Raising children 

State-like entities as subjects of MP (Vatican, Order of Malta). International legal personality of state-like entities State entities as subjects of international law

State-like entities are special political-religious or political-territorial units, which, based on international act or international recognition have a relatively independent international legal status.

These primarily include the so-called “free cities” and free territories.

In principle, free cities were created as one of the ways to freeze territorial claims and mitigate tensions arising in interstate relations over the ownership of any territory. A free city is created on the basis of an international treaty or a decision of an international organization and represents a kind of state with limited legal capacity. It has its own constitution or act of a similar nature, supreme state bodies, and citizenship. Its armed forces are purely defensive in nature or are more of a border protection and law enforcement force. The creators of a free city usually provide ways to monitor compliance with its status, for example, appointing their representatives or a representative for this purpose. In the international arena, free cities are represented either by interested states or by an international organization.

The status of the Free City of Danzig, which existed between the two world wars, was guaranteed by the League of Nations, and in foreign relations the interests of the city were represented by Poland. The Free Territory of Trieste, created by the 1947 peace treaty with Italy and divided between Italy and Yugoslavia by the 1954 agreement, was protected by the UN Security Council.

West Berlin had a unique international legal status in accordance with the Quadripartite Agreement of the USSR, Great Britain, the USA and France of September 3, 1971. These states retained what they assumed after the surrender fascist Germany special rights and responsibilities in relation to West Berlin, which maintained official relations with the GDR and the Federal Republic of Germany. The German government represented the interests of West Berlin in international organizations and at conferences, and provided consular services to its permanent residents. The USSR established a consulate general in West Berlin. With the reunification of Germany in 1990, the rights and responsibilities of the four powers over West Berlin ceased as it became part of the unified Federal Republic of Germany.

Currently, state-like entities with a special international legal status are the Vatican (Holy See) as the official center of the Roman Catholic Church and the Order of Malta as an official religious formation with internationally recognized charitable functions. Their administrative residences are in Rome.

Externally, the Vatican (Holy See) has almost all the attributes of a state - a small territory, authorities and administration. About the population of the Vatican, however, we can only speak conditionally: these are the relevant officials involved in the affairs of the Catholic Church. However, the Vatican is not a state; rather, it can be considered as the administrative center of the Catholic Church. The peculiarity of its status lies, among other things, in the fact that it has diplomatic relations with a number of states that officially recognize it as a subject international law.

The Order of Malta was recognized as a sovereign entity in 1889. The seat of the order is Rome. Its official purpose is charity. It has diplomatic relations with many states. The order has neither its own territory nor population. Its sovereignty and international legal personality are a legal fiction.

The state becomes a subject of the international enterprise from the moment of its inception (ipso facto – due to the fact of its existence).

Features of the state as a subject of MP:

1) sovereignty, there are no absolutely sovereign states;

2) immunity - exemption from jurisdiction, applies to the state, its bodies, state property, and officials abroad. The state itself decides the issue of the scope of immunity; it can refuse in whole or in some part.

Concepts:

Absolute immunity – applies to all actions of the state;

Relative immunity - only for those actions that the state carries out as a sovereign, as a bearer of power. When the state acts as a private person, immunity does not apply (USA, South Africa, Singapore, UK). There are a number of international treaties adhering to this concept: the European Convention on State Immunity, the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Immunity of Merchant Ships.

Types of immunities:

a) Judicial immunity - the immunity of one state from another without its consent; prohibition of the use of measures to secure a claim, prohibition of forced execution court decision;

b) Immunity of state property - inviolability of property, prohibition of seizure, seizure, foreclosure;

c) Fiscal (tax) - state activities abroad are not subject to taxes or fees, except those that represent a fee for any service.

3) population - all persons who live in the territory of the state and are subject to its jurisdiction.

4) territory - in the MP it is considered as part of the geographical space, the significance of the state territory: the material basis for the existence of the population; scope of state law. The state territory includes land, subsoil, body of water (inland waters, archipelagic waters, territorial sea), airspace over land and water. The limits are delineated by state borders. There are state territories with international regimes, for example Spitsbergen is a territory of Norway.

5) the presence of a system of bodies responsible for the international relations of the state (external relations bodies).

External relations bodies:

a) domestic:

States provided for by the constitution: head of state, parliament, government;

States not provided for by the constitution: the department of foreign affairs, other bodies (for example, the ministry of foreign economic relations), bodies created to carry out certain international obligations– for example, NCB Interpol;

b) foreign:

Permanent: diplomatic missions, consular offices, trade and other special missions (for example, tourist), missions to international organizations (permanent missions or observer missions);

Temporary: special missions, delegations to conferences, meetings.

A special question of the MP is whether members of federal states are subjects of the MP? in particular, are they subjects of the Russian Federation?

Analysis Russian legislation(Federal Law “On International Treaties of the Russian Federation”, “On the Coordination of International and Foreign Economic Relations of the Subjects of the Russian Federation”) allows us to draw a number of conclusions:

Subjects of the Russian Federation can enter into international agreements, but these agreements are not international treaties; and these agreements cannot be concluded without the permission of the Federation.

The Federation agrees on an international treaty with a subject of the Russian Federation if the agreement affects the territory of the subject, but the subject does not have a veto right.

Entities can be members of international organizations, but only those that allow membership of non-sovereign entities.

Thus, the subjects of the Russian Federation are not subjects of the MP.

35. State-like entities are subjects of international law.

State-like entities- derived subjects of international law. This term is a generalized concept, since it applies not only to cities, but also to certain areas. G.p.o. are created on the basis of an international treaty or a decision of an international organization and represent a kind of state with limited legal capacity. They have their own constitution or act of a similar nature, supreme state bodies, and citizenship. G.p.o. is, as a rule, demilitarized and neutralized. There are political-territorial (Danzig, Gdansk, West Berlin) and religious-territorial state-like entities (Vatican, Order of Malta). Currently, there are only religious-territorial state-like entities. Such entities have territory and sovereignty; have their own citizenship, legislative assembly, government, international treaties. Most often, such formations are temporary in nature and arise as a consequence of the unsettled territorial claims of various countries against each other.

What is common to political-territorial entities of this kind is that in almost all cases they were created on the basis of international agreements, usually peace treaties. Such agreements endowed them with a certain international legal personality, provided for an independent constitutional structure, a system of organs public administration, the right to issue regulations, to have limited armed forces 1.

Ö These are free cities in the past (Venice, Novgorod, Hamburg, etc.) or in modern times (Danzig).

Ö West Berlin had a special status after the Second World War (before the unification of Germany in 1990).

