States as the main subjects of international law. The principle of sovereign equality of states

Sovereign equality of states in the system of basic principles of international law

TIUNOV Oleg Ivanovich, Doctor of Law, Head of the Department of International Law of the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation

Russian Federation, 117218, Moscow, st. Bolshaya Cheryomushkinskaya, 34

The article defines the content and role of the principle of sovereign equality of states in the system of basic principles of international law. Modern signs of sovereign equality are the result of the development of international law. Its content developed under the influence of various historical formations: The UN Charter - the basic document of our time - enshrined the principle of sovereign equality of states as part of the system of the most important legal principles of international law. Mutually dependent signs of sovereignty are the supremacy of a state within its territory and its independence in international relations. The basic principles of international law are interdependent and must be applied in the context of each other.

Keywords: signs of sovereignty, sovereign equality, basic principles, UN Charter, supremacy of the state, independence of the state.

Sovereign Equality of States in the System of Basic Principles of International Law

O. I. Tunov, Doctor of Jurisprudence

The Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation

34, Bolshaya Cheremushkinskaya st., Moscow, 117218, Russia

Email: [email protected]

In the article have defined of the role of the principle of the sovereign equality of the states in the system of the principles of international law. The contemporary of the signs of the sovereign equality became aparent the grand total of the development of the international law. Its substance development was under the influence of the different history formations. The Charter of the United Nations there is the basic document of the contemporaneity in which has sealed the principle of the sovereign equality of the states as the part of the system of the principals the modern international law. The legal signs of the sovereignty appears on the supreme sovereignty within the limits of the state, and they must be independence of the state in the international relations. The basic principles of international law there are interdependence. They must be conform to the context each other.

Keywords: signs of the sovereign, sovereign equality, basic principles, the Charter of the United Nations, supremacy of the state, independence of the state.

DOI: 10.12737/3457

The principle of sovereign equality refers to the generally recognized principles of international law. In this capacity, it is recorded in a number of international acts. The UN Charter stipulates that in their activities the Organization and its members are guided by the principle of sovereign equality of all UN member states. This principle is inextricably linked with

a number of other principles proclaimed in the Charter: conscientious fulfillment of obligations assumed under the Charter, resolution of international disputes by peaceful means in such a way as not to jeopardize international peace, security and justice; refraining from the threat or use of force as against territorial integrity

or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, to provide the Organization with its full assistance in all actions undertaken by it in accordance with the Charter, and to refrain from providing assistance to any State against which the Organization is taking preventive or enforcement action character; to ensure that States which are not Members of the Organization act in accordance with the principles already named, so far as this may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security; non-interference by the UN in matters essentially within the internal competence of any state, and not requiring members of the Organization to submit such cases for resolution in the manner provided for by the Charter, which should not, however, affect the use of coercive measures in cases of threats to the peace, violations of the peace and acts aggression1.

The UN Charter is a multilateral universal international treaty, in which the vast majority of states - subjects of international law - currently participate. As members of the UN, they reaffirmed their commitment to be guided by the principle of sovereign equality, as well as a number of other principles enshrined in the UN Charter in the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 55/2 of September 8, 2000, “United Nations Millennium Declaration,” adopted by them. The states, declaring their commitment to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, emphasized their timelessness and universal character in conditions when “countries and peoples are becoming increasingly

1 cm.: Charter of the United Nations. Selected Instruments in International Law / ed. by L. D. Roberts. N.Y., 1994. P. 5.

more interconnected and interdependent”, and states are determined to “strengthen respect for the rule of law, both in international and domestic affairs”2.

Indeed, already at the intermediate stage between the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945 and the Millennium Declaration in 2000, the UN General Assembly in 1970 adopted an important UN resolution - the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States in accordance with UN Charter. IN specified document The major political, economic and social changes and scientific progress that have occurred in the world since the adoption of the Charter and have had a significant impact on the development of international and national law are stated. The principle of sovereign equality in the modern period influences the implementation of the goals of the UN, including those related to the adoption of effective collective UN measures to maintain international peace and security, the development of friendly relations between states based on respect for the equality and self-determination of peoples; implementation international cooperation in the areas of solving problems of an economic, social, cultural and humanitarian nature; interaction of UN member states as an integral entity to coordinate actions in achieving these common goals.

Enjoying sovereign equality, states, according to the 1970 Declaration of the UN General Assembly, have the same fundamental rights and responsibilities and are, regardless of differences in economic, social, political,

2 United Nations Millennium Declaration // Moscow Journal of International Law. 2001. No. 1. P. 257, 260.

th or other nature as equal members of the international community. These provisions of the Declaration raise a number of questions. If states “enjoy sovereign equality,” then what is the role of this substance in their functioning? If the possibility of “using” sovereignty is allowed, then what is the measure (volume) of this use? And can the state, acting “according to need,” limit or, conversely, expand this measure?

In the text of the resolution under study, the concept of “sovereign equality” covers an extremely important element of relations between states - their legal equality. All states are legally equal, and this equality stems from sovereignty. Sovereignty is the initial link in justifying the legal equality of states. There cannot be much or little of it for the reason that it is not an accumulator of “energy” and “impulses” necessary for the functioning of the state, but one of its properties. Sovereignty as a property of states has developed along with their emergence and development, reflecting the traditions and practices of states that influence the legal consciousness of peoples both at the national and international levels. For example, during the slaveholding period there were no objective grounds for the formation of an integral system of institutions of international law, but ideas were formed about the types of legal rules that people could use. The Roman jurist Gaius argued that “all nations that are governed by laws and customs enjoy partly their own rights, partly the rights common to all people. For the right that each people has established for itself is the own right of the state and is called civil law, as if the own right of the state itself; the same right, which is respected equally by everyone,

and is called the law of peoples, as if that right which is enjoyed by all peoples.”3 This statement by Guy draws a connection between the law established by each people (for itself) and the law in force in the state representing the people. In addition to the legal principles established by the people, principles established by the state are assumed. These legal principles are considered by the thinker Paul as categories with the help of which one can distinguish between the limits of action of civil (civil) law - the law applied in each state as useful to all or many of its individuals, and the law of peoples (natural law), which personifies justice and goodness in relations between all peoples. As Hermogenian defined, “this law of nations introduced war, the division of peoples, the founding of kingdoms, the division of property, the establishment of boundaries of fields, the construction of buildings, trade, buying and selling, hiring, obligations, with the exception of those introduced by virtue of civil law.” According to Ulpian, civil law is not completely separated from natural law (the law of peoples) and does not adhere to it in everything - “if we add something to the general law or exclude something from it, then we create our own, i.e. civil law." One should also pay attention to Ulpian’s statement regarding the role of justice, which, in his opinion, reflects the unchanging and constant will to provide everyone with their right: “The precepts of law are the following: live honestly, do not harm others, give everyone what belongs to him. Justice is the knowledge of divine and human affairs, the science of just and unjust.”4

