The principle of fair implementation of international treaties. The role of the principle of good faith fulfillment of international obligations in the process of monitoring their compliance. The principle of good faith fulfillment of international obligations

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

IN modern period from a customary legal norm it turned into a contractual norm, and its content changed significantly and was enriched.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L.M. CHURKINA, lawyer The formation of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations, the role of the principle in the process of compliance with international treaties, as well as in the process of monitoring the implementation of such obligations, including monitoring the execution of decisions of international courts, is considered.

This article was copied from https://www.site

UDC 340.132.8

Magazine pages: 21-24

L.M. Churkina,

The formation of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations, the role of the principle in the process of compliance with international treaties, as well as in the process of monitoring the implementation of such obligations, including monitoring the implementation of decisions of international courts, is considered.

Key words: principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations, control over the execution of decisions of international courts.

The Role of the Principle of Fulfillment in Good Faith of Obligations under the International Law

The author of the article considers the development of the principle of fulfillment in good faith of international obligations in compliance of an international treaty, and also in the course of the control for fulfillment of international obligations, including the control for execution of international judgments.

Keywords: principle of good faith fulfillment of international obligations, monitoring of implementation of decisions of international courts.

Relations between states in different historical periods developed and were regulated differently. The development of economic, political and cultural ties stimulated the strengthening of relations and determined the conclusion of bilateral agreements. International agreements gradually became increasingly important. However, a mutually beneficial agreement was of great value when it was strictly observed by the participants.

The principle of faithful compliance with international obligations has become the main guarantor of strict implementation of signed agreements. The most important step for the general recognition of this principle was the London Conference of 1871, dedicated to the revision of the Paris Peace Treaty of 1856. The European powers recognized as an essential principle of international law that no power can either exempt itself from the obligations of the treaty or change its provisions except with the consent of the contracting parties, achieved through a friendly agreement. This decision, in fact, for the first time secured on international level the principle of faithful performance of obligations, which was interpreted as the principle “contracts must be respected.”

Over time, the principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations received a more specific interpretation. Clause 2 of Art. 1 of the Charter of the League of Nations provided for the condition by which states could become members of the League: to provide valid guarantees of their sincere intention to comply with international obligations.

The inclusion of the principle of faithful performance of obligations under international law in the text of the UN Charter was crucial for universal acceptance. In the preamble and in Art. 4 of the UN Charter speaks of the determination of peoples “to create conditions under which justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be observed,” and paragraph 2 of Art. Article 2 establishes the obligation of UN members to conscientiously fulfill the obligations assumed under the Charter, “in order to ensure to all of them collectively the rights and benefits arising from membership in the membership of the Organization.”

Later the principle was reflected in Art. 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which states that “everyone current contract is obligatory for its participants and must be fulfilled by them in good faith.”

The principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations is specified in the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter, as well as in the Final Act of the 1975 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. In particular, it is emphasized that each state is obliged to conscientiously fulfill obligations arising from both generally recognized principles and norms of international law, and from international treaties valid in accordance with generally recognized principles and norms of international law.

In international legal practice, various legal mechanisms are used to increase the effectiveness of the principle of faithful compliance with international obligations. These include the creation and activities of special international bodies that monitor the implementation of international legal norms.

As practice shows, states themselves enshrine in international agreements provisions on monitoring the fulfillment of undertaken obligations through the use of different forms and methods of international control that help verify states' compliance with international legal obligations and take measures to implement them.

As G.A. emphasized Osipov, the voluntariness of control should be understood in the sense that states, as sovereign participants in international communication, themselves agree to certain international legal norms. However, when these norms are agreed upon and enshrined in a treaty that has entered into force, its provisions, including those on control, are legally binding for all participating states.

International control over the implementation of treaty norms is carried out by the collective efforts of states with the help of international organizations and includes a system of measures aimed at verifying the accuracy of compliance with the international legal obligations of states, identifying possible violations and ensuring compliance with international obligations within the framework of an international treaty. This is only possible with the effective assistance of the states themselves. The state in this aspect can be considered as a controlled structure, the activities of which are aimed at the voluntary implementation of international treaties on its territory.

According to international treaties, participating states undertake obligations to take a number of actions in relation to their domestic life, including taking legislative or other internal measures that may be necessary to implement the rights and obligations enshrined in international agreements.

