The emergence of the principle of non-use of force or threat of force is associated with the adoption of the Hague Peace Conventions of 1899 and 1907. The Statute of the League of Nations contained a rule limiting the right of a state to war. Of particular importance in the establishment of the principle of non-use of force was the Paris Peace Treaty of 1928 (Kellogg-Briand Pact), the first multilateral international agreement prohibiting aggressive war.

As a super-imperative norm of modern international law, the principle of non-use of force or threat of its use is enshrined in the UN Charter. The detail, normative content and interpretation of this principle are contained in the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, the UN GA resolution “Definition of Aggression” of 1974, the CSCE Helsinki Act of 1975, the UN Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refusal from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations 1987

In modern international law, the following acts are regarded as the use of force and are absolutely prohibited:

• – any actions constituting a threat of force, direct or indirect use of force against another state;
• – the use of force or the threat of force for the purpose of changing the existing borders of another state or to resolve international disputes, including territorial or concerning borders, or to violate demarcation lines, including armistice lines;
• – reprisals using armed forces, including peaceful blockade (blocking the ports of another state carried out by armed forces in peacetime);
• – organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular armed forces or armed gangs, including mercenaries;
• – organization, assistance, participation in acts civil war or terrorist acts on the territory of another state; encouragement within one’s own state of activities aimed at committing such acts on the territory of other states;
• – military occupation of a state resulting from the use of force in violation of the UN Charter;
• – acquisition of areas of the territory of another state as a result of the threat or use of force;
• – violent acts depriving peoples of the right to self-determination.

The 1974 definition of aggression contains a more expanded (but not exhaustive) list of prohibited actions, which are the most dangerous forms of unlawful use of force. War propaganda is also prohibited and is regarded as an integral part of the principle of non-use of force.

The principle of non-use of force is associated with the state's right to self-defense. The right to collective and individual self-defense under the UN Charter is regarded as the legitimate use of force. The right to self-defense is an inalienable right of any state under attack until the Security Council takes the measures necessary to maintain peace and security. The principle of non-use of force does not apply to actions taken on the basis of Security Council resolutions (Chapter VII of the Charter).

The International Court of Justice has confirmed that the right to individual self-defense can only exist when a state is the victim of a military attack. In the case of collective self-defense, this condition remains the same.

Currently, a different understanding of the legitimate use of force is developing among most states: the right to self-defense is not only a “right to retaliate”, but must be applied when real threat use of force (the concept of “preventive self-defense”). This concept reflects the requirement of objective reality, especially when it comes to the fight against international terrorism.

The principle of non-use of force and the threat of force has a totally cogent character. However, the practice of implementing this principle in international relations shows that the requirements of international legal documents are extremely rarely observed, and the illegal use of force is an urgent problem on a global scale. Currently, one of the most pressing problems of international law is the problem of state responsibility for the unauthorized use of force.

The principle of non-use of force concerns the central problem of any legal system - the relationship between force and law. Due to the absence of supranational power in the international system, power is at the disposal of the subjects themselves.

The establishment of the principle of non-use of force as a customary norm of general international law was finally established with the adoption of the UN Charter.
The Charter set the main goal - to save future generations from the scourge of war. Armed forces can be used only in the general interests. The use of not only armed force, but also force in general is prohibited. Moreover, the threat of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN is prohibited. The Charter puts the threat of force and its use on the same level. It follows from this that the threat of force will be unlawful in the same cases as its use. This position is confirmed International Court of Justice UN

The Charter provides for the possibility of using force or the threat of force in only two cases. Firstly, by decision of the Security Council in the event of a threat to the peace, any violation of the peace or an act of aggression (Chapter VII). Secondly, in order to exercise the right to self-defense in the event of an armed attack, until the Security Council takes the necessary measures to maintain international peace and security (Article 51). By decision of the Security Council, coercive measures can also be taken by parties to regional agreements. Without the authority of the Council, such measures cannot be taken on the basis of regional agreements.

The concept of force includes, first of all, aggressive war, which is qualified as a crime against peace, and so dangerous that the propaganda of aggressive war is prohibited. Aggression is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state. From this it is clear that this means fairly large-scale military actions that could threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state. Borderline incidents are not like that.
The definition of aggression adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1974 contains a list of actions that constitute acts of aggression, regardless of whether there has been a formal declaration of war. These include the following actions.
1. Invasion or attack by the armed forces of a state on the territory of another state; any military occupation, however brief, if it results from an invasion or attack. This also applies to the annexation of state territory as a result of the use of force.
2. The use of any weapon by one state against the territory of another state, even if it is not accompanied by an invasion of armed forces.
3. An attack by the armed forces of one state on the armed forces of another.
4. The use of the armed forces of one state, located by agreement with the host country on its territory, in violation of the terms of such agreement.
5. Actions of a state allowing the territory placed at the disposal of another state to be used by the latter to commit acts of aggression.
6. Sending by a state armed gangs, groups, as well as regular forces or mercenaries to the territory of another state for the purpose of using armed force against it.