3 Justinian's Digests. Selected fragments / trans. and approx. I. S. Peretersky. M., 1984. P. 25.

4 Ibid. P. 24.

An analysis of the statements of ancient jurists indicates that when they stated certain types of existing rules of conduct within the framework of civil law and natural law and attempted to classify them, much less attention was paid to the state. During this period, the state was personified by the power of the princeps - the emperor, whose decisions acquired the force of law. Ulpian believed that “what the princeps decided is valid... since the people, through... the law adopted regarding supreme authority princes, granted the princeps all his supreme power and power (imperium et potestatem)”5. This feature of state power during the period under study influenced various theories concerning the characteristics of international law Ancient world, including the theory of statism, based on the recognition that during this period sovereign states were formed, influencing the development of international law. At the same time, the study of international law and subjects of international legal regulation in the Ancient World requires a certain caution and a balanced approach, if only because it would be a mistake to transfer modern ideas about it to ancient international law. It is obvious that “one should not approach the study of international legal acts ancient period from the standpoint Vienna Convention 1969. Of course, most treaties of the ancient period cannot fall within the characteristics of this Convention. At the same time, their form does not at all deny their positive content.”6 As O. V. Butkevich believes, if the key in characterizing international relations is

5 Justinian's Digests. Selected fragments. P. 34.

6 Butkevich O. V. At the origins of international

no rights. St. Petersburg, 2008. P. 134.

Since the concepts of state and state sovereignty were and remain so, science did not include entities participating in such relations in the Ancient World, but which were not states themselves, in the system of such relations. At the same time, the formations that existed in the Ancient World, as they developed, acquired stable independent significance as political units of power in the form of states. It was at this stage that international law was born, including its institution of international legal personality. “Transition” to international law in certain regions globe was carried out at different times, but it generated the prerequisites for the formation of the principles of international law in subsequent eras7.

Taking into account the above, it should be considered that with the onset of the “state” stage in the development of slave society, elements of sovereignty were formed, which was manifested through the content of a number of international institutions, such as rules regarding the laws and customs of war; the conclusion, operation, enforcement and termination of international treaties (it was the contractual practice of ancient states that contributed to the formation of the rule of pacta sunt servanda), the activities of embassies, legal protection of foreigners, the creation and operation of various kinds of unions and leagues, etc. Such rules were applied in conditions of nothing limited arbitrariness of the strong. Those who lost the war found themselves completely dependent on the victors, who enslaved the vanquished, killed those whom they did not want to be taken captive, forcibly resettled the defeated peoples, etc. At the same time, international relations between states as sovereign entities arose in certain regions of the Ancient World -

7 Butkevich O. V. Decree. Op. P. 168.

niyas - equal subjects of these relations - were characteristic of the regions of India, China, and, to a greater extent, of the region of ancient Greece, the geopolitical features of which were associated with the practice of coexistence of Greek cities - states fighting for their political independence.

Further development of sovereignty and equality is associated with centuries-old periods international relations feudal states - from their formation and overcoming fragmentation to the emergence of large feudal class monarchies and the formation of absolutist states. During this period, the foundations were laid for a new principle of relationships between subjects of international law - equality, which reflected elements of “horizontal” approaches to the adoption of international legal norms and to a certain extent strengthened the international legal order, which became in the mid-17th century. the personification of classical international law of the “Westphalian system”. This system developed after the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which completed Thirty Years' War in Europe. On the basis of this treaty, a system of a number of European states and their borders was established, which made it possible to solve the problem of political balance in Europe, and the developed theory of recognition made it possible to consider a state a subject of international law from the moment of its inception. The Treaty of Westphalia recognized the independence of Switzerland and the Netherlands, and the Moscow state was introduced into international system states as a generally recognized subject of international relations. The Treaty of Westphalia established the principle of equality in relations between European states, regardless of their forms government structure and religious beliefs. However, ideas

sovereign equality of states, recognized by the Treaty of Westphalia, linked sovereignty with the supreme power of the monarch. From now on, it meant “the political and legal supremacy of the monarch’s power over all feudal rulers within the country and its independence in international relations”8. In addition, the understanding of sovereign equality in the era of feudalism was based on the recognition of the hierarchical ladder of “sovereigns”, where feudal lords ruled - land owners, who often entered into independent diplomatic relations and concluded international treaties.

Nevertheless, historical development led to the establishment of the school of natural law, the ideas of which were reflected in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, in the Declaration of International Law presented to the French Convention by Abbé Grégoire in 1793. These documents represented the sovereignty that belonged to the monarch , was rejected. Natural law ideas, instead of the sovereignty of the monarch, put forward the position of the sovereignty of peoples who, in relation to each other, are in a state of nature and are guided by moral norms. Gregoire's Declaration stated that peoples are independent and sovereign in their relationships, whatever the size of the population and the size of the territory they occupy. Proponents of the theory of natural law developed such rights of peoples as the right to self-preservation, territory, international communication, and independence. The idea of popular sovereignty was substantiated by the French thinker J. J. Rousseau, according to whom sovereignty stems from popular sovereignty and omnipotence.

8 International law. 6th ed. / answer ed. G. V. Ignatenko, O. I. Tiunov. M., 2013. P. 55.

thickness, that is, it acquires an absolute character as inalienable and indivisible. The people's will, based on the social contract, subjugates all persons of the state9. The English philosopher J. Locke10 spoke about the supreme power belonging to the people and the legislative limitation of the power of the monarch.

Analyzing the connection between the categories “state” - “sovereignty”, it is impossible to ignore the category “law”. Meanwhile, the use of this category provides an opportunity to determine the basic features of sovereignty and its boundaries. If the state is considered as a form of organization and functioning of political power in it, then such a form must be legal. A number of researchers pay attention to this. N.A. Ushakov believed that “the term “sovereignty” and the concept it expresses are of utmost importance for the life of human society, its development and progress. The essence of sovereignty is embodied in law - national (domestic) and international, and determines their basis, the main content"11.

V. A. Chetvernin believed that “the modern general theory of the state considers the state as a legal form of political power - from the point of view of international law”12. In a certain area

9 See: Rousseau J. J. On the social contract, or Principles of political law // Radko T. N. Reader on the theory of state and law / edited by. ed. I. I. Lizikova. 2nd ed. M., 2009. pp. 58-60.

