Concept, principles and sources of international security law. The concept of international security law The concept of international security law

Introduction

1. Concept of law international security

1.1. Special principles of international security

1.2. Universal system of collective security

1.3. Regional collective security systems

2. Confidence measures

2.1. Neutrality and its role in maintaining international peace and security

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

The topic of this work, “international security law,” was not chosen by chance; in my opinion, it is the most relevant today. This can be explained by the dynamically developing political situation in the international arena.

The task of ensuring international security ultimately comes down to solving problems related to the development and implementation of political and legal means of preventing wars and armed conflicts, maintaining or restoring international peace. In the broadest sense, all the normative material of modern international law is aimed at solving these problems. In a narrower sense, the solution to the problem of ensuring peace is the norms of international security law, the main purpose of which is in one way or another connected with the implementation of the principle of non-use of force and the threat of force in international relations.

So, in theory and practice international relations There is no single concept of security. In particular, there are such varieties as “national security”, “global security”, “general security”, “international security”, etc. Each of them implies coverage of a special complex of social relations, has different historical, ideological, political and legal origins.

1. The concept of international security law

One of the most important goals of the world community is to ensure international security. International security is understood as a state of international relations in which threats to peace, violation of peace and acts of aggression in any form are excluded, and relations between states are built on the norms and generally recognized principles of international law.

In accordance with Art. 1 of the UN Charter, one of the most important goals of this organization is to maintain international peace and security and to take, for this purpose, effective collective measures to prevent and eliminate threats to peace and suppress acts of aggression or other violations of the peace and implement them by peaceful means, in accordance with the principles of justice and international law , settling or resolving international disputes or situations that may lead to a breach of the peace.

International law plays a special role in ensuring international security. Currently, a relatively independent branch has emerged in international law - international security law, which is a subsystem within the framework of an integral, unified system of international law.

The norms of international security law are enshrined in many international legal acts, primarily in the UN Charter, charters of regional collective security organizations, disarmament treaties, limitation of armed forces, agreements on confidence-building measures and a number of others.

The core of the branch of international security law consists of the basic principles of international law, such as the non-use of force and threats of force, non-interference in internal affairs, and others. At the same time, international security law also has its own special principles - the principle of equal security and the principle of non-damage to the security of states.

The means of ensuring international security established by international law can be divided into the following groups:

b) by role in ensuring international security;

c) by scope (within the territory of one state, within a region, worldwide).

There is a wide range of international legal means to ensure international security. It includes particulars:

peaceful means of resolving international disputes;

collective security systems (universal and regional);

measures to prevent the arms race and disarmament;

non-alignment and neutrality;

confidence measures.

One of the most important measures for maintaining international peace is the collective security system. From the point of view of international law, collective security is a set of joint activities of states and international organizations to prevent and eliminate threats to international peace and security and suppress acts of aggression and other violations of peace. Legally, the international security system is formalized by international treaties.

There are general and regional systems of collective security.

The general (universal) system of collective security is provided for by the UN Charter and provides for the following measures:

means of peaceful resolution of international disputes;

measures to ensure peace using regional security organizations;

temporary measures to suppress violations of international peace and security;

coercive measures against violating states without the use of armed forces;

coercive measures against aggressor states using armed forces.

Regional collective security systems are created in accordance with Chapter. VIII of the UN Charter “Regional Agreements”. The UN Charter does not in any way prevent the existence of regional agreements or bodies for the settlement of such matters as the maintenance of international peace and security which are appropriate for regional action, provided that such agreements or bodies and their activities are compatible with the purposes and principles of the UN. States which have entered into such agreements or constitute such bodies shall make every effort to achieve the peaceful resolution of local disputes through such regional agreements or such regional bodies before referring such disputes to the UN Security Council.

1.1. Special principles of international security

The fundamental principles of international security are the principle of equal security and the principle of non-damage to the security of states.

These principles are reflected in the UN Charter. Resolutions General Assembly UN 2734 (XXV), Declaration on Strengthening International Security of 16 December 1970, Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Threat or Use of Force in International Relations (18 November 1987), UN General Assembly Resolution 50/6, Declaration on on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations of October 24, 1995, the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter of October 24, 1970 and other international legal instruments.

Thus, in accordance with the UN Charter, all UN members resolve their international disputes by peaceful means so as not to jeopardize international peace and security and justice, and refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, as well as and in any other way inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

The principles of international security are also reflected in the Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Threat or Use of Force in International Relations (November 18, 1987). In accordance with the Declaration, each state is obliged to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, as well as from any other actions inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such threat or use of force is a violation international law and the UN Charter and entail international responsibility. The principle of non-threat or use of force in international relations is universal in nature and mandatory, regardless of the political, economic, social or cultural system or allied relations of each state. may be used to justify the threat or use of force in violation of the Charter.

States have an obligation not to induce, encourage or assist other States in the use or threat of force in violation of the Charter.

By virtue of the principle of equality and self-determination embodied in the Charter, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue economic, social and cultural development, and every State is obliged to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. States must comply with their obligations under international law to refrain from organizing, instigating, aiding or participating in paramilitary, terrorist or subversive activities, including mercenary activities, and in other States from condoning organized activities aimed at committing such acts, to the extent its territory.

States are obliged to refrain from armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats directed against the legal personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural foundations. No state should use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other measures with the aim of obtaining the subordination of another state in the exercise of its sovereign rights and obtaining any advantages from it. In accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN, states are obliged to refrain from promoting wars of aggression.

Neither the acquisition of territory as a result of the threat or use of force, nor any occupation of territory as a result of the threat or use of force in violation of international law will be recognized as a lawful acquisition or occupation.

All member states of the world community are called upon to make efforts to build their international relations on the basis of mutual understanding, trust, respect and cooperation. In the parameters of what has been said, the goal is to develop bilateral and regional cooperation as one of the important means of strengthening the effectiveness of the principle of non-threat or use of force in international relations.

Within the established criteria of proper conduct, States are guided by their commitment to the principle of peaceful resolution of disputes, which is inextricably linked with the principle of non-threat or use of force in international relations. States parties to international disputes must resolve their disputes exclusively by peaceful means in a manner that does not jeopardize international peace, security and justice. To this end, they 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.

In furtherance of their obligations under the UN Charter, states take effective measures to prevent the threat of any armed conflicts, including conflicts in which nuclear weapons may be used, to prevent an arms race in outer space and to stop and reverse the arms race on Earth, to reduce the level of military confrontation and strengthen global stability.

In furtherance of their stated commitment to strengthening the rule of law and order, states cooperate at the bilateral, regional and international levels to:

prevention international terrorism and the fight against it;

active assistance in eliminating the causes underlying international terrorism.

By way of provision high level states seek to take specific measures and create trust and mutual understanding favorable conditions in the field of international economic relations with a view to achieving international peace, security and justice. At the same time, the interest of all countries in reducing the gap in levels of economic development, and in particular the interests of developing countries around the world.

The principles of international security were enshrined in the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter. Thus, in accordance with the Declaration, each state in its international relations is obliged to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other way incompatible with the purposes of the UN. Such threat or use of force is a violation of international law and the UN Charter; they should never be used as a medium for resolving international issues.

War of aggression is a crime against peace, which entails liability under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN, states are obliged to refrain from promoting wars of aggression. Each State has the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of resolving international disputes, including territorial disputes and issues relating to state boundaries. Equally, each State has the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international demarcation lines, such as armistice lines, established by or consistent with an international agreement to which that State is a party or to which that State is otherwise bound to comply. Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned as to the status and consequences of the establishment of such lines under their special regimes or as impairing their temporary nature.

States are obliged to refrain from acts of reprisals involving the use of force. Each state is obliged to refrain from any violent actions that deprive the peoples referred to in the specification of the principles of equality and self-determination of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. Each State is obliged to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands, including mercenaries, to invade the territory of another State.

Each State is obliged to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil war or terrorist acts in another State or from condoning organizational activities within its own territory aimed at the commission of such acts, where the acts involve a threat of force or its application. The territory of a State must not be subject to military occupation resulting from the use of force in violation of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State must not be subject to acquisition by another State as a result of the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal. Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as violating:

a) the provisions of the Charter or any international agreement concluded before the adoption of the Charter and having legal force in accordance with international law; or

b) the powers of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter.
All states must negotiate in good faith with a view to the speedy conclusion of a universal treaty on general and complete disarmament under effective international control and strive to take appropriate measures to ease international tension and strengthen confidence among states.

All States must, on the basis of generally recognized principles and norms of international law, fulfill in good faith their obligations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security and strive to improve the effectiveness based on the Charter of the United Nations Security System.

Nothing in the parameters of the foregoing should be construed as extending or limiting in any way the scope of the provisions of the Charter relating to cases where the use of force is lawful.

States shall resolve their international disputes by peaceful means in a manner that does not jeopardize international peace and security and justice. Each state shall resolve its international disputes with other states by peaceful means in such a way as not to jeopardize international peace and security and justice.

States should, therefore, strive for the speedy and fair resolution of their international disputes through negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, litigation, recourse to a regional body or agreement, or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement, the parties must agree upon such peaceful means as are appropriate both to the circumstances and to the nature of the dispute.

The parties to a dispute are obliged, if they do not reach a resolution of the dispute by one of the above-mentioned peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

States that are parties to an international dispute and other states must refrain from any action that could worsen the situation so much as to expose

threat to the maintenance of international peace and security, and must act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

International disputes are resolved on the basis sovereign equality states and in accordance with the principle of free choice of means of peaceful resolution of disputes. The application of a dispute settlement procedure or the consent to such a procedure which has been freely agreed upon between States in respect of existing or future disputes to which they are parties shall not be considered inconsistent with the principle of sovereign equality.

States have an obligation not to interfere in matters within the domestic competence of any state. No state or group of states has the right to interfere directly or indirectly for any reason in the internal and external affairs of another state. As a consequence, armed intervention and all other forms of intervention or any threats directed against the legal personality of a State or against its political, economic and cultural foundations are a violation of international law.

No state may use or encourage the use of economic, political or other measures with a view to obtaining the subordination of another state in the exercise of its sovereign rights and obtaining from it any advantages. No State shall also organize, assist, incite, finance, encourage or tolerate armed, subversive or terrorist activities aimed at changing the system of another state through violence, as well as interfering in the internal struggle in another state.

The use of force to deprive peoples of their national existence is a violation of their inalienable rights and the principle of non-interference.

Each state has the inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural system without any form of interference from any other state.

The principle of sovereign equality of states, including in the field of security, is also important. All states enjoy sovereign equality. They have the same rights and obligations and are equal members of the international community, regardless of differences of economic, social, political or other nature.

