The sovereign equality of states contains the following elements. International law. The principle of non-use of force and threat of force

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty, i.e. independently carries out legislative, executive, judiciary, builds international relations at his own discretion;

Every state is obliged to respect legal personality other states;

- territorial integrity and political independence b states are inviolable;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXAMPLE:

The World Bank provides loans only to poor countries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The principle of sovereign equality of states

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

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

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

1) states are legally equal;

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

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

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

This interpretation fully retains its meaning to this day.

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

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

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

a) states are legally equal;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found a typo? Select and press CTRL+Enter

The principle of sovereign equality of states

This principle is, as it were, the initial beginning of modern international law as a whole, combining two specific legal features that characterize each state - the inherent property of the state, denoted by the term “sovereignty” (see Chapter V), and equality with other states in international relations. Therefore, often in agreements between states we are talking about mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty. The sovereignty of states also predetermines the method of international legal regulation of their relationships - an agreement between them.

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

According to this interpretation, the “sovereign equality” of states must mean that

1) states are legally equal;

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

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

4) the state must conscientiously fulfill its duties and international obligations in international relations.

This interpretation fully retains its meaning to this day.

In turn, according to the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, the main content of the principle in question is as follows.

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

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

a) states are legally equal;

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

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

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

However, the equality of the rights and obligations of states under general international law does not mean at all that states cannot undertake, under local agreements, new international obligations or obligations that clarify and develop existing norms, if they do not contradict the basic principles of international law. It is in this way that modern international law primarily develops - from local norms to universal ones.

The principle of sovereign equality of states - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Principle of sovereign equality of states" 2015, 2017-2018.

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

This principle is also enshrined in the charters of international organizations of the UN system, in the charters of the vast majority of regional international organizations, in multilateral and bilateral agreements of states and international organizations, in legal acts of international organizations. The objective laws of international relations and their gradual democratization have led to an expansion of the content of the principle of sovereign equality of states. In modern international law, it is most fully reflected in the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States in accordance with the UN Charter. This principle was later developed in the Declaration of Principles Final Act Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Final Document of the Vienna Meeting of Representatives of the States Parties to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1989, the Charter of Paris for a New Europe in 1990 and a number of other documents.

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

According to the 1970 Declaration, the concept of sovereign equality 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) every state is obliged to fully and conscientiously fulfill its international obligations and live in peace with other states.

In the Declaration of Principles of the CSCE Final Act, states committed themselves not only to respect the principle of sovereign equality as set out in the UN Charter and the 1970 Declaration, but also to respect the rights inherent in sovereignty. The latter means that in their mutual relations, states must respect differences in historical and socio-political development, diversity of positions and views, internal laws and administrative rules, the right to determine and implement, at their own discretion and in accordance with international law, relations with other states. The 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 the right to neutrality.

Pointing out the connection between the principle of sovereign equality and respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty simultaneously specifies and expands the content of this principle, which underlies international cooperation. This connection is especially clearly manifested in the field of international economic relations, where the problem of protecting the sovereign rights of developing states is most acute. IN last years the need to respect the rights inherent in sovereignty is especially often pointed out in connection with the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution, which should not be used to the detriment of other states. This concerns, for example, the problem of direct television broadcasting, the danger of military or any other hostile use of means of influencing the natural environment, etc.

The legal equality of states does not mean their actual equality, which is taken into account in real international relations. One example of this is the special legal status of permanent members of the UN Security Council.

There are statements that normal international relations are impossible without limiting sovereignty. Meanwhile, sovereignty is an integral property of a state and a factor in international relations, and not a product of international law. No state, group of states or international organization can impose the rules of international law created by them on other states. The inclusion of a subject of international law in any system of legal relations can be carried out only on the basis of voluntariness.

Currently, states are increasingly transferring some of their powers, which were previously considered integral attributes state sovereignty, in favor of the international organizations they create. This happens for various reasons, including due to the increase in the number of global problems, the expansion of areas of international cooperation and, accordingly, an increase in the number of objects of international legal regulation. In a number of international organizations, the founding states moved away from formal equality in voting (one country - one vote) and adopted the so-called weighted voting method, when the number of votes a country has depends on the size of its contribution to the organization’s budget and other circumstances related to operational and economic activities of international organizations. Thus, when voting in the Council of Ministers European Union on a number of issues, states have an unequal number of votes, and small EU member states have repeatedly and official level noted that this situation contributes to the strengthening of their state sovereignty. The principle of weighted voting has been adopted in a number of international financial organizations UN system, in the Council of the International Maritime Satellite Communications Organization (INMARSAT), etc.

There is every reason to assume that the vital need to preserve peace, the logic of integration processes and other circumstances of modern international relations will lead to the creation of legal structures that would adequately reflect these realities. However, this in no way means a derogation of the principle of sovereign equality in interstate relations. By transferring part of their powers to international organizations voluntarily, states do not limit their sovereignty, but, on the contrary, exercise one of their sovereign rights - the right to conclude agreements. In addition, states, as a rule, reserve the right to control the activities of international organizations.

As long as sovereign states exist, the principle of sovereign equality will remain the most important element of the system of principles of modern international law. Strict adherence to it ensures the free development of every state and people.

As noted, the 1970 Declaration of Principles of International Law emphasizes that, in interpreting and applying the principles set out therein, they are interrelated and each principle must be considered in the context of all others. In this regard, it is especially important to emphasize the close connection that exists between the principle of the sovereign equality of States and their duty not to interfere in matters that are essentially within their domestic competence. International law, in principle, does not regulate issues of the internal political situation of states, therefore any measures by states or international organizations that constitute an attempt to prevent a subject of international law from solving their internal problems independently should be considered interference.

The concept of the internal competence of the state in practice often causes controversy. It changes with the development of international relations, with the growing interdependence of states. In particular, modern concept non-intervention does not mean that states can arbitrarily attribute any issues to their internal competence. International obligations states, including their obligations under the UN Charter, are the criterion that allows us to correctly approach the solution of this complex issue. In particular, there is no doubt that the concept of “matters essentially within the internal competence of any state” is not purely territorial concept. This means that some events, although they occur within the territory of a particular state, may be considered as not falling solely within its internal competence. For example, if the UN Security Council states that events occurring within the territory of a state threaten international peace and security, then such events cease to be internal matter of a given State, and the actions of the United Nations in relation to these events will not interfere with the internal affairs of the State.

Sovereignty does not mean complete independence of states, much less their isolation, since they live and coexist in an interconnected world. On the other hand, an increase in the number of issues that states voluntarily subject to international regulation does not mean their automatic removal from the sphere of domestic competence.

11. PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGN EQUALITY OF STATES