Both the subject and the object of aggression can only be a state - a subject of international law. The above list is not exhaustive. Other actions can also be recognized as acts of aggression, but only the UN Security Council can do this.

The right of self-defense must be used only when necessary, and the measures taken must be proportionate. They should not go beyond what is required to repel aggression.
The UN Charter provides for the right not only to individual, but also to collective self-defense, which can only take place at the request of the state under attack.

44. The principle of territorial integrity of states.

The territory serves as the material basis of the state. Without territory there is no state. Therefore, states pay special attention to ensuring its integrity. The UN Charter obliges us to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of the state (Part 4 of Article 2). The 1970 Declaration does not highlight this principle as an independent one. Its content is reflected in other principles. The principle of non-use of force obliges us to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state. Political, economic or other pressure cannot be used for this purpose.
The territory of a State must not be the subject of military occupation resulting from the use of force in violation of the UN Charter, or the subject of acquisition by another State as a result of the threat or use of force. Such acquisitions are not recognized as legal.
The last provision does not apply to agreements on territorial issues concluded before the adoption of the UN Charter. A different situation would call into question the legality of many long-established state borders. The legality of the seizure of part of the territory of states responsible for the outbreak of World War II is recognized by the UN Charter (Article 107). The CSCE Final Act of 1975 highlighted the independent principle of territorial integrity, the content of which reflects what was said earlier. Territorial integrity is spoken of in the constituent acts of regional associations. The Charter of the Organization of American States defined the protection of territorial integrity as one of the main goals (Article 1). A similar provision is contained in the Charter of the Organization of African Unity (Articles 2 and 3). The principle in question is also reflected in constitutional law. According to the Constitution: " Russian Federation ensures the integrity and inviolability of its territory" (Part 3, Article 4).

This principle, which puts war outside the law, began to take shape only in the 20th century. Its appearance is a huge achievement for the world community. History of humanity until the 20th century. - this is the history of the widespread and legal use of force, when every state had an unlimited right to war - jus ad be Hum.

The formation and recognition of the principle was difficult and gradual. Only in 1919, in the Statute of the League of Nations, did states decide “to accept certain obligations not to resort to war.” They undertook, in the event of a dispute, to first use a peaceful procedure (dispute consideration by the League Council, the PPMP or an arbitration court) and until three months have passed after the decision of any of these bodies not to resort to war. Between the First and Second World Wars, many states took the path of concluding bilateral non-aggression treaties. A significant event was the adoption on August 27, 1928 of the Paris Treaty on the renunciation of war as a weapon national policy(Briand-Kellogg Pact) - the first international legal act in history that contained legal obligations of states not to use military force in foreign policy.

For the first time, the prohibition of the use of force as a universal legal principle is enshrined in the UN Charter. According to paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the Charter, all members of the UN “will refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” This norm is specified in a number of other UN acts (Declaration of Principles of 1970, Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Threat or Use of Force in International Relations of 1987), as well as in the Declaration of Principles of the CSCE of 1975.

The content of the principle is most fully disclosed in the UN General Assembly resolution “Definition of Aggression” of 1974. An open and obvious violation of the principle is aggression. According to Art. 1 resolution aggression - is the first use by any State of armed force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State or in any other manner inconsistent with the UN Charter. The use of means other than armed ones (economic, political) can be qualified as the use of force if their consequences are similar to military measures (for more information on the definition of aggression, see Chapter 13 of this textbook).

The resolution (Article 4) established: the UN Security Council is authorized to recognize other actions as aggressive if, according to the Charter, they threaten peace or violate the peace.

Since the 1970s. The content of the principle began to include the obligation of states not to use force to violate state borders or as a means of resolving territorial and border disputes.

The attack on September 11, 2001 by the terrorist group Al-Qaeda on a number of US targets also made adjustments to the interpretation of the concept of “attack”, which was no longer perceived only as an attack of one state on another. In Resolution 1368 of September 12, 2001, the UN Security Council expanded its interpretation and created a legal precedent: it qualified these terrorist attacks as a type of armed attack posing a threat to international peace and security, reaffirming in the preamble of the resolution the inalienable right to individual or collective self-defense in accordance with Art. 51 of the UN Charter.

Serious problems have arisen in recent years in connection with the emergence of doctrines and practices of “preemptive strike”, “humanitarian intervention”, etc. Thus, when conducting “humanitarian interventions”, when the use of military force by states or international organizations against other states is often justified by the need to protect human rights, the politicization of the situation may be allowed, priority may be given to politics rather than law, disproportionate use of force may be used, etc. The most shining example- NATO military action against Yugoslavia in 1998

The 2005 World Summit limited the practice to the most severe cases. In the Final Document of the Summit, the heads of state stated the need to take collective action of a humanitarian nature in fulfillment of the so-called “responsibility to protect” through the UN Security Council, “if peaceful means prove insufficient, and national authorities clearly fail to protect their populations from genocide, military crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity."