The state also determines itself effective ways control over the implementation of their international obligations. Internal control functions are implemented by government bodies, officials and other entities and are enshrined in relevant laws.

According to Art. 31 Federal Law dated July 15, 1995 No. 101-FZ “On International Treaties of the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as the Law on International Treaties), international treaties of the Russian Federation are subject to conscientious implementation in accordance with the terms of the international treaties themselves, the norms of international law, the Constitution of the Russian Federation and this law, and other acts legislation of the Russian Federation.

Article 32 of the Law on International Treaties, as well as Art. 21 Federal constitutional law dated December 17, 1997 No. 2-FKZ “On the Government of the Russian Federation” stipulate that the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation take measures aimed at ensuring the implementation of international treaties. Federal executive authorities must ensure the fulfillment of state obligations.

In accordance with paragraph 4 of Art. 32 of the Law on International Treaties and paragraph 1 of Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated March 12, 1996 No. 375 “On the coordinating role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation in pursuing a unified foreign policy line of the Russian Federation,” the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs exercises general control over the implementation of the international obligations of the Russian Federation.

Forms and methods of domestic control can be established by both legislative and executive bodies state power. Federal Law of November 5, 1997 No. 138-FZ “On ratification of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Accumulation and Use of chemical weapons and on its destruction" provides that the fulfillment of the obligations of the Russian Federation arising from the Convention is ensured by federal government bodies and government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation within the limits of their powers. According to this law, the President of the Russian Federation determines the main directions of the policy of the Russian Federation in the field of chemical disarmament, the measures necessary to ensure the safety of citizens and the protection of environment during the destruction of chemical weapons in accordance with the Convention, as well as measures to control their implementation. Moreover, this law contains provisions on the responsibilities of the Government of the Russian Federation and the Federal Assembly to ensure the fulfillment of obligations under the Convention.

As a result of the exercise of national control, the state has the right to bring to justice those responsible for failure to fulfill international obligations. For example, in accordance with Art. 40 of the Federal Law of December 17, 1998 No. 191-FZ “On the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation” officials, citizens and legal entities for violation of this law and international treaties of the Russian Federation are held accountable in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.

Thus, the current Russian legislation contains provisions on ensuring the international obligations of the Russian Federation and on monitoring the implementation of these obligations in various areas.

In national law, judicial control acts as one of the forms of state control. In international law, permission by international judicial authorities disputes arising in connection with the fulfillment of international obligations refer to methods of international control. The possibility of considering a dispute in an international judicial institution follows directly from the provisions of an international treaty. Many universal multilateral conventions contain provisions providing for recourse to the International Court of Justice. These include the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of ​​12/10/1982, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change of 05/03/1992, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer of 03/22/1985, etc.

The International Court makes a decision that is binding on the basis of the principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations. If the court determines that the state did not fulfill its treaty obligations in good faith and abused the rights granted under the treaty, it may make a decision indicating the need to fulfill the obligations under the treaty. The court's requirements are also based on the principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations.

On the one hand, international courts issue law enforcement acts, on the other hand, they act as a mechanism for monitoring the fulfillment of international obligations by states, thereby contributing to the implementation of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations. Consequently, international judicial institutions are engaged in the implementation of obligations that arise from international legal acts.

As a result of the consideration of disputes by international courts and the issuance of rulings between the parties, new legal relations arise, new international legal obligations aimed at implementing the court ruling. Their legal binding results from the provisions of international treaties concluded by the parties, in which they accepted the jurisdiction of the court. At the same time, in connection with the emergence of new legal obligations related to the execution of decisions of an international judicial institution, the problem of monitoring the fulfillment of these obligations arises. Failure to comply with decisions of international courts by states entails appeal to control bodies, specially created international organizations, the absence of which may lead to a violation of the principle of fair fulfillment of international obligations. For the International Court of Justice, such a body is the Security Council, for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights - the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, for the EU Court of Justice - the European Parliament, for the European Court of Human Rights - the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

The control mechanism of the European Court of Human Rights is of particular interest to the Russian Federation. In accordance with Art. 46 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, parties undertake to comply with final court orders in cases in which they are parties. Monitoring the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is carried out by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

The state has an obligation to implement the decree, but it is free to choose the means of enforcement. The control functions of states are assigned to the legislative and executive authorities. Thus, by virtue of articles 79 and 87 of the Dutch Constitution, permanent advisory bodies on matters of legislation and government controlled and the States General of the Netherlands have a control function over the adoption of measures at the national level to implement the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