In particular, the concept of sovereign equality includes the following elements:

states are legally equal;

each state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty;

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

territorial integrity and political independence of the state are inviolable;

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

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

1.2. Universal system of collective security

The main instrument for maintaining peace and preventing the outbreak of war is the universal system of collective security provided for by the UN Charter. The Charter establishes the foundations of the modern world legal order, the principles of relations between states in the international arena and provides for a whole range of measures to preserve international peace and suppress acts of aggression. Among them:

· means of peaceful resolution of international disputes;

· measures to ensure peace using regional security organizations;

· coercive measures against violating states without the use of armed forces;

· coercive measures against aggressor states using armed forces.

One of the most important elements of the universal system of collective security is the peaceful resolution of international disputes, which is determined by Chapter. VI UN Charter “Peaceful Settlement of Disputes”. In accordance with this chapter of the UN Charter, parties to any dispute, the continuation of which might endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, in the first instance, endeavor to resolve the dispute by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, or other peaceful means of their choice . The UN Security Council, when it considers it necessary, requires the parties to resolve their dispute through such means. It is authorized to investigate any dispute or any situation which may give rise to international friction or give rise to a dispute, to determine whether the continuation of that dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

In addition, any UN member can bring any dispute to the attention of the Security Council or the General Assembly. A State which is not a Member of the Organization may also bring to the attention of the Security Council or the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it undertakes in advance with respect to that dispute the obligations of the peaceful settlement of disputes.

In accordance with the UN Charter, measures can be taken to ensure international peace using regional security organizations. In accordance with Art. 53 of the Charter of the UN Security Council uses, where appropriate, such regional agreements or bodies for enforcement action under its authority. However, regional organizations cannot take any coercive action without authority from the Security Council, with the exception of measures related to repelling an armed attack on one of the states participating in the regional collective security system.

An important element of the general system of collective security is also actions regarding threats to peace, violations of peace and acts of aggression, provided for in Chapter. VII of the UN Charter.

Thus, the Security Council determines the existence of any threat to the peace, any breach of the peace or act of aggression and makes recommendations or decides what measures should be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security. To prevent the situation from worsening, the Security Council is authorized, before making recommendations or deciding to take action, to require the parties concerned to implement such temporary measures as it finds necessary or desirable. Such temporary measures must not prejudice the rights, claims or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council takes due account of the failure to comply with these temporary measures.

The Security Council has the power to decide what measures, other than the use of armed force, should be used to implement its decisions, and it may require

members of the Organization to apply these measures. These measures may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraph, radio or other means of communication, as well as severance of diplomatic relations.

If the Security Council considers that the said measures may be insufficient or have already proven insufficient, it is authorized to take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace of security. Such actions may include demonstrations, blockades and other air, sea or ground forces members of the Organization. All Members of the Organization, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to place at the disposal of the Security Council, upon its request and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, the armed forces, assistance and related facilities necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. , including the right of way. Thus the agreement or agreements determine the number and type of troops, the degree of their readiness and their general disposition and the nature of the services and assistance provided.

Plans for the use of armed forces are drawn up by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee, which is created to advise and assist the Security Council on all matters relating to the military needs of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security, to the use of troops provided at his disposal, and to the command of them, as well as to the Regulation of Arms and to eventual disarmament. The Military Staff Committee consists of the chiefs of staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the Organization not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to cooperate with it if the effective performance of the duties of the Committee requires the participation of that Member in the work of the Committee. The Military Staff Committee, subordinate to the Security Council, is responsible for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Issues relating to the command of such forces will have to be worked out later.

The UN Charter does not affect the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs on a Member of the Organization until the Security Council takes measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members of the Organization in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately communicated to the Security Council and shall in no way affect the power and responsibility of the Security Council, in accordance with this Charter, to take at any time such action as it may deem necessary to maintaining or restoring international peace and security.

1.3. Regional collective security systems

The creation and operation of regional collective security systems is determined by Chapter. VIII of the UN Charter “Regional Agreements”, documents of these organizations and other international legal documents.

In accordance with the UN Charter, members of a regional organization that have entered into such agreements or constitute such bodies must make every effort to achieve the peaceful resolution of local disputes through such regional agreements or such regional bodies before referring such disputes to the Security Council. The Security Council should encourage the development of the application of the peaceful resolution of local disputes through such regional agreements or regional bodies, either on the initiative of the States concerned or on its own initiative.

The Security Council must always be fully informed of actions taken or proposed by regional agreements or by regional bodies to maintain international peace and security.

Regional collective security systems are characterized by the following features:

· the obligation of the parties to the treaty to resolve disputes among themselves exclusively by peaceful means is established;

· provides for the obligation of participants to provide individual or collective assistance to a state that has been subjected to an armed attack from the outside;

· the UN Security Council is immediately notified of collective defense measures taken;

· as a rule, the treaty involves states of the same region, and the treaty itself is valid within a predetermined area specified in the agreement of the parties;

· the admission of new states into the security system established by the treaty is possible only with the consent of all its participants.

Regional collective security systems include:

1) Collective security system within the CIS

In accordance with the Collective Security Treaty of 1992, the Agreement on the approval of the Regulations on the Collective Security Council of 1992 (Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan participate), a Collective Security Council was established within the CIS. The seat of the Council is Moscow.

The Council consists of the heads of participating states and the Commander-in-Chief of the SIA. By decision of the Council, the Secretary General of the Council is appointed, as well as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the states parties to the Treaty.

The Council shall, in particular, establish and take such measures as it finds necessary to maintain or restore peace and security. Such measures shall be immediately notified to the UN Security Council.

Within the framework of the CIS, the United Armed Forces of the Commonwealth have also been created - troops, forces and command and control bodies, allocated from the armed forces of the Commonwealth states and operationally subordinate to the High Command of the Allied Forces, but remaining directly subordinate to the military command and control bodies of their states.

The CIS Charter provides that in the event of a threat to the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of one or more member states or international peace and security, members of the Commonwealth shall carry out mutual consultations to take measures to eliminate the emerging threat, including peacekeeping operations and the use of armed forces in order to implement the right to individual or collective self-defense under Art. 51 of the UN Charter. The decision on the joint use of armed forces is made by the Council of Heads of State or interested members of the CIS.

2) Organization of American States

The Organization of American States (OAS) was created on the basis of the Inter-American Treaty of Mutual Assistance of 1947, the OAS Charter of 1948, and the Inter-American Treaty for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes of 1948. In the 60s and 70s. Significant changes were made to the 1947 Treaty and the OAS Charter.

The goals of the OAS are to achieve peace and security on the American continent, strengthen solidarity and cooperation, protect territorial integrity, organize joint action in the event of aggression, and peacefully resolve disputes.

Any American state that has ratified its Charter can be a member of the OAS. Currently, all American states participate in the OAS, with the exception of Canada and Cuba.

In accordance with Art. 25 of the OAS Charter, any aggression against one of the American states is considered as aggression against all the others. The Charter provides an expanded list of cases in which states have the right to use measures of “legitimate collective self-defense”: if the inviolability or integrity of territory, or the sovereignty or political independence of any American state is violated by an armed attack or act of aggression, or an intra-continental conflict between American states, or in resulting from a situation that could threaten America's peace.

Unlike other regional collective security systems, the OAS Charter does not provide for the obligation of the OAS to notify the UN Security Council of military measures taken, which appears to be inconsistent with the provisions of the UN Charter.

The structure of the OAS is more complex than that of other regional organizations.

The highest body of the OAS is the General Assembly, in which all OAS member states are represented.

A Consultative Meeting of Foreign Ministers has been created to consider urgent problems. A Defense Advisory Committee has been established under it to coordinate the activities of participants on issues of military cooperation.

The functions of the OAS Council, consisting of representatives of the OAS member states, include familiarization with all inter-American treaties concluded by the OAS states, development of draft conventions within the OAS, ensuring the work of the so-called. Pan American Union, facilitating relations with the UN, etc.

The General Secretariat of the OAS (formerly the Pan American Union) is headed by the Secretary General of the OAS, elected for five years.

In addition to the main bodies in the OAS, there are auxiliary structures: specialized conferences and specialized organizations (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Inter-American Judicial Committee, etc.).

3) North Atlantic Treaty (NATO)

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949. The original members of NATO were the USA, Great Britain, France, Italy, etc., a total of 26 states. Currently there are 16 members of NATO.

According to the provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty (Articles 5 and 7), an armed attack against one or more member states will be considered an attack against all of them; if such an attack occurs, each participant will assist the party under attack by all means, including the use of armed force. An attack includes an armed attack, both on the territory of Member States and on their ships and aircraft in a specific area.

Any such attack and all measures taken shall be immediately reported to the UN Security Council, which shall take measures to restore and maintain international peace and security.

In accordance with the Treaty, a NATO Council is created, in which all members are represented. The Council establishes auxiliary bodies - the Defense Committee, the Committee of the Chiefs of Staff, etc. Any other European state that is able to implement the principles of this Treaty, by agreement of all parties, can join NATO, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty.

4) Southeast Asian Defense Treaty

The Southeast Asian Defense Treaty was signed in 1954 by eight countries (USA, England, France, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Thailand, Philippines). According to the provisions of the Treaty (Article 4), in the event of an armed attack against one of the parties in the area covered by the Treaty, state parties are obliged to provide individual and collective assistance in repelling the aggression in accordance with their constitutional provisions. Moreover, the concept of “area covered by the treaty” includes all the territories of the Asian parties to the treaty and the area of ​​​​the southwestern Pacific Ocean. The UN Security Council is immediately notified of the measures taken.

A Council is created to consider issues of implementation of the provisions of the agreement. You can become a party to the Treaty with the unanimous consent of all its members.

2. Confidence measures

The institution of confidence-building measures plays an important role in preventing the threat of war. Confidence measures are a system of organizational and legal measures carried out in order to reduce military danger and ensuring trust between states.

The current system of confidence-building measures in Europe is based primarily on the provisions of the CSCE documents and includes both measures to ensure interaction and communication between states, as well as notification of military activities and the sending of observers to military exercises.

The Helsinki Final Act of 1975 provides for the implementation of the following confidence-building measures between CSCE states:

· advance (21 days) notice of major military exercises involving over 25,000 people;

· exchange of observers at military exercises;

· advance notice of major troop movements.

The confidence-building measures contained in the Final Act were improved by the Final Document of the Stockholm Conference on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe in 1986.