Ö State-like subjects of international law include Vatican. It is the administrative center of the Catholic Church led by the Pope, a “city state” within the Italian capital of Rome. The Vatican has diplomatic relations with many states in various parts of the world (including Russia), permanent observers at the UN and some other international organizations, and takes part in international conferences of states. The legal status of the Vatican is determined by special agreements with Italy in 1984.

Help with studies. Works to order

Coursework

State-like formation is a rather complex and exceptional phenomenon of an international legal nature, still poorly studied by the domestic science of international law. The educational literature contains very little information about this unique phenomenon, and specialized literature only touches on certain aspects of individual state-like entities. Individual monographic or...

  • INTRODUCTION
  • 1. CONCEPT AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PERSONALITY OF STATE-LIKE ENTITIES
  • 2. FREE CITIES
  • 3. VATICAN
  • 4. OTHER STATE-LIKE FORMATIONS
  • CONCLUSION
  • LIST OF REFERENCES USED

Cost of unique work

State-like entities (essay, coursework, diploma, test)

State-like formation is a rather complex and exceptional phenomenon of an international legal nature, still poorly studied by the domestic science of international law. Educational literature contains very little information about this unique phenomenon, and specialized literature only touches on certain aspects of individual state-like entities.

There are no separate monographic or dissertation works devoted to the concept, international legal personality and other issues of the status of state-like entities in Russia. This factor is an additional incentive for a more detailed study of this issue, actualizes the work, and gives it an innovative character.

Understanding the complexity of writing this course work in practice complete absence specialized literature, nevertheless, we set its goal to determine the international legal status and identify the essential characteristics of state-like entities.

In this regard, the tasks put forward are: firstly, the analysis of existing scientific and other sources in order to determine the characteristics and give a definition of a state-like entity, secondly, to identify certain aspects of their international legal personality, thirdly, to determine the various aspects their international legal activities and, fourthly, the study of individual state-like entities, both existing in the past and existing to this day.

Structurally, the work is divided into paragraphs in accordance with the logical sequence of presentation of the material, which will allow us to fully solve the tasks and, ultimately, achieve the goal of this work ("https://site", 18).

The first paragraph will highlight general issues relating to all state-like entities: concepts, identifying features, defining essential characteristics, analyzing approaches to understanding, identifying differences from other subjects of international law. The following paragraphs will cover these issues in relation to individual state-like entities, detailing them and identifying the features of specific state-like entities.

The sources used in this work are very diverse. In addition to the traditional ones - educational and specialized literature - we used acts of an international legal nature, including international treaties that determine the status of a particular state-like entity, the basic laws of these entities, as well as official sources from servers of state-like entities located on the Internet.

All this is aimed at one thing - achieving the goal of the course work outlined above.

Cost of unique work

References

  1. Peace Treaty between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany (Treaty of Versailles) [electronic resource]: dated June 28, 1919. - Access from references. - legal system"Consultant Plus"
  2. Treaty between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Italy [electronic resource]: dated February 11, 1929. // Official project of the Garant company: “Constitution Russian Federation and foreign constitutions." - Access mode: http://constitution.garant.ru/DOC_3 864 879.htm - free.
  3. Peace Treaty with Italy dated February 10, 1947. // Collection of existing treaties, agreements and conventions concluded by the USSR with foreign states. - Vol. XIII. - 1956. - P. 88−203.
  4. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961. // Collection of existing treaties, agreements and conventions concluded by the USSR with foreign states. - Vol. XXIII. - 1970. - P. 136−148.
  5. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of July 1, 1968. // Collection of existing treaties, agreements and conventions concluded by the USSR with foreign states. - Vol. XXVI. - 1973. - P. 45−49.
  6. Quadripartite agreement dated 09/03/1971. // Collection of existing treaties, agreements and conventions concluded by the USSR with foreign states. - Vol. XXVIII. - 1974. - P. 46−55.
  7. Agreement on the final settlement with respect to Germany dated September 12, 1990. // Collection of international treaties of the USSR and the Russian Federation. - Vol. XLVII. - 1994. - P. 34−37.
  8. Basic Law of the Vatican City State [electronic resource]: dated June 7, 1929 (lost force) // Official project of the Garant company: “The Constitution of the Russian Federation and foreign constitutions.” - Access mode: http://constitution.garant.ru/ DOC_3 864 879.htm - free.
  9. Basic Law of the Vatican City State of November 26, 2000 (at German) // Official website of the Holy See. - Access mode: http://www.vatican.va/vatican_city_state/legislation/documents/ scv_doc_20 001 126_legge-fondamentale-scv_ge.html - free.
  10. On the appointment of Sadchikov N.I. as a representative of the Russian Federation to the Vatican and to the Sovereign Order of Malta on a part-time basis: Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of August 26, 2005 No. 989. // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. - 2005. - No. 35. - Art. 3602.
  11. History of the Russian state and law. Part 1. / Ed. Chistyakova O.I. - M., Yurist, 2007. - 477 p.
  12. Kalamkaryan R. A. International law: textbook. / R. A. Kalamkaryan, Yu. I. Migachev - M.: Eksmo, 2004. - 688 p.
  13. Constitutions of bourgeois countries. T.II. - M.-L.: Sotsekgiz, 1936. - 419 p.
  14. Constitutions of European states. / Ed. Okunkova L. A. - M.: Norma, 2001. - 816 p.
  15. Kurdyukov G. I. States in the international system legal regulation . / G. I. Kurdyukov - Kazan: Kazan University Publishing House, 1979. - 174 p.
  16. Lukashuk I. I. International law. General part: textbook for students of law faculties and universities. / I. I. Lukashuk - M.: BEK Publishing House, 2001. - 419 p.
  17. Marchenko M. N. Problems of the theory of state and law: textbook. / M. N. Marchenko - M.: Prospekt, 2001. - 755 p.
  18. Matuzov N. I. Theory of State and Law: textbook. / N. I. Matuzov, A. V. Malko - M.: Yurist, 2005. - 540 p.
  19. International law: textbook for universities. / Ed. Ignatenko G.V., Tiunova O.I. - M., Norma, 2001. - 705 p.
  20. International law: textbook. / Ed. Kolosova Yu. M., Krivchikova E. S. - M.: International relations, 2000. - 713 p.
  21. International public law: textbook. / Ed. Bekyasheva K. A. - M.: Prospekt, 2007. - 784 p.
  22. Modzhoryan L. A. Free city status. / L. A. Modzhoryan // Soviet state and law. - 1962. - No. 3. - P. 66−76;
  23. Ushakov N. A. International law: textbook. / N. A. Ushakov - M.: Yurist, 2003. - 304 p.
  24. Feldman D.I., Kurdyukov G.I. Main trends in the development of international legal personality. / D. I. Feldman, G. I. Kurdyukov - Kazan, Kazan University Publishing House, 1974. - 124 p.
  25. Chernenko S. V. Review of Feldman D's work. I., Kurdyukova G.I. Main trends in the development of international legal personality. / S. V. Chernenko // Jurisprudence. - 1975. - No. 5. - P. 143−145.
  26. Shibaeva E. A. Legal issues structures and activities of international organizations. / E. A. Shibaeva, M. Potochny - M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1988. - 188 p.
  27. Silkin B.I. Hansa: the ancient “common market” of Europe. / B.I. Silkin // Knowledge is power. - No. 1. - 1998. // Access mode: http://skola.ogreland.lv/istorija/slovo/G/g7.htm - free.
  28. Official website of the Catholic Church (at English). - Access mode: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/ - free.
  29. Official website of the company "Consultant Plus". - Access mode: http://www.consultant.ru/ - free.
  30. Official website of the Holy See (in English). - Access mode: http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm - free.
  31. Official website of the Sovereign Order of Malta (in English). - Access mode: http://www.orderofmalta.org/site/index.asp?idlingua=5 - free.
  32. Official website of the Central intelligence agency United States of America (in English). - Access mode: https://www.cia.gov/ - free.