In some member states of the Council of Europe, a control mechanism (judicial, parliamentary and executive) over the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is provided for at the legislative level. In Ukraine, it is regulated by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Rules of the European Court of Human Rights, the laws of Ukraine “On the execution of decisions and the application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights”, “On enforcement proceedings", the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Code of Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine and some other regulatory legal acts. At the same time, the main regulatory legal act- the law “On the execution of decisions and application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights” has no analogues in other states party to the Convention. Article 11 of this law authorizes the representative body to monitor and receive from the bodies that are responsible for the implementation of additional measures of an individual nature provided for in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on a friendly settlement, information on the progress and consequences of the implementation of such measures, as well as to submit to the Prime Minister submissions to the Minister of Ukraine regarding ensuring the implementation of additional measures of an individual nature. The government commissioner for the European Court of Justice must submit a report on the state of execution of decisions, to whom, in turn, the Department of State Enforcement Service is obliged to provide relevant information.

In 2006, Italy passed a law giving the Prime Minister and Parliament a special function to monitor the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The law obliged the Prime Minister to monitor the actions of the Cabinet in the implementation of European Court judgments made against Italy, and also provided for the preparation of an annual report on the implementation of European Court judgments by Italy and its submission to the country's parliament.

The practice of exercising control functions by parliament in the United Kingdom is interesting. Since March 2006, this state has adopted the practice of annual reports on the implementation of European Court judgments issued against the country. The reports are prepared by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and submitted to Parliament, where they are analyzed and the recommendations made by the committee are put to a vote. As a result, a decision is made to approve the recommendations and apply them in practice or to reject them.

In the Russian Federation, the process of monitoring the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is not regulated. This leads to a lack of objective and prompt analysis in the authorities of the decisions made against Russia, which, in turn, entails a significant delay in taking general measures and an increase in the number of complaints from Russian citizens.

A reduction in the number of complaints and rulings could be facilitated by the urgent adoption of the law “On the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Russian Federation” or by vesting the Commissioner of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights with control functions. Perhaps the creation special service under the Russian Ministry of Justice would help improve the situation regarding Russia’s fulfillment of international obligations undertaken upon joining the Council of Europe and ratifying the Convention. Control can also be exercised through existing supervisory mechanisms and institutions - such as the prosecutor's office or the presidiums of federal courts.

Particularly worthy of attention are proposals regarding control within the framework of prosecutorial supervision over the implementation of international obligations. Part 4 art. 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation proclaimed the generally recognized principles and norms of international law, as well as international treaties of Russia, as an integral part of it legal system. Clause 1 of Art. 5 of the Law on International Treaties repeats this provision. In accordance with Art. 21 of the Federal Law of January 17, 1992 No. 2202-1 “On the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation,” the prosecutor’s office supervises the implementation of laws and, accordingly, international treaties. Thus, the prosecutor's office is obliged to monitor the implementation of the international obligations of the Russian Federation. However, the scope and procedure for supervision by the prosecutor's office over the implementation of international obligations, including the execution of judgments of the European Court, are not specifically defined. This leads to the fact that the prosecutor's office is unable to ensure effective control over the implementation of such decisions.

It is obvious that control must be carried out both at the international and domestic levels in accordance with the principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations. This principle is directly related to the activities of the states themselves in the international arena, as well as to the control bodies they create that exercise control within the country using national means.

Bibliography

1 See: Peace Treaty between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany (together with the “Statute of the League of Nations”, “Charter of the International Labor Organization”, “Protocol”) of June 28, 1919 // Treaty of Versailles. - M., 1925.

2 See: Charter of the United Nations // Collection of existing treaties, agreements and conventions concluded by the USSR with foreign states. Vol. XII. 1956. pp. 14-47.

3 See: Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties // Collection of international treaties of the USSR. Vol. XLII. 1988. pp. 171-197.

4 See: Collection of current treaties, agreements and conventions concluded by the USSR with foreign states. Vol. XXXI. 1977. pp. 544-589.

5 See: Osipov G.A. International legal problems of control over arms limitation and disarmament. - M., 1989. P. 18.

Share this article with your colleagues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KOLOSOV

4. The principle of inviolability of state borders

The principle of the inviolability of state borders is one of the most important foundations of the security of European states.