The document, in particular, establishes:

preliminary (42 days) notification of certain types of military activities (for example, military activities involving more than 13,000 people, 300 tanks, or 5,000 paratroopers are subject to notification);

monitoring and control of certain types of military activities. States invite observers from all other participants to observe activities involving over 17,000 military personnel or 5,000 paratroopers. At the same time, during the performance of their functions, observers are granted diplomatic privileges and immunities, and are required to exchange annual plans for military activities subject to notification;

prohibition to carry out activities subject to notification that are not included in the relevant plans;

ensuring compliance with confidence building measures. CSCE states have the right to conduct inspections upon request in the zone of application of confidence-building measures (but no more than three per year and no more than one from each participant).

Vienna CSCE Documents 1990 and 1992 significantly expanded both the list of confidence-building measures and the scope of their application, and now the system of confidence-building measures includes new institutions (on-site inspections, technical control, etc.).

2.1. Neutrality and its role in maintaining international peace and security

An important international legal means of ensuring international security is neutrality. In modern international relations, there are the following types of neutrality: permanent, positive, traditional and contractual.

Permanent neutrality is the international legal status of a sovereign state, according to which it is obliged not to participate in armed conflicts, not to join military alliances (blocs), and not to allow the construction of military bases of foreign states on its territory.

The integrity and inviolability of such a state, on the one hand, is secured by internal acts, on the other hand, it can be guaranteed by an international treaty to which other states are parties.

The permanently neutral states are, in particular, Switzerland and Austria.

Positive neutrality (non-alignment movement) presupposes non-participation in military alliances of states active participation in the struggle to prevent war, preserve peace, and for disarmament. About 100 countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America pursue a policy of positive neutrality.

The Non-Aligned Movement is guided by the following principles: ensuring international peace and security, defusing international tension, ending the arms race, restructuring international economic relations on a fair and democratic basis, establishing a new international information order.

The highest forum of the non-aligned movement is the Conference of Heads of State and Government of Non-Aligned Countries, which convenes once every three years. The implementation of the Conference decisions is entrusted to the Coordination Bureau, created in 1973. Bureau members are elected on the basis of the principle of regional representation.

Traditional neutrality is not formalized in international treaty neutrality of the state, but observed by it voluntarily for a long time (for example, Sweden). The main feature of traditional neutrality is that it expresses the neutral position of the state during war.

Traditional neutrality differs from permanent neutrality in that a permanently neutral state maintains neutrality, based on an international treaty, permanently. Traditional neutrality is not associated with international legal obligations and can be terminated unilaterally at any time.

Treaty neutrality is a neutrality in which the rights and obligations of the parties are determined by an international treaty.

Thus, in accordance with the Treaty of Accord and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and Canada (Ottawa, June 19, 1992), the Russian Federation and Canada agree to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other and to resolve any mutual disputes peacefully means, using UN mechanisms, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and other international agreements to which they are parties. If one of the parties becomes the object of armed aggression, the other party, in accordance with its agreements regarding relations in the field of security and defense, will not provide military or any other assistance to the aggressor. If one party considers that the emerging situation threatens international peace or its vital security interests, bilateral consultations will be held at its request.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would also like to highlight one of the key problems of international security - disarmament. Currently, international law has developed a wide range of norms on arms limitation and disarmament. The main areas of international cooperation in this area are:

· nuclear disarmament (Treaty Banning Tests of Nuclear Weapons in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water (Moscow, August 5, 1963), Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Geneva, July 1, 1968), Comprehensive Ban Treaty nuclear tests dated September 24, 1996;

· prohibition of the production and elimination of certain types of weapons (Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction 1972, Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction 1993 G.);

· limitation of certain types of weapons (Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Systems of 1972, Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of 1991, Treaty on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of 1993)

· limitation of the areas for the placement of certain types of weapons (Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America, 1967, Treaty on the Prohibition of the Placement on the Bottom of the Seas and Oceans and in Their Subsoil of Nuclear Weapons and Other Types of Weapons of Mass Destruction, 1971, etc.);

· limitation and reduction of armed forces (Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe 1990);

· demilitarization and neutralization individual territories(Antarctica - under the 1958 Treaty);

· general security measures (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Means of Influence on natural environment 1976).

Thus, international security is a complex political and legal concept of a specific historical nature. The process of formation in the public legal consciousness of ideas about the means and methods of ensuring international security, the military-political and legal content of this concept, the nature of the relationship between international and national security, as well as the corresponding rule-making and law enforcement activities of states in different eras of human history were significantly influenced by the results of a long and far from straightforward process of understanding the problems of war and peace, the relationship between law and force in international relations.

List of used literature

1. Charter of the United Nations

2. Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, October 24, 1970.

5. Constitution of the Russian Federation, 1993

7. Declaration on respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of the borders of member states of the Commonwealth Independent States, April 15, 1994

8. Charter of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, November 16, 1945.

11. International law: Textbook \ ed. V.I. Kuznetsov. – M:. Law 2005 – 672 p.

12. International law: Textbook. 2nd ed., revised. and additionally - Kalamkaryan R.A., Migachev Yu.I. 2006 – 736s.

International Security Law is a system of principles and norms governing military-political relations of states and other subjects of international law in order to prevent the use of military force in international relations, suppress acts of aggression, limit and reduce arms.

Like any branch of international law, international security law is based on the general principles of modern international law - non-use of force or threat of force, peaceful resolution of international disputes, territorial integrity and inviolability of borders, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, disarmament.

A number of industry principles have also been formed: equality and equal safety; indivisibility of security; without causing damage to the security of states.

PRINCIPLES:

■ recognition by each state of the comprehensive nature of international security, including political, military, economic and other security;

■ the right of every state to security and free development without outside interference;

■ refusal of all states from any actions that could harm the security of other states;

■ the impossibility of ensuring the security of one state at the expense of the security of other states. The principle of non-damage to the security of other states includes:

■ the gradual implementation of disarmament measures in a fair and balanced manner to ensure the right of each state to security at a lower level of armed forces;

■ preventing military advantage of some states over others at any stage of the disarmament process;

■ non-direction of measures taken to ensure security against the sovereignty, territorial integrity and freedom of any state.

These principles together constitute the legal basis of international security law.

Sources of international security law The main source regulating international legal methods and means of ensuring peace is the UN Charter (chapters I, VI, VII). Resolutions of the General Assembly adopted within the UN, containing fundamentally new normative provisions and focused on concretizing the requirements of the Charter, for example: “On the non-use of force in international relations and the eternal prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons” (1972); “The Definition of Aggression” (1974).

The most important place in the complex of sources of international security law is occupied by interrelated multilateral and bilateral treaties that regulate the legal aspects of ensuring peace. These agreements can be divided into four groups:

1. Treaties restraining the nuclear and conventional arms race in spatial terms:

■ Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 1968;

■ Treaty on the Prohibition of the Placement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Bottom of the Seas and Oceans and in Their Subsoil, 1971;

■ Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (Treaty of Tlatelolco) 1967;

■ Treaty on a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone in Southeast Asia (Bangkok Treaty), 1995;

■ treaties on the demilitarization of certain territorial spaces (for example, the Antarctic Treaty of 1958), etc.

2. Treaties limiting the buildup of weapons and (or) their reduction in quantitative and qualitative terms:

■ Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1996 (not yet in force);

■ Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modifications, 1977;

■ Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of 1991 (START-1);

■ Agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States on the reduction of strategic offensive capabilities, 2002, etc.

3. Treaties prohibiting the production of certain types of weapons and (or) prescribing their destruction:

■ Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, 1971;

■ Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the elimination of their intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles, 1987;

■ Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and Their Destruction, 1993.

4. Treaties designed to prevent the accidental (unauthorized) outbreak of war:

■ Agreement on measures to reduce the risk of nuclear war between the USSR and the USA, 1971;

■ Agreement between the USSR and Great Britain on the Prevention of Accidental Nuclear War, 1977;

International legal means of ensuring international security are a set of legal and other methods aimed at preserving peace and preventing armed conflicts, used by states individually or collectively - these are the means of ensuring international security. These means include:

■ collective security,

■ peaceful means of resolving disputes,

■ disarmament (arms reduction) and measures to control the disarmament process,

■ measures to prevent nuclear war and surprise attack,

■ non-alignment and neutrality,

■ measures to suppress acts of aggression,

■ self-defense,

■ neutralization and demilitarization of certain territories,

■ liquidation of foreign military bases,

■ measures to strengthen confidence between states, etc.

All these means are international legal, since they are regulated by treaties and are implemented on the basis of the principles and norms of modern international law.

The concept of international security law.

This is a set of international legal principles and norms governing cooperation between states and other subjects of international law in the military-political sphere in order to ensure peace and international security.

Under international security is understood as a world order that excludes violations of the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of states and guarantees the conditions for the sustainable and stable development of the world community. Ensure safety in modern world It is impossible to do so solely by force, and this is an extremely ineffective strategy.

In addition to military security, it is necessary to ensure economic, social, environmental, information and other aspects of security. At the same time, the state of security is ensured not only by protection from threats, but by their neutralization through mechanisms of peaceful cooperation and interaction in the most different areas government activities, life of civil society.

History of international security law.

The basis of international security law is a system of norms of public international law designed to exclude forceful forms of resolving controversial issues in relations between states.

International law that existed before both world wars recommended that states resort to peaceful means of resolving international disputes, but did not oblige them to follow this procedure.

At the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907. The Convention on the Peaceful Resolution of International Disputes was developed and adopted, the purpose of which was to summarize the rules for the application and formation and functioning of international arbitration courts and commissions of inquiry.

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

The next step towards recognition of the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes was the adoption in 1928 of the Paris Treaty on the renunciation of war (the so-called Kellogg-Briand Pact), in Art. II of which it is expressly stated: “The High Contracting Parties recognize that the settlement or resolution of all disputes or conflicts that may arise between them, whatever their nature or whatever their origin, must always be sought only through peaceful means.”

Of course, the next stage in the development of the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes was the Charter of the United Nations. The UN Charter attempts to create a mechanism for “the maintenance of international peace and security.” The document also contains norms regarding collective peace enforcement as decided by the Security Council.

Sources of international security law.

The main source of international security law is the UN Charter. Along with it, an important place in the complex of sources is occupied by bilateral and multilateral interstate treaties regulating the legal aspects of ensuring peace and international security. Among them the following categories stand out:

1. Treaties curbing the arms race and the buildup of weapons of mass destruction:
   • Antarctic Treaty 1959;
   • Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under the Sea, 1963;
   • Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1968;
   • Treaty on the Prohibition of the Placement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Bottom of the Seas and Oceans and in Their Subsoil, 1970;
   • Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological and Toxic Weapons and on Their Destruction, 1971;
   • Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, 1993;
   • Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty 1996;
2. Nuclear safety treaties:
   • South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty 1985;
   • Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone Treaty of 1995;
   • 1995 African Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone Treaty.
3. Treaties aimed at maintaining international peace and security:
   • 1974 Definition of Aggression;
   • International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers 2000.
4. Anti-terrorism treaties:
   • Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, 1970;
   • Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Security civil aviation 1971;
   • International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, 1979;
   • Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988;
   • International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, 1997;
   • International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 1999;
   • International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, 2005.

