International principle of non-use of strength and threats by force. The principle of non-use of force or threat of force in the context of increased global processes

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

The idea of \u200b\u200bthe inadmissibility of solving controversial issues between states by war was expressed by thinkers and political figures of many countries since deep antiquity. However, it was able to find their embodiment in the contractual form in the twentieth century.

In relation to the realities arising in the territory of the former Soviet Union After his decay, the question of the non-use of the force was very acute. As you know, the Russian leadership was often accused of readiness to use armed force for the restoration of the USSR or to achieve concessions from its nearest neighbors (for example, to change the boundaries). Moreover, some of Russia's actions in t. N. "Middle Abroad" was unambiguously interpreted as aggression against new independent states. It is in such a wording that the Georgian leadership appreciated the actions of the Russian military in the territory of Abkhazia in the first months of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict; The President of Moldova M. Snegoran after the intervention of the 14th Army in the Transnistria also stated about "military aggression" of Russia 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 in Tajikistan can also qualify as "aggression" of Moscow against this country. Accordingly, Russia was accused of violating the "generally recognized norms of international law", including the UN Charter, and from the UN itself, represented by its Security Council "Sacrifices of Aggression" required the adoption of the immediate and most stringent measures to punish the aggressor.

Appeared in international law during the period between two wars, first as the principle of banning an aggressive war, the principle of non-use of force or the threat of force replaced the previously important right of states to war (Jus AD Bellum).

According to the principle of the prohibition of the use of force or threat of all the UN member states, they refrain in their international relations from the threat of force or its application both against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state and in any other way incompatible with the objectives of the United Nations "( p. 4 of article 2).

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

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

2) the use of force or threat to the force with the aim of violating the existing international borders of another state or to resolve international disputes, including territorial disputes and issues related to state borders, or to violate international demarcation lines, including truce lines;

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

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

5) the organization, incitement, assistance or participation in the acts of civil war or the innovation of organizational activities within its own territory aimed at performing such acts in the case when the acts mentioned are associated with the threat of force or its use;

6) Military occupation of the territory of the state, which is the result of the use of force in violation of the UN Charter:

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

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

The practice of recent years confirms that the task of unconditional approval of the principle of non-use of force in international life, unfortunately, did not come to no, but, on the contrary, it became even more relevant. Since the establishment of UN, humanity has done a huge path, the world has changed significantly. These changes simultaneously make up new opportunities and new dangers.

International security, as noted in the Declaration on the strengthening of the effectiveness of the principle of refusing threats or its application in international relations, approved at the 42nd session of the UN General Assembly in 1987, should be based on the principles of refusal of the use of force, the peaceful coexistence of states with various social systems and the right of free choice and independent development of each country.

The declaration is consistently carried out that international security is made up of security in various regions, and it is indicated that states participating in regional agreements or bodies should consider the possibility of wider use of such agreements and bodies to resolve issues related to the maintenance of international peace and security. , in accordance with Art. 52 UN Charter. Thus, the Declaration reflected the idea that did not lose their relevance today, which in the struggle for general security, for the exclusion of war from the life of society should be involved international Institutions Both forms, and above all, such a universal body of cooperation between states as the United Nations.

Thus, the provisions of the UN Charter and the developing declarations oblige all UN members to resolve peaceful through all disputes that can threaten international peace and security. The fact that these provisions of the UN Charter reflect deep changes in international law and are exceptional importance, there has been wide recognition both among lawyers and among governments. Not by the expression of utopian hopes for the reorganization of international relations concluded in Art. 2 UN Charter Legal standards relating to the use of force reflect a deep and realistic assessment of destructive potential of modern war And the significantly increased desire of governments prevent the emergence of such war.

The principle of peaceful settlement of disputes is also associated with the principle of a peaceful resolution of disputes. According to him, all disputes between states, whatever character and whatever origin, they should be resolved only by peaceful means.

A peaceful settlement (or permission) disputes are unanimously regarded as one of the main international legal principles.

Hardly anyone will be objected to the statement that conflict situations arising in the territory of the former Soviet Union should be solved by peaceful means. The question is: whether it is possible to absolutize this principle with respect to the post-Soviet realities, and if not, under what circumstances and under what conditions should this be refused? Are there any objective criteria for the development of conflict situations that make the use of power methods for resolving conflicts permissible and justified?