The idea of ​​​​the inviolability of borders first received its legal form in the agreement between the USSR and Germany of August 12, 1970, and then in the agreements of the People's Republic of Poland, the German Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia

with Germany. Since that time, the inviolability of borders has become a norm of international law, legally binding for the states parties to the above-mentioned treaties. These treaties express two essential elements: recognition of existing borders and the renunciation of any territorial claims.

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

Encroachment on state borders is unilateral actions or demands aimed at changing the position of the border line, its legal design or the actual position of the border line on the ground. Therefore, recognition of this principle also means the renunciation of any territorial claims, that is, as the text of the principle further states, states “will accordingly refrain from any demands or actions aimed at seizing or usurping part or all of the territory of any participating State.” .

The CSCE participating states thereby expressed their recognition or confirmation of the existing borders of European states. This recognition is international legal, which entails certain legal consequences; in particular, this recognition cannot be annulled. International legal recognition of an actual border is equivalent to an agreement between states regarding the existing border.

Thus, the main content of the principle of the inviolability of borders can be reduced to three elements: 1) recognition of existing borders as legally established in accordance with international law; 2) renunciation of any territorial claims now or in the future; 3) refusal of any other encroachments on these borders, including the threat or use of force.

The principle of the inviolability of borders has much in common with the traditional principle of international law - the inviolability of state borders. The content of the latter includes the obligation of states to respect the existing border line on the ground: not to allow arbitrary movement of the border line on the ground and its crossing without appropriate permission or outside the established rules. It also includes the right of every sovereign State to control the crossing of its borders by persons and vehicles.

The principle of inviolability of borders and the principle of inviolability of borders differ in the geographical scope of their application. The principle of the inviolability of borders, according to the Final Act of 1975, applies only in relations between the states parties to this act, that is, European states, as well as the USA and Canada. The principle of inviolability of borders has a wider scope, since it is a principle of general international law and applies to all continents, regardless of whether there are special agreements on this issue or not.

6. The principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes

According to paragraph 3 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter, “all Members of the United Nations shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner as not to endanger international peace and security and justice.” The evolution of the principle of the peaceful settlement of international disputes is marked by a series of international treaties and agreements which, while they limited the right to resort to war, gradually developed means of the peaceful settlement of international disputes and established the legal obligation of states to use such means.

General international law previously only encouraged states to resort to peaceful means of resolving international disputes, but did not oblige them to follow this procedure. Article 2 of the 1907 Hague Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes did not prohibit recourse to war (“before resorting to arms”), did not oblige recourse to peaceful means (“to resort to as far as circumstances permit”), and recommended a very narrow range of peaceful means (Good services and mediation).

In accordance with Art. 33 of the UN Charter, parties to a dispute “shall first endeavor to resolve the dispute by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, litigation, recourse to regional bodies or agreements, or other peaceful means of their choice.”

According to modern concepts of international law, states are obliged to resolve their disputes only by peaceful means. On international conferences Representatives of some countries sometimes resort to arbitrary interpretation of the UN Charter in order to prevent the inclusion of the word “only” in the formulation of the principle. At the same time, they argue that the Charter does not so much enshrine the provision that disputes must be resolved by peaceful means, but rather require that the resolution of international disputes not create a threat to the peace and security of states.

However, the provisions of the Charter say otherwise. General position clause 3 art. 2 applies to all disputes, including those the continuation of which may not threaten international peace. According to paragraph 1 of Art. 1 of the Charter, international disputes must be resolved in accordance with the principles of “justice and international law.” In the view of most States, the Charter's references to justice merely emphasize that peaceful means are mandatory for the resolution of all international disputes.

The UN Charter gives the parties to a dispute the freedom to choose such peaceful means as they consider most appropriate to resolve the dispute. The practice of discussing this issue at international conferences shows that many states in the system of peaceful means give preference to diplomatic negotiations, through which most disputes are resolved.

Direct negotiations the best way meet the task of quickly resolving an international dispute, guarantee equality of the parties, can be used to resolve both political and legal disputes, best facilitate the achievement of a compromise, make it possible to begin resolving the conflict immediately upon its occurrence, and allow preventing the dispute from growing to such proportions when it may threaten international peace and security.

At the same time, the development of international relations, especially in last years, is marked by the desire of states to go beyond negotiations and create other acceptable means of resolving disputes that would be based on appeal to third parties or international bodies. This often raises questions related to the role International Court of Justice UN.