Among the sources of international security law, acts of a regional nature adopted in furtherance of the provisions of the UN Charter are of great importance. In the Eurasian region, international legal acts are created primarily within the framework of international organizations on security issues, such as NATO, OSCE, CSTO, etc.

Principles of international security law.

The basis of the branch of international security law is the generally recognized principles of modern international law, including:

• non-use of force or threat of force;
• territorial integrity of states;
• inviolability of state borders;
• non-interference in the internal affairs of states;
• peaceful settlement of international disputes;
• cooperation between states.

In addition to the generally recognized principles of international law, international security law also includes its own sectoral principles.

Branch principles of international security law:

• principle of indivisibility of international security- the security of any state or group of states cannot be built and ensured at the expense of the security of other states or the entire international community;
• principle of non-damage to the security of other states- states must conduct foreign policy taking into account not only their own security, but other countries, as well as the entire international community;
• principle of equal and equal security- states must ensure their security, balancing it with the capabilities of ensuring the security of other states.

Universal and regional systems of collective security.

There are two types of international security: universal and regional. Both types of international security are, i.e., they can be ensured only by the collective efforts of all or most states of the world or region.

Universal system of collective security.

The main tool for maintaining peace and preventing the outbreak of wars is universal collective security system provided for by the UN Charter. The Charter establishes the foundations of the modern world legal order, the principles of relations between states in the international arena and provides for a whole range of measures to preserve international peace and suppress acts of aggression, including:

• prohibition of the threat or use of force- only the UN, by decision of the Security Council, has the right to use force or the threat of force in cases provided for by its Charter. An exception to the general principle of non-use of force is the right to self-defense in the event of;
• peaceful resolution of international disputes- any dispute between states that threatens international peace and security must be resolved through negotiation, investigation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, litigation, recourse to regional bodies or agreements or other peaceful means;
• preventing and eliminating threats to peace and suppressing acts of aggression and other violations of the peace- The Security Council determines the existence of any threat to the peace, any breach of the peace or act of aggression and makes recommendations or decides what collective measures, related and/or non-armed, should be taken;
• use of regional security organizations- The Security Council may use regional agreements or bodies to implement enforcement measures to maintain international peace and security.

Regional systems of collective security.

The creation and operation of regional collective security systems is determined by Chapter VIII of the UN Charter “Regional Agreements”, the norms of these organizations and other international legal acts.

Regional collective security systems characterized by the following features:

• the states participating in the treaty are located predominantly in one region;
• the parties to the treaty confirm the requirement to resolve disagreements between themselves and other states exclusively by peaceful means;
• participants must not enter into military alliances or participate in actions directed against another participating state;
• participants undertake the obligation to provide individual or collective assistance to a state that has been subjected to an armed attack;
• the UN Security Council must be immediately informed of all actions taken or planned to ensure collective security;
• new members are accepted into the security system established by the treaty, as a rule, with the consent of all its participants.

Let us consider the most significant regional collective security systems.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)- a military-political bloc uniting most European countries, the USA and Canada. Founded on April 4, 1949 in the USA to counter the influence of the USSR. According to the founding treaty, an armed attack on one or more parties to the treaty is considered an attack on all of them. At the 2016 summit, NATO's new mission officially declared containing Russia. Currently, 29 countries are members of NATO.

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is the world's largest intergovernmental organization dealing with security issues. The OSCE was founded in July 1973. Its activities address a wide range of security-related issues, including arms control measures, confidence- and security-building measures, human rights, the protection of minorities, democratization, law enforcement, counter-terrorism, and economic and environmental coordination. The OSCE consists of 57 European states, Central Asia and North America.

Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)- a military-political union within the CIS, established on September 7, 2002 on the basis of the 1992 Collective Security Treaty. The goals of the CSTO are “strengthening peace, international and regional security and stability, protecting on a collective basis the independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of member states.” The CSTO includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan.

Literature.

1. International law in questions and answers: textbook / R. A. Kalamkaryan, Yu. I. Migachev. – M.: Eksmo, 2009.
2. International law. Special part: textbook. for law students fak. and universities / I. I. Lukashuk. – M.: Wolters Kluwer, 2005.
3. International law: textbook for bachelors / rep. ed. R. M. Valeev, G. I. Kurdyukov. – M.: Statute, 2017.
4. International public law in questions and answers: textbook / K. A. Bekyashev, E. G. Moiseev - M.: Prospekt, 2015.
5. International security law (theoretical foundations of formation and development): monograph / N. I. Kostenko. – M: Yurlitinform, 2018.
6. Chapchikov S. Yu. International security law and national interests of Russia on modern stage// Bulletin of RUDN University. Series: Legal sciences. 2009.

Concept of international security law

International security law is a system of principles and norms governing military-political relations of subjects of international law in order to prevent the use of military force in international relations, limit and reduce arms.

Like any branch of modern international law, international security law regulates a certain range of international legal relations, among which the following stand out:

a) relations related to the prevention of war and escalation of international tension;

b) relations related to the creation of international security systems;

c) relations on disarmament and arms limitation.

The principles of this branch of international law are all the basic principles of international law, but the branch of international security law also has its own specific principles:

The principle of equality and equal security, which boils down to the need to recognize that international security is guaranteed by a system of equality of national security measures. Any state will consider itself confident in political relations if it knows that national security measures are sufficient to protect the interests of the state. The principle of non-damage to the security of the state, which is that a deliberate act against the security of a state may itself threaten international peace and security.

Among the main sources of international security law, the following acts stand out:

1. UN Charter;

2. Resolutions of the UN General Assembly “On the non-use of force in international relations and the eternal prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons” (1972), “Definition of aggression” (1974);

3. Multilateral and bilateral treaties, which can be divided into 4 groups:

Treaties that limit the nuclear arms race in spatial terms (South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty);

Treaties limiting the build-up of arms in quantitative and qualitative terms (Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, 1982);

Treaties prohibiting the production of certain types of weapons and requiring their destruction (Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological and Toxic Weapons and on Their Destruction, 1972);

Treaties designed to prevent the accidental (unauthorized) outbreak of war.

4. Acts of international regional organizations (OSCE, Arab League, OAU, CIS).

International security law (ISL) is a set of generally recognized and special principles and norms aimed at maintaining peace and international security, suppressing acts of aggression, ensuring political, military, economic, food, environmental, information security of states and the stability of international relations.

The legal basis of international security law is:

1) basic principles of international security law

not the use of force or threat of force;

non-interference in internal affairs;

disarmament;

cooperation between states;

2) special principles of international security law:

equal security;

no damage;

equality and equal security;

indivisibility of international security.

International legal support for peace and security is a set of regulated international legal measures aimed at:

peaceful resolution of international disputes;

creation of collective security systems;

preventing the outbreak of war;

suppression of acts of aggression, reduction of armed forces and weapons;

narrowing the material base and spatial scope of warfare;

strengthening confidence-building measures and establishing effective international control over the activities of states in the military field.

The international security system consists of a whole range of components that ensure the safe and stable development of international relations. It provides:

1) collective measures involving broad international cooperation;

2) preventive diplomacy, the task of which is to prevent emerging threats to peace and peaceful settlement of international disputes.

International law has a set of means to ensure international security:

collective security (universal and regional);

peaceful means of resolving disputes;

measures to ease international tension, stop arms races and disarmament;

measures to suppress acts of aggression, violations of peace and threats to peace;

non-alignment and neutrality;

measures to strengthen confidence between states, etc.

Collective security. Collective security is a system of joint activities

states of the whole world or a certain geographical area, carried out to prevent and eliminate threats to peace and suppress acts of aggression.

The collective security system is legally formalized by an agreement, where, along with specific obligations, its participants establish three provisions:

1) do not resort to force or threat of force;

2) resolve disputes exclusively by peaceful means;

3) actively cooperate in order to eliminate any danger to the world, improve the health of

international situation.

There are two types of collective security systems.

Universal system of collective security. Global organization

collective security is the UN. It pursues a number of goals, but the main one is

maintaining international peace and security, adopting effective

collective measures (Article 1 of the UN Charter).

The system of collective activities provided for by the UN Charter covers:

measures to prohibit the threat or use of force in relations between

states (clause 4, article 2);

measures for the peaceful resolution of international disputes (Chapter VI);

disarmament measures (Articles 11, 26, 47);

security measures during the transition period (Chapter XVII);

measures for the use of regional security organizations (Chapter VIII);

temporary measures to suppress violations of the peace (Article 40);

compulsory security measures without the use of armed forces (Article 41);

coercive measures using armed forces (Article 42).

Collective security on a regional basis. Assuming the existence

regional agreements and security bodies, the UN Charter (Chapter VIII) imposes on them

certain requirements:

participation of only states of one political-geographical region;

the agreements should not extend beyond the boundaries of the given area;

actions taken within the framework of the regional security system cannot contradict the actions of the UN and must be compatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter

The UN Security Council must be informed of actions taken or planned to maintain international peace and security.

The main thing in the system of collective events of regional security organizations (according to

the meaning of Art. 52 of the UN Charter) are:

1) peaceful means of preventing war;

2) coercive measures using armed force may be taken

only to repel an attack that has already been committed on one of the system participants

collective security (i.e. based on Article 51 of the UN Charter - collective

self-defense);

3) coercive measures within the framework of a regional security organization may

be applied under the guidance of the UN Security Council.

Currently, regional collective security systems are:

Organization of American States (OAS), Organization of African Unity (OAU), League

Arab States (LAS), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Organization for

Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Collective Security System within the framework of

Peaceful means of resolving international disputes. The peaceful resolution of international disputes is one of the basic principles of international law, which is enshrined in the UN Charter (Article 1), the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, the CSCE of 1975, etc.

The means of peaceful resolution of international disputes are defined in Art. 33 of the UN Charter:

direct negotiations;

good offices and mediation;

mixed commissions (investigation and conciliation);

international arbitration and judicial procedure;

resolution of disputes in international organizations.

The first three means require a certain participation of the disputing parties in the procedure for resolving their differences.

The international arbitration and judicial procedure excludes interested parties from the dispute resolution process and requires mandatory compliance with the decision made by the international court or arbitration.

Dispute resolution in international organizations involves a political settlement of the dispute.

Disarmament. Disarmament is a set of measures aimed at stopping the buildup

material means of warfare, their limitation, reduction and elimination.

The general international legal basis for disarmament is laid down in the UN Charter:

The UN General Assembly considers the principles of disarmament and arms regulation and issues

The UNSC is responsible for formulating plans for the establishment of a regulatory system

disarmament (Article 26);

relating to arms regulation and possible disarmament (Article 47).