The creation of the UN and the adoption of its charter led to the consolidation of the principle of a peaceful settlement of disputes in international law, which became generally accepted and generally obligatory. It is impossible not to note the fact that "UN Charter ... contributes the largest innovation to international law, unconditionally demanding permission ... a dispute between states one of the peaceful funds and, thus, excluding the possibility of declaring the war." The consolidation of the principle in a more specific and accurate form allowed the UN Charter to take a step forward compared to the previously existing formulations of the principle, since in it, in addition to the obligations of states, all disputes between them only by peaceful means were also recorded, the obligation of states did not apply the force or threat to the settlement in settlement Their disputes.

In the UN Charter, the Regulations on the peaceful resolution of international disputes mentioned in paragraph 1 of Art. 1, paragraph 3 of Art. 2, p. 4 art. 3, art. 14, art. 52, in ch. VI, VII, etc. Chapter VI provides the Security Council the opportunity to "investigate any dispute or any situation that can lead to international frictions", and "recommend such a dispute resolution conditions that it will find suitable", however, they should not be associated with using the armed forces. In art. 33 Listed ways of peaceful dispute resolution: negotiations, examination, mediation, reconciliation, arbitration, trial, appeal to regional bodies or agreements or other peaceful means at the discretion of the arbitrariness. In addition, according to Art. 41 (ch. VII), the Security Council can apply a set of measures to restore the world, are also not related to the use of armed forces, which are a "full or partial break of economic relations, rail, marine, air, postal, telegraph, radio or other Messages, as well as a break of diplomatic relations. "

The UN Charter, thus, not only consolidated the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes in an exact and concrete form, but also obliged the state to allow all disputes between them exclusively by peaceful means without resorting to the power of weapons or its use.

To analyze the content of the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes, the question of determining the scope of application of this principle is similar.

In the practice of international legal analysis of disagreements, in addition to the "dispute" category, the category "situation" is also used. At the present stage, a distinct distinction between the concepts of "dispute" and "situation", as well as the exact definition of these concepts are absent. The Charter also does not provide definitions of the concepts of "dispute" and "situation", and the analysis of those articles of the Charter, in which these concepts meet, cannot serve as the basis for their clear distinction.

There are two types of disputes and situations: the continuation of some threatens to international peace and security, the continuation of others is not associated with such a threat. In the light of the UN goals, it is more important to settle the disputes and situations of the first species, at the same time, in the context of the same goals, any disputes and situations should be settled, for those who do not threaten international peace and without danger, still cause international friction. The presence of such friction makes it difficult to develop friendly relations and mutually beneficial cooperation between states, complicates the process of creating comprehensive international security.

The UN Charter does not establish the criteria for separating disputes and situations into two specified categories. The solution of this issue is related to the competence of the Security Council. According to Art. 34 Charter, "The Security Council is authorized to investigate any dispute or any situation that can lead to international frictions or cause a dispute to determine whether the continuation of this dispute can not threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. Did not work out general criteria Separation of disputes and situations to the specified categories and the practice of the UN. It is not possible to satisfactorily solve this complex task, first of all, because the question of whether or not the dispute or the situation is a threat to international peace and security, due to the specific circumstances of each specific dispute, as well as largely depends on the nature of the foreign policy of arcing or involved in the situation sides. In any case, it seems indisputable that the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes includes all international disputes and situations in its action, regardless of whether they threaten or do not threaten international peace and security.

The essence of the principle of peaceful resolution of disputes is not only that international disputes must be resolved by peaceful means, and in the fact that they should be allowed only by peaceful means, exclusively by peaceful means, i.e. No use of force in resolving international disputes is unacceptable. Prof. I.P.Beschenko and M.L. Entin notes that the provisions of the UN Charter and the Declaration of the Principles of International Law of 1970 that the settlement of an international dispute should be held "in such a way as not to threaten the International Peace and Security and Justice" and "in accordance with the principles of international law", indicate another Three essential elements characterizing the principle of peaceful dispute resolution. The result of a peaceful settlement in no way should create a threat to international peace and security, to negotiate the interests of third countries, create new conflict situations or, without deciding the dispute in essentially, without eliminating the causes of the conflict, leave a constant opportunity to exacerbate the "hidden conflict between states".