Attempts by some Western states to establish compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, as a rule, are met with sharp rebuff from many states. These states consider the jurisdiction of the Court to be optional, and this position is precisely in accordance with Art. 36 of the Statute of the Court, according to which states may (but are not obliged) to make a declaration that they are bound by the jurisdiction of the International Court. The vast majority of states have not yet accepted the Court's jurisdiction as compulsory.

An analysis of the principle of the peaceful resolution of international disputes, enshrined in the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970 and the Final Act of the CSCE, shows that, despite resistance, it was possible to defend a number of important provisions that are undoubtedly further development relevant provisions of the UN Charter.

These include the duty of states to “endeavor to ensure that short term reach a fair solution based on international law", the duty to "continue to seek mutually agreed means of peaceful settlement of the dispute" in cases where the dispute cannot be resolved, "to refrain from any action that could worsen the situation to such an extent that it would endanger threat maintenance international peace and security, and thereby make a peaceful settlement of the dispute more difficult."

The normative content of the principle of the peaceful settlement of international disputes has in recent years been the subject of careful analysis at CSCE expert meetings on the peaceful settlement of disputes. Thus, the Meeting in Valletta (Malta, 1991) recommended the parameters of a pan-European system for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. The final document of the Conference provides for the creation in Europe of a special body - the “CSCE Dispute Settlement Mechanism”, which can be used at the request of any of the disputing parties and acts as a conciliation body. In addition, the document recommends a wide range of mandatory and optional procedures, from which the disputing parties freely choose those they consider most suitable for resolving a particular dispute.

The mandatory procedures recommended by the Meeting do not apply if one of the disputing parties considers that the dispute involves issues " territorial integrity or national defence, the right to sovereignty over a land area or simultaneous claims to jurisdiction over other areas..."

In general, we can consider that recent years have been marked, on the one hand, by an increase in the share of peaceful means of resolving international disputes, and on the other hand, by the constant desire of states to bring normative content principle in accordance with the needs of social practice.

8. Principle of universal respect for human rights

The emergence of the principle of universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all as one of the main international legal principles dates back to the post-war period and is directly related to the adoption of the UN Charter, although the concept of human rights itself appeared in political and legal terminology from the end of the 18th century and is associated with era bourgeois revolutions.

In the preamble to the Charter, UN members reaffirmed “belief in fundamental human rights... in the equality of men and women...” In Art. 1, as the goal of the members of the Organization, it states cooperation between them “to promote and develop respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.” The most important is Art. 55 of the Charter, according to which “The United Nations shall promote: a) improved standards of living, full employment and conditions of economic and social progress and development;... c) universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all...” In Art. Article 56 provides that “all Members of the Organization undertake to take joint and independent actions in cooperation with the Organization to achieve the goals specified in Article 55.”

It is easy to see that the obligations of states are set out here in the very general form Therefore, from the moment of adoption of the Charter to the present day, states have been striving to specify the normative content of the principle of universal respect for human rights. This is done most comprehensively and universally in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and two covenants adopted in 1966: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

An analysis of numerous international human rights instruments shows that in modern international law there is a universal norm according to which states are obliged to respect and observe human rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone, without distinction as to race, gender, language or religion.

This obligation is of a general nature. This means that human rights and freedoms are subject to respect in all states and apply to all persons without any discrimination. At the same time, the goal of international cooperation in this area is not the unification of national legislation, but the development of standards (models), which serve as a kind of starting point for states to develop their own national legislation.

Thus, the direct regulation and protection of human rights and freedoms still remain internal matter each state. International human rights norms in the overwhelming majority cannot be applied directly on the territory of a state and require certain steps from it for their implementation. Provisions, for example, of the Human Rights Covenants directly require the state to take measures, including legislation, to ensure individuals the rights provided for in the Covenants.

As a rule, international documents do not determine how a state will fulfill its obligations. At the same time, the standards of conduct contained in international documents, to a certain extent, bind the freedom of behavior of states in the sphere of national legislation. Moreover, an analysis of the development of the normative content of the principle of universal respect for human rights shows that the individual is gradually becoming a direct subject of international law.

We are talking, first of all, about gross and massive violations of human rights, when the internal political situation that has developed in a particular country allows us to talk about “systematic, reliably confirmed gross violations human rights and fundamental freedoms" (ECOSOC Resolution 1503 of May 27, 1970). Phenomena such as genocide, apartheid, racial discrimination, etc., have already been classified by the international community as international crimes and, therefore, cannot be considered in as matters within the internal competence of the state.