• Doc. UNGA A/60/L.1. 16 Sep. 2005

In 1968 the island was proclaimed independent state– Republic of Nauru.

In May 1989, the Republic of Nauru brought a claim against Australia in the International Court of Justice demanding recognition financial liability Australia for causing damage to the territory of Nauru due to the predatory exploitation of its natural resources in the past. Australia tried to challenge the competence of the International Court of Justice in this dispute, formulated objections to the claim and indicated that, in addition to Australia, two more states acted as mandate holders. However, the International Court of Justice recognized its competence in the case in a 1992 decision (ICJ. Reports, 1992, p. 240).

Australia, in particular, argued that the claim was time-barred and that with the termination of the guardianship all claims were also barred. The court, however, noted that in international law there is no limitation on the time limits for states to bring claims against each other and the statute of limitations cannot be established as having expired.

The Court found that the distribution of responsibilities between the three Mandatory States was such that it was Australia that exercised the actual administration of the island, and Great Britain and New Zealand received information and income. This did not exclude the possibility of a claim being made by each of the three States, but the issue of possible third country liability was not a precondition for Australia's liability. Subsequent negotiations between the Republic of Nauru and Australia resulted in the signing of a Case Agreement and a Joint Declaration of Guiding Principles for the Relationship between Australia and Nauru in August 1993. Under the Agreement, Australia accepted responsibility for environmental damage caused to Nauru and agreed to pay A$107 million, more than half of which was paid immediately and the remainder to be paid over 20 years.

At the end of the 20-year period, Australia pledged to provide environmental and other assistance to the Republic of Nauru as compensation. The Republic of Nauru, for its part, renounced any future claims regarding the responsibility of Australia, Great Britain and New Zealand for the plunder of the island's resources. Interestingly, the UK and New Zealand applied to the International Court of Justice with a request to remove the case from the Court's register in connection with the achievement of the said Agreement (which the Court did).

In fact, this dispute is precedent-setting in the sense that it confirmed the financial responsibility of the former colonial states for the damage they caused, without any statute of limitations. Liability for the international crime of colonialism has no statute of limitations.

The principle of non-use of force can be considered central to international law. It even became a watershed between classical and modern stages development of international law. With its legalization in the UN Charter began new stage modern international law.

Before the principle of non-use of force was legally established, there was a right to war, to the use of force. A world in which such a right exists will never be sustainable. The development of human civilization has been moving along the path of limiting the use of force in international relations for many centuries. In old international law there was a right of war in the event of any dispute between states. However, this right is gradually being limited. The founder of the science of international law, G. Grotius, in his work “On the Law of War and Peace,” published in 1625, already divided wars into just and unjust.

In national systems, the legal use of force is centralized, monopolized by the state. In international life, due to the absence of supranational power, power is at the disposal of the subjects themselves.

In such conditions, establishing a legal framework for the use of force is of particular importance.

It is significant that this was already understood by those in whose minds the idea of ​​international law was born. F. de Vittoria and V. Ayala in the 16th century. and G. Grotius in the 17th century read that war can only be used in self-defense or as a last resort to protect the right.

However, states were not ready to accept this provision. They considered their sovereign right to be the unlimited right to war (jus ad bellum). This approach was incompatible with international law. Humanity has paid a high price for recognizing this truth.

The principle of the non-use of force and the threat of force, which places war and other forceful methods of conducting foreign policy outside the law, began to take shape only in the 20th century. Its appearance became a huge achievement for the world community and a beneficial innovation in modern international law. The entire preceding 20th century. history of mankind - this is the history of the widespread and legal use of force in relations between peoples and states: war has long been considered a completely legitimate means of foreign policy of states. Each state had an unlimited right to war - jus ad bellum.

Adopted at the Hague Conference in 1899 and 1907. Convention on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes and on the Limitation of the Use of Force in the Collection of Contractual Debt Obligations obliged states whenever possible not to resort to force, but to ensure a peaceful resolution of international disputes.

The formation and recognition of this principle was difficult and gradual. The unprecedented scale of hostilities and human sacrifices made during the First World War creation of the first organization in history to ensure international peace - the League of Nations, anti-war acts Soviet Russia and the 14 points of US President William Wilson, the broad pacifist movement created a favorable political and legal basis for limiting the use of force and prohibiting it. But states were not yet ready to agree to a complete ban on war. In the Statute of the League of Nations states only decided " to guarantee their peace and security... to accept certain obligations not to resort to war ».

Despite the casualties suffered during the First World War and widespread demands for a ban on aggressive war, the League of Nations Statute did not do this, introducing only some restrictions.

Statute of the League of Nations:

make some commitments not to resort to war,

Article 11

It is expressly declared that every war or threat of war, whether directly or not affecting any member of the League, is of interest to the League as a whole, and that the latter must take measures which can effectively protect the peace of Nations. In such a case Secretary General immediately convenes the Council at the request of any member of the League.