The principles of non-use of the force or threat of force and peaceful settlement of disputes were reflected in the main empirical provisions on which the UN peacekeeping activities are based. The principles of the consent of the parties, the impartiality of the peacekeeping forces and non-use of force are generally accepted and fundamental both for the peacekeeping practice of the UN, and for peacekeeping operations conducted by national governments and international organizations (for example, the observation forces of the British Commonwealth of Nations in Rhodesia / Zimbabwe, multinational forces in Beirut, Arab Defense Forces in Lebanon).

The advantage of peacekeeping operations based on the above principles is obvious. They are distinguished by the possibility of achieving the goals of the operation with the minimum material costs and the use of a small number of military observers or military contingents. In addition, compliance with the principles of impartiality and neutrality, as a rule, provides support for the local population, without which all the efforts of peacekeepers may be fruitless (this clearly demonstrates the experience of peacekeeping operations in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia), and, not less important, guarantees the daily security of the military Bases and staff.

However, in case of escalation of violence, this approach does not provide real capabilities of the impact on the conflicting parties. His negative side It was demonstrated very cruelly during the crisis in the Middle East in 1967 - the expulsion of the UN Emergency Armed Forces (UNF I) from Egypt and followed by this unleashing war between Israel and a number of Arab countries. Did not prevent violation of the order, foreign aggression and the seizure of the territory of the presence of the UN in Cyprus in 1972 and in Lebanon in 1982

The obvious limitation of the principles of impartiality and non-separation of force, the desire to get rid of the shortcomings inherent in the peacekeeping and the urgent need to resolve the struck conflicts led to the displacement of emphasis in the direction of power methods.

It is impossible to deny those successes that were achieved by the UN with the use of force. Thus, the successful holding of elections in Namibia in 1989 was secure, including the approval of UN representatives or at least their tacit consent to the use of force against the Agency of the People's South-West Africa. The preventive deployment of troops in Macedonia, which is essentially a frankly military operation, made it possible to prevent possible attacks on this former Yugoslav Republic. The UN's approved war in the Persian Gulf in 1991 and NATO bombing strikes in Serbian positions in the former Yugoslavia in 1995 could certainly achieve the goals of the operations and prevented further escalation of conflicts. However, they raised the following questions, for which, at the moment, it is not possible to get unambiguous answers.

To what extent the refusal to the principles of non-use of the force and the peaceful settlement of disputes meet the objectives and objectives of the United Nations? And is, in this case, peacekeeping is simply a flexible admission, legal foundations, goals and method of conducting which can be subjected to a radical "fit" depending on the conjunctural political interests? Is it worth using peacekeeping mechanism at all and use UN troops in situations, knowingly requiring a power approach? The solution to these issues would allow the new impetus to peacekeeping operations and bring them to a new quality level.

It is no less important to the problem of resolving conflicts in the post-Soviet space. Demanding conceptually peacekeeping promotions and combat operations, this decision would seem to have allowed Russia to develop a more suspended and a certain approach to resolving conflicts in the CIS. It would prevent Russia's involvement in a situation like Tajikistan, when peacekeeping tasks are put by regular combat parts simultaneously with the objectives of the protection of borders and prevent involvement in the conflict of the third party. Such mixing tasks inevitably leads to uncertainty and lack of legitimacy of the status of peacekeepers, and their willy-unill themselves makes it on the side of the existing regime.

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

In a single wording with the principle of non-use of force or threat to force in paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, the principle of territorial integrity of states is enshrined. The Charter ordered all UN members to refrain in their international relations from the threat of strength or its use against the territorial immunity of states.

Further development, this principle was received in the Declaration of the Principles of 1970, although its name was not mentioned and its content was not made separately. Nevertheless, the content of the first principle of the declaration is literally reproduced by the formulation of paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, which combines two principles: the principle of non-use of the force or threat to the strength and principle of territorial integrity of states. Revealing 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 was established that each state "should 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 the state should not be the object of military occupation, which was the result of 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 the state should not be the object of acquiring another state as a result of the threat of force or its use.