Modern international law encourages the individual to increasingly participate in the struggle for compliance international standards in the field of human rights. For example, the Final Document of the CSCE Meeting of States Parties in Vienna instructs states to “respect the right of their citizens to make an active contribution, alone or together with others, to the development and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms”, provides for “the right of individuals to observe the implementation and contribute to the implementation of the provisions of the documents CSCE and join others for this purpose."

The CSCE Copenhagen Document obliges the state to “ensure that individuals are permitted to exercise the right of association, including the right to form, join and participate effectively in the activities of non-governmental organizations that seek to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including trade unions and watchdog groups.” respect for human rights."

9. The principle of self-determination of peoples and nations

Unconditional respect for the right of every people to freely choose the paths and forms of their development is one of the fundamental foundations of international relations. This right is reflected in the principle of self-determination of peoples and nations.

The emergence of the principle of self-determination of peoples was preceded by the proclamation of the principle of nationality, under the flag of which the economically and politically strengthened bourgeoisie fought against moribund feudalism. However, the principle of nationality did not become dominant even in international law of the era of bourgeois revolutions, since it assumed self-determination only on the basis of nationality. The content of the principle of self-determination changed depending on the historical situation. There was a time when self-determination came down to the problem of creating independent nation states, since nations historically emerged after states. The desire of a nation to form its own state is therefore associated with a specific stage of social development.

The principle of self-determination of peoples and nations as a mandatory norm was developed after the adoption of the UN Charter. One of the most important goals of the UN is “to develop friendly relations between nations on the basis of respect for the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples...” (Clause 2 of Article 1 of the Charter). This goal is specified in many provisions of the Charter. In Art. 55, for example, it is closely associated with the task of increasing living standards, solving international problems in the economic and social fields, in the fields of health, education, culture, human rights, etc.

The principle of self-determination has been repeatedly confirmed in UN documents, in particular in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 1960, the Human Rights Covenants of 1966, and the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970. The Declaration of Principles of the CSCE Final Act particularly emphasizes the right of peoples to control their own destinies. After the collapse of the colonial empires, the question of self-determination of nations in the sense of the formation of independent national states was largely resolved.

At the same time, today the principle of self-determination is the main one in solving the problems of colonial and dependent peoples, which are discussed in Chapters XI-XIII of the UN Charter, since the subject of self-determination is not states, but peoples and nations.

In resolution 1514 (XV) of December 14, 1960, the General Assembly explicitly stated that “the continued existence of colonialism impedes the development of international economic cooperation, retards the social, cultural and economic development of dependent peoples and is contrary to the United Nations ideal of world peace." According to the same resolution and many other UN documents, insufficient political, economic and social preparedness or insufficient preparedness in the field of education should not used as a pretext to deny independence.

UN documents express the main thing in the normative content of the principle of self-determination. Thus, the 1970 Declaration of Principles of International Law emphasizes: “The establishment of a sovereign and independent state, free accession to independent state or union with it, or the establishment of any other political status freely determined by the people, are forms of exercise by that people of the right to self-determination."

The right of national self-determination does not disappear if a nation has formed an independent state or became part of a federation of states. The subject of the right to self-determination is not only dependent, but also sovereign nations and peoples. With the achievement of national independence, the right to self-determination only changes its content, which is reflected in the corresponding international legal norm.

The modern normative content of self-determination includes both the rights of peoples and the corresponding responsibilities of states. Thus, the right of peoples to freely, without any external interference, determine their political status and pursue economic, social and cultural development corresponds to the obligation of states not only to respect this right, but also to promote it through joint and individual actions.

Without strict respect for and respect for the principle of self-determination of peoples, it is impossible to achieve many of the vital tasks facing the UN, such as the task of promoting universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, gender, language or religion. Without strict adherence to this principle, it is also impossible to maintain relations of peaceful coexistence between states. Each State, in accordance with the 1970 Declaration, is obliged to refrain from any violent action that could prevent peoples from exercising their right to self-determination. An important element of the principle is the right of peoples to seek and receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter in the event that they are deprived of the right to self-determination by force.