10 See: Locke J. Two treatises on government / ed. and comp. A. L. Subbotin. M., 2009. pp. 275-281, 318-321.

11 Ushakov N. A. Sovereignty and its embodiment in domestic and international law // Moscow Journal of International Law. 1994. No. 2. P. 3.

12 Chetvernin V.A. Reflections on the

do theoretical ideas about the state

state // State and law. 1992. No. 5. P. 7.

re this theory, which arose at the end of the 19th century. as legalistic, it was called “legal” in the sense of its recognition of the positive nature of the supreme power of the state. Its representatives viewed statehood through the prism of legislation that determined the activities of public political power within the framework of the “theory of three elements”: the presence of a people (population), territory and state power. All three elements were “closed” to the concept of supreme power and sovereignty, which made it possible to define the state as an organization capable of operating effectively in a given territory.

The positive direction in the science of international law contributed to the establishment of the positive role of international treaties in the development of law. This direction in its emerging forms of normativism, Anglo-Saxon and continental positivism, pragmatic positivism “unconditionally recognize the legal force of international law”13. The disadvantages of this direction are the lack of convincing criteria for dating the emergence of international law (the question of its primary regionalism); reducing international legal relations only to relations between states, etc., cannot influence a positive assessment of the contribution of positivism to the development of international law. State sovereignty should neither be absolutized nor limited. As for the establishment by international law of certain legal limits for the foreign policy activities of a state - and this can be done on the basis of an international treaty or even through the development of international legal custom - this not only does not limit state sovereignty, but, on the contrary, emphasizes the independence of the state.

13 Butkevich O. V. Decree. Op. P. 136.

states in international affairs. Sovereignty contributes to the development of international law. At the same time, a sovereign state can transfer part of its powers to another subject of international law, for example, an interstate organization, which cannot be considered as a limitation of sovereignty. The possibility of a state depriving itself of its sovereignty in the event of a merger with another state is not excluded. However, “state sovereignty, being one of fundamental principles modern international law, cannot be considered as unrestricted, standing above all other principles and norms”14. The provisions of the Westphalian system, which absolutized sovereignty, have become history in the modern period and cannot be revived, since international relations are at a new stage of development, the results of the modern world order reflect fundamental changes in the international arena and in international law itself. One of them is the enshrinement in the UN Charter, along with other principles, of the principle of a sovereign state. These principles began to be considered in the context of each other's content. This provision is recorded in the Declaration of the UN General Assembly in 1970, as well as in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975.

The provision on the relationship between the basic principles of international law also concerns the principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. After the adoption of the UN Charter and a number of other documents, “a fundamental new stage in the development of cooperation between states in

14 Kartashkin V. A. Correlation between the principles of respect for human rights and state sovereignty // International Lawyer. 2006. No. 1. P. 5.

sphere of human rights and restrictions in this regard on state sovereignty”15. These “restrictions” are enshrined not only in international law, but also in domestic law. It seems that in reality we should not be talking about limiting state sovereignty, but about the transfer by contract of certain powers in the field of human rights to international bodies by states. The possibility of such transfer is determined by the constitutions of states and other internal acts. For example, part 3 of Art. 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation provides: “Everyone has the right, in accordance with international treaties of the Russian Federation, to apply to interstate bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms if all available domestic remedies have been exhausted”16. It follows that if a state, taking into account the current principles of international law, voluntarily assumes certain international obligations arising from an international treaty relating to the protection of human rights and freedoms, then it thereby manifests its sovereign will, equally expressed externally regarding cooperation with the relevant an interstate organization or body to which powers in this area are transferred upon the occurrence of circumstances determined by national legislation and international law. In essence, the transfer of these powers does not threaten the sovereignty of the state, but only emphasizes the growing role of international law, the requirements of which are modern conditions on the basis of recognition by the state

15 Kartashkin V.A. Decree. Op. S. 8.

16 See: Commentary on the Constitution of the Russian Federation

Siysk Federation / Chairman redol. L. A. Okunkov. M., 1994. P. 152.

The principles of its generally recognized principles and norms are increasingly beginning to be applied not only in interstate relations, but also in intrastate ones, and in some cases are used by states on a joint basis.

This practice indicates that traditional approaches to law are becoming outdated17 and it is beginning to influence a new integrative understanding of law, which helps to consolidate in legislation the priority of applying the rules of international treaties over the rules of law in the event of a contradiction between them.

Of course, the state for systems of law, be it an international or domestic system, establishes the scope and boundaries of legal regulation, allowing the joint or combined action of the norms of these systems, and the motivator or basis for the adoption of national norms are the norms of international law. The scope of participation of states in the regulation of international relations is predetermined by the sovereign interests of the state, but at the same time, the preservation of territory as a sign of the state and its enrichment with the concept of “legal space” when states enter integration associations and partnerships are ensured. However, the concept of “legal space” cannot be limited to the factor of participation of a sovereign state in integration associations. Common legal spaces can develop outside such associations, and functioning in such a space is fully consistent with the signs of sovereign equality of the state, including that arising from the sovereignty of law.

17 See: Tikhomirov Yu. A. Correlation of international legal and national legal regulators // Methodology of search (selection) of optimal legal solutions: material. scientific family Vol. 3. M., 2012. P. 13.

wa states transfer their individual powers to other subjects of international law.

Based on the fact that sovereignty as an integral legal and political property of a state is manifested in its supremacy over its territory and independence in international relations, this property “simultaneously characterizes the properties of state power as such - in its integrity and unity”18. Supremacy and independence are interdependent qualitative signs sovereignty. Supremacy as an integral part of the concept of “sovereignty” is manifested in the sovereignty of the state, whose public power in the form of the functioning of the branches of legislative, executive and judicial power independently exercises supreme power over all persons and associations within the state territory, excluding the possibility of functioning of any other public authority, unless otherwise provided by an international treaty. The exercise of sovereignty by ensuring the independence of public authority within the territory of the state is characterized by the presence of unity of state power, exercised by a system of authorities authorized to coerce by authoritative methods. The territorial supremacy of the state is exercised within the framework of national law and the law-making procedure. The legal side of state power is also manifested in the absence of another higher authority that determines the rules of conduct for the state. Legal regulations must be legitimate and prevent arbitrariness in the sphere of legal regulation. This also applies to the regulation of inter-

18 Tikhomirov Yu. A. Correlation of international legal and national legal regulators. P. 14.

people's relations, where another property of the sovereignty of the state is manifested - its independence. Like the property of territorial supremacy, the independence of the state has a legal nature and is manifested in the fact that states in relations with each other in the international arena are mutually independent and cannot arbitrarily regulate each other’s behavior.