Cost of unique work

Cost of unique work

Fill out the form with your current job
Other works

The importance of direct democracy is difficult to overestimate, for example, V.I. Efimov rightly notes: “The essence, purpose and foundations of democratic power are determined through the people, and the unity of all these definitions is assumed. The loss of one of them leads to an absolute decline in the quality of power, its degeneration into quasi-democratic forms covering autocratic or oligarchic...

Coursework

If issues related to the subject of regulation are not directly resolved in the Convention, then they must be resolved in accordance with general principles Convention; in the absence of the necessary principle - in accordance with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law. Certain types of sales are not covered by the 1980 Vienna Convention. For example, auctioning, selling valuable...

On modern stage historical development of human civilization national economy every state is inevitable. It is integrated into the international system of world economic relations, that is, it goes beyond the national framework and therefore inevitably experiences influence international factor. The internationalization of economic relations objectively determines the origin, formation and development...

Coursework

In Europe and America, parliament acquired modern look as a result of bourgeois revolutions. After World War II, the classical liberal concept of parliamentarism became dominant. It was assumed that it was precisely this that made it possible to express the interests of not one or a few, but the majority of the people. After the revolutionary storms, the parliamentary method of regulating conflicts of social interests, which was able...

Coursework

Economic turnover modern society impossible to imagine without objects intellectual property. Today, the sphere of their distribution is not only and not so much personal consumption, but, above all, social production. Any enterprise like property complex includes two groups of elements: material and intangible. According to some data, the share of intangible assets (this is...

Coursework

It is now generally accepted that EU law can directly create rights and responsibilities for individuals. But in the early days of the EU, the question of whether the founding treaties establishing the EU (“primary law”) and the acts of the EU institutions (“secondary law”) could directly confer subjective rights on individuals was controversial. In particular, the opinion was expressed that private individuals...

In the science of private international law, reciprocity is understood as one of the fundamental principles of international cooperation, which makes it possible to condition the friendly attitude of one state towards another with an adequate response. Although the problems of private international law are beginning to occupy a worthy place in the works of domestic legal scholars, today issues of reciprocity...

The general theoretical definition of a subject of law is associated with a statement of the subjective right to participate in relations regulated by legal norms. Accordingly, bearers of rights and obligations established by legal norms are characterized as subjects of law.

In the theory of international law, the concept of the special status of its subjects has developed. With this approach, the ability to participate in relations governed by international legal norms is considered as a prerequisite, but not main feature subject. The main property of a subject is the legal ability to carry out independent international actions, including the creation of agreed upon international legal norms, and to independently exercise the rights and obligations established by these norms. Distinctive Features subjects of international law, according to this concept, are expressed in the fact that they are not under anyone’s power and jurisdiction, and occupy a position independent relative to each other*.

This special status was recognized primarily for states, since we were talking about participants in interstate relations, as well as for certain international (interstate) organizations, state-like entities, nations and peoples fighting against colonialism, for the creation of their own states.

"... subjects of law, in a particular legal system, are not necessarily identical, since we are talking about their nature or the scope of their rights *". And although this judgment in a specific situation related to the legal personality of the UN, it essentially has a general meaning.

The differentiation of the scope and nature of rights will be discussed below. As for the differences in the nature of certain subjects, the literature generally divides traditional subjects of international law into two main categories - basic (primary) and derivative (secondary).

Category main (primary) subjects constitute first and foremost states that have state sovereignty and acquire, by virtue of their emergence (formation), international legal personality, not conditioned by anyone’s external will and having a comprehensive nature.

Category derived (secondary) subjects - These are predominantly international intergovernmental organizations. The specificity of their legal nature is expressed, firstly, in the fact that they are generated - precisely as subjects of international law - by the will of states that have recorded their decision in a constituent act (hence, their legal personality is derivative, conditional), and secondly, in the fact that that the content and scope of their legal status are determined in the constituent act in strict accordance with the purpose and functions of each organization (thus, their legal personality is functional, individualized). With some reservations, it is customary to include so-called state-like entities in this same category, that is, special historically established political-religious or political-territorial units with a relatively independent status.

A special position among the subjects of international law is occupied by nations and peoples fighting against colonialism, foreign domination, and for the creation of their own state on the basis of national sovereignty.

The issue of the status and types of non-traditional entities is resolved, even with the recognition of their international legal personality, in an ambiguous manner. And yet several such subjects can be named. Their participation in legal relations regulated by international legal norms, and, consequently, their status as bearers of certain international rights and obligations seem quite real. These are international non-governmental organizations*, international business associations, national legal entities and individuals (individuals). Taking into account the powers provided for by the constitutions of individual, primarily federal, states, the constituent parts of these states are characterized by a certain international legal status (according to the terminology adopted in domestic legislation, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation).

There are sufficient grounds for the distinction in the international legal system law-creating subjects and law-enforcement subjects. To be more precise, they differentiate: 1) subjects who create law and at the same time apply law, for those who participate in the rule-making process cannot be aloof from the practice of applying the rules, and 2) subjects are only law enforcement, but not possessing rule-making capacity. By the way, a similar situation exists in domestic law. The first category includes states, international organizations, and, to a lesser extent, state-like entities and struggling nations; the second includes individuals, business entities and other legal entities, international business associations and non-governmental organizations.