It is further declared that every member of the League has the right, in a friendly manner, to call the attention of the Assembly or Council to any circumstance likely to affect international relations and therefore threatening to disturb the peace or good concord between nations on which peace depends.

Article 16

If a member of the League resorts to war contrary to the obligations assumed in Articles 12, 13 or 15, he is ipso facto considered to have committed an act of war against all other members of the League. The latter undertake to immediately sever all commercial or financial relations with him, to prohibit all communications between their citizens and the citizens of the state that has violated the Statute, and to cease all financial, commercial or personal relations between the citizens of that state and the citizens of any other state, whether it is a member of the League or No.

In such case, the Council shall propose to the various Governments concerned that numerical strength of military, naval or air force by which the members of the League shall, by their affiliation, participate in the armed forces intended to maintain respect for the obligations of the League.

The members of the League agree, moreover, to give each other mutual assistance in the application of the economic and financial measures to be taken under this Article, in order to reduce to a minimum the losses and inconveniences that may result from them. They likewise provide mutual support to counteract any special measure directed against one of them by a state that has violated the Statute. They shall adopt the necessary regulations to facilitate the passage through their territory of the forces of any member of the League participating in general action to maintain respect for the League's obligations.

Any member found guilty of violating one of the obligations arising from the Statute may be expelled from the League. Expulsion is made by the votes of all other members of the League represented in the Council.

In the event of a dispute, they undertook to first use a peaceful procedure for its resolution (refer the dispute to the Council of the League, the Permanent Court of International Court or a court of arbitration) and not resort to war until three months have passed after the decision of any of these bodies. Under these conditions, many states took the path of concluding bilateral non-aggression treaties against each other. He was also very active in this Soviet Union. A significant event on the path to prohibiting wars was the adoption on August 27, 1928 of the multilateral Paris Treaty on the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy (Kellogg-Briand Pact) - the first international legal act in history that contained legal obligations of states not to resort to war to solve their problems. foreign policy problems.

This was an important step in establishing the principle of non-use of force as a customary norm of general international law. Article 1 of the Paris Pact:

The parties to the Treaty “condemn the recourse to war to settle international disputes and renounce it in their mutual relations as an instrument of national policy."

However, for its final approval, humanity had to make sacrifices during the Second World War.

The UN Charter established as its main goal: to save future generations from the scourge of war, to adopt a practice in accordance with which armed forces are used only in the general interests. The UN Charter, in contrast to this Pact, not only prohibits wars of aggression, but also obliges states “to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force, either against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with goals of the United Nations” (clause 4 of article 2).

The Charter puts the threat of force and its use on the same level. The threat of force will be unlawful in the same cases where the use of force is also unlawful. This position was confirmed by the International Court of Justice:

In the 1986 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the Court determined that “if the use of force in a given case is unlawful, for whatever reason, then the threat of force would also be unlawful.”

Subsequently, it was specified in documents adopted in the form of UN resolutions, including the 1970 Declaration of Principles of International Law, the 1974 Definition of Aggression, the 1975 CSCE Final Act, the Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Threat or Use of Force in International relations 1987. The obligation not to use force applies to all states, not just UN member states. In 1975, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe was held, at which important decisions were also made regarding the idea of ​​universal collective security.

From the 1970 Declaration of Principles of International Law:

“Every state... is obliged to refrain from the threat or use of force... War of aggression is a crime against peace, which entails liability under international law...”.

International law on the principle of non-use of force or threat of force: theory and practice

No. 11 (90) 2015
Farkhutdinov I.Z.
The non-use of force or threat of force as one of the basic principles in the international normative system has been formed since the 17th century. (law of war (lat. jus ad bellum) until the middle of the 20th century.

The UN Charter legally enshrines the ban on the use of force in international relations, with the exception of two permissible cases - self-defense and by decision of the Security Council. An important role in the evolution of this principle was played by the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, the Statute of the League of Nations of 1920, and the Pact of Paris of 1928. But only the UN Charter introduced into international law the imperative principle of the prohibition of the use of force and the threat of force, which covers all types of violence : armed, economic, political, etc. However, even after 1945, the world was repeatedly plunged into various wars. And we, contemporaries, as it turns out today, were not immune from the fate of the millions killed in the two world wars. After relatively short period détente at the turn of the century, the international community was split by thoughtless foreign policy USA and its European vassals. In essence, they carried out a coup in Kyiv in February 2014, marking the beginning of a new military confrontation throughout the world. Ukraine has become a long-term source of instability right next to Russia's borders. The Islamic State, a nest of global terrorism, emerged with the connivance of the United States. The Erdogan clique ruling Turkey, which has far-reaching plans to transform the country into a regional power, decided to take advantage of this convenient moment. Russia’s undeniable successes in the international arena eloquently indicate that the unipolar world finally sank into oblivion precisely in 2015.