The interdependence of sovereign states creates the need for their cooperation, regulated by international law. These norms stipulate cooperation not only on the basis of respect for each other’s sovereignty, but also the sovereign equality of the parties and a number of other international legal requirements. They are, in particular, defined in the already mentioned Final Act of the CSCE of 1975, the UN Charter and the Declaration of Principles of International Law adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1970. An analysis of these documents shows that they consolidate the category of norms of international law that are recognized by states in as its basic principles, i.e. norms of a mandatory nature. Taking into account the requirements of mandatory norms (they are generally recognized), states are obliged to act in such a way as to ensure each other’s freedom and independence in international relations. “The state freely, independently and independently of other states exercises its external functions and determines its foreign policy within the framework of international law”19. It is within the framework of international law that norms, rules,

19 See: Tikhomirov Yu. A. Correlation

international legal and national legal regulators. P. 10.

standards of international communication at the bilateral, regional and multilateral levels. States should not arbitrarily deviate from these provisions, since refusal from them is regarded as a violation of international law, entailing the application of measures of international legal responsibility to the state. However, the obligation to comply with international norms agreed upon and accepted by states does not mean the subordination of states to each other. Sovereignty as a political and legal property of independence presupposes the non-subordination of states in international relations, which does not prevent them from participating in integrative processes and international organizations on the basis of the conclusion of international treaties. The assessment of sovereignty as an independent state power, not subordinate to the power of another state, emphasizes the inviolability of the right to exercise internal and external functions a state that independently determines its domestic and foreign policy.

The concept of sovereignty, being influenced in its historical development different views and doctrines, retained its legal basis in the form of the properties of independence and independence. Its peculiarity in the modern period is the equal obligation of states to ensure human rights on the basis of international and domestic norms. This obligation is enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation: a person, his rights and freedoms are the highest value. Recognition, observance and protection of human and civil rights and freedoms is the responsibility of the state. Rights and freedoms determine the meaning, content and application of laws, the activities of the legislative and executive authorities, local self-government and are ensured by justice. The Constitution of the Russian Federation also reflects such a category, related

naya with state sovereignty, as the sovereignty of the people. The only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people (Part 1, Article 3). In the preamble of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, it is the multinational people of Russia that are defined as recognizing themselves as part of the world community and reviving the sovereign statehood of Russia. He exercises his power directly, as well as through state authorities and local governments (Part 2, Article 3). The highest direct expression of the power of the people is a referendum and free elections (Part 3 of Article 3). Thus, the deep basis of the sovereignty of the state, its primary basis is the sovereignty of the people.

The state sovereignty of Russia extends to its entire territory, throughout which the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws have supremacy. The Russian Federation, relying on its sovereignty, ensures the integrity and inviolability of its territory (Part 3 of Article 4). As D.I. Baratashvili noted, there is no doubt that sovereign equality would be devoid of any meaning if the territorial integrity and political independence of UN member states, which are integral features of statehood, were not considered inviolable20. And in the modern period, as A. A. Moiseev notes, “sovereignty is the very legal quality that allows us to distinguish the state from other subjects of international public law, which is necessary for the exclusive supremacy of state power within its territory and denies any subordination and limitation by the power of another states. Should be

20 See: Baratashvili D.I. The principle of sovereign equality of states in international law. M., 1978. P. 12.

to know that even today the sovereignty of the state continues to be an inalienable legal quality of an independent state, symbolizing its political and legal independence”21.

In a practical aspect, the manifestation of state sovereignty can be assessed when solving such pressing issues as the relationship between the sovereign powers of the state and the level of authority of its constituent parts, the relationship between the sovereignty of the state and the supranational powers of the integration association in which this state participates. In relation to the solution of the first question, the decisions of constitutional and other highest courts of states are very characteristic. These decisions are based on constitutional provisions concerning the relationship between the powers of the state as a whole and its constituent parts. In its decision of March 25, 1993, the Constitutional Court of the Italian Republic considered the issue of the powers of administrative regions in the field of international relations. The plot of the case was that the Councilor of the administrative region of Pulia of the Italian Republic, on the one hand, and the Ministers of Labor and Education of Albania, on the other hand, signed a “declaration of intent”. The document was signed without prior notice or consent of the Italian Government. The Constitutional Court concluded that the state's competence had been violated, and therefore the state's claim against the administrative region of Pulia was justified.

21 Moiseev A. A. State sovereignty in international law. M., 2009. P. 69. See also: Safonov V. E. State unity and territorial integrity in judicial decisions: international and constitutional legal aspects. M., 2008. pp. 290-297.

The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, in a decision of March 22, 1955, considered the issue of the federal government protecting the interests of the states in their relations with the European Community. The Court determined that in cases where, in domestic law, the Basic Law places the legislative regulation of certain matters under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Länder, the federal authorities of the state, acting on behalf of the Länder, are obliged to protect their rights in their relations with the Community. If the federal government agrees with the Länder that the European Community does not have legislative competence in a particular area, it is obliged to prevent the adoption of relevant legislation that could entail an extension of the Community's competence. If, however, an act is adopted that goes beyond the competence of the European Community, the federal government must take all possible measures to repeal it, including an application to the Court of Justice.

Very indicative are the resolution Constitutional Court RF dated June 7, 2000 No. 10-P and definitions dated June 27, 2000 No. 92-O and April 19, 2001 No. 65-O: “The Constitution of the Russian Federation does not allow any other bearer of sovereignty and source of power , in addition to the multinational people of Russia, and, therefore, does not imply any other state sovereignty other than the sovereignty of the Russian Federation. The sovereignty of the Russian Federation, by virtue of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, excludes the existence of two levels of sovereign authorities located in a single system of state power that would have supremacy and independence, i.e., it does not allow the sovereignty of either republics or other subjects of the Russian Federation. Constitution of Russia-

The Russian Federation connects the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, its constitutional and legal status and the powers of the republics that are part of the Russian Federation, not with their expression of will in the form of a treaty, but with the will of the multinational Russian people - the bearer and sole source of power in the Russian Federation, who, implementing the principle equality and self-government of peoples, constituted the revived sovereign statehood of Russia as a historically established state unity in its present federal structure.” It follows that the characteristic of sovereignty contained in the Constitution of the Russian Federation influences the nature of the federal structure, which is historically determined by the fact that the subjects of the Russian Federation do not have sovereignty - it initially belongs to the Russian Federation as a whole. Republics as subjects of the Russian Federation do not have the status of a sovereign state and decide this question They cannot do otherwise in their constitutional regulation.

