to “the application of coercive measures under Chapter VII.”

However, it should be noted that modern international law does not contain an exclusive list of cases falling within the domestic jurisdiction of states. Moreover, in recent years there has been a tendency to narrow the scope of the so-called “internal competence of states.”

Based on the practice of the UN, according to O. Shakhter, at least three types of armed internal conflict cannot be considered only as an internal matter of states:

Conflicts that threaten international peace and security.

Conflicts between the people of a Non-Self-Governing Territory and the administering Power.

Conflicts accompanied by massive and gross violations of human rights.

In addition, the situation loses its internal competence in the event of the threat of famine, epidemics, large-scale environmental disasters (Somalia and Angola); mass civilian deaths, refugee flows from the conflict zone (Cambodia and especially the persecution of the Kurds in northern Iraq), proliferation threats nuclear weapons or other types of weapons of mass destruction (Iraq, potentially North Korea).

Sometimes the threat of terrorism emanating from a given state or from its territory is also added to this list; a threat to democratic norms and human rights in a given territory (Haiti), the need to ensure access to sources of raw materials and energy that are vital for the global economy; restrictions on arms trade, etc.

The above list of factors determining possible international intervention in internal conflicts clearly demonstrates the growing trend in the role of humanitarian and ethical aspects when deciding on intervention international community. Practical experience peacekeeping operations, in turn, indicate that the ethical prerequisites for intervention are only valid when they are supported national interests the intervening party, a low degree of risk for the peacekeeping forces, real chances for rapid stabilization of the situation in the conflict zone and the availability of financial resources for carrying out operations. The American “humanitarian intervention” in Somalia is a clear example of this.

However, even if all the necessary factors are present for the successful implementation of the goals of the intervention, its legal basis is a fundamental point. The solution to this issue is directly related to the problem of criticizing the concept of state sovereignty.

In the Western tradition, there are several main directions for justifying the admissibility of international intervention (up to armed intervention) in the affairs of independent states by the world community. The first direction is the statement of the stability of the international system as the highest value and, as a consequence, recognition of the possibility of using military force to restore the balance of power in cases of its violation.

Another line of criticism of sovereignty and justification for foreign intervention goes back to the traditional Western European division of the world into “civilized” and “uncivilized” countries. The sovereignty of the latter (China, Ethiopia, Persia, Morocco, etc.) was questioned and sometimes even rejected as an international legal category. International intervention in their internal affairs was seen as a kind of police action, and not as an action against an independent state. The police action does not require international legal registration; the only task is to ensure that police departments of different states do not operate in the same territory.

In any case, intervention was considered more acceptable if it was carried out not by one state, but by a group of powers (or at least with the consent of the main participants in the international system).

Most often, interference in the internal affairs of new states is justified by reference to their inferior character in relation to stable Western countries. Moreover, in American political science Lately the term “failed state” appeared, i.e. a state that can no longer regulate the life of society, economic and political relations and which, therefore, can no longer claim sovereignty. In 1993, Somalia, Liberia, Peru, Haiti and some others are considered to be such “failed states”. Of course, relations with “failed states” cannot be built on the basis of generally accepted norms of international law. In particular, Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, which concerns non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, cannot apply to “failed states.”

Conceptually, the challenge is how to define a “failed state” and what social, political, institutional and other criteria should be taken into account. The most consistent proponents of classical international law argue that interventions are permissible only when a state is unable to ensure the safety of citizens or foreigners on its territory; the objectives of the intervention must be strictly limited to the task of ensuring such security.

At the moment, the "civilizational approach" is used rather to protect western world from excessive involvement in internal conflicts of countries with economic and transitional political systems fraught with great human and material losses. The idea of ​​value incompatibility and the danger or uselessness of introducing universal Western norms of political democracy onto alien soil is being developed. These sentiments are reinforced by the disappointment of a number of governments, due to the expansion of the scope of peacekeeping activities, in the UN's ability to act productively in the confusion of ethnic conflicts and civil wars and their reluctance in such conditions to increase the costs of these operations.