The principle of self-determination of peoples and nations is the right of peoples and nations, but not an obligation, and the implementation of this right can be multivariate. Self-determination should not be carried out from a separatist position to the detriment of the territorial integrity and political unity of sovereign states. On the other hand, if the people create a body that officially represents them and performs public legal functions, then any violent actions that impede the process of self-determination from the outside can be considered as violating the principles of non-interference and sovereign equality of states.

The right of peoples and nations to self-determination is closely connected with freedom of political choice. Self-determined peoples freely choose not only their domestic political status, but also their foreign policy orientation. Respect for freedom of political choice becomes the foundation of cooperation, rather than competition and confrontation. Related to this, in particular, is the right of liberated states to pursue a policy of non-alignment and to participate in solving both global and regional problems. Self-determination means the right of peoples to choose the path of development that best suits their historical, geographical, cultural, religious (etc.) traditions and ideas.

10. Principle of cooperation

The idea of ​​international cooperation between states, regardless of differences in their political, economic and social systems in various spheres of international relations in order to maintain international peace and security, is the main provision in the system of norms contained in the UN Charter.

After the adoption of the UN Charter, the principle of cooperation was enshrined in the charters of many international organizations, in international treaties, numerous resolutions and declarations.

Representatives of some schools of international law argue that the duty of states to cooperate is not legal, but declarative. Such statements no longer correspond to reality. Of course, there was a time when cooperation was a voluntary act of government, but subsequently the demands of developing international relations led to the transformation of a voluntary act into a legal obligation.

With the adoption of the Charter, the principle of cooperation took its place among other principles that must be observed under modern international law. Thus, in accordance with the Charter, states are obliged to “carry out the international cooperation in resolving international problems of an economic, social, cultural and humanitarian nature" and are also obliged to "maintain international peace and security and to this end take effective collective measures."

The principle of cooperation as a legal category also follows from other provisions of the Charter, in particular from the provisions of Art. 55 and 56. For example, the content of Art. 55 demonstrates two types of duties of UN members: the duty of states to cooperate with each other in achieving the goals provided for in the Charter, and their duty to cooperate with the UN to achieve the same goals.

Of course, specific forms of cooperation and its volume depend on the states themselves, their needs and material resources, domestic legislation and international obligations assumed. However, an analysis of political and legal documents reflecting the intentions of states (such as the 1970 Declaration and the Declaration of Principles of the CSCE Final Act) shows the desire of states to give the principle of cooperation a universal character.

The obligation of all states to act in accordance with the principles of the United Nations clearly implies their duty to cooperate in the solution of various international problems "as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security."

The obligation of states to cooperate with each other naturally presupposes that states will conscientiously comply with the norms of international law and the UN Charter. If any state ignores its obligations arising from the generally recognized principles and norms of international law, then this state thereby undermines the basis of cooperation.

11. The principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations

The principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations arose in the form of the international legal custom pacta sunt servanda in the early stages of the development of statehood, and is currently reflected in numerous bilateral and multilateral international agreements.

As a generally accepted standard of conduct for entities, this principle is enshrined in the UN Charter, the preamble of which emphasizes the determination of UN members “to create conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be observed.” According to paragraph 2 of Art. 2 of the Charter, “all Members of the United Nations shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed under this Charter in order to ensure to all of them collectively the rights and benefits arising from membership of the Organization.”

The development of international law clearly confirms the universal nature of the principle in question. According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, “every treaty in force is binding on its parties and must be performed by them in good faith.” Moreover, “a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as a justification for its non-compliance with the treaty.”

The scope of the principle under consideration has expanded noticeably in recent years, which is reflected in the wording of the relevant international legal documents. Thus, according to the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, each state is obliged to fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by it in accordance with the UN Charter, obligations arising from generally recognized norms and principles of international law, as well as obligations arising from international treaties valid in accordance with generally recognized principles and norms of international law.

The authors of the declaration sought to emphasize the need for conscientious compliance, first of all, with those obligations that are covered by the concept of “generally recognized principles and norms of international law” or stem from them.

In the Declaration of Principles of the 1975 CSCE Final Act, the participating States agreed to “carry out in good faith their obligations under international law, both those obligations which arise from generally accepted principles and rules of international law and those obligations which arise from treaties or other agreements consistent with international law.” , of which they are participants."

Obligations “under international law” are certainly broader than obligations “arising from generally recognized principles and norms of international law.” In addition, in recent years, states have adopted, in particular, regional level important documents which, strictly speaking, are not their obligations “under international law”, but which they nevertheless intend to strictly implement.