However, at present, successful legal regulation of intrastate relations is becoming increasingly dependent on the consistency of the norms of national law with international22, “recognition of the sovereignty of states as the dominant of the world order forces us to take into account national legal systems, their contribution to the world treasury of legal ideas”23. This is especially true for ensuring individual rights. “Every person belonging to any social, class, ethnic community

22 See: Abdulaev M.I. Coordination of domestic law with international law ( theoretical aspects) // Jurisprudence. 1993. No. 2. P. 47-51.

23 Tikhomirov Yu. A. National laws

legislation and international law: parallels and convergences // Moscow Journal of International Law. 1993. No. 3. P. 81.

right, must have access to effective remedies, national or international, against any violation of his natural rights and freedoms”24.

The consistency of the norms of national and international law is clearly manifested through the prism of state participation in international organizations created by states and which do not have the property of sovereign equality. If states give an organization supranational functions, for example, when creating a common economic, customs space, then this only means that the creators of such a space solve their external and part of their internal problems, but retain their “economic” and “customs” sovereignty, achieving for themselves the most favorable and effective solution relevant issues, which helps to expand the capabilities of the state in the international arena and, consequently, strengthen its sovereign rights. When participating in supranational organizations, the state is sometimes indeed limited in the choice of behavior and is obliged to follow the decisions of the organization. But there is no limitation of sovereignty here, only because a participating state always has the opportunity to freely withdraw from this organization if cooperation within its framework ceases to meet its interests. The state is not able to transfer part of its sovereignty to an international organization, because the sovereignty of the state as its property is indivisible.

24 Abdulaev M.I. Decree. Op. P. 45. See also: Chernichenko S.V. A look at certain provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation from international legal positions // Bulletin of the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia. International law. M., 2013. pp. 56-60.

mo, and an international organization cannot possess it25.

Regarding the issue of the sovereign rights of states participating in European integration, according to the analytical conclusions of A. A. Moiseev, “states are subject to obligations for the period of their membership in the Communities to refuse to apply certain laws due to their inconsistency with the law of European integration. In fact, the state continues to own its own rights in full, but does not have the right to use certain of them, since such exercise of its powers would be a violation of the norms of European integration law... Since European integration law has an international legal nature and is the result of necessary EU practice, it was constitutionally enshrined not only in the constitutions of the member states, but also, in fact, in the pan-European Constitutional Act of 2004”26.

25 See: Dubinkina S. N. Mechanism of international legal regulation of international public relations// State and law. 2007. No. 7. P. 113; Korolev M.A. Supranationality from the point of view of international law // Moscow Journal of International Law. 1997. No. 2. P. 4-5; Ginzburg J. American jurisprudence on the interaction of international and domestic law // State and Law. 1994. No. 11. P. 155-156; Lukashuk I.I. Customary Norms in Contemporary International Law // Theory of International Law at the Threshold of the 21st Century. Essays in Honor of Krzysztof Skubiszewcki / ed. by J. Makarczyk. The Hague; London; Boston, 1988. P. 488; Tareg M. R. Chowdnury. Legal Framework of International Supervision. Stockholm, 1986. P. 174.

26 Moiseev A. A. Features of the legal nature of European integration law // International Lawyer. 2007. No. 3. P. 39. See also: Graf V.V. et al. International law. Per. with him. M.; Berlin, 2001. pp. 447-454.

The sovereign equality of states is one of the basic principles on which the activities of the UN are based. It is no coincidence that the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter states that “the purposes of the UN can only be achieved if states enjoy sovereign equality and fully comply in their international relations with the requirements of this principle"27. In this Declaration, the content of the principle of sovereign equality, like other basic principles of international law, is categorized as provisions that require codification and progressive development in order to ensure their more effective application within the international community. All states enjoy sovereign equality. This means that those basic rights and obligations that are inherent in the sovereignty of a state are the same for all states as subjects of international law.

The property of equality is emphasized by the fact that sovereign states act as equal members of the international community and this status does not depend on differences of an economic, social and other nature. Each state has the right to freely choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems. It follows from this that all states are legally equal, each of them is obliged to respect the legal personality of other states. Also important are such elements of sovereign equality as the territorial integrity and political independence of the state, which are inviolable. These elements are complemented by obligations

27 Current legislative law / comp. Yu. M. Kolosov, E. S. Krivchikova. T. 1. M., 1996. P. 66.

the responsibility of each state to fully and conscientiously fulfill its international obligations and, as emphasized in the Declaration, to “live in peace with other states.” The Declaration also recognizes that “every State enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty.” Regarding the relationship of the principle of sovereign equality with other basic principles of international law named in the Declaration, including the principle of non-interference in matters within the internal competence of any state, the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force, and the resolution of international disputes by peaceful means , the duty of States to cooperate with each other and other principles, then in their interpretation and application these principles should be considered as interrelated - each of them should be considered in the context of the content of other principles. The determination to maintain and develop these principles was expressed in a number of documents adopted by European states, on which security in Europe and throughout the world largely depends.

In this regard, the Final Act of the CSCE of 1975 is of scientific interest, which sets out an understanding of the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Principles of International Law of the UN General Assembly of 1970. The Final Act reflects the key provisions of this Declaration with a number of formulations that expand its content, and also introducing new provisions, such as those regarding the inviolability of borders: the participating States regard as inviolable all of each other's borders, as well as the borders of all states in Europe, and will therefore refrain from any encroachment on these borders. Name

The principle of sovereign equality of states in the Final Act was amended and adopted as follows: “sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty.” It contains not only a general formula - “equality of sovereignty of states”, but also establishes the connection of this equality with “respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty”. It is about respecting sovereignty and equality while recognizing “one another’s distinctiveness.” At the same time, the equality of rights is stated as inherent in the sovereignty of the participating states Final Act, and covered by sovereignty. In the text of the Final Act, the terms “inherent” and “covered” are not separated - they relate to the same rights listed in section one of this act. This is the right of every state to legal equality, territorial integrity, freedom and political independence, freedom to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems, the right to establish its own laws and administrative rules. In addition to the sovereign rights listed in the Final Act relating to the internal aspects of the functioning of states, this document names a number of equal rights and obligations of all participating states within the framework of international law: respect each other’s rights, determine and exercise at their own discretion their relations with other states “in accordance with international law and in the spirit of this Declaration"; the right to participate in international organizations, to bear bilateral or multilateral obligations under international treaties, including the right to be a party to union treaties, as well as the right to accept the status of a neutral state. The States parties to the Final Act confirmed that their borders

may be changed, but in accordance with international law, peacefully and on the basis of an agreement28.

