Normative consolidation of the principle of sovereign equality of states. International law. The principle of respect for human rights
PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGN EQUALITY OF STATES - generally recognized, meaning that all states are legally equal among themselves as sovereign, independent participants in international communication, generally enjoy the same rights and bear equal, despite the difference in their economic, social and political systems. P. s.r.g. formed in international law during the transition from feudalism to capitalism. However, its final approval in its modern form took place only by the middle of the 20th century. In paragraph 1 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter states that the UN is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its members.
The Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States in accordance with the UN Charter of 1970 defines the concept of sovereign equality, which includes the following elements: 1) States are legally equal; 2) each enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty; 3) each state is obliged to respect other states; 4) the territorial integrity and political independence of the state are inviolable; 5) each state has the freedom to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems; 6) each state must fully and conscientiously fulfill its international obligations and live in peace with other states. The formal legal status of states does not mean their actual equality with regard to, in particular, their territory, population, economic and military power, political influence in the system of international relations, etc. P.s.r.g. assumes that all states have, by virtue of their sovereignty, the same legal capacity and are equally obliged to strictly observe the generally recognized norms of international law. The equality of states means the right of each state to take part on an equal footing with other states in resolving all international issues affecting the lawful of this state, the equality of votes of all states in decision-making at international conferences and in international organizations, participation on an equal basis in the creation of international law. P.s.r.g. suggests the same. equality of all peoples and nations, regardless of their size, race, language, religion, level of cultural and economic development, etc.
Economics and law: a dictionary-reference book. - M.: University and school. L. P. Kurakov, V. L. Kurakov, A. L. Kurakov. 2004 .
See what the "PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGN EQUALITY OF STATES" is in other dictionaries:
PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGN EQUALITY OF STATES- a generally recognized principle of international law, which means that all states are legally equal among themselves as sovereign, independent participants in international communication, generally enjoy the same rights and bear equal obligations, ... ... Legal Encyclopedia
- (see PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGN EQUALITY OF STATES) ...
PRINCIPLE OF PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES Legal Encyclopedia
THE PRINCIPLE OF REMUTIABILITY- the principle of international, in particular, commercial law, arising from the more general principle of the sovereign equality of states. In accordance with P.v. states grant each other equal rights on their territory and bear equal ... ... Legal Encyclopedia
The principle of international, in particular commercial, law, arising from the more general principle of the sovereign equality of states. In accordance with P.v. states grant each other equal rights on their territory and bear equal ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Economics and Law
One of the fundamental principles of international law, according to which states are obliged to settle their disputes by resorting to peaceful means of resolving international disputes and in a manner that does not endanger ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Economics and Law
THE PRINCIPLE OF FAIR IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS Legal Encyclopedia
One of the fundamental imperative principles of modern international law. It arose in the form of the international legal custom pacta sunt servanda in the early stages of the development of statehood, and is currently reflected in ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Economics and Law
Organization of American States- (OAS; Spanish Organización de los Estados Americanos, English Organization of American States), a regional international organization that unites the countries of Latin America, the Caribbean and the United States. Created April 30, 1948 at the 9th Inter-American ... ... Encyclopedic reference book "Latin America"
It is the starting point of international law, combines two important properties: sovereignty and equality with other states. This principle assumes that states are legally equal, enjoy the rights inherent in full sovereignty, are obliged to respect the legal personality of other states; the territorial integrity and political independence of states are inviolable, each state has the right to freely choose its political, economic and social systems, each state is obliged to fully and voluntarily fulfill its international obligations.
2. Principle of non-use of force or threat of force. Every state is obliged to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of other states.
3. The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. No state or group of states has the right to interfere directly or indirectly in the internal or external affairs of other states. No state has the right to promote or encourage such measures that are aimed at subordinating one state to another state.
4. The principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes. According to this principle, states are obliged to resolve disputes arising between them exclusively by peaceful means, so as not to endanger peace and international security.
5. The principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations.
6. The principle of international cooperation of states. States are obliged, regardless of differences in their political and economic systems, to cooperate with each other in order to maintain international peace and security, to promote economic progress in the world.
7. The principle of equality and self-determination of peoples. All peoples have the right to freely determine their political status, to carry out their economic and cultural development, to freely decide on the creation of their own state.
8. The principle of territorial integrity of states. States must renounce the forcible dismemberment of the territory of other states, the separation of any of its parts, as well as the right of each state to freely dispose of its territory.
9. The principle of inviolability of state borders. States must renounce any territorial claims and accept the existing territorial distribution in the world.
10. The principle of respect for human rights and freedoms.
International law system is a set of interrelated principles and norms governing international legal relations.
The system of international law includes, on the one hand, general legal principles and legal norms, on the other hand, industries as homogeneous sets of norms and intra-industry institutions.