The main sources of norms in the field of international security law are international treaties:

1) universal (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1968);

2) regional (Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America, 1967);

3) bilateral (Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the Limitation of Missile Defense Systems

The MP does not directly oblige states to disarm, but in the spirit and letter of the main international

legal acts, they must strive for the prospect of universal and complete disarmament under

international control.

In international relations, partial disarmament measures are actively used:

prohibition and elimination of certain types of weapons, their production, accumulation, deployment

and applications;

restrictions on certain types of weapons in quantitative and qualitative terms;

narrowing the possibility of qualitative improvement of weapons;

reduction of the scope or areas of deployment of various types of weapons.

Disarmament provides for the existence of an institution of international control, which monitors the implementation by states of treaty obligations in the field of disarmament, analyzes the data obtained and brings them to the relevant international bodies. It is carried out on:

national level (satellites, seismic stations and other technical means);

international level (observers, inspections, etc.).

Currently, the problem of limiting nuclear weapons is quite acute. It is classified as a weapon of mass destruction and is under special attention MP.

Although there is no direct ban on nuclear weapons yet, international legal acts have been adopted that introduce restrictions on nuclear issues:

Testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, space and under water is prohibited (Treaty on

prohibition of nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere, outer space and under water

The testing of nuclear weapons and their deployment in Antarctica is prohibited (Antarctic Treaty

1959), Latin America (Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America

1967), South Pacific (South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty

ocean 1985), on the seabed and in its subsoil (Treaty prohibiting the placement on the seabed

seas and oceans and in their depths nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction

1971), on the Moon and other celestial bodies (Agreement on the Activities of States on the Moon and

other celestial bodies 1984).

Existing norms are aimed at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and preventing their acquisition by any states other than those officially recognized as possessing nuclear weapons (Russia, USA, China, Great Britain, France). But there are problems here too.

The issue of regulation of strategic nuclear weapons is topical. This includes:

intercontinental ballistic missiles;

heavy bombers;

nuclear submarine fleet.

The regulation of nuclear strategic weapons is mainly carried out by the Russian Federation and the United States (Temporary Agreement on Certain Measures in the Field of Limitation of Offensive Strategic Arms of 1972, Treaty on the Limitation of Offensive Strategic Arms of 1979, Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Offensive Strategic Arms of 1991, which has not entered into force . and the Treaty on the Further Reduction and Limitation of Offensive Strategic Arms of 1993, which is perceived very controversially).

Weapons of mass destruction also include chemical and bacteriological weapons.

Bacteriological weapons are under a comprehensive ban:

not only its use for military purposes is prohibited, but also its development, production and

accumulation;

stockpiles of bacteriological weapons are subject to destruction or processing for peaceful purposes

(Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological

(biological) and toxic weapons and their destruction 1972).

The 1972 Convention obliged each participant not to develop, produce, or accumulate:

microbiological and other biological agents or toxins, regardless of their

origin and production, of such types and in such quantities that are not intended for preventive, protective and other peaceful purposes; 12/02/2014 International law (educational and methodological complex):

weapons, equipment or delivery vehicles designed to use such agents

or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflicts.

States pledged to destroy or switch to peaceful purposes no later than 9 months after

entry into force of the Convention all agents, toxins, weapons, equipment and means of delivery which it possesses or which are under its jurisdiction or control.

The Convention came into force in March 1975; it is officially considered that since the beginning of 1976 all

bacteriological weapons and their means of delivery have been destroyed or transferred to peaceful purposes.

Chemical weapons as a means of warfare are illegal under the 1925 Protocol on the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Similar Gases and Bacteriological Agents.

After the entry into force of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, signed in 1993, this type of weapon of mass destruction was also completely banned.

To facilitate the speedy introduction of such a ban, the Russian Federation and the United States decided to terminate

production of chemical weapons, reducing their stockpiles and taking other measures to facilitate the transition to multilateral cooperation in this area (Agreement on

destruction and non-production of chemical weapons and on measures to promote the multilateral Chemical Weapons Convention of 1990).

The 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction obliged each party to:

not to develop, produce or stockpile chemical weapons;

no later than 2 years after the entry into force of the Convention (1997), begin work on the destruction

these weapons and completed no later than 10 years after the entry into force of the Convention;

the process of destruction of chemical weapons must meet the latest achievements of science and be carried out at specially equipped facilities.

The role of international law in preventing war

In the modern world, international law has become decisive in solving the problems of eliminating the threat of war and a set of tasks of partial and general disarmament. International law knows an extensive arsenal of specific means of ensuring international security, which represent a set of legal and other methods aimed at maintaining peace and preventing armed conflicts and applied by states individually or collectively. These means include peaceful means of resolving disputes, disarmament, measures to prevent nuclear war and surprise attacks, collective security, non-alignment and neutrality, measures to suppress acts of aggression, self-defense, neutralization and demilitarization of certain territories, the liquidation of foreign military bases, etc. All these the means are international legal, since they are regulated by treaties and are implemented on the basis of the principles and norms of modern international law.

Among such treaties is the Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America on the Prevention of Nuclear War, signed on June 22, 1973. Both states pledged to act in such a way as to prevent the emergence of situations that could cause a dangerous aggravation of their relations, to avoid military confrontation and to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war between them and between each of them and other countries. The agreement, which is open-ended, provides for consultations and efforts necessary to prevent the risk of nuclear conflict.

Without diminishing the importance of all international legal means of ensuring international security, the most important should be the creation of a system of collective security of states on a universal and regional basis and the implementation by states of collective measures to prevent armed conflict and achieve general and complete disarmament. It is these means that largely ensure equal security for all states and a balance of their interests.

Confidence-building measures are a relatively new element of the security system. Its task is to prevent the deterioration of relations as a result of mutual misunderstanding and to create confidence in the absence of a security threat. The first international legal acts in our time on this issue can be considered the Agreements between the USSR and the USA on measures to reduce the risk of nuclear war (1971) and on the prevention of nuclear war (1973). The parties pledged to prevent the emergence of situations that could cause a dangerous aggravation of their relations. If there is a risk of a nuclear conflict occurring anywhere, the parties will immediately begin mutual consultations.

The very concept of “confidence-building measures” was introduced into circulation by the CSCE Final Act of 1975. It provided for notification of and monitoring of military activities. Detailed provisions on this issue are contained in the Document of the 1986 CSCE Stockholm Conference. They relate to advance notification of military activities carried out at a certain level (exercises, maneuvers), invitation of observers to such activities, exchange of annual plans for these activities. The issue of confidence-building measures was also discussed at subsequent OSCE meetings.

Confidence building measures were also developed by the UN General Assembly. The final document of the first special session on disarmament in 1978 emphasized the link between disarmament and trust: to facilitate the disarmament process, it is necessary to strengthen trust between States. Trust promotes disarmament, and disarmament increases confidence. Subsequently, the General Assembly adopted a number of resolutions on confidence-building measures.

Coercive measures are collective measures applied by the community of states on the basis of the UN Charter in order to eliminate a threat to the peace, a violation of the peace or eliminate an act of aggression. They are resorted to in extreme cases in order to forcefully put an end to illegal behavior of the parties to the conflict that poses a threat to the peace or constitutes a violation of the peace or an act of aggression.

The UN Charter provides for two types of collective P.M. – not related to the use of armed forces and the use of armed forces. The UN Security Council is the only body in the UN system authorized to make decisions based on the principle of unanimity on the conduct of P.M. on behalf of the Organization. It uses, where appropriate, regional agreements or enforcement bodies under its authority. However, no P.m. may not be undertaken by virtue of such regional agreements or by regional bodies without authority from the Security Council, except as provided in Art. 53 of the Charter. Such cases refer to measures taken or authorized as a result of the Second World War against former enemy states or provided for in regional agreements aimed at preventing the resumption of aggressive policies on the part of any such state. If the actions of a state pose a threat to international peace or constitute a breach of peace or an act of aggression, the Security Council may require UN member states to take measures not related to the use of armed force, such as, for example, a complete or partial interruption of economic relations, railway, maritime , air and other means of communication, etc. severance of diplomatic relations. The Security Council may consider that these measures may be, or have already been, insufficient. In this case, he is authorized to take actions by air, sea and ground forces that prove necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such actions may include demonstrations, blockades and other operations by the armed forces of UN members. In accordance with Art. 43 of the UN Charter, the Security Council was required to conclude one or more agreements with UN members or groups of UN members, which would determine the number and type of troops, the degree of their readiness and their general disposition, and the nature of the services and assistance provided. On the basis of such agreements, in order to carry out enforcement actions by armed forces, the Security Council could require the necessary armed forces and assistance to be placed at its disposal. In UN practice, not a single such agreement has yet been concluded, which is one of the reasons for the insufficient effectiveness of the Security Council in implementing the P.M. Art. 106 of the UN Charter provides that, pending the entry into force of agreements under Art. 43 The permanent members of the Security Council shall consult among themselves and, if necessary, with other members of the UN to take such joint action on behalf of the UN as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. To assist the Security Council on military issues, it is subordinate to a subsidiary body - the Military Staff Committee, consisting of the chiefs of staff of the permanent members of the Security Council. However, due to the fault of Western countries, primarily the United States, the work of this important body was disrupted. Since 1947, the activities of the Military Staff Committee have actually ceased.

Self-defense in international law is the use of force implemented by a state in response to an armed criminal attack by another country. In order to exercise the rights of self-defense, each state, in accordance with Art. 51 of the UN Charter, may refer to military force until the UN Security Council takes the measures necessary to maintain international security and peace. The article of the UN Charter especially emphasizes the importance of this right, stating its inalienability. The right of self-defense in international law belongs exclusively to the country that is the victim of an attack, which must report the fact of an armed attack on it to the UN Security Council.

A national liberation movement is an organization that fights for the liberation of a people from foreign domination.

Examples of national liberation movements that arose in the 19th century were Young Italy, which fought for the liberation of Italian lands from the rule of the Habsburg Monarchy and the unification of Italy, as well as the Fenians, who fought for the independence of Ireland from Great Britain.

Many national liberation movements arose in the 20th century, especially during the collapse of the colonial system in the second half of the 20th century.