It is noteworthy that if in the Declaration of the UN General Assembly of 1970 the principle of sovereign equality among the principles proclaimed therein was placed in penultimate place, then in the Final Act of 1975 this principle is in first place. This circumstance, which seems to be connected with the political situation in the world in different periods international relations, but one thing is certain: the interrelation of the basic principles of international law and the need for their application in the context of each other’s content is an objective requirement arising from the nature of these principles, which are systemically related to each other. The main property of any system “is its integrativeness, which, on the one hand, forms the quality of the system, and on the other, connects its components into an internally organized structure”29. Such a systemic connection reflects general and specific patterns of legal phenomena and provides an opportunity to characterize the main trends in their development. Essentially, the basic principles of international law are reflected in legislation and represent one of the means of ensuring interaction between the state and law. These principles make it possible to implement the regulatory requirements laid down both in international law and in national legislation, in areas of which the state plays the main role. driving force when implementing the specified requirements30. System

28 See: Current international law. T. 1. pp. 73-75.

29 Kerimov D. A. Methodology of law. Subject, functions, problems of the philosophy of law. M., 2009. P. 234.

30 Ibid. P. 51.

MA presupposes the uniformity of its elements, their integration into a single structural and organizational integrity, relative independence, autonomy of functioning, sustainability and stability. In this aspect, the basic principles of international law, influencing the harmonization of the norms of international and national law, ensure in their unity the systematic nature of legal regulation, its internal consistency and consistency. In relation to the Russian Federation, the basic principles, being the core of international law, influence the core of national law - the constitution of the state, which ensures the law-making and law-implementing activities of state bodies and according to which the generally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of Russia are integral part its legal system. In this regard, the consistent implementation of constitutional and other provisions in their interrelation means the real achievement of normatively established goals31, and verification of the “legal” or “non-legal nature of normative acts is associated with ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws”32. In this aspect, the goal of any system, including international legal and national legal, “is its self-preservation, the progressive deployment and development of its system-forming principles (essence, principle) towards their full implementation...”33.

31 See: Tikhomirov Yu. A. Theory of competence. M., 2001. S. 234-241.

32 Baranov V. M., Polenina S. V. System of law, system and systematization of legislation in the legal system of Russia. N. Novgorod, 2002. P. 9.

33 Nersesyan V. S. Law and legal law / ed. V. V. Lapaeva. M., 2009. P. 226. See also: Wilkitzki R. The German Law on Cooperation with the ICC (International

In modern conditions, it is very important to create a favorable climate for maintaining peace and developing normal relations between states, which are obliged, in order to protect their interests, to rely on the principles and norms of law, and not on force, with the exception of cases provided for by the UN Charter. The application of the requirements of the principle of sovereign equality of states is based on the nature of this principle, which is a peremptory norm of international law. The same nature is inherent in the remaining basic principles of international law - the principles of the UN Charter. Due to the imperative nature of these principles, it is impossible to arrange them in a certain hierarchical series and determine the signs of their subordination. Authors who make such attempts thereby reject the basis of modern international law - its conciliatory nature and the achievements of international law. Agreement as a way of creating norms of international law allows its norms to function within the framework of respect for the sovereignty and equality of states. This is also facilitated by the fact that the basic principles of international law as mandatory provisions have the same legal force. Any provision of an international treaty that contradicts a peremptory norm must be declared invalid. Because of this, mandatory norms are considered in the context of each other’s content and their different combinations in the process of application depend on the specifics of the issue under consideration. The system of basic principles of international law cannot exist in view of the “main” and “derivative” hierarchical establishments, with the help of which it would be possible to adapt to the situation when

Criminal Court) // International Criminal Law Review. 2002. No. 2. P. 212.

the “balance of power in international relations” is disrupted, requiring, according to E. T. Baildinov, the establishment of “at least relative stability of global development” in order to create “new international law”34. This approach is unproductive. The further development of international law, which has deep historical roots, is carried out primarily through the codification of its norms, expanding the range of mandatory norms that exist equally with each other; developing elements of responsibility for states that violate international peace and security, introducing necessary amendments to the UN Charter and taking other measures. Researchers also note that in modern conditions, despite the diversity of approaches, in general, countries that have chosen the path of democratic development have a common feature - “a very high proportion of constitutional consolidation of generally recognized principles of international law and the desire to adhere to these principles in practice”35.

34 Baildinov E. T. New international law: on the question of essence // Moscow Journal of International Law. 2013. No. 2. P. 92-93.

35 Konyukhova I. A. International and constitutional law: theory and practice of interaction. M., 2006. P. 49. See also: Lukashuk I.I. The Constitution of Russia and international law // Generally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties in the practice of constitutional justice: material. Still growing. meetings / ed. M. A. Mityukova, S. V. Kabysheva, V. K. Bobrova, A. V. Sycheva. M., 2004. P. 43-47; Lazarev M.I. International legal relations and international power relations at the end of the 20th - on the eve of the 21st century // Russian Yearbook of International Law. 1998-1999. St. Petersburg, 1999. pp. 334-337; Zimnenko B. L. Correlation of international legal and domestic norms in the legal system of Russia

Taking into account the principles and norms of international law, the Russian legal system is developing. The Concept of Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation, approved by the President of the Russian Federation on February 12, 2013, is essential for their implementation. It provides for the active promotion of a course based on the supremacy of international law, maintaining equal relations between states, strengthening sovereignty, and observing the universal principles of equal and indivisible security.

Bibliography

Charter of the United Nations. Selected Instruments in International Law / ed. by L. D. Roberts. N.Y., 1994.

Lukashuk I. I. Customary Norms in Contemporary International Law // Theory of International Law at the Threshold of the 21st Century. Essays in Honor of Krzysztof Skubiszewcki / ed. by J. Makarczyk. The Hague; London; Boston, 1988.

Tareg M. R. Chowdnury. Legal Framework of International Supervision. Stockholm, 1986.

Wilkitzki R. The German Law on Cooperation with the ICC (International Criminal Court) // International Criminal Law Review. 2002. No. 2.

Abdulaev M.I. Coordination of domestic law with international law (theoretical aspects) // Jurisprudence. 1993. No. 2.