Despite the seemingly obvious unequivocality of this principle, the application of it in relation to the problems arising in the territory of the former Soviet Union, caused and continues to cause numerous questions. Being one of the most important signs of independence and statehood, the territorial integrity has become one of the most painful problems arising after the USSR transition as a whole political education to fifteen new independent states. The main difficulty lies in the change in the status of "internal", in fact administrative borders In the former Soviet Union, on state. The fact that many of these borders are not perceived as legitimate, could not but become a serious challenge to relations between new-forming states. In this situation, any real or potential claims inevitably become a source of serious conflicts at the interstate level.

The most dramatic way, this problem has manifested itself in armed clashes in Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria and Chechnya. In the last four conflicts, Russia is more or less involved in direct participation.

Thus, in front of Russia, current conceptual issues arise directly related to the principle of territorial integrity. What exactly are Russia's actions regarding neighboring states be interpreted as an encroachment on their territorial integrity? For example, as far as the statements of Ukrainian leaders are that a number of resolutions of the State Duma of Russia regarding the situation in the Crimea, there is nothing but to encourage separatism and undermining the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state? Or statements some political figures Latvia and Estonia in the sense that the support of Russia of the Russian-speaking population of these countries is incompatible with the principle of territorial integrity of states?

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

According to E.A. Lukasheva, "Interethnic relations - one of the burning problems of modernity. From its decision, the preservation of the world on our planet, the protection of human rights and freedoms and phrases is largely dependent ... The end of the 20th century has put forward real issues related to the right of peoples on self-determination, with The one hand, and while maintaining the territorial integrity and irrevoyability of borders - on the other; requires solving the problem of the legal status of national minorities, a harmonious combination of human rights and the rights of the people, legal regulation of interethnic conflicts. "

The principle of self-determination of peoples as a mandatory norm has received its development after the adoption of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, it should be noted that one of the most important objectives of the UN to develop friendly relations between nations based on respect for the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples ... "(paragraph 2 of Article 1). The specified goal is specified in many provisions of the Charter. In Art. 55 , for example, it is closely associated with the task of improving the standard of living, decision international problems in the economic and social fields, in the areas of health, education, culture, respect for human rights, etc.

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

Without stopping in detail on the evolution of views on the principle of self-determination, as this is not included in our task, it can be stated that its content, if proceeding from the analysis of documents and the doctrine, by the end of the 70s included the following main elements:

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

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

c) it is implemented by free willing of this nation or nation;

d) its implementation eliminates any pressure, coercion or interference from the outside;

e) it means the possibility of choosing between the state branch of this people or nation and the entry of it (its) on certain conditions to another state, that is, a free choice of political status;

(e) It also means the possibility of choosing the form of the state (i.e., the forms of government, the state device, political regime);

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

Naturally, these elements are interrelated, and one choice can predetermine the other. For example, the entry of the people (or nation) in the composition of a state means and the choice of the existing socio-economic system there is, etc.

It should be noted that in relation to the principle of self-determination of peoples, both Western and Russian researchers split into two opposite camps. Some exalted the role and importance of the rights of nations on self-determination, others consider it as a manifestation of frank nationalism and separatism.

In the period of the "Cold War", in the conditions of confrontation East - West, the interpretation of the principle of self-determination of peoples was greatly politicized. The USSR and its allies actively supported the anti-community orientation of the interpretation of this principle.

In various resolutions, UN bodies directly or indirectly emphasized the right of states and the international community as a whole to assist nations leading the struggle for their liberation. So, in Art. 7 Definitions of the Aggression approved by the UN General Assembly on December 14, 1974, it was said: "Nothing in this definition can in any way cause damage to the right to self-determination, freedom and independence of peoples that are forcibly devoid of this right, in particular peoples under the domination of colonial and racist regimes or under other forms of foreign domination, as well as the right of these peoples to deal with this purpose and scold and receive support ... "

In Western legal practice, disagreement was expressed in the fact that foreign states have the right to provide material assistance to national liberation movements. Western countries It was believed that assistance should be limited to moral and diplomatic support, while Afro-Asian and former socialist states interpreted the term "support" used in defining aggression, as implied and material support (for example, weapons).