In other words, the circle implementing norms of international law are much broader creating these norms. After the development, signing and entry into force of an international treaty, bodies and officials whose functions are in one way or another related to the subject of treaty regulation are involved in its implementation and in ensuring its implementation - along with the bodies and officials who participated in the process of concluding the treaty. If we take into account the other participants in the law enforcement process mentioned above, we can state that the agreement is valid outside the system of state power.

Following the example of domestic law, it is possible to divide subjects along industry lines. If the subjects of constitutional (state) law are not the same as the subjects of civil law, and the latter, in turn, are not identical to the subjects of administrative or criminal law (this means not only and, perhaps, not so much categories and names, how many features of the legal status), then why not recognize that the subjects of the law of external relations (diplomatic and consular law) are not the same as the subjects of the law of international organizations or, especially, the subjects of international humanitarian law (and here the assessment of the features of legal status of the relevant entities).

International legal personality

the right to establish diplomatic and consular relations with other states, exchange diplomatic and consular missions; the right to be a member of universal and regional international organizations and to have their own representative offices; the right to defend one’s legal personality, including the right to individual and collective self-defense.

The main duties of a state are determined by the content of the basic principles of international law and include cooperation with other states, non-interference in their internal affairs, refraining from the threat or use of force, etc.

The subject-specific rights and obligations of international organizations belonging to this group are determined by their charters or other kinds of constituent acts in accordance with the functions of each of them.

Other, non-basic, rights and obligations of subjects of international law are concrete results expression of will, activities of the subjects themselves. By exercising their right to conclude international treaties, states, international organizations and some other entities establish for themselves and for entities under their jurisdiction individual rights and responsibilities, the content and scope of which may change when concluding new contracts.

Each state, participating in a particular international treaty, first of all assumes certain obligations and coordinates with other states its powers arising from this treaty. At the same time, it fixes in the contract the rights and obligations addressed to its competent authorities, officials, its citizens and other persons under its jurisdiction.

The relationship between rights and obligations can be shown using the example of the provisions of Art. III Treaty on Open Skies of March 24, 1992:

"1. Each State Party shall have the right to conduct observation flights in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty.

2. Each State Party shall be obliged to accept observation flights over its territory in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty."

States are the main subjects of international law

The transfer of rights and obligations from one state to another occurs in the following cases: 1) when a new subject of international law emerges in connection with a fundamental change in the socio-economic and political system of the predecessor state; 2) when a new state emerges on the site of the colonial possession of the metropolitan state; 3) when one state is divided into several new states; 4) when several states unite into one state; 5) when part of the territory is separated from the state and an independent state is formed on it. There are several objects of succession: rights and obligations arising from international treaties of the predecessor state; state property; state archives; debts.

The basis of succession is the legal fact of the emergence of a new state as a subject of international law. However, there are no clear rules governing the issue of criteria for the cessation of the existence of states and the emergence of new ones. Therefore, in practice, the issue of the emergence of new states is resolved taking into account specific circumstances. If there is uncertainty regarding the question of whether a new subject of international law has arisen, then it is best resolved through an agreement between the interested states, the adoption of a corresponding act by an international organization, a decision by an international judicial authority. Thus, after the collapse of Austria-Hungary, the Saint-Germain (1919) and Trianon (1920) treaties determined the future fate of Austria and Hungary; After the Second World War, the UN dealt with the question of the international identity of Israel and India. In the early 90s, in connection with the collapse of the Yugoslav Federation, problems arose in determining the status of the newly formed states.

Central to succession is the question of the scope of rights and obligations; passing from the predecessor state to the successor state. On this matter, various theories have developed in the science of international law.

According to theories of universal succession, developed in the XVII-XIX centuries. and clearly manifested in the works of G. Grotius, the successor state completely inherits the international personality of the predecessor state. This theory had its roots in Roman inheritance law. Its variety was the doctrine of continuity (identity), whose representatives (Puffendorf, Vattel, Bluntschli, etc.) believed that all international rights and obligations of the old state, including all existing treaties, pass to the heir, since the personality of the state remains one and the same. the same one. The legal relations that the new state inherited remained the same as those of the predecessor state; the successor state continued to be the same legal entity, embodying the unity of the territory, population, political power, rights and obligations of the previous state. In its essence, the doctrine of continuity, justifying the identity of the legal personality of the state, was a denial of any legal succession.

Negative theory was put forward at the beginning of the 20th century. and received the greatest justification in the works of the English lawyer A. Kates. Its supporters believed that there was no continuity of the international legal personality of a state. In this regard, when the power of one state is replaced by the power of another state, the international treaties of the predecessor are discarded. A variation of the negative theory is the concept of tabula rasa, according to which a new state begins its contractual relations with a “clean slate”.

These theories have not been confirmed in the practice of succession. According to modern views, the exact scope of rights and obligations passing from the predecessor state to the successor state depends on many factors that must be taken into account. The sovereign will of the successor state, which determines the scope of succession according to its interests, is essential. However, this should not contradict the basic principles of international law or cause harm to other states and peoples. In particular, annexation and seizure of foreign territory cannot fall under legal succession.

Succession in relation to international treaties

During the Great French Revolution of the 18th century. After the overthrow of the monarchy, the National Convention of France abandoned dynastic treaties, which had lost their meaning. In 1793, he annulled all treaties of alliance or trade that existed between the former French government and states with which the republic was at war. At the same time, the importance of the principle of compliance with international treaties was stated.

In 1917-1918 Russia has declared its rejection of a number of treaties due to their contradiction with democratic legal consciousness and the “internal order of Russia.” All treaties concerning the partitions of Poland were cancelled, “due to their contradiction to the principle of self-determination of nations.” But many treaties of Tsarist Russia remained in force, for example, agreements on the protection of war victims, health care, the Universal Postal Convention, the Convention on Maritime Cooperation, etc.

The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, 1978, established the general rule that a newly independent State is not obliged to maintain in force a treaty or become a party to it solely by virtue of the fact that at the time of succession that treaty was in force in respect of territory that is the object of succession (Article 16). However, a newly independent state may, by notification of succession, establish its status as a party to any multilateral treaty which, at the time of the succession of states, was in force in relation to the territory that is the object of the succession (Article 17).