Key words: basic principles of international law, threat to peace and security, jus ad bellum, The Hague Peace Conferences, Statute of the League of Nations, Pact of Paris, UN Charter, peaceful resolution of disputes, definition of aggression.

Farkhutdinov I. Z.

INTERNATIONAL LAW ON THE PRINCIPLE OF THE NONUSE OF FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE:PAST AND PRESENT

Non-use of force or threat of force as one of the basic principles in the international regulatory system has been formed since the XVII century. (the law of war (lat. Jus ad bellum) until the middle of the XX century. The United Nations Charter is legally secured a ban on the use of force in international relations, except two valid cases - self-defense and the decision of the Security Council. An important role in the evolution of this principle have played the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, the Statute of the League of Nations 1920, the Paris Pact 1928.

But the UN Charter entered into the modern international law principle of non-mandatory use of force and threat of force, which covers all types of armed violence, economic, political, etc.

However, after 1945 the world plunged repeatedly into various wars. And we, the contemporaries, as we see today, were not insured by the fate of millions murdered in the two world wars. After a relatively short period of detente in the turn of the century the international community has been split reckless foreign policy of the United States and its European vassals.

In essence, they have committed a coup in Kiev in February 2014, setting off a new military confrontation in the world. Islamic state, with global terrorism, appeared with the connivance of the United States. Convenient for the moment decided to take advantage of the ruling clique of Turkey Erdogan, has ambitious plans to transform the country into a regional power.

The undeniable success of Russia in the international arena eloquently that the unipolar world has sunk into oblivion was completely in 2015.

Keywords: the basic principles of international law, threat to peace and security, jus ad bellum, the Hague Peace Conference, the Statute of the League of Nations, the Paris Pact, the UN Charter, the peaceful resolution of disputes, the definition of aggression.

International law

In international law, the principle of non-use of force or threat of force is generally accepted in nature and binding on every state, that is, it has the form of jus cogens. This principle is one of the basic principles in the international regulatory system. The presence of a set of fundamental principles is precisely the most important feature international law. They formed gradually as generalized norms reflecting characteristic features, as well as as the main content of international law and having the highest legal force in the international community. The basic principles of international law are, as I. I. Lukashuk writes, the core of the international legal order.

The formation in international law of the principle of prohibition of war of conquest, and later of the principle of non-use of force, made fundamental changes to the institution of international legal responsibility. A state that has committed such a serious crime as aggression bears responsibility for it not only to the victim of aggression, but also to the entire international community. A threat to peace and security must be considered an attack on the rights of all states.

IN constituent act The UN and the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the 1970 Charter of the United Nations list the following principles: 1) non-use of force or threat of force; 2) peaceful resolution of disputes; 3) non-interference; 4) cooperation; 5) equality and self-determination of peoples; 6) sovereign equality of states; 7) conscientious fulfillment of obligations under international law.

Almost all principles of international law are directly or indirectly enshrined in the UN Charter. The Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in 1975 added three principles to the above list: the inviolability of borders, territorial integrity, respect for human rights. The last two were not highlighted as independent in the 1970 Declaration, but were reflected in the content of other principles. In total, there are ten basic principles of international law, which most international lawyers agree with.

These ten fundamental principles are interconnected, interact and complement each other. They should not be interpreted in isolation from each other. Moreover, contrast one principle with another. Without this, it is impossible to imagine their successful operation in the modern international normative system. The basic principles of modern international law collectively unite the entire system of international law into a single whole. As can be seen, the principle of non-use of force or threat of force is placed in first place among the basic principles of international law, which is a fundamental factor in ensuring peace and security throughout the world.

By the way, Article 52 of the 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties declares the nullity of a treaty if its conclusion was the result of the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the UN Charter. Its appearance became a huge achievement for the world community and a beneficial innovation in modern international law.

International law of the 21st century. is formed as the law of the international community thanks, first of all, to its basic principles. The norms of international law are created by agreement of its subjects; the mechanism of formation and operation of international law is, we especially note, interstate, and not suprastate in nature. Therefore, the principle of non-use of force does not apply to ongoing domestic affairs, since international law does not regulate this type of legal relationship. In national legal systems, the legitimate use of force belongs entirely to the state due to the sovereign equality of states, which is one of the basic principles of international law. In the international arena, due to the absence of supranational power as such, force (coercion) is at the disposal of the subjects themselves. International law, being a regulator of international relations, performs two inextricably linked and interpenetrating functions: stabilizing and creative.

Clause 4 of Art. 2 of the Charter states: “All Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force, either against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

So, for the first time the principle of non-use of force or threat of force was proclaimed in the UN Charter, adopted in 1945. Then a new stage of international law began. Since then, we have called international law modern international law, one of the main tasks of which is to strengthen the effectiveness of the principle of non-threat or use of force in international relations, eliminating the danger of new armed conflicts between states, by ensuring a turn in the international situation from confrontation to peaceful relations and cooperation and other appropriate measures to strengthen international peace and security. Therefore, it is necessary to consider international law as the law of peace.