However, by the end of the 80s - the beginning of the 90s. Western and Russian positions on the issue of self-determination of peoples began to close. During this period, both in Western and Russian literature began to speak out, according to which the state branch is not the form of self-determination, which, when implementing the right to self-determination, plays a major role. So, Yu.A. Reshetov supports the point of view M. Kampelman (USA), who believes that the right to the department is not the right to international law, although it may be part of the constitutional procedure, calls the right to self-determination to the right to the separation of the extremist interpretation of this right. At the same time, S.V. Chernichenko does not agree with the categorically denial of the fact that the right to self-determination includes the right to the department. In his opinion, the right to separation 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 separate only if there are certain conditions.

Incassibility that national self-determination led to the destruction of national unity and the territorial integrity of the country emphasizes the declaration on the provision of independence to colonial countries and the peoples of 1960 in it states: "... Any attempt aimed at partially or completely destroy national unity and the territorial integrity of the country is not compatible with the objectives and principles of the Charter of the United Nations ... ".

The same situation was reflected in the Vienna Declaration and the Program of Action adopted by the World Human Rights Conference 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 legal actions in accordance with the Charter OOH for its implementation, says: "According to the Declaration on the principles of international law ..., the above should not be interpreted as permission or promoting any actions that violate or undermining, in whole or in part, territorial integrity or political unity Sovereign and independent states that comply with the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples and, by virtue of this, have governments representing the interests of the entire people on their territory without any difference. "

To understand the principle of self-determination, it is important to conclusions to which he came in his study dedicated to minorities, a member of the UN Subcommission to Prevent Discrimination and Minority Protection A. Eid. He argues that the right to self-determination are peoples living in colonial territories outside Europe for which colonial or similar control by European states or states has been established, subsequently in settlement from Europe. Attempts to use the concept of colonialism in other situations complicate this problem and should not be considered as part of the concept of "decolonization". Further, he suggests that the right to self-determination belongs to the peoples living in the territories occupied or annexed after the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945.

In his opinion, members of the federations are eligible for exit, if they are fixed 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 formations that could have different regimes of autonomy with the previously existing manner."

"In other cases, the issue of unilateral right to self-determination is extremely dubious. This right is secondary compared to the fundamental principle of territorial integrity, provided that the state complies with the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples and has a government, which includes representatives of the entire population, without any -Lo differences on the sign of race, religion or skin color. It should be remembered that the basis of the principle of self-determination is the right of the population to participate in the state management as education. When the government does not create opportunities to participate in this process of all segments of the population and all peoples in this process, The question of the right to self-determination of various groups of the population becomes more pressing. "

Thus, it seems that the issue of the department can be delivered only when the state does not comply with the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples and when the relevant people are not given the opportunity to participate in the management of this state.

However, the question of how the states who believe that the people living within their limits cannot claim the right of separation should prove that they comply with the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples, and their governments represent all the people, without the difference in races, religion or The color of the skin is not amenable to detailed legal regulations and remains open at the moment.

The ratio of the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination of nations is by no means not only the theoretical problem of international law, it is equally relevant for the UN peacekeeping practice. First of all, this is due to the trend that has arisen in 1991 to increase the importance of territorial problems as a source of conflict. Starting from 1990, all major armed conflicts in Europe were somehow related to territorial problems. This statement is true in relation to Asia and the Middle and Middle East.

On the one hand, fierce, high level violence and a large number of refugees who distinguish ethnic conflicts require decisive measures to resolve them, on the other hand, difficulties in achieving the consent between the conflicting parties, the lack of sustainable agreements and the high risk for UN military personnel (the risk to turn from peacekeepers to hostages as It was in the former Yugoslavia) lead to the conclusion about the need for a more careful and thorough approach when developing a mandate of such operations. And first of all, this concerns a conceptual approach.