Baildinov E. T. New international law: on the issue of essence // Moscow Journal of International Law. 2013. No. 2.

Baranov V. M., Polenina S. V. System of law, system and systematization of legislation in the legal system of Russia. N. Novgorod, 2002.

Baratashvili D.I. The principle of sovereign equality of states in international law. M., 1978.

these // Russian Yearbook of International Law. 2001. St. Petersburg, 2001. P. 129-132; Mingazov L. Kh. Interaction of national and international law in the constitutional and legal sphere // Russian Yearbook of International Law. 2006. St. Petersburg, 2007. pp. 176-182.

Butkevich O. V. At the origins of international law. St. Petersburg, 2008.

Ginsburgs J. American jurisprudence on the interaction of international and domestic law // State and Law. 1994. No. 11.

Count V.V. and others. International law. Per. with him. M.; Berlin, 2001.

Current legislative law / comp. Yu. M. Kolosov, E. S. Krivchikova. T. 1. M., 1996.

United Nations Millennium Declaration // Moscow Journal of International Law. 2001. No. 1.

Justinian's Digests. Selected fragments / trans. and approx. I. S. Peretersky. M., 1984.

Dubinkina S.N. Mechanism of international legal regulation of international public relations // State and Law. 2007. No. 7.

Zimnenko B. L. Correlation of international legal and domestic norms in the legal system of Russia // Russian Yearbook of International Law. 2001. St. Petersburg, 2001.

Kartashkin V. A. Correlation between the principles of respect for human rights and state sovereignty // International Lawyer. 2006. No. 1.

Kerimov D. A. Methodology of law. Subject, functions, problems of the philosophy of law. M., 2009.

The sovereign equality of states forms the basis of modern international relations, which is summarized in paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, which states: “The organization is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all members.”

According to the 1970 Declaration, the concept of sovereign equality includes the following elements:

1. States are legally equal;

2. Each state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty;

3. Each state is obliged to respect the legal personality of other states;

4. The territorial integrity and political independence of the state are inviolable;

5. Each state has the right to freely choose and develop

their political, social, economic and cultural systems;

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

Among the above elements of the principle of sovereign equality of states, we can include the right of states to belong to international organizations, to be or not to be parties to bilateral and multilateral treaties, including union treaties, as well as the right to neutrality. The principle under consideration ensures the equal participation of each state in resolving international affairs, however, it should be taken into account that the legal equality of the subjects of international law does not mean their actual equality. One example of this is the special legal status of permanent members of the UN Security Council. Those. There is a certain contradiction between the principle of sovereign equality of states and their actual inequality. This contradiction is especially pronounced in international conferences and international organizations, where states with small populations and states with a population a thousand times larger each have one vote. Nevertheless, the principle of the sovereign equality of states represents one of the cornerstones of the entire international system.

The principle of non-interference.

The idea of the inadmissibility of some states into the affairs of others arose and was established in the process of the struggle of emerging nations for their statehood, which led to the creation of independent national states in Europe, and then in other parts of the world. The principle of non-intervention is formed during the period of bourgeois revolutions. The most significant role in this belongs to French Revolution the end of the 18th century, it should, however, be emphasized that in the past this principle had limited application, since MP in many cases allows various shapes interference in the internal affairs of states, including armed interventions.

Modern understanding of the principle of non-interference in general form recorded in paragraph 7 of Article 2 of the UN Charter and specified in international documents: the Declaration of Principles of International Relations of 1970, Legislative act CSCE, UN Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Internal Affairs of States, on Limiting Their Independence and Sovereignty of December 21, 1965, etc.

According to the 1970 Declaration, the principle of non-intervention includes the following:

1. Consolidation of armed intervention and other forms of interference in the internal affairs of states, directed against its political, economic and cultural foundations.

2. Prohibition of the use of economic, political and other measures in order to achieve the subjugation of another state in the exercise of its sovereign rights and obtaining any advantages from it;

3. Prohibition of organizing, encouraging, assisting or allowing armed, subversive or terrorist activities aimed at changing the system of another state through violence;

5. Prohibition of the use of force to deprive peoples of freely choosing the forms of their national existence;

6. The right of the state to choose its political, economic, social and cultural system without interference from other states;

It should be taken into account that the concept of “internal affairs of the state” is not a territorial concept. This means that some events, although they occur within the territory of a state, may be considered as not falling solely within the internal competence of the latter.

For example, the UN Security Council states that events occurring within any state threaten international peace and security, such events cease to exist internal matter of this state and the actions of the UN in relation to these events will not interfere in the internal affairs of the state.

Thus, no state has the right to interfere directly or indirectly for any reason in the internal and external affairs of another state. This formula is strict and categorical; it should be noted that intervention cannot be justified by any reason.

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

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

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

According to the 1970 Declaration, the concept of sovereign equality includes the following elements:

a) states are legally equal;

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

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

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

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

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

In the Declaration of Principles of the CSCE Final Act, states committed themselves not only to respect the principle of sovereign equality as set out in the UN Charter and the 1970 Declaration, but also to respect the rights inherent in sovereignty. The latter means that in their mutual relations, states must respect differences in historical and socio-political development, diversity of positions and views, internal laws and administrative rules, the right to determine and exercise, at its discretion and in accordance with international law, relations with other states. The elements of the principle of sovereign equality include the right of states to belong to international organizations, to be or not to be parties to bilateral and multilateral treaties, including union treaties, as well as the right to neutrality.

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

The legal equality of states does not mean their actual equality, which is taken into account in real international relations. It is important to note that one of the examples of this

there will be a special legal status for permanent members of the UN Security Council.

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

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

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

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

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

The concept of the internal competence of the state in practice often causes controversy. It is worth noting that it changes with the development of international relations, with the growing interdependence of states. In particular, the modern concept of non-interference does not mean that states can arbitrarily attribute any issues to their internal competence. International obligations states, incl. and their obligations under the UN Charter will be the criterion that allows us to correctly approach the solution of this complex issue. In particular, there is no doubt that the concept of “matters essentially within the internal competence of any state” will not be purely territorial

concept. This means that some events, although they occur within the territory of a particular state, may be considered as not falling solely within its internal competence. For example, if the UN Security Council determines that events occurring within the territory of a state threaten international peace and security, then such events cease to be the internal affairs of that state, and the actions of the United Nations in relation to these events will not interfere with the internal affairs of the state. affairs of the state.

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

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

This principle is also enshrined as fundamental in the charters of international organizations of the UN system, in constituent documents(statutes) of the vast majority of regional international organizations, in multilateral and bilateral agreements of states and international organizations, in legal acts of international organizations.