Thus, the system of international law can be divided into the following categories:
1) generally recognized principles of international law, which form its core and are of fundamental importance for the international legal mechanism for regulating relations;
2) norms of international law, which are generally binding rules of relations between states or other subjects of international law;
3) institutions common to international law, which are complexes of norms of a certain functional purpose. Institute of International Law on international legal personality, on international law-making, on international responsibility, on the succession of states;
4) branches of international law, which are the largest structural units of the system of international law and regulate the most extensive areas of public relations.
Branches of international law can be classified on various grounds.. Branches in international law can be distinguished both on the grounds accepted in domestic law, and on specific grounds of an international legal nature. The generally recognized branches of international law include the law of international treaties, the law of external relations, the law of international organizations, the law of international security, international maritime law, international space law, international environmental law, and international humanitarian law.
The branch of international law may include sub-branches if the industry regulates a wide range of relations, the institutions of this industry, which are mini-complexes for the regulation of any individual issues.
Sub-sectors in the law of international relations are consular and diplomatic law, the institutions of this branch of law are the institutions for the formation of representative offices, the functions of representative offices, the immunities and privileges of diplomatic missions, in the law of armed conflicts - a group of norms regulating the regimes of military occupation, military captivity.
From the above, it follows that system of international law is a set of interrelated elements, generally recognized principles, legal norms, as well as institutions of international law.
A different combination of these elements forms branches of international law.
International law and domestic law do not exist in isolation from each other. Rule-making activities in international law are influenced by national legal systems. International law, in turn, influences domestic law. In some countries, international law is an integral part of national legislation. So, according to part 4 of Art. 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation "generally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation are an integral part of its legal system." The laws of many states establish that in case of discrepancy between the provisions of the law and international obligations, international obligations shall prevail.
Similar information.
This principle forms the basis of the international legal order, its goal is to make all states legally equal participants in international communication, having the same rights and obligations.
Each state must respect the sovereignty of another state. Sovereignty is the right of the state, without any interference within its own territory, to exercise legislative, executive and judicial power, as well as independently pursue its foreign policy. Thus, sovereignty has two components: internal (independent exercise of power on its territory) and external (independent foreign policy). The internal component of sovereignty is protected by the principle of non-interference in internal affairs.
According to the 1970 Declaration concept of sovereign equality includes the following elements:
All states are legally equal;
Each state enjoys the rights inherent in
full sovereignty; every state is obliged to respect the legal personality
ness of other states;
Territorial integrity and political independence
the dependence of the state is inviolable;
Every state has the right to freely choose
and develop their political, social, economic
skye and cultural systems;
Every state has an obligation to fulfill in good faith
their international obligations and live in peace with others
our states.
The state has the right to be or not to be a party to international treaties and international organizations, and also, according to the 1970 Declaration and the 1975 CSCE Final Act, a sovereign state must respect the positions and views, internal laws of another state. When a state transfers part of its powers to international organizations it creates, it does not limit its sovereignty, but only exercises one of the sovereign rights - the right to create and participate in the activities of international organizations.
Principle of non-use of force and threat of force
According to paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter, "All states shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
In addition to the UN Charter and the 1970 Declaration, the principle of the non-use of force and the threat of force is enshrined in the Declaration on Enhancing the Effectiveness of Renunciation of the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations of 1987, the statutes of the Tokyo and Nuremberg Tribunals.
The UN Charter provides for two instances of the lawful use of armed force:
In self-defence, if there was an armed
attack on the state (art. 51);
By decision of the UN Security Council in the event of a threat
call for peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression (art. 42).
The normative content of the principle of non-use of force and threat of force includes: prohibition of the occupation of the territory of another state in violation of international law; the prohibition of acts of reprisals involving the use of force; granting by a state of its territory to another state that uses it to commit aggression against a third state; organizing, inciting, assisting or participating in acts of civil war or terrorist acts in another state; organizing or encouraging the organization of armed bands, irregular forces, in particular mercenaries, to invade the territory of another state; violent actions against international demarcation lines and truce lines; blockade of ports, coasts of the state; violent acts preventing peoples from exercising their right to self-determination, and other violent acts.
The principle of territorial integrity of states
The principle of the territorial integrity of states is designed to ensure stability in interstate relations, to protect the territory of the state from any encroachment. It is enshrined in the UN Charter, in the 1970 Declaration, which obliges states "to refrain from any action aimed at violating the national unity and territorial integrity of any other state."
The Declaration of 1970 and the Final Act of the CSCE of 1975 supplement the above-mentioned provisions with a ban on turning the territory of a state into an object of military occupation. Territory should also not be the object of acquisition by another state as a result of the use of force or the threat of force. Such acquisitions should not be recognized as legal, which does not mean that all conquests of foreign territories that took place before the adoption of the UN Charter are illegal.