UN Armed Forces ( armed forces United Nations Peacekeeping Organizations) - military contingents of UN member countries allocated in accordance with the UN Charter for the purpose of preventing or eliminating threats to peace and security through joint coercive actions (military demonstration, blockade, etc.), if measures of economic and of a political nature will be or have proven to be insufficient. Military contingents provided by UN member countries at the disposal of the Security Council, under its leadership and command, essentially represent the joint armed forces of the UN, which are called upon during a peacekeeping operation to help achieve a number of goals, namely: preventing the aggressor state from carrying out its plans; providing assistance to the relevant authorities in establishing order within the country (including jointly with the UN civilian and military police); investigation of incidents in border zones and monitoring the implementation of ceasefire agreements, the withdrawal of troops and the disarmament of military groups (formations, gangs); demining the area; ensuring the delivery of humanitarian (medical) assistance; assistance in the restoration of destroyed objects in the life support system of the population with the help of available equipment and specialists.

The Multinational Force in Lebanon (MNF) is an international peacekeeping force sent to Lebanon in 1982 during the country's civil war. The multinational force was supposed to ensure stability in Lebanon, but in the long term it did not achieve its goals and was withdrawn from the country in 1984, having suffered heavy losses as a result of terrorist attacks by Shiite militants.

UN peacekeeping operations are an important tool for maintaining peace and international security. Their activities are based on a number of General Assembly Resolutions adopted in accordance with the Charter of the Organization. The General Assembly regularly considers the issue of peacekeeping operations, the need for which is due to the fact that the conduct of peacekeeping operations is not provided for by the Charter itself, but stems from the purposes and principles of the UN.

When carrying out UN peacekeeping operations, the following tasks may be pursued:

Investigation of incidents and negotiations with conflicting parties with a view to their reconciliation;

As for the relationship between the concepts of national and international security, the doctrine usually considers them in a dialectical relationship. So, Professor S.A. Egorov believes that “in modern conditions By national security it is no longer enough to understand only the physical and moral-political ability of a state to protect itself from external sources of threat to its existence, since ensuring national security has turned out to be in a dialectical relationship with international security, with the maintenance and strengthening of universal peace.”

Today, the most correct, comprehensive and justified is the following approach to defining the concept of international security: international security is a state of international relations in which there is no danger to the existence, functioning and development of each state individually, as well as all states, the entire international community generally.

International legal security regimes;

Institutional mechanisms of international security.

In turn, among the international legal regimes as elements of the international security system, the following can be distinguished:

Mode for the peaceful resolution of international disputes (negotiations, investigations, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, litigation, appeals to regional bodies, agreements or other peaceful means);

A regime for maintaining, as well as restoring, international peace and security, not related to the use of armed forces (complete or partial interruption of economic relations, railway, sea, air, postal, telegraph, radio and other means of communication, as well as severance of diplomatic relations);

Peace enforcement regime using armed forces (a set of actions and measures by air, sea or land forces that are necessary to maintain and (or) restore international peace and security; including demonstrations, blockades and other operations of air, sea and land forces UN members);

The regime of disarmament, reduction and limitation of weapons (the regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, the creation of nuclear-free zones, the regime of prohibition of the development, production and accumulation of stocks of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and their destruction and many others);

Confidence-building measures.

At the same time, the institutional mechanisms of international security themselves, i.e. The direct organizational forms through which the above regimes are implemented form an independent system, which as elements includes, in addition to individual security mechanisms, three organizational forms of collective security:

• universal (main UN bodies (Security Council, General Assembly, International Court of Justice, Secretariat), subsidiary bodies (International Law Commission, UNDP, UNCTAD, etc.), specialized UN agencies, as well as international organizations, coming into force large quantity members the nature of universality (such as the IAEA, which implements a regime of international control over the obligations of 187 states));
• regional agreements and organizations (created and functioning in accordance with Chapter VIII of the UN Charter (European Union, OSCE, CIS and a number of others));
• collective defense agreements (created in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter: Rio de Janeiro Treaty (1948), Washington Treaty establishing NATO (1949), ANZUS Treaty (1952), Collective Security Treaty Arab League (1952), SEATO Treaties (1955) and many others).

In light of the modern development of these institutional mechanisms for ensuring international security, the most pressing problems today are reforming and increasing the effectiveness of the UN, especially the UN Security Council as the main international body responsible for ensuring peace and security, which must retain the functions of control and leadership in the implementation of support operations peace, primarily related to the use of armed forces. Although the UN Charter encourages involvement regional structures in solving security problems, in practice, such defensive alliances as NATO actually arrogate to themselves the status and capabilities of the UN, which completely undermines the authority and normal functioning of the entire international security system, which in turn leads to numerous violations of the norms and principles of international law.

In contrast to group security (which is based on relevant agreements on mutual assistance between individual states), which, just like individual security, is based on the interests of an individual state, “the system of collective security ensures individual interests through the prism of the common subjective interest of the entire world community "

In modern doctrine, the concepts of international and collective security or individual and national security are often considered identical, which is incorrect. Thus, the national security of the Russian Federation - and this is reflected in the concept of national security of Russia - is ensured not only by means of individual (i.e. implemented by the state itself independently) security, but, on the contrary, mainly by collective efforts on the basis of relevant international agreements (within the framework of UN, CSTO, etc.).

Therefore, in a certain sense, national security can be both collective and individual. So, international security, i.e. The security of the whole world is considered by various authors both through collective efforts and through a simple set of independent actions of states, consistent with generally accepted principles and norms of international law. In order to prevent confusion of concepts and clarify their relationships, a schematic classification of types of security is proposed.

Safety

Just like the international security system, consisting of universal and regional components, the national security system has internal and external and state and public security as its constituent elements.

The term “national security” (which actually meant state security) was first used in 1904 in President T. Roosevelt’s message to the US Congress. In this term, the interests of the state and the nation are united, thereby the security doctrine is automatically legitimized, since it is based on national - public - interest. In Western doctrine, in general, security interests, national interests, and fundamental Western values ​​are almost identical concepts.

With the advent of the concept of national security, the concepts of state and public security were practically leveled out. With this approach (i.e., in fact, through the replacement of these concepts), national interest began to essentially absorb both social and state interests, actually becoming decisive for the latter.

When considering the triad of “national, state and public security” and determining their relationship, it is necessary to understand that each of them is based on the security of a particular person. And this is the main achievement and imperative of the modern world order and international law itself. It is enough to recall the principle dating back to Roman law: hominum causa omne jus gentium constitutum est (all international law is created for the benefit of man). This is what should distinguish a true democratic state from an authoritarian one - that the interests of the country, the concepts of its foreign policy and security (both international and national) are based not on the interests and priorities of state power institutions, but on the legal rights and freedoms of a person as the highest value.

Disarmament and arms limitation

Having chosen as a goal the deliverance of future generations from the scourge of war, the United Nations embarked on the path of creating the necessary mechanisms and legal means of disarmament. Disarmament is an objective, reasonable need, an integral element of the peaceful coexistence of civilizations, and complete disarmament is an ideal model of the world community. There are points of view, especially in Russian doctrine, that disarmament is a principle of international law. As has already been mentioned in this study, a more balanced approach to considering the principle of disarmament seems to be the position of I.I. Lukashuk, according to whom “if such a principle exists, then it is a principle-idea, and not a norm of positive law. The obligations of states in this area are formulated in the principle of non-use of force.”

The first step towards disarmament was the adoption in 1959 of the UN General Assembly Resolution, which defined complete disarmament as the ultimate goal of international efforts in this area.

The Soviet Union was the initiator of this progressive document.

And in fact, it was our state that was one of the main driving forces, along with the United States, in the cause of general disarmament.

According to established terminology, “disarmament is a means of ensuring international security through a set of joint actions by states aimed at reducing the arms race, limiting, and reducing weapons to the level of reasonable sufficiency necessary for defense.”

The institutional basis for developing ideas and norms at the universal level in the field of disarmament is today the Conference on Disarmament, the First Committee of the UN General Assembly and the UN Disarmament Commission.

For decades, the problem of disarmament has been perhaps one of the most pressing among the range of international security problems. However, it should be noted that in recent years, especially in the new millennium, this international legal issue, despite the initiatives taken, has not had sufficient effective development. As noted by Russian President V.V. Putin, in his report at the Munich Conference on International Security in February 2007, “ potential danger The destabilization of international relations is associated with the obvious stagnation in the field of disarmament." The development of interstate dialogue in the field of disarmament can be divided into areas: the WMD non-proliferation regime, the limitation and reduction of strategic offensive weapons to the limits of necessary self-defense, the reduction and control of conventional weapons. Independent consideration of these areas is conditional, since the issues of disarmament, arms reduction and arms control in all areas represent an interconnected system.

WMD non-proliferation regime

Almost at the same time as the establishment of the UN, a progressive universal organization created for the purposes of peace and security, the first use of nuclear weapons against civilians was carried out. Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have forever made the issue of the use of nuclear weapons the number one problem.

With the development of the policy of containment during the Cold War, not only the nuclear threat itself, but also the consequences of the formation of these potentials and their testing began to cause serious concern to the world community, since the accumulation of radioactive fallout could cause irreversible and unpredictable consequences for the surrounding world.

The first step towards creating legal mechanisms for banning nuclear tests was the signing in 1963 by nuclear powers of the Moscow Treaty banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water, to which over 130 states are currently parties. This was followed by the signing of the Treaty on the Limitation of Underground Tests of Nuclear Weapons in 1974, and already in 1996 the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed. Despite the fact that more than 170 states have become its participants, of which more than 100 have already ratified it, the main problem remains that a number of nuclear powers, primarily the United States, have not ratified it.

The most important element in preventing the use of nuclear weapons is the non-proliferation regime established by the world community. In 1968, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was signed, which provided for the obligations of nuclear powers not to transfer nuclear weapons and military nuclear technology, and ordered other states to refrain from their production and acquisition. Monitoring the implementation of countries' obligations was entrusted to an international organization specially created for this purpose - the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In 1995, the Treaty was extended indefinitely; today over 80 states are its parties. The merits of the nonproliferation regime cannot be overestimated. Back in 1963, when only four states were members of the “nuclear club,” the US Government made predictions that up to 25 countries would have nuclear weapons within ten years. However, nearly half a century has passed, and only eight states are known to have nuclear arsenals.

However, the nonproliferation regime faces serious and intractable problems. In accordance with the 1968 Treaty, states committed themselves to the non-proliferation of the military component of nuclear technology; on the contrary, the peaceful use of atomic energy is recognized as the most effective, and the exchange of relevant knowledge is strongly encouraged. So, in Art. 4 of the Treaty states that no provision of the Treaty should be interpreted as affecting the right of parties to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Moreover, in accordance with this article, all participants undertake to promote the fullest exchange of equipment, materials, scientific and technical information on the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and have the right to participate in such exchange.

As a result, about 60 states today operate or are building nuclear reactors, and at least 40 have an industrial and scientific base that gives them the ability - should they choose to do so - to produce nuclear weapons quite quickly.