For Europe, these are documents adopted within the framework of the Helsinki process. The Final Document of the Vienna Meeting of Representatives of the CSCE Participating States states that they “reaffirmed their determination to fully implement, unilaterally, bilaterally and multilaterally, all the provisions of the Final Act and other CSCE documents.”

Different legal and socio-cultural systems have their own understanding of good faith, which directly affects states’ compliance with their obligations. The concept of integrity has been enshrined in large number international treaties, resolutions General Assembly The UN, in declarations of states, etc. However, it should be recognized that determining the exact legal content of the concept of good faith in real situations can be difficult.

It seems that the legal content of good faith should be derived from the text of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, mainly the sections “Application of Treaties” (Articles 28-30) and “Interpretation of Treaties” (Articles 31-33). The application of the provisions of a treaty is largely determined by its interpretation. From this point of view, it is logical to assume that the application of a contract will be fair if it is interpreted in good faith (in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the contract in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the contract).

The principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations applies only to valid agreements. This means that the principle in question applies only to international treaties concluded voluntarily and on the basis of equality.

Any unequal international treaty first of all violates the sovereignty of the state and as such violates the UN Charter, since the United Nations is “founded on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members,” who, in turn, have committed themselves to “develop friendly relations among nations on the basis of respect the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples."

It should be considered generally accepted that any treaty contrary to the UN Charter is void, and no state can invoke such a treaty or enjoy the benefits of it. This provision corresponds to Art. 103 of the Charter. In addition, any agreement cannot contradict a peremptory norm of international law, as defined in Art. 53 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Recent legal and political documents increasingly point to the connection between the obligation to faithfully comply with international treaties and the internal rule-making of states. In particular, the participants in the Vienna Meeting agreed in the 1989 Final Document to “ensure that their laws, administrative regulations, practices and policies are consistent with their obligations under international law and are harmonized with the provisions of the Declaration of Principles and other CSCE commitments.”

Formulas of this kind indicate an expansion of the scope of application of the principle of faithful compliance with international obligations.

The emergence of this principle is associated with the development of statehood and the conclusion of treaties, i.e. it arose in the form of international legal custom.

However, as a generally accepted norm of conduct for subjects, this principle is enshrined in the UN Charter, the preamble of which emphasizes the determination of UN members “to create conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be observed.” UN Charter (San Francisco, June 26, 1945) // International Law: Collection of Documents / Rep. Ed. A.N. Talalaev. M.: Legal literature, 2003.720 p.

According to Art. 2, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter, “... all Members of the UN conscientiously fulfill the obligations assumed under this Charter in order to ensure to them all the rights and benefits arising from belonging to the membership of the Organization.”

Universality of the principle:

• A) according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, “every treaty in force is binding on its parties and must be performed by them in good faith.” Moreover, “a party may not invoke a provision of its internal law as an excuse for its non-compliance with the treaty.”
• B) according to the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, each state is obliged to fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by it in accordance with the UN Charter, obligations arising from generally accepted norms and principles of international law, as well as obligations arising from international treaties valid in accordance with generally accepted principles and norms of international law, i.e. The scope of this principle has expanded significantly.
• B) in the Declaration of Principles final act CSCE 1975 The participating States agreed to “conscientiously fulfill their obligations under international law, both those obligations that arise from generally recognized principles and norms of international law, and those obligations that arise from treaties or other agreements consistent with international law to which they are parties.”

The legal content of good faith follows from the text of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. from sections:

• - Application of contracts (Articles 28-30)
• - Interpretation of treaties (Articles 31-33) Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties (Vienna, May 23, 1969) // Guarantor System, 2006.

The application of the provisions of a treaty is largely determined by its interpretation.

From this point of view, it can be assumed that the application of a contract will be fair if it is interpreted in good faith (in accordance with the ordinary meaning that should be given to the terms of the contract in their context, as well as in the light of the object and purpose of the contract).

The principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations applies only to valid agreements.

This means:

This principle applies only to international treaties that are concluded in good faith and on equal terms;

Because any unequal treaty violates the sovereignty of the state, i.e. The UN Charter, then it may not be implemented and is not voluntarily completed;

Any treaty that contradicts the UN Charter is invalid and no state should refer to it or take advantage of it (Article 103 of the UN Charter).

Any agreement cannot contradict a peremptory norm of international law (Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969)