How productive can the UN participation in ethnic and territorial conflicts? As a very recent experience shows, the UN presence could not stop the massive extermination of the Hutu in Rwanda, is ambiguously perceived by the world community and the UN participation in the operation in the former Yugoslavia. What goals should be pursued by such operations: is there a violation of the rights of nations on self-determination to stabilize the conflict, since in such cases it is beneficial to the official government? At what point the right of nations on self-determination turns into separatism?

The practice of UN peacekeeping does not give answers to these questions, moreover, it identifies the complexity and ambiguity of this problem. As an illustration, it is enough to bring the problem of the Kurdish population in Iraq and Turkey. The world community, and in particular the UN Security Council, approve of the United States to defend the Kurdish population in Iraq: US aviation flights over the territory of Iraq, the creation of special zones and even bomb strikes in Baghdad. However, the same problem with the same national minority in Turkey does not cause the world community of desire to apply such decisive measures for its permission and does not go further reasoning about violation of human rights in Turkey. Thus, one example is enough to illustrate that the support of the national minority rights to self-determination is not always caused by the true concerns of the world community about him, sometimes there are national interests of one or more powers that are counted for compliance with international law.

The question of self-determination remains very sharp for the entire post-Soviet space. According to statistical data, about 25 million ethnic Russians and over 11 million representatives of other ethnic groups, who consider Russian by their native language, were outside the Russian Federation, and the total number of people who were discontinued after the collapse of the Soviet Union outside the territories they could consider as "His" on the national criterion, exceeds 70 million. As a result, a huge part of the population of all former Soviet republics faced serious psychological difficulties of adapting to new conditions. In addition, the situation worsens also by the fact that, on the one hand, the states with compact living minorities or autonomy on their territory are extremely painfully perceive by the idea of \u200b\u200bself-determination until the department (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 management process (for example, it is no secret that the political elite of Kazakhstan is in the advantage of mono-ethnic, despite the obviously polyethnic nature of the state and the formal equality of all citizens of Kazakhstan before law).

In addition, the presence of ethnically close groups on the territory of neighboring countries, besides subjected to discrimination, creates the temptation to emphasize the principle of self-determination. And first of all, a similar situation is a danger to Russia, where the arguments in favor of the use of power to protect Russians meet broad support among certain political circles. It is not clear how the safety of millions of Russians, which can become potential or real victims of conflicts in the near abroad, will be provided with the help of regular armed forces, but it is quite obvious that the approval of such policies will cause irreparable damage to both the international prestige of Russia 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 that in the most general Reflected in paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the UN Charter. This item states that "the organization is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its members."

With reference to new states formed in the territory of the former Soviet Union, the question of the state sovereignty is especially acute. Despite numerous statements by the political leaders of these neoplasms on independence and sovereiga, talking about the finally formed statehood, at least some of these countries, is not possible. This is primarily due to the lack of most of them experience and structures for the formation of an independent state apparatus; economic crisis; non-formation of national armies, the loyalty of which manifests itself, rather, on the local, rather than at the national level; lack of experience in making decisions in the military field; The nonrescentity of territorial and regional disputes. To a lesser extent, these issues are relevant for Russia, Baltic countries, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

Nevertheless, the political and economic instability of the situation even in state-based republics of the former Soviet Union, aggravated by numerous armed conflicts that flared up in close proximity to their borders, set a number of issues directly related to the problem of state sovereignty. To what extent to Russia or other post-Soviet states may interfere in the internal affairs of their neighbors, without violating the principle of sovereign equality? What forms should this intervention, if it is recognized as necessary? To what extent and at what point is the intervention of international organizations in conflicts in the post-Soviet space?

In addition, a number of aspects of conducting peacekeeping operations also directly affect the considered principle. Theoretically, in multilateral peacekeeping operations (for example, in Tajikistan), all participating States should bear equal duties and have equal rights. In fact, multilateral peacekeeping operations in the CIS are transnational, i.e. Essentially, they are carried out by Russia with a different symbolic participation of other community states. Is it possible to raise the question of sovereign equality - including in terms of managing peacekeeping operations - in the conditions of a clearly unequal contribution of individual participants in these operations?

In this regard, the interpretation of the principle of sovereign equality and its reflection in the peacemaking practice of the UN is particularly important for post-Soviet states.