In modern international law, this principle is most fully reflected in the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States in accordance with the UN Charter. This principle was later developed in the Declaration of Principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Final Document of the Vienna Meeting of Representatives of the States Parties to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1989, the Charter of Paris for a New Europe in 1990 and a number of other documents.

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

According to the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations of 1970, the concept of sovereign equality includes the following elements:

1) states are legally equal;

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

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

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

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

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

In the Declaration of Principles of the CSCE Final Act, states committed themselves not only to respect the principle of sovereign equality as set out in the UN Charter and the 1970 Declaration, but also to respect the rights inherent in sovereignty. Thus, in relations among themselves, states must respect differences in historical and socio-political development, diversity of positions and views, internal laws and administrative rules, the right to determine and exercise, at their own discretion and in accordance with international law, relations with other states, the right to belong to international organizations, to be or not to be parties to bilateral and multilateral treaties, including union treaties, as well as the right to neutrality.

At the same time, it should be noted that the legal equality of states does not mean their actual equality, which is taken into account in real international relations. One example of this difference is in the status of permanent and non-permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Sovereignty is an integral property of the state. Thus, no state, group of states or international organization can impose the rules of international law they create on other states. The inclusion of a subject of international law in any system of legal relations can be carried out only on the basis of voluntariness.

Currently, the following trend is observed: states transfer part of their powers, which were previously considered integral attributes of state sovereignty, in favor of the international organizations they create. For example, in a number of international organizations, the founding states moved away from the previously used principle of formal equality in voting (one country - one vote) and adopted the so-called weighted voting method, according to which the number of votes a country has depends on the size of its contribution to the organization’s budget and other circumstances.

The aforementioned 1970 Declaration of Principles of International Law emphasizes that, in interpreting and applying the principles set out therein, they are interrelated and each principle must be considered in the context of all others. Thus, there is a close connection between the principle of sovereign equality of states and their duty not to interfere in matters that are essentially within their domestic competence. The concept of the internal competence of a state is controversial in theory, since it depends on the level of development of international relations. Currently, it is customary to correlate internal competence with the international obligations of each specific state.

Sovereignty as a basic property inherent in a state does not mean complete independence of states, much less their isolation, since they live and coexist in an interconnected world; therefore, it is illogical to talk about absolute, unlimited sovereignty.

The peculiarity of international law is that it is created primarily by states and regulates primarily interstate relations. The international legal appearance of other participants in international relations is also largely determined by states. As creators of international rights and obligations, states act as the main subjects of international law. As such, they have an exclusive and inalienable property based on political organization power - state sovereignty. The state exercises sovereignty within the framework of international law, taking into account respect for the sovereignty and interests of other states. It follows from this that a state, as a subject of international law, cannot exercise its power in relation to another state (par in parem non habet imperium - an equal has no power over an equal). In particular, this is expressed in the disobedience of one state to the legislation of another: the actions of a state are determined by its own laws and norms of international law. State immunity also covers its lack of jurisdiction judicial authorities of another state: bringing him to the court of another state can only be carried out with his consent.

The international legal personality of a state is associated with participation in the activities of international organizations. Becoming a member of an organization involves accepting obligations under its charter, recognizing certain powers of the organization and its decisions in accordance with their legal force.

The current Constitution of the Russian Federation now contains a special norm (Article 79), according to which the Russian Federation can participate in interstate associations and transfer to them part of their powers in accordance with international treaties (obviously, primarily the constituent acts of such associations), if this does not entail restrictions on the rights and freedoms of man and citizen and does not contradict the fundamentals of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation.
Thus, the state, as a subject of international law, has the ability to establish rights and obligations, acquire rights and bear obligations, and also independently implement them. The participation of the state in international law-making is associated not only with the acceptance of obligations, but also with their implementation, as well as with the desire to ensure that the norms of international law are implemented by all subjects and have legal security. The legal personality of a state exists independently of the will of other subjects of international law and remains as long as the state exists. It is universal, covering all components of the subject of international legal regulation.

Historically, several ways of forming new states as subjects of international law are known: the replacement of states of one historical type by another; the emergence of a state as a result of the colonial people achieving their independence; territorial changes associated with the unification of several states into one state, or with the disintegration of a state into several states, or with the separation of one state from another. In these cases, the question arises of the recognition of new states as subjects of international law and their legal succession.

Sovereign equality of states

The principle of sovereign equality of states has developed and been consolidated as a synthesis of traditional legal postulates - respect for state sovereignty and equality of states. Accordingly, it is characterized as a complex, dual principle. The very combination of these two elements gives rise to a new international legal phenomenon - the sovereign equality of states.

In this capacity, it was enshrined in the UN Charter: “The organization is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its members” (Clause 1, Article 2).

According to the Declaration of 1970 and the Final Act of 1975, states have the same (equal) rights and obligations, i.e. they are legally equal. Moreover, according to the Declaration, all states “are equal members of the international community, regardless of differences of an economic, social, political or other nature.”

Each State enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty, and at the same time is obliged to respect the legal personality of other States and their respective rights, including the right to determine and implement at its own discretion mutual relations on the basis of international law. Specific to the Final Act is the wording regarding the right of states “to belong or not to belong to international organizations, to be or not to be parties to bilateral or multilateral treaties...”.

“Equal sovereignty” of states is characterized by the fact that “each state is sovereign within the system of states, the international community, that is, in conditions of interaction and interdependence of states. The sovereignty of one state is associated with the sovereignty of another state and, as a result, must be coordinated with it within the framework of current international law (the phrase “coordinated sovereignty” is found in the literature). The functions of international law include normative support for such coordination, a kind of streamlining of the implementation of international legal personality based on state sovereignty.

International treaties concluded by states, being the embodiment of the coordination of state wills, reflect the principle of sovereign equality and often contain direct references to it (for example, the preamble of the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties, Article 1 of the Charter of the Commonwealth of Independent States, Article 1 of the Treaty on Friendly Relations and Cooperation between Russian Federation".and the Czech Republic of August 26, 1993).
The principle of sovereign equality also receives a concrete manifestation in such treaty formulations as “each state participating in the treaty has the right...”, “each state participating in the treaty undertakes”, “no state can.”

This principle extends to the entire sphere of implementation of international legal norms - to the operation of the mechanism of international legal regulation, to methods of peaceful settlement of interstate disputes and to the manifestation of the responsibility of states for international offenses.

States as the main subjects of international law. The principle of sovereign equality of states

Related articles

Read also