Moreover, a newly independent State, by notification of succession, may take part in a multilateral treaty not in force at the time of succession if, at the time of its succession, the predecessor State was a contracting State in respect of the territory that became the object of the succession. According to paragraph 1 of Art. 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, “if, prior to the date of succession of States, the predecessor State has signed a multilateral treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval and has at the same time expressed the intention of extending that treaty to the territory subject to the succession of States, the newly independent State may ratify, accept or approve this treaty as if it had signed it itself, and thereby may become a contracting State or a party to this treaty." The signature by the predecessor State of a treaty, unless a different intention appears from the provisions of the treaty or is otherwise established, is considered as an expression of its intention to extend the treaty to the entire territory for the international relations of which the predecessor State was responsible. When it is clear from the treaty or is otherwise established that its application in relation to a new independent state would be incompatible with the object and purposes of the treaty or would radically change the conditions of its operation, then this state cannot participate in such a multilateral treaty. In addition, if it appears from the provisions of the treaty or from the limited number of States participating in the negotiations and from the object and purpose of the treaty that the participation in such treaty of any other State requires the consent of all its parties or all contracting States, “the newly independent State may become a contracting State or a party to this agreement only with such consent" (clause 4 of article 19). It should also be borne in mind that when a treaty is not considered to be in force in relation to a state on the basis of the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States of 1978, this circumstance in no way affects the obligation of that state to fulfill any obligation contained in the treaty. which is valid for him under international law regardless of the treaty.

The states that arose as a result of the liberation of their peoples from colonial dependence, as a rule, confirmed participation in multilateral treaties that were related to strengthening peace, maintaining good neighborly relations, and were of a humanitarian nature. Thus, Malta stated that it continues to bear the obligations arising from the Moscow Treaty Banning Tests of Nuclear Weapons in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water of August 5, 1963, which was ratified by England, which was responsible for the territory of Malta. Algeria in 1960 acceded to the four Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims of 12 August 1949. Some newly independent states have stated that they will continue to fulfill their obligations under all multilateral treaties in respect of which requests have been made by the UN Secretariat.

The Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in Respect of Treaties also establishes the conditions for the succession of obligations under bilateral agreements. A bilateral treaty that was in force in respect of the territory that was the object of the succession is considered to be in force between the newly independent state and the other participating state if: a) they have expressly agreed to this effect; b) by virtue of their conduct they must be considered to have expressed such an agreement (Article 24).

If two or more States unite into one State, any treaty which was in force in respect of any of them shall continue to be in force in respect of that successor State. An exception is made in cases where the successor State and another State Party or other States Parties have agreed otherwise, or it appears from the treaty or is otherwise established that the application of that treaty in relation to the successor State would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty or fundamental would change the conditions of its operation in such a way (v. 31).

When part or parts of the territory of a state are separated and form one or more states, regardless of whether the predecessor state continues to exist, the following decision is presumed: a) any treaty that was in force in respect of the entire territory of the predecessor state continues to be in force in respect of each successor State so constituted; (b) Any treaty which was in force only in respect of that part of the territory of the predecessor State which became the successor State shall continue to be in force only in respect of that successor State (Article 34).

Succession in relation to state property

According to the 1983 Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in Respect of State Property, State Archives and Public Debts, public property of the predecessor State means the property, rights and interests which, at the time of the succession of States, belonged under the internal law of the predecessor State to that State. The transfer of state property of the predecessor state to the successor state occurs without compensation, unless otherwise stipulated by the interested parties or decided by the relevant international bodies. The predecessor state shall take all measures to prevent damage to or destruction of state property that passes to the successor state. When the successor State is a newly independent State, the real state property of the predecessor State located in the territory subject to succession passes to the successor State. Movable state property of the predecessor state associated with its activities in relation to the territory that is the object of succession also passes to the successor state (Article 15). In the event of the merger of two or more states into one, the state property of the predecessor states passes to the successor state. When a state is divided and ceases to exist, and two or more successor states are formed on the divided parts of the territory, then, unless the latter agree otherwise: a) the immovable state property of the predecessor state passes to the successor state on whose territory it is located; b) immovable state property of the predecessor state located outside its territory passes to the successor states in equitable shares; c) movable state property of the predecessor state related to its activities in relation to the territories that are the object of succession passes to the corresponding successor state; d) other movable state property of the predecessor state passes to the successor states in equitable shares (Article 18).

When part of the territory of a state is transferred by it to another state, the transfer of state ownership from the predecessor state to the successor state is governed by an agreement between them. If there is no agreement, then the real estate of the predecessor state located in the territory that is the object of succession passes to the successor state. Movable property also passes to the successor state if it was connected with the activities of the predecessor state in relation to the territory that became the object of succession (Article 14).

Succession in relation to state archives

State archives are part state property. In this regard, the rules of succession in relation to state archives are in many ways similar to the rules established for the succession of state property as such. For example, when the successor state becomes a newly independent state, then the archives belonging to the territory that is the object of succession, and which during the period of dependence became the state archives of the predecessor state, pass to the new independent state. That part of the state archives of the predecessor state, which for the purposes of normal administration of the territory - the object of succession - must be located on this territory, passes to the new independent state (Article 28).

When a State is divided and ceases to exist and two or more successor States are formed on its former territory, then, unless the latter agree otherwise, the part of the public archives of the predecessor State which must be located on the territory of the successor State for the purpose of the normal administration of its territory, passes to that successor State (Art. 31).

However, the problem of the integrity of archival funds and the exceptional importance of the information they contain give rise to certain specifics of this issue. Therefore, the Vienna Convention of 1983, regarding the division of the state, establishes the principle of fairness and consideration of all relevant circumstances when resolving the issue. A more detailed approach is defined for the succession of a new independent state. In particular, in the cases specified by the Convention, it provides for the possibility of concluding agreements between the newly independent State and the predecessor State regarding the transfer or proper reproduction of parts of the State archives of the latter “in such a way that each of these States can, in the widest and fairest manner possible, benefit from these parts of the public archives of the predecessor state" (Article 28). Agreements of this kind must not prejudice the rights of the peoples of the participating States to development, to information about their history and to their cultural heritage. In this case, the predecessor state is obliged to provide the new independent state with reliable archival information that relates to titles to the territory or borders of the latter or is necessary to clarify the meaning of certain documents of the predecessor state passing to the new independent state. The predecessor State is also obliged to cooperate with the successor State in returning to it any archives belonging to the territory - the object of succession - and dispersed during the period of dependence.