And this choice, which is more than paradoxical, allows them to make the Treaty itself. Yes, Art. 10 gives the parties the right to withdraw from it if they decide that exceptional circumstances related to the content of this Treaty have jeopardized the supreme interests of the country (as is known, only the DPRK has so far taken advantage of this right).

Serious problems are also caused by the absence among the states parties to the Treaty of some of the new nuclear states, in particular Israel, which do not bear any international legal responsibility for the proliferation of nuclear materials. Considering the possibility of these technologies and materials falling into the hands of terrorists, the official statistics also look terrifying: over the past decade, more than 200 cases of illicit trafficking in nuclear materials have been documented.

The difficult mission to resolve these problematic aspects is entrusted to a special international organization monitoring compliance with the provisions of the 1968 Treaty - the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The control mechanism is being implemented through the conclusion by each of the states party to the NPT of a special agreement with the IAEA.

Of great importance for strengthening the non-proliferation regime are those created around the world as part of the implementation of Art. VII Treaty on regional nuclear-free zones. Nuclear-free zones today are:

• Antarctica (Antarctic Treaty 1959);
• outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies (Outer Outer Space Treaty 1967);
• the bottom of seas and oceans and their subsoil (Treaty on the Non-Placement of WMD in Specified Spaces, 1971);
• Latin America(Treaty of Tlatelolco 1967);
• South Pacific (Treaty of Rarotonga 1985);
• Africa (Treaty of Pelindaba 1996);
• Southeast Asia(Bangkok Treaty 1995);
• Spitsbergen Archipelago (Svalbard Treaty 1920);
• Åland Islands (Treaty on the Åland Islands between the USSR and Finland 1920).

This regime is actively developing, research is being conducted and the possibilities of establishing a similar regime in some regions of Asia, the Middle East, and the Korean Peninsula are being studied. A landmark event is Kazakhstan’s appeal to the UN in 2002 to create a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region, as a result of which the Treaty on a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia was signed on September 8, 2006. From the point of view of the formation of future nuclear-free zones, the problem of recycling spent elements is of great importance nuclear reactors, nuclear warheads decommissioned from “combat duty.” It is no secret that the Arctic is a graveyard for such highly hazardous materials. At the universal level, a coordinated unified program for the destruction of nuclear materials is needed, since this, especially for future generations, is the most dangerous source of leakage and radiation contamination, as well as an extremely unprotected object of a possible terrorist attack, which can cause no less harm than military nuclear weapons.

The scale of the disposal problem is evidenced by open data on the amount of weapons-grade plutonium produced in the USA and the USSR. Thus, over a period of more than 50 years, the USA produced about 100 tons, and the USSR - about 125 tons of weapons-grade plutonium. As is known, isotopic dilution of weapons-grade plutonium with “civilian” plutonium does not lead to the removal of the resulting product from the category of direct-use material, i.e., according to the IAEA definition, it does not transform it into a form unsuitable for the manufacture of a nuclear explosive device. Thus, today there are two internationally recognized possible options recycling: immobilization of plutonium (vitrification together with highly radioactive waste) and “burning” of weapons-grade plutonium in MOX fuel for power reactors. In this case, the latter method is a priority, since immobilization potentially has a lower “barrier” against the possible reverse release of plutonium from vitrified forms compared to spent MOX fuel. Today, there is an Agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States, signed in September 1998, on the disposal of plutonium, under which the parties confirmed their intention to gradually remove about 50 tons of plutonium from their nuclear weapons programs and process it so that this material can never be used in nuclear weapons. In contrast to the disposal of plutonium, due to significant differences in the physical characteristics of uranium and plutonium, the task of recycling highly enriched uranium turns out to be simpler: reducing the content of the fissile isotope U-235 from 93-95%, characteristic of weapons-grade HEU, to 3-5%, necessary for the manufacture of fuel nuclear reactors of nuclear power plants, can be carried out by diluting HEU with natural or slightly enriched uranium.

As part of the Russian-American intergovernmental agreement on HEU/LEU, signed in 1993, which provides for the conversion of 500 tons of HEU extracted from Russian nuclear weapons into low-enriched uranium for fuel of American nuclear power plants, Russian specialists developed a unique technology for diluting HEU, which makes it possible to have as an output product LEU that fully meets the requirements of the relevant US national standard. During the period from 1995 to 2000 alone, almost 100 tons of HEU (equivalent to approximately 3,700 warheads) were diluted at three Russian enterprises (UEKhK, Yekaterinburg; SKhK, Tomsk; GKhK, Krasnoyarsk), and in 1999 the milestone of processing into 30 tons per year.

Accordingly, 2,800 tons of LEU worth about $2 billion were sent to the United States, which were used upon arrival in Russia to increase the level of nuclear safety of nuclear power, clean up radiation-contaminated areas, convert enterprises of the military nuclear complex, and develop fundamental and applied science.

No less serious is the problem of the proliferation and disposal of other types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - chemical and bacteriological weapons. With the participation of the USSR, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction was signed in 1972. In 1993, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction was signed, according to which Russia, in particular, pledged to eliminate 100% of its chemical weapons by April 29, 2012. Chemical and bacteriological weapons are terrible evil.

In one worst-case scenario, an attack using just one gram of smallpox formulation pumped into ammunition could result in the deaths of 100,000 to 1 million people.

The 1919 influenza pandemic killed nearly 100 million people, far more than during World War I, in just over a year. Today, a similar virus can kill tens of millions of people in a much shorter period of time.

The main problem with the implementation of these conventions is that the destruction of these truly brutal weapons requires no less, and sometimes significantly more, resources than production itself. Complicating the situation is the existence of more than 6,000 chemical enterprises, which, in principle, could become targets of attacks and sources of chemical materials. The problem of the emergence of new arsenals of chemical and bacteriological weapons is very acute. According to experts, “the inability of most countries in the world to resist developed countries economically and militarily in the context of global development of the world forces them to look for alternative ways to ensure their own security.” In this regard, there is an increasing urgency to develop appropriate bans on the production of new types of weapons of mass destruction (radiological, psychotropic, etc.), the use of which can cause no less, and in some cases, significantly more damage, especially if it is at the disposal of international terrorism .

The current situation also requires significant development an international legal regime for the non-proliferation of not only WMD itself, but also the means of its delivery - primarily missile technologies. This ban on the proliferation of missile technologies would indirectly make it possible to significantly reduce the risks of the process of WMD proliferation.

In this regard, the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), established in 1987, is progressive, but the obvious weakness of this regime is due to its non-legal and non-universal nature (only 34 states participate in it).

A separate component of the nonproliferation regime is the modern development of international legal agreements on the ban on the placement of WMD and other types of weapons in outer space.

As is known, in accordance with the Treaty on Principles for the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, dated 1967, the placement of WMD on celestial bodies and in outer space is prohibited, but there is a general ban on the placement of all types of weapons in outer space. space this Agreement does not contain. Meanwhile, such a weapon, deployed in space, would have a global coverage area, high readiness for use, and the ability to covertly influence space and ground objects and disable them. In this regard, the regime banning the placement of any weapons in space should actually be equated with the regime of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on earth.

According to Russian President V.V. Putin, as he said at the Munich Security Conference, “the militarization of space can provoke consequences unpredictable for the world community - no less than the beginning of the nuclear era.”

Over the past years, the Russian Federation has been actively promoting the idea and developing relevant international legal norms related to the possibility of establishing a regime for the demilitarization of outer space. Back at the UN Millennium Summit in New York in 2000, on Russia's initiative, an active discussion began on a range of issues related to the prohibition of the placement of weapons in outer space. In development of this dialogue, a Conference was held in Moscow on April 11-14, 2001 under the motto “Space without weapons - an arena for peaceful cooperation in the 21st century.” Among its key topics were both the issues of preventing the placement of weapons in outer space and the prospects for the peaceful use of outer space. About 1,300 experts from 105 countries took part in the Conference. This initiative of Russia was embodied in the Russian-Chinese document “Possible elements of a future international legal agreement on preventing the deployment of weapons in outer space, the use of force or the threat of force against space objects,” which was presented on June 27, 2002 at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. The co-authors of the document were Belarus, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, and Syria. Developing the proposal put forward at the 56th session of the UN General Assembly to introduce a moratorium on the deployment of military weapons in outer space, Russia announced on October 5, 2004 at the 59th session of the UN General Assembly that it would not be the first to place weapons of any kind in outer space. species, and called on all other states with space capabilities to follow its example. On May 10, 2005 in Moscow, the President of the Russian Federation, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg (at that time the President of the European Union), the Chairman of the Commission of the European Communities, the EU High Representative for foreign policy The Road Map for the Common External Security Space was approved. It contains, as one of the priority areas of cooperation between Russia and the EU, the provision of “active support through the UN and the Conference on Disarmament for the goal of preventing an arms race in outer space as one of the necessary conditions for strengthening strategic stability and developing international cooperation in the field of study and exploration of outer space for peaceful purposes." During the 60th session of the UN General Assembly, Russia submitted a draft resolution “Measures to ensure transparency and confidence-building in outer space activities” for consideration by the international community. The purpose of the Resolution is to find out the opinion of states regarding the advisability of further development in modern conditions of international transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space (ITBC). The vote held at the UN General Assembly on December 8, 2005 revealed broad support for the Russian initiative. 178 states voted for the document, with one “abstaining” (Israel) and one “against” (USA).

A landmark event in this area was the submission for discussion at the Conference on Disarmament in February 2008 of the draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects (PPWT), prepared jointly by Russia and the PRC. Among the progressive norms of this draft Treaty is a ban on the placement of any weapons in outer space, while the term “weapons” itself is interpreted more than broadly by the Treaty. According to the draft, it means “any device located in outer space, based on any physical principle, specially designed or modified to destroy, damage or disrupt the normal functioning of objects in outer space, on the Earth or in its airspace, as well as to destroy population, components of the biosphere important for human existence, or for causing damage to them.”

In accordance with Art. 2 of the draft Treaty, “the participating states undertake not to place into orbit around the Earth any objects with any types of weapons, not to install such weapons on celestial bodies, and not to place such weapons in outer space in any other way; not resort to the use of force or threat of force against space objects; not to assist or induce other states, groups of states or international organizations to participate in activities prohibited by this Treaty.” However, the inclusion in the agreement of the provisions of Art. V, which states: “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as preventing States Parties from exercising the right of self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.” Of course, this Treaty may not affect the inalienable right of states to exercise collective and individual self-defense, but the mention of this possibility in the context of the draft Treaty under consideration can actually be interpreted in two ways and lead only to the partial demilitarization of outer space (i.e., to the possibility of placing in space any potentials for self-defense purposes). In fact, it is always very difficult to draw the line between defensive and offensive potentials. Despite these controversial provisions regarding the signing of the Treaty, active consultations are ongoing and their completion can be expected in the near future.