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

a) states are legally equal;

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

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

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

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

e) Each state is obliged to fulfill its international obligations fully and conscientiously 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 members of bilateral and multilateral treaties, including allied treaties, as well as their right to neutrality. It should be noted that attempts to make a complete list of elements of the considered principle are unpromising, having in mind the dynamics of international relations.

In the classical interpretation of sovereignty it was believed that its instability and riots are a serious obstacle to the formation of durable society, which can be overcome only with the help of a strong and viable government, which has established a solid hand to "sovereignty" over the territory and its population. Although the form of government could be different - monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, - significant was that governments retained the opportunity to bring order precisely by approving and strengthening sovereignty.

However, at the moment, the objective patterns of the development of international relations, their gradual democratization led to a significant narrowing of the content of the concept of sovereignty. Strengthening the interdependence of countries in the world, the globalization of all walking processes leads to the fact that fragmentation and the more disintegration of individual countries are becoming more dangerous and more dangerous and to a greater extent affect the system of international relations in general; Under these conditions, even great powers become more dependent in making their decisions from less developed and weaker states. In addition, the moral and legal recognition of the importance of such areas as protection of human rights, restriction of weapons and conservation ambient, create prerequisites for expanding understanding by states of their national interests. All this leads to the need to intervene the world community to conflicts, which previously belonged to the internal competence of states.

Moreover, according to many experts, it is the internal conflicts at the present stage that represent the main danger to international peace and security. Apparently, in general, all global politics The end of the twentieth century will be characterized by internal shocks, civil wars and social cataclysms in individual countries, rather than wars between them. Conservation and even strengthening stability at the level of international relations can under these conditions to be a dangerous illusion that hides the destabilization at other levels. [Some authors believe that many interstate conflicts of the last time de facto are conflicts internal or at least directly generated by the latter. According to one study, out of 200 of the largest conflicts that took place after World War II, 85% were rather internal than interstate.]

Such a prospect is capable of generating new difficulties in the United Nations activities, since the UN Charter does not provide for the participation of the Organization in solving internal conflicts. Moreover, in paragraph 7 of Art. 2 It is said that "this charter does not in any way give the United Nations the right to interfere with the case, essentially included in the internal competence of any state", with the exception of cases related to the use of forced measures on the basis of ch. VII.

At the same time, it should be noted that modern international law does not contain an exceptional list of cases relating to the internal jurisdiction of states. Moreover, in last years There was a tendency to narrow the scope of the so-called "internal competence of states."

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

Conflicts threatening international peace and security.

Conflicts between the people of the non-unautheltered territory and the management power.

Conflicts accompanied by mass and rude violations of human rights.

In addition, the situation loses the nature of the internal competence in the event of a threat of hunger, epidemics, large-scale environmental catastrophes (Somalia and Angola); The mass death of the civilian population, refugee fluxes from the conflict zone (Cambodia and especially the persecution of Kurds in Northern Iraq), the threat of the spread of nuclear weapons or other types of weapons of mass lesion (Iraq, potentially North Korea).

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

The above list of factors causing possible international interference in internal conflicts clearly demonstrates the growth trend on the role of humanitarian and ethical aspects when making a decision on the intervention by the international community. The practical experience of peacekeeping operations, in turn, testifies that ethical prerequisites for interference only then have power when they are supported by the national interests of the intervening side, a low degree of risk for peacekeeping forces, real chances for rapid stabilization of the situation in the conflict zone and the availability of financial resources for conducting financial resources operations. The American "Humanitarian Intervention" in Somalia is a visual example.

However, even if there are all the necessary factors that determine the successful embodiment of the objectives of the intervention, its legal framework is a fundamental point. The solution of this issue is directly related to the problem of criticism of the concept of state sovereignty.

In Western tradition, there are several main areas of substantiation of the admissibility of international intervention (up to armed intervention) into the affairs of independent states by the world community. First Direction - Stability Stability international system as a higher value and, as a result, recognition of the possibility of using military force To restore the balance of power in cases of its violation.