The UN Charter does not distinguish between situations of “threat to the peace”, “breach of the peace” and “act of aggression” from the point of view of the possibility of further application of collective measures.

The main achievement of the UN Charter can be considered the introduction of a ban on the use of force in international relations, with the exception of two legitimate cases - self-defense and by decision of the Security Council. Art. 51 of the UN Charter on the inalienable right of states to self-defense has caused very serious disagreements regarding its content, especially regarding the moment when the right to self-defense arose.

According to modern international law, states must make every effort to build their international relations on the basis of mutual understanding, trust, respect and cooperation in all areas. The unlawful use of armed force by one state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state from the point of view of international law is called international aggression.

War of aggression is a crime against international peace and it entails international responsibility for the violation of law and order.

General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of December 14, 1974 states in its definition of aggression: Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter (clause 1) .

The first use of armed force by a State in violation of the Charter is prima facie evidence of an act of aggression, although the Security Council may, in accordance with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the relevant acts or their consequences are not of a sufficiently serious nature (Article 2).

The resolution deals with 8 articles on the concept of “aggression”. This definition consists of the following provisions: a) general definition aggression (Article 1); b) a list of actions that will be qualified as acts of aggression (Articles 3, 4); c) an objective criterion that is prima facie evidence of an act of aggression (Article 2); d) clarifications necessary for a complete definition of the concept (Articles 5, 6, 7). Only the totality of all these elements constitutes the concept of aggression as an integral category.

The principle of the non-use of force and the threat of force, which places war and other forceful methods of conducting foreign policy outside the law, began to take shape only in the 20th century.

The principle of non-military force or the threat of force is a relative concept, changing over time, adapting to new situations and new needs. Just like, in principle, international law itself. This forces us to make a brief excursion into the history of the evolution of this international legal principle.

The formation of this principle proceeded gradually. Today it is generally accepted that the use of military force against another state is aggression. Since ancient times, war has been considered a completely legitimate means of foreign policy of states. Each state had an unlimited right to war - jus ad bellum. At the same time, no distinction was made between the aggressor state and the victim state of aggression. The actions of the warring parties were considered equally legitimate. The founder of the science of international law, G. Grotius, in his work “On the Law of War and Peace,” published in 1625, already divided wars into just and unjust.

A turning point in the evolution of the principle of renunciation of military force or the threat of force was played by the International Conferences held in 1899 and 1907 in The Hague, which went down in history as the Hague Peace Conferences. It should be especially noted that the Hague Conference of 1899 was convened on the initiative of Emperor Nicholas II. In his message to European monarchs it was written: “The preservation of universal peace and the possible reduction of the excessive armaments weighing on all peoples are, in the present state of affairs, the goal towards which the efforts of all governments should strive. The ever-increasing burden of financial burdens is fundamentally shaking public welfare. The spiritual and physical forces of peoples, labor and capital are diverted for the most part from their natural purpose and are wasted unproductively. Hundreds of millions are spent on the acquisition of terrible means of extermination, which, today appearing to be the last word of science, tomorrow must lose all value due to new inventions. The enlightenment of the people and the development of their well-being and wealth are suppressed or directed onto the wrong paths...”

In the Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes of October 18, 1907, Article One proclaims: “In order to prevent, if possible, recourse to force in relations between States, the Contracting Powers agree to use their best endeavors to secure the peaceful solution of international controversies.” According to Article 2, the Contracting Powers agree, in case of important disagreement or conflict, to resort, as far as circumstances permit, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly Powers, before resorting to arms.

This Hague Convention laid the foundation for the establishment of such a basic principle of international law as the peaceful resolution of disputes. States that are parties to international disputes must resolve their disputes exclusively by peaceful means in a manner that does not endanger international peace, security and justice. To this end they must use such means as negotiation, investigation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, litigation, recourse to regional bodies or agreements or other peaceful means of their choice, including good offices.

Despite the efforts of Russia and some other states at the Hague peace conferences of 1899 and 1907. failed to ban war as a forceful tool for resolving interstate disputes. This led to the First World War (July 28, 1914 - November 11, 1918), which became one of the most widespread armed conflicts in the history of mankind. More than 22 million people became victims of this war, unprecedented in the history of civilization. human lives, about 55 million people were injured. This is the retribution for the short-sightedness of the world politicians of that time.

The first law in history that qualified aggressive war as an international crime was the Decree on Peace, which became practically the first act of Soviet Russia. However, the provisions of the Decree were not an international legal norm for qualifying aggressive war as a crime, since the Decree provided a unilateral declaration of our country. But the provisions of this document determined the foreign policy of the Soviet state.