Succession in relation to public debts

The Vienna Convention of 1983 defines public debt as any financial obligation of the predecessor state in relation to another state, international organization or other subject of international law, arising in accordance with international law. The Convention establishes the principle that succession of States does not in itself affect the rights and obligations of creditors. It therefore clearly assumes that when two or more States unite and thereby form one successor State, the public debt of the predecessor States passes to the successor State. In other cases, i.e. when transferring part of the territory of a state, separating part or parts of its territory, dividing a state, the emergence of a new independent state, the relevant parties (successor state and predecessor state or states of the former subject) enter into an agreement with each other, regulating the issue of transfer of public debt. Moreover, such an agreement concluded by a new independent state should not harm the principle of the inalienable sovereignty of each people over its wealth and natural resources, and the implementation of this agreement should not undermine the foundations of the economic well-being of this state. If there is no agreement, then the issue is resolved depending on the method of emergence of the successor state. When a successor arises as a new independent state as a result of the liberation of its people from colonial dependence, then, in the absence of the specified agreement, no public debt of the predecessor state passes to the new state. When a successor state arises as a result of the transfer, separation of part or parts of the territory of another state or the division of a state, then the public debt of the predecessor state passes to the successor states in equitable shares, taking into account, in particular, the property, rights and interests that pass to to the successor state in connection with this public debt (Articles 37-38, 40-41). ,

Federal states as subjects of international law

The provision of the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties on the binding nature of the treaty “for each party in relation to its entire territory” (Article 29) is also valid for federal states. This general rule is clearly expressed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 28) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 50) - the provisions of both Covenants “apply to all parts of federal States without any there were restrictions or exemptions."

This approach is also inherent in some constitutions. Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America qualifies treaties made in the name of the United States, along with the Constitution and laws, as the “supreme law of the land”, which must be followed by judges in each state. According to the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, “the conduct of external relations with foreign states belongs to the Federation” (Part 1, Article 32), and the general norms of international law as component the rights of the Federation "directly give rise to rights and obligations for the inhabitants federal territory" (Article 25), i.e., they have federal legal significance. According to the Constitution of India, the competence of the Union includes "external relations, all issues relating to the relationship of the Union with "any foreign state", the conclusion and implementation of treaties with foreign states ( Appendix 7).

In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, “the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation includes... foreign policy and international relations of the Russian Federation, international treaties of the Russian Federation..." (clause "k" of Article 71).

However, the specifics of the state structure cannot but influence the mechanism for implementing the international legal personality of a federal state. This is evidenced, first of all, by legislative regulation, characteristic of individual federal states. In particular, according to the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, before the Federation concludes an agreement “affecting the special position of any land, this land must be heard in a timely manner” (Part 2 of Article 32).

In the Russian Federation, the participation of its subjects in the conclusion of Federation treaties has not become the object of constitutional regulation; this issue is resolved in the Law "On International Treaties of the Russian Federation", which stipulates that an international treaty of the Russian Federation, affecting issues within the jurisdiction of a subject of the Russian Federation, is concluded in agreement with government bodies of the interested subject, and when developing an agreement affecting the powers of a subject of the Russian Federation on subjects of joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and its subjects, proposals from the relevant bodies of the subject are considered when preparing the draft (Article 4).

The Constitution of the Russian Federation directly regulates another issue - the implementation of international treaties of the Russian Federation, including this activity in the sphere of joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and its subjects (clause “o”, part 1, article 72).

The Constitution does not contain a clearly formulated norm on the supremacy and validity of international treaties of the Russian Federation throughout the territory of the Federation. In Part 2 of Art. 4 we are talking about the supremacy of the Constitution and federal laws. Through the interpretation of Part 4 of Art. 15 of the Constitution, which declares the generally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation to be an integral part of the legal system of the Federation, one can presume the constitutional consolidation of the federal legal force of international treaties.

In the conditions of a federal state, compliance and execution of international treaties of the Russian Federation, in general, the implementation of the international legal personality of the Russian Federation is ensured not only by federal authorities and federal laws, but also by the authorities of the relevant constituent entities of the Russian Federation within the limits of their powers.

Russian Federation as a subject of international law

The termination of the existence of the USSR as a federal state and a subject of international law (December 1991) meant the constitution of the Russian Federation (until April 1992 - the RSFSR) as a sovereign state with an independent international legal status. This also applies to other states that were union republics within the USSR and created the Commonwealth of Independent States (excluding the Baltic countries, which declared independence somewhat earlier, declared their withdrawal from the USSR and did not take part in the CIS).

The Russian Federation, as a sovereign state exercising full power on its territory and acting independently in the external sphere, has all the characteristics of the main subject of international law.

Fourthly, in the period from mid-1990 to the end of 1991, i.e. from the moment of development and adoption of declarations of state sovereignty in the Union republics until the termination of the existence of the USSR and these republics acquiring the status of independent states, real international activity was felt then more subjects of the Union. Thus, the RSFSR at that time concluded a number of agreements with subjects of foreign federations - individual states of the USA, states of the Federal Republic of Germany, republics of the then Yugoslavia, several agreements of a trade and economic nature with the governments of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and other states. These contractual ties, as well as direct diplomatic contacts, testified to the recognition by foreign states of the international legal status of the republics within the USSR.

Fifthly, over the many years of existence of such foreign federations as the USA, Canada, Austria, Switzerland, Australia, a system has developed for their subjects - states, provinces, lands, cantons - to enter into direct contractual relations with each other on an interstate basis, and in in some cases - contractual relations of a subject of one state with another state (for example, the province of Quebec in Canada with France).

The noted international practice had its own domestic prerequisites in the form of constitutional norms that allowed certain external relations of the subjects of the federation and, to some extent, regulated them.

According to the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 14, 1960, “all peoples have the right to self-determination, by virtue of this right they freely determine their political status and exercise their economic, social and cultural development". The right of peoples (nations) to self-determination in relation to each people is revealed through its national sovereignty, meaning that each people has the sovereign right to independence in achieving statehood and independent state existence, to freely choose paths of development.

If peoples (nations) have the right to self-determination, then all states have an obligation to respect this right. This obligation also covers the recognition of those international legal relations in which the subject is the people (nation). Thus, the inalienable right of a people (nation) to self-determination, associated with its national sovereignty, is the basis of its international legal personality.

Historically, this legal personality of the people (nation) was clearly manifested during the collapse of colonialism after the end of the Second World War. In the modern period, when the absolute majority of former colonial peoples have achieved independence, the importance of the principle of self-determination is emphasized by the right of every people who have built their own statehood to determine their internal and external political status without outside interference and to carry out political, economic, social and cultural development at their own discretion.

If we are talking about self-determination of individual peoples within the framework of an independent state, then the issue must be resolved on the basis of specific circumstances in the context of the interrelated basic principles of international law. The realization of self-determination by one people within the framework of a multinational sovereign state should not lead to a violation of the rights of its other peoples. In this regard, the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 13, 1992 stated: “Without denying the right of the people to self-determination, exercised through a legitimate expression of will, one should proceed from the fact that international law limits it to compliance with the principle territorial integrity and the principle of respect for human rights."