Some American authors are attempting to develop a strict rule of thumb that protects the United States from excessive involvement in foreign affairs, including UN peacekeeping operations, which consist of a speculative division of the world into “zones of peace” and “zones of unrest.” With this classification, 85% of the world is classified as unrest zones and little can be done about it.

In relation to Russia, this approach assumes significant interest of the international community in its peacekeeping actions, and in general Russian policies carried out in the European part of the post-Soviet space, while it abdicates responsibility for the events taking place in Central Asia and the Caucasus, reserving for itself the right only to correct Russian actions. The absence of any significant support from the UN and OSCE in peacekeeping operations in Abkhazia or Tajikistan is direct confirmation of this. The OSCE's recent interest in the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh is more related to the problem of Caspian oil than to a change in the intended trend. All this can lead not so much to the resolution of emerging conflicts, but to their localization within borders acceptable to the West, which will lead to the isolation of the former Soviet republics with a dubious role for Russia.

In UN peacekeeping practice, the most important issue is the relationship between the principle of sovereign equality and the principle of non-interference in internal affairs with the principle of universal respect for human rights.

On the one hand, the UN Charter cannot be a basis for interference in the internal affairs of any state, and on the other hand, the question of the moral responsibility of the UN, which has declared the highest values ​​of respect for human rights and dignity and worth human personality, requires her to take action in case of weakness political power and social self-government, leading to the threat of starvation, as was the case in Somalia, or the barbaric campaigns of “ethnic cleansing” carried out in Bosnia.

Raised by Pérez de Cuéllar, UN Secretary-General, the need to develop “a new concept reconciling law and morality”, and supported by his successor B. Boutros-Ghali in his report to the Security Council, in which he notes that “the time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty passed" and emphasizes the need to "find a balance between the need for good leadership of the country and the demands of today's increasingly interdependent world", has not yet found its final solution.

According to UN peacekeeping practice, it has become generally accepted to consider an intervention as legitimate if it is carried out with the consent of the government of the host country. This position forces even great powers that engage in unilateral intervention to provide themselves with such justification. (As an example, consider the US operation under the auspices of the UN in Korea in 1950-1952.)

Apparently, such a basis for intervention is the most acceptable from Russia's point of view, since intervention based on the consensus of the members of the UN Security Council, accepted by the international community with increasing readiness, has very dim prospects for Russia. As a rule, a Security Council mandate is issued in the event of a complete political and economic collapse of a particular state, when the central government no longer controls the situation on the territory of the country - as is the case with the American “humanitarian intervention” in Somalia. Or in the case when the position of the central government is so weak that UN mediation seems to be the last straw for the collapsing regime to grab onto.

In any case, intervention carried out on a multilateral basis is preferable. It is easier to legitimize because it looks quite convincing as an expression of the general will of a certain group based on generally accepted values, and does not reflect only the special interests of a separate state. In this sense, the problem of conflict resolution in the post-Soviet space lacks the support of international organizations such as the UN and OSCE, or at least the political will of CIS members.

The principle of non-use of force or threat of force

This principle is a novelty of modern international law. The principle of non-aggression, previously in force since the League of Nations, had a significantly different content.

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

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

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

Aggressive war constitutes a crime against peace, for which liability is provided in accordance with international law.

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

Equally, every State has the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international demarcation lines, such as armistice lines, established or appropriate international agreement to which that State is a party or to which that State is otherwise bound to comply.

States have an obligation to refrain from acts of reprisal involving the use of force.

The territory of a state must not be subject to military occupation resulting from the use of force in violation of the provisions of the UN Charter. The territory of a state must not be the object of acquisition by another state as a result of the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.

However, nothing in the foregoing provisions shall be construed as extending or limiting in any way the scope of the provisions of the UN Charter affecting cases in which the use of force is lawful.

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

The principle of non-use of force or threat of force - concept and types. Classification and features of the category “Principle of non-use of force or threat of force” 2015, 2017-2018.