Subsequently, under the influence of the foreign policy activities of the Soviet state, as well as under pressure from the international community, attempts were made to transform the prohibition of aggressive war from a political idea into an international legal norm. By the way, the primacy in developing the concept and definition of aggression belongs to the Soviet Union. On February 6, 1933, at the Conference on Disarmament, on behalf of the Soviet government, a draft declaration was introduced, giving a precise definition of the concept of an attacking party, and not only acts considered aggression were indicated, but also reasons well known in the practice of international relations of imperialist states that were often used were listed. and are used to justify aggression. In the post-war years, the Soviet Union made persistent efforts to consolidate the definition of aggression in international law.

The Treaty of Versailles in 1919, which ended the first world war, approved the contours of a new post-war system of international relations, and provided for the creation of the League of Nations. This first world organization for the preservation of peace and the development of international cooperation was established on January 10, 1920.

Despite the casualties suffered during the First World War and widespread demands for a ban on aggressive war, the Statute of the League of Nations failed to achieve this, introducing only some restrictions. In the Statute of the League of Nations, states undertook "to guarantee their peace and security... to accept certain obligations not to resort to war." As is clear from this, at that time the states were not yet ready to agree to a complete ban on war.

A significant event on the path to prohibiting wars was the adoption on August 27, 1928 of the multilateral Paris Treaty on the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy (Kellogg-Briand Pact), the first international legal act in history that contained legal obligations of states not to resort to war to solve their problems. foreign policy problems. The conclusion of the treaty meant the first step towards creating a system of collective security in Europe.

Article 1 of the Pact of Paris states: “Every State... has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force... War of aggression is a crime against peace which entails liability under international law.”

By the way, the pact became one of legal grounds For Nuremberg trials, at which the leaders of Nazi Germany were charged with violating the Pact.

Between the two world wars, when there was no generally accepted international legal mechanism to limit the law of war, bilateral non-aggression treaties were practiced between sovereign states. Often they were accompanied by the signing of a secret protocol at the same time. By the way, legally these are two different documents and therefore must be subjected to separate analysis from the point of view of international law.

IN critical days, preceding the outbreak of World War II on September 1, 1939, not a single country resorted to the help of the League of Nations; and in January 1940 the League ceased its activities in resolving political issues. War remained a legitimate means of resolving interstate disputes.

In order for aggression as such to be prohibited, humanity had to sacrifice more than 54 million people (90 million were injured, 28 million of whom became disabled). These are the inhumane results of the Second World War, the greatest tragedy of all mankind.

But outstanding minds continued to develop projects aimed at quickly ending the universal bloodshed and preventing this from happening in the future. And just before the Second World War and during it there were active search a new effective international organization.

The optimal model of the new organization was formed through complex discussions. One of the problems was the confrontation between the concept of universal security and the concept of regional security.

It was not about restructuring or improving the League of Nations, but about creating a fundamentally new organization with a qualitatively new Charter and operating principles. In 1939, a Commission for the Study of the Peace Organization was created, in which leading international affairs experts collaborated. During 1941-1944. The commission prepared four reports in which specific proposals were put forward regarding the formation of a new world organization.

Atlantic Charter of August 14, 1941, United Nations Declaration of January 1, 1942, Moscow Declaration of 1943, Tehran Conference of 1943, Dumbarton Oxy Conference of 1944, Yalta Conference of 1945, San Francisco Conference Francisco in 1945 took the most important steps towards the formation of the United Nations.

The UN Charter introduced into modern international law the imperative principle of prohibition of the use of force and the threat of force, which covers all types of violence - armed, economic, political, etc.

So, as the main goal, the UN Charter called for saving future generations from the scourge of war, and to adopt a practice in accordance with which armed forces are used only in the common interests. The UN Charter not only prohibits wars of aggression, but also obliges states to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force.”

After the creation of the UN there was a lull for some time, but soon the world was drawn into cold war, which brought innumerable troubles.

And in the context of a tough confrontation between the USSR and the USA, efforts continued to defuse international tension. In order to ring the USSR with unfriendly states in 1952, Turkey joined NATO. Turkey's relations with the United States began to actively develop. Washington provided Ankara with military and economic assistance, securing its status as a military and political ally in the Middle East. For more than fifty years, the United States has maintained its role as the main strategic and foreign policy partner. Turkey continued to be guided by US interests on particularly important issues, regarding relations with third countries or the functioning of military facilities in Turkey.

And today Ankara has begun to pursue tactics of interference in the affairs of another state, providing secret assistance to terrorist groups.

At the initiative of the USSR, the issue of defining aggression was discussed at a number of sessions of the UN General Assembly, as well as in the Special Committee on Defining Aggression, created in 1956. But the opposition of a number of countries led to the fact that the work of the UN body on defining aggression was essentially blocked for a long time .

This is especially clear if you look at the recently published top secret document dated June 15, 1956, declassified in June 2014, entitled “Study of the Need for Nuclear Weapons by 1959.” American plan for global nuclear war against the USSR, planned for 1959, in a key part involved the use of powerful aviation thermonuclear bombs. The Pentagon planned to strike nuclear strike for 1200 targets in the cities of the USSR, China and Eastern European countries. In this list, 179 points for bombing were identified in Moscow alone, and 145 in Leningrad.