Consequently, it is necessary to distinguish the self-determination of peoples (nations) that do not have any statehood from the self-determination of peoples (nations) that have already achieved statehood. If in the first case the national sovereignty of the people is not yet ensured by state sovereignty, then in the second case the people have already exercised their right to self-determination, and their national sovereignty is protected by the state - an independent subject of international law. Self-determination of the people within multinational state does not at all imply the obligation to secede and create one’s own independent state. First of all, such self-determination is associated with increasing the level of independence, but without threatening human rights and the territorial integrity of the state.

The subjects of international law, as a rule, are peoples (nations) that are colonially dependent on the mother country, but are fighting for independence and the creation of a sovereign state through the exercise of the right to self-determination.

Such a people (nation) has both the ability to have international rights and obligations and the ability to independently implement them. But these abilities, organically connected with each other, constituting the legal personality of a people (nation), have specificity that distinguishes the international legal personality of a nation from the international legal personality of a state. The people (nation), in the process of struggle for the creation of an independent state, are able to participate in international relations only on “issues related to the implementation of the right to self-determination. In this regard, the people (nation) have fundamental rights, including the right to enter into agreements with states, international organizations, with other peoples exercising their national sovereignty, international treaties, accede to multilateral international agreements. On behalf of the people, when concluding international treaties or acceding to them, the bodies representing the people that emerged during the struggle for independence act: the national liberation front, the provisional government, the leadership of a political party. enjoying the support of the majority of the population.

The colonial people (nation) have the right to express their will in any form with the aim of gaining independence from the mother country, including the right to establish official relations with sovereign “states”, regulated by standards diplomatic and consular law, and the right to participate in the activities of international organizations.

One of the fundamental rights of the people (nation) is the right to international legal protection and to receive support from other subjects of international law.

Legal personality of international organizations

International organizations are subjects of international law of a special kind. Their legal personality is not identical to the legal personality of states, since it does not stem from sovereignty.

An international organization, without possessing sovereignty, has an international treaty concluded between the interested states as the source of its rights and obligations in the sphere of exercising its competence. Therefore, international organizations as subjects of international law are secondary and derivative in relation to states.

An organization becomes a subject if the founding states endow the organization with international rights and obligations. Its competence is specific in the sense that the rights and obligations of an international organization differ from the rights and obligations of a state. If the legal personality of the state is not limited either in the subject of legal regulation or in the scope of powers, then the legal personality of the organization is determined by those specific tasks and goals that are established by the states in the constituent act creating the organization. In this regard, each international organization has its own, unique to it, range of rights and responsibilities. However, despite the differences in the nature and scope of rights and obligations, organizations operate within the framework of international law and have characteristics that ensure the legal personality of an international organization. The creation and functioning of an international organization have a legal basis if they comply with the norms of international law, first of all, its basic principles. On the one hand, Art. 5 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 introduces international organizations into the sphere of contractual regulation, as it determines the applicability of this convention “to any treaty that is a constituent act of an international organization.” On the other hand, Art. 53 of this Convention declares a treaty void if, at the time of conclusion, it contradicts a peremptory norm of general international law. International organizations are obliged, in particular, to adhere to the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of the state, sovereign equality members, faithful fulfillment of international obligations.

Each international organization has inherent contractual legal capacity, the specifics and scope of which are determined by its charter.

In the modern period, the most famous international organizations are the United Nations (UN), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). International Labor Organization (ILO), World organization health (WHO), Organization of African Unity (OAU), Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and others.

In a number of cases, succession of international organizations is carried out, in which, in order to maintain the continuity of functions, certain powers are transferred from a defunct organization to a newly established organization by states. Thus, the UN was the successor to the rights and obligations of the League of Nations under a number of international treaties.

International law recognizes the responsibility of international organizations in the event of their violation of generally recognized international legal principles and norms and the international treaties they have concluded and the provisions of their constituent acts.

International legal status of individuals

Of particular interest today is the assessment of the international legal status of individuals (natural persons).

In the discussion taking place in Russian literature, we proceed from the fact that previous ideas about the inapplicability of the features of international legal personality to individuals are not entirely consistent with current state international legal regulation and real legal relations, and adhere to the concept of recognizing the independent international legal status of an individual, indicating his specific international legal personality.

The references of those who deny the international legal status of individuals to the small number of individual relations based on international legal norms, compared to the state, cannot be considered convincing. In principle, the legal ability itself to have and exercise rights and obligations is important, and the quantitative indicator characterizes the actual state, but not the legal ability.

The number of agreements is increasing, the content of which relates to ensuring human rights in such areas as civil, family, labor and similar legal relations, legal relations in connection with the provision of legal assistance, in the field of education, taxation, social security, as well as legal relations guaranteeing the protection of victims wars during armed conflicts. Thus, agreements on legal assistance in civil, family matters specifically define the powers of individuals. Treaties on the avoidance (elimination) of double taxation of income and property note that they apply to persons, the list of which is specified here. The Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War and their Additional Protocols expressly state their application to all persons protected by these instruments.

Direct legal relations with the participation of individuals international level are provided for in treaty acts that secure and regulate the right of an individual to appeal to interstate bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms (Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with Protocol No. 11 and a number of others). A similar personal right is recorded in Part 3 of Art. 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Some political-territorial entities also enjoy international legal status. Among them were the so-called. "free cities", West Berlin. This category of entities includes the Vatican and the Order of Malta. Since these entities most resemble mini-states and have almost all the characteristics of a state, they are called “state-like formations.”

The legal capacity of free cities was determined by relevant international treaties. Thus, according to the provisions of the Vienna Treaty of 1815, Krakow (1815-1846) was declared a free city. According to the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919, Danzig (1920-1939) enjoyed the status of a “free state”, and in accordance with the peace treaty with Italy of 1947, the creation of the Free Territory of Trieste was envisaged, which, however, was never created.

Special status, provided by the 1971 West Berlin Quadripartite Agreement, was enjoyed by West Berlin (1971-1990). In accordance with this agreement, the western sectors of Berlin were united into a special political entity with their own authorities (Senate, prosecutor's office, court, etc.), to which some powers were transferred, for example, the publication of regulations. A number of powers were exercised by the allied authorities of the victorious powers. The interests of the population of West Berlin in international relations were represented and protected by German consular officials.

The Vatican is a city state located within the capital of Italy - Rome. Here is the residence of the head of the Catholic Church - the Pope. The legal status of the Vatican is determined by the Lateran Agreements, signed between the Italian state and the Holy See on February 11, 1929, which are basically still in force today. In accordance with this document, the Vatican enjoys certain sovereign rights: it has its own territory, legislation, citizenship, etc. The Vatican actively participates in international relations, establishes permanent missions in other states (the Vatican also has a representative office in Russia), headed by papal nuncios (ambassadors), participates in international organizations, conferences, signs international treaties, etc.