The signing of this Treaty and making the outer space demilitarization regime universal will be a significant step towards strengthening international security.

Limitation and reduction of strategic offensive weapons to the limits of necessary self-defense

In context global problem disarmament, general support for the non-proliferation regime and the reduction of nuclear weapons, the international community made every effort to reduce other types of weapons (not only WMD). Due to the impossibility of achieving the ideal model - complete disarmament, the topic of limiting and reducing offensive weapons came to the fore.

The implementation of this trend led to the development of the principle of non-use of force (renunciation of aggression), enshrined in international law, primarily in the UN Charter. Implied was the possibility of destroying weapons to the extent necessary for self-defense. Due to the conditions of the Cold War, the USSR and the USA became the main actors in the disarmament of their offensive arsenals. In 1972, the Strategic Arms Limitation Agreement (SALT I) was signed, which included, as an integral element of strategic stability, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), limiting the number of missile defense areas, and the Interim Agreement on Certain Measures in the Field of Limiting Strategic Offensive weapons, which limited the number launchers strategic missiles and number ballistic missiles on submarines.

In 1979, in development of the agreements reached, a new agreement was signed - SALT-2, which provided for limiting launchers and surface-to-air ballistic missiles to 2250 units. Despite successful ratification in full, the Agreement was never implemented.

A particularly problematic aspect of this strategic cooperation at the moment is the implementation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Over the years of its existence, the Treaty has shown its effectiveness as an instrument of strategic stability and not only in relations between the USSR and the USA, but also between other nuclear powers, for which the emergence of modern missile defense nullifies their insignificant nuclear arsenals, which do not have means of passing missile defense (in in particular, France, China, etc.). In 1999, at the UN General Assembly, 80 states spoke out in favor of supporting a resolution in defense of missile defense. Despite this, after several years of costly testing, taking into account Russia’s position of threatening to suspend the implementation of its obligations under START 1, 2, which was legislated upon their ratification, on June 13, 2002, the United States officially withdrew from the missile defense system and announced the beginning full-scale efforts to build a national missile defense system. The next step aimed at undermining strategic stability was the announcement of a project to install missile defense in Eastern European countries (10 missile defense missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic). Despite the assurances of American leaders that the entire missile defense system, including its European component, is designed to prevent nuclear threats from unstable Asian countries, primarily from Iran and the DPRK, hardly anyone doubts that “at the heart of the plans "The deployment of US missile defense lies in Washington's anti-Russian and anti-Chinese policies." Otherwise, the American leadership would have received with great enthusiasm the proposal of the President of Russia to use the Gabala radar station (a military base of the Russian Armed Forces in Azerbaijan) for these purposes. This radar allows you to “cover” the whole of Europe, including its southeast. At the same time, the radar in Azerbaijan is not capable of detecting launches of Russian ballistic missiles, which in the event of a war with America will proceed through North Pole towards the United States.

In the nuclear missile sphere, the Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Potentials of May 24, 2002 (came into force on June 1, 2003) is in force today. His integral part is the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Potentials (START-1), signed back in 1991. The general period of the arms reduction regime established by the Treaties is valid until 2012 and provides for the destruction of up to 1,700-2,000 strategic nuclear warheads. That is, during this period, strategic and tactical nuclear weapons will be destroyed by 80%. However, there are also a lot of questions and complaints against the American side regarding the implementation of this agreement. The dismantling of missiles with nuclear warheads in the United States is actually in the nature of partial destruction (only some of the missile modules are dismantled), thus forming a return potential.

Another important agreement on the reduction of strategic offensive weapons is the Soviet-American Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range Missiles (INF) (from 500 to 5500 km), signed in 1987. Under this Treaty, the USSR eliminated 899 deployed and 700 non-deployed medium-range missiles and 1,096 shorter-range missiles. Despite its progressiveness, a serious problem remains the lack of universality in the regime for eliminating intermediate- and shorter-range missiles. Many states, primarily China, as well as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Israel, are developing and stockpiling this class of missiles. There is also information that, due to certain concerns and corresponding potential threats from a number of these states, despite the prohibitions established by the Treaty, the United States is also continuing development in this area. This situation has an extremely negative impact on the defense capability of the Russian Federation. In October 2007, President V.V. Putin put forward an initiative to give global character obligations set forth in the Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF). The initiative was supported by American partners. Common positions on this issue were reflected in the Joint Statement on the INF Treaty, distributed as an official document at the 62nd session of the UN General Assembly and the Conference on Disarmament. The response of the overwhelming majority of members of the world community is approving. But there are also states that, for various reasons, have not shown readiness to support it. To this end, the Russian Federation took the initiative (in particular, at the Conference on Disarmament held on February 13, 2008) to develop and conclude a multilateral agreement based on the relevant provisions of the INF Treaty. In the Declaration of the Moscow session of the Collective Council CSTO security On September 5, 2008, special attention was drawn to the fact that “the proliferation of medium-range and shorter-range ground-based missiles, including near the Organization’s area of ​​responsibility, is of grave concern. The CSTO member states, noting the absence of such weapons, welcome the initiative to develop a universal agreement that would provide for the global elimination of these two classes of missiles and their complete ban.”

Despite the high relevance of the process of reducing strategic weapons, especially weapons of mass destruction, the problem of disarmament from the very beginning of its actualization also affected conventional weapons. In the post-World War II period, there was an enormous surplus as never before, especially on the European continent. military equipment, various types of weapons, including most recently those that belonged to “enemy states.” However, it was not possible to achieve coordinated joint measures to reduce conventional weapons for decades; on the contrary, Europe, split into two fronts (NATO and Warsaw Warfare), was actually teetering on the brink of military action. Some movement in this direction began with the Helsinki Process in 1975 and the establishment of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Therefore, the agreement reached in 1990 in the form of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe was the most progressive step in strengthening stability on the continent by introducing strict equal quotas on conventional weapons for the countries of Western Europe and, accordingly, European countries"socialist camp" and the USSR. According to experts, “in combination with confidence-building measures, the Treaty radically changed the military-political situation in Europe and actually removed the question of the possibility of conducting sudden large-scale operations leading to the possible seizure of territories on the European continent.”

In accordance with the Treaty, equal quotas for conventional weapons were established on both sides (NATO and Warsaw countries) in the territory from the Atlantic to the Urals:

20,000 tanks;

20,000 artillery pieces;

30,000 armored fighting vehicles;

6800 combat aircraft;

2000 attack helicopters.

These quotas were distributed among the relevant states on each side.

There has also been some progress at the universal level: on December 6, 1991, the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms was established, increasing the level of transparency in the military field. Member States were required to submit annual reports on their sales and purchases of conventional weapons and their stockpiles, as well as on their defense structures, policies and doctrines. According to the UN, today 172 states provide relevant information to the Register. However, the Register still suffers greatly due to late submission of reports.

After an avalanche of democratic revolutions and regime changes in the 89-90s, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe are increasingly beginning to gravitate towards the West, NATO, and reintegrate into a united Europe. Moreover, the Warsaw Pact Organization ceases to exist along with the USSR itself, and already in 1999, some of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe became full members of NATO. All this inevitably required a revision of the provisions of the CFE Treaty. Russian diplomacy actively sought a revision of quotas on conventional weapons in connection with the expansion of NATO and the emergence of potential military threats on Russia's borders. At the next OSCE Summit in 1999 in Istanbul, with Russian guarantees to withdraw its troops from Georgia and Moldova (in fact, in order to “clear” the way for these republics to join NATO), an adapted CFE Treaty was signed. New document established adjusted quotas for conventional weapons for European states, which made it possible to ensure parity of forces with Russia and its allies in the CIS; Russian requirements for the volume of weapons for the central regions and border zones were also taken into account. According to experts, the adapted CFE Treaty solved all these issues: “Taken together, these regimes (center and flanks) of the adapted CFE Treaty form a kind of security belt along the entire perimeter of Russia’s European borders. At the same time, Russia retained the right to transfer forces from the now calm northern zone to crisis areas in the south. All this taken together significantly neutralizes the negative consequences of NATO expansion for Russian security and European stability.”

In subsequent years, Russia withdrew its troops from Moldova and Georgia and ratified the adapted CFE Treaty, but, unfortunately, European states were in no hurry to ratify this document.

Due to this, also linking its decision with the upcoming deployment of an American missile defense system in Europe, Russia suspended its participation in the said Treaty on December 12, 2007.

But is the absence of an effective, adapted CFE mechanism so bad for Russian strategic interests?

Firstly, it is necessary to clarify that Russia did not withdraw from the Treaty, but only suspended its effect until the ratification of the adapted agreement by the relevant European countries.

Secondly, it should be noted that from the point of view of military security of the CFE Treaty in lately did not play any significant role on the European continent in matters of arms limitation.

None of the NATO states have used the allocated quotas to the maximum; moreover, they have significantly fewer weapons than are possible under the CFE Treaty (as for, for example, the American armed forces in Europe, for some types of weapons they are generally 90% less than the threshold values ​​stipulate ).

Thirdly, if we generally analyze the prospects for establishing equal quotas on conventional weapons for NATO countries and Russia, this is an unattainable and questionable result from the point of view of effectiveness. In reality, only the USSR was superior in conventional weapons to all NATO forces in Europe combined, and by a factor of two; now NATO forces are 3-4 times superior to the Russian ones. For Russia today there is neither sense nor financial opportunity to strive for parity with the West in conventional weapons due to its enormous superiority in economic potential and human resources. According to a number of reputable experts, “those who advocate maintaining quantitative military parity between Russia and the rest of Europe (including US forces in Europe), albeit implicitly, proceed from the fact that the Cold War continues and could escalate into a hot war between Russia and much of the rest of the world. In reality, the likelihood of such a war is zero.” Despite all the negativity of the process of NATO expansion to the borders of Russia, this process also leaves a certain imprint on the organization itself. Considering the principle of consensual adoption of any decisions in NATO, it will most likely be impossible to agree on a single position on military aggression against Russia.

Today there is an urgent need to harmonize and implement qualitatively different international legal forms and mechanisms budget control military expenditures of states. Against the backdrop of a massive inflation of defense funding in the United States, Europeans are spending and wanting to spend less and less on security every year, and this is a justified trend. According to experts, the Iraqi example shows that “despite the multiple superiority military power, neither the United States nor its allies are capable of waging a long war, even of a local nature. In the era of globalization, a different system of limiting military capabilities is at work.” At the international level, perhaps at the European level, it is necessary to agree not on arms limits, but on the funds spent on military security, taking into account territories, threats, the length of borders and the different capabilities of different economies. The priority should be the person, the humanitarian component - this is the main thesis of modern international law.