It took much effort for the Special Committee, after a ten-year hiatus of 35 state representatives, to emphasize at its first session in 1968 the desire of the vast majority to develop a definition of aggression in accordance with the UN Charter. During the session, developing countries put forward a number of new draft definitions of aggression (they also included elements of the Soviet definition of aggression).

In 1976, the Soviet Union came up with the idea of ​​concluding a World Treaty on the Non-Use of Force and presented a draft treaty. The USSR initiative aroused interest among many countries. On November 8, 1976, UN Resolution 31/9 was adopted on the conclusion of a World Treaty on the Non-Use of Force in International Relations.

The most important stages in the development of the principle of non-use of force or threat of force were: Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation of States in accordance with the UN Charter of 1970; the definition of aggression adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1974; CSCE Final Act of 1975 and Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, adopted by the UN General Assembly on November 18, 1987.

Particularly noteworthy is the 1987 Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, according to which:

1. Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force, either against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such threat or use of force is a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and entails international responsibility.
2. No consideration may be used to justify the threat or use of force in violation of the Charter.

Aggression is not a consequence of the direct use of a given state’s own armed forces. These include, for example, the provision by a state of its territory to other states for its use for aggressive purposes against a third state (clause f of article 3). However, such actions amount to acts of aggression themselves.

The threat to peace and security in Europe, and throughout the world, emanating from groups of international terrorists operating in Syria and Iraq continues to remain explosive. IN global terrorism Entire states are involved, secretly or openly supporting the terrorists of the so-called Islamic State (IS). In recent years, violently, with gross violation The UN Charter, the basic principles and norms of international law, overthrew legitimate governments in neighboring countries (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen). And shortly before this, the use of military force by the United States and its allies thoroughly destroyed quite prosperous Iraq, on whose territory today IS terrorists continue to commit atrocities. Russia's position on Syria is legal and appropriate within the framework of international law. In Resolution No. 2249 of November 21, 2015, the UN Security Council unanimously called on Friday for countries to take all necessary measures in accordance with international law to combat “ Islamic State"and others terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, as well as to eliminate the refuge of extremists in other countries.

Thus, after the Second World War, a worldwide system of collective security was created under the auspices of the United Nations, the main task of which is to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”

Today, the non-use of military force or threat of force remains an immutable principle of the UN Charter, has the character of a peremptory norm of international law and cannot easily be changed or abolished due to even numerous violations or on the basis of a legal position adhered to by only one or a few states, no matter how military or They did not have economic power.

No matter how much official Washington would like it, the United States is not able to solve global problems alone. Only a rejection of the dead-end unipolar model imposed on the world by the United States can help increase the effectiveness of the principle of the non-use of military force and the threat of force. Returning the former authority of the UN is impossible without implementing the principle of non-use of force or threat of force.

International law is urgently needed for the smooth functioning of international system. Therefore, there is no alternative to increasing the effectiveness of international law.

Article bibliographic list

1. Ashavsky B. M. Concepts and their role in modern international law // Eurasian Legal Journal. 2014. No. 12 (79).

   2. Bekyashev K. A. International law and states // Eurasian legal journal. 2013. No. 5 (61).

   3. Biryukov P. N., Buryanov S. A. Ensuring peace and security in Eurasia (International legal assessment of events in Syria). Interview with Doctor of Law, Editor-in-Chief of the Eurasian Legal Journal Insur Farkhutdinov // Eurasian Legal Journal. 2015. No. 10.

   4. Bulanenkov V. T., Ilyin Yu. D. Towards the development of an international legal definition of aggression // Soviet
   state and law. 1974. No. 2.

   5. Vereshchetin V. S. On some concepts in the modern doctrine of public international law // Materials of the conference in honor of the professor of the department of international law of the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg state university L. N. Galenskoy / Ed. S. V. Bakhina. St. Petersburg State University, 2009.

   6. Guseva A. Yu. To the 75th anniversary of the signing of the Briand-Kellogg Pact // Diplomatic Bulletin. 2003. No. 8.

   7. Kolosov Yu. M. Development of the principle of non-use of force in international relations // Soviet State and Law. 1982. No. 2.

   8. Kuznetsov V.I. Refusal to use force is the law of international life. M., 1973.

   9. Levin D. B. International law and peace preservation. M., 2010.

   10. Lukashuk I. I. International law. General part. Volume. I. M., 2000.

   11. Rybakov M. Yu. Armed aggression is the gravest international crime. M.: “Lawyer”, 2009.

   12. Skakunov E.I. Self-defense in international law. M., 2006.

   13. Talalaev A. N. Non-aggression Pact and International Law // Law and Politics. 2001. No. 1.

   14. Trainin A. N. Protection of the world and the fight against crimes against humanity. M., 1956,

   15. ТJesup Ph. Modern law of Nations. N. Y., 1948.