Another direction of criticism of sovereignty and justification of foreign intervention rises to the traditional Western European division of the world for "civilized" and "uncivilized" countries. The sovereignty of the latter (China, Ethiopia, Persia, Morocco, etc.) was doubtted, and sometimes it was generally rejected as an international legal category. International intervention in their internal affairs was considered as a kind of police action, and not as an action against an independent state. The police action does not require international legal design; The challenge consists only that the police officers of various states do not act on the same territory.

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

Most often, interference in the internal affairs of new states is justified by references to their defective nature in relation to stable countries of the West. Moreover, in American political science, the term "failed state" has recently appeared (FAILED STATE), 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 were considered 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 may not be applied to the "failed states" regarding non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states.

Conceptually, the task is to determine the "failed state", what social, political, institutional and other criteria should be considered. The most consistent supporters of classical international law argue that the interventions are permissible only when the state is not able to ensure the safety of citizens or foreigners on its territory; The objectives of the intervention must be rigidly limited to ensuring such safety.

At the moment, the "civilizational approach" is used rather to protect the Western world from excessive involvement in internal conflicts of countries with transitional economic and political systems, fraught with large human and material losses. The idea of \u200b\u200bvalue incompatibility and the danger or the uselessness of the introduction of universal Western norms of political democracy is alien to them. These moods are enhanced by the disappointment of a number of governments, due to the expansion of the sphere of peacekeeping activities, in the possibilities of the UN to act productively under the conformity of ethnic conflicts and civil wars And their reluctance in such conditions increase the costs of these operations.

Some American authors are attempting to develop a strict empirical rule that protects the United States from excessive involvement in foreign affairs, including the UN peacekeeping operations, which consist in a speculative division of the world on the "zones of the world" and "disorder zones". With such a classification, 85% of the world belongs to the disorders zones and take enough little on this occasion.

For Russia, this approach implies a significant interest of the international community to its peacekeeping stocks, and in general, the policies of Russia held on the European part of the post-Soviet space, whereas for the events in Central Asia and in the Caucasus, it removes responsibility, leaving Right only adjust Russian actions. The absence of any significant support from the UN and the OSCE in peacekeeping promotions in Abkhazia or Tajikistan is a direct confirmation. The OSCE interest in the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, shown by it recently, is rather connected with the problem of Caspian oil, rather than with a change in the intended trend. All this can lead not so much to solving arising conflicts, how much to localize them in the borders acceptable to the West, which will lead to the isolation of the former Soviet republics with a dubious role of Russia.

In the peacemaking practice of the UN the greatest value It has the question of the relationship of 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 the basis for interference in the internal affairs of any state, and on the other hand, the UN Question and the advantage of human rights and dignity and value of the human person, requires measures to take measures in case of weakness political power and public self-governments leading to the threat of hungry death, as it was in Somalia, or barbaric campaigns of "ethnic cleansing" held in Bosnia.

Raised by Peres de Cuelar, UN Secretary-General, the issue of the need to develop a "new concept, reconcile law and morality," and supported by his successor B. Boutros-Gali 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 the balance between the need for the right leadership of the country and the requirements of the current more and more interdependent world, "at the moment I did not find my final decision.

According to the peacemaking practice of the UN, the generally accepted began to consider the intervention of legitimate if it is carried out with the consent of the government of the host country. This position makes even great powers conducting one-sided intervention, ensure such an excuse. (As an example, you can consider the US operation under the auspices of the UN in Korea 1950-1952)

Apparently, such a basis for intervention is the most acceptable from the point of view of Russia, since the intervention on the basis of a consensus of members of the UN Security Council, which was made by the international community with more readiness, has very foggy prospects for Russia. As a rule, the Sat mandate is issued in the case of a complete political and economic collapse of one or another state, when the central government no longer controls the situation in the country - as in the case of the American "humanitarian intervention" in Somalia. Or in the case when the positions of the central government are so weak that UN mediation is represented by the last straw, for which the collapsed regime is enough.

In any case, the intervention carried out on a multilateral basis is preferred. It is easier to legitimization, because it looks quite convincingly as an expression of a total will of a certain team based on generally accepted values, and does not reflect only the special interests of a separate state. In this sense, the problem of resolving conflicts in the post-Soviet space is not enough support for international organizations, such as the UN and OSCE, or at least the political will of the CIS members.