The Order of Malta is a religious formation with its administrative center in Rome. The Order of Malta actively participates in international relations, concludes treaties, exchanges representations with states, and has observer missions to the UN, UNESCO and a number of other international organizations *.

International legal status of the subjects of the federation



In international practice, as well as foreign international legal doctrine, it is recognized that the subjects of some federations are independent states, whose sovereignty is limited by joining the federation. The subjects of the federation are recognized as having the right to act in international relations within the framework established by federal legislation.

The German Constitution, for example, provides that the states, with the consent of the federal government, can enter into treaties with foreign states. Norms of similar content are enshrined in the law of some other federal states. Currently, the states of the Federal Republic of Germany, the provinces of Canada, the states of the USA, the states of Australia and other entities, which in this regard are recognized as subjects of international law, are actively participating in international relations.

The international activities of the subjects of foreign federations are developing in the following main directions: concluding international agreements; opening representative offices in other countries; participation in the activities of some international organizations.

The question arises: are there any rules in international law on the international legal personality of the subjects of the federation?

As is known, the most important element of international legal personality is contractual legal capacity. It represents the right to directly participate in the creation of international legal norms and is inherent in any subject of international law from the moment of its emergence.

Issues of conclusion, execution and termination of treaties by states are regulated primarily by the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties of 1969. Neither the 1969 Convention nor other international documents provide for the possibility of independent conclusion of international treaties by constituent entities of the federation.

Generally speaking, international law does not contain a ban on the establishment of contractual relations between states and subjects of federations and subjects among themselves. However, international law does not classify these agreements as international treaties, just as contracts between a state and a large foreign enterprise do not. In order to be a subject of the law of international treaties, it is not enough to be a party to one or another international agreement. It is also necessary to have the legal capacity to conclude international treaties.

The question arises about the international legal status of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

International legal status of the subjects of the Russian Federation

As is known, the Constitution of the USSR of 1977 recognized the Union republics as subjects of international law. Ukraine and Belarus were members of the UN , participated in many international treaties. Less active participants in international relations were other union republics, whose constitutions provided for the possibility of concluding international treaties and exchanging representations with foreign states. With the collapse of the USSR, the former Soviet republics acquired full international legal personality, and the problem of their status as independent subjects of international law disappeared.

However, the processes of sovereignization that engulfed the newly independent states raised the question of the legal personality of the former national-state (autonomous republics) and administrative-territorial (regions, territories) entities. This problem acquired particular significance with the adoption of the new Constitution of the Russian Federation in 1993 and the conclusion of the Federal Treaty. Today, some constituent entities of the Russian Federation declared their international legal personality.

Subjects of the Russian Federation are trying to act independently in international relations, enter into agreements with subjects of foreign federations and administrative-territorial units, exchange representations with them and enshrine the corresponding provisions in their legislation. The Charter of the Voronezh Region of 1995, for example, recognizes that organizational and legal forms international relations areas are forms generally accepted in international practice, with the exception of treaties (agreements) interstate level. Taking part in international and foreign economic relations independently or with other constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the Voronezh region opens representative offices on the territory of foreign states to represent the interests of the region, which operate in accordance with the legislation of the host country.

The regulations of some constituent entities of the Russian Federation provide for the possibility of them concluding international treaties on their own behalf. Yes, Art. 8 of the 1995 Charter of the Voronezh Region establishes that international treaties of the Voronezh Region are part of the legal system of the region. Norms of similar content are fixed in Art. 6 of the Charter of the Sverdlovsk Region 1994, Art. 45 of the Charter (Basic Law) of the Stavropol Territory 1994, art. 20 of the Charter of the Irkutsk Region of 1995 and other charters of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as in the constitutions of the republics (Article 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Tatarstan).

Moreover, some constituent entities of the Russian Federation have adopted regulations governing the procedure for concluding, executing and terminating contracts, for example, the law of the Tyumen region “On international agreements of the Tyumen region and agreements of the Tyumen region with constituent entities of the Russian Federation” was adopted in 1995. The law of the Voronezh region “On legal regulatory acts of the Voronezh region" 1995 establishes (Article 17) that the authorities state power regions have the right to conclude agreements, which are normative legal acts, with government bodies of the Russian Federation, with constituent entities of the Russian Federation, with foreign states on issues of common, mutual interest.

However, statements by subjects of the Russian Federation about their international contractual legal capacity do not yet mean, in my deep conviction, the presence of this legal quality in reality. An analysis of the relevant legislation is required.

Federal legislation does not yet address this issue.

According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation (clause “o”, part 1, article 72), coordination of international and foreign economic relations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is the joint responsibility of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Federation. However, the Constitution does not directly speak about the possibility of constituent entities of the Russian Federation to enter into agreements that would be international treaties. The Federative Treaty does not contain such norms.

Federal law“On International Treaties of the Russian Federation” of 1995 also places the conclusion of international treaties of the Russian Federation under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. It has been established that international treaties of the Russian Federation affecting issues within the jurisdiction of the constituent entities of the Federation are concluded in agreement with the relevant bodies of the constituent entities. At the same time, the main provisions of agreements affecting issues of joint jurisdiction must be sent for proposals to the relevant bodies of the subject of the federation, which, however, do not have the right to veto the conclusion of an agreement. The 1995 law says nothing about agreements between the subjects of the Federation.

It should also be taken into account that neither the Constitution of the Russian Federation nor the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation” of July 21, 1994 establishes rules on verifying the constitutionality of international treaties of the constituent entities of the Federation, although such a procedure is provided for in relation to international treaties of the Russian Federation.

Regarding the practice of exchanging representations with entities foreign federations, then this quality is not the main one in the characteristics of international legal personality, however, we note that neither the Constitution nor the legislation of the Russian Federation has yet regulated this issue. These representative offices are not opened on the basis of reciprocity and are accredited with any government authority of a subject of a foreign federation or territorial unit. These bodies, being foreign legal entities, do not have the status of diplomatic or consular missions and are not subject to the provisions of the relevant conventions on diplomatic and consular relations.

The same can be said about the membership of constituent entities of the Russian Federation in international organizations. It is known that the statutes of some international organizations (UNESCO, WHO, etc.) allow membership in them of entities that are not independent states. However, firstly, membership in these organizations of subjects of the Russian Federation has not yet been formalized, and, secondly, this feature, as already mentioned, is far from the most important in the characteristics of subjects of international law.

Considering the above, we can draw the following conclusion:

Although at present the subjects of the Russian Federation do not fully possess all the elements of international legal personality, the tendency for the development of their legal personality and their registration as subjects of international law is obvious. In my opinion, this issue requires resolution in federal legislation.