The principle of universal respect for human rights in modern international law
The principle of universal respect for human rights in modern international law occupies a special place, since its very assertion has changed the concept of international law, giving the international community the opportunity to control the observance of human rights in a separate state and the implementation of the sovereign power of the state in relation to the population living on its territory.
The legal content of the principle is enshrined in the following documents: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948;
Human Rights Covenants 1966;
Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989;
Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide
and punishment for him in 1948;
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Dissent
crimes in 1966;
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination in
against women in 1979, as well as numerous international
international treaties and charters of international organizations
tions, in particular the CSCE-OSCE. The most regulated
we have the rights and obligations of states to comply with the principles
on universal respect for human rights in today's international
international law in Final document of the Vienna meeting
1989 and the Outcome Document of the 1990 Copenhagen Meeting.
In case of violation of their fundamental rights, an individual can seek help not only from national courts, but also, in some cases, from international bodies. Human rights committees and commissions have been set up to protect this principle.
A characteristic feature of the principle is that both states and individuals are responsible for its violation.
The principle of cooperation
The principle of cooperation is as follows:
1) states are obliged to cooperate with each other in order to
for the maintenance of international peace;
2) the cooperation of states should not depend on the times
personalities in their social systems;
3) states must cooperate in the matter of economy
economic growth around the world and help developing
countries.
The principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations
At the heart of this principle lies the norm of rasta]ipg zeguapea, which has been known since ancient times (meaning that agreements must be respected). Article 2 of the UN Charter speaks of the obligation of UN members to comply with their obligations. This principle was enshrined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the 1970 Declaration, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the CSCE and other documents.
14. The concept of subjects of international public law.
The subjects of international law are the bearers of international rights and obligations arising from international treaties and international customs. This property is called legal personality.
Any subject of international law has legal capacity, capacity to act and tortiousness.
The legal capacity of a subject of international law means his ability to have legal rights and obligations.
The legal capacity of a subject of international law is the acquisition and exercise by the subject independently, by his actions of rights and obligations. Subjects of international law bear independent responsibility for their actions, i.e. have tortiousness.
The following can be distinguished signs of subjects of international law:
1) the ability to act independently, to
dependent exercise of international rights and is obliged
news;
2) the fact of participation or the possibility of participation in international
native legal relations;
3) participation status, i.e. specific nature of participation
in international legal relations.
Subject of modern international law- it is a real or potential subject of international legal relations, possessing international rights and obligations, certain norms of international law and capable of bearing international legal responsibility.
Types of subjects of international law:
1) a state with sovereignty;
2) nations and peoples fighting for independence;
3) international universal organizations;
4) state-like organizations.
15. State as a subject of international public law
States are the original and main subjects of international law, which determined its emergence and development. The state, unlike other subjects of international law, has a universal legal personality that does not depend on the will of other subjects. Even an unrecognized state has the right to defend its territorial integrity and independence, to govern the population on its territory.
The first attempt to codify the international legal features of the state was made in the 1933 Inter-American Convention on the Rights and Duties of the State.
State features are:
Sovereignty;
Territory;
Population;
The decisive role of states is explained by their sovereignty - the ability to independently carry out foreign policy in the international arena and power over the population of their territory. This implies the equal legal personality of all states.
The state is a subject of international law since its inception. Its legal personality is not limited by time and the largest in scope. States can conclude treaties on any subject and at their own discretion. They develop the norms of international law, contributing to their progressive development, ensure their implementation and terminate these norms.
States create new subjects of international law (international organizations). They determine the content of the object of international legal regulation, contributing to its expansion by including issues that previously belonged to their internal competence (for example, human rights).
16. Legal personality of peoples and nations.
A nation, or people (a general term referring to a multinational population), is a relatively new subject of international law, recognized as a result of the principle of self-determination of peoples enshrined in the UN Charter. The people's right to self-determination means, according to the 1970 Declaration, the right to freely, without any outside interference, determine their political status and carry out economic, social and cultural development.
Political status is understood as either the creation of a state if the nation did not have one, or the accession or unification with another state. If there is a state within the framework of a federation or confederation, the nation can withdraw from their composition.
Not all nations and peoples can be recognized as subjects of international law, but only those of them that are really fighting for their independence and have created authorities and administrations that are able to represent the interests of the entire nation, people in international relations.
Thus, the legal personality of the nation is closely connected with the achievement of self-determination of the state. It manifests itself in the conclusion of agreements with other states on assistance, participation in the activities of international organizations as an observer.
17. Legal personality of international organizations.
International intergovernmental organizations are derivative subjects of international law. They are called derivative entities because they are created by states by concluding an agreement - a constituent act, which is the charter of the organization. The scope of legal personality, as well as its provision, depends on the will of the founding states and is enshrined in the charter of an international organization. Therefore, the scope of legal personality of international organizations is not the same, it is determined by the constituent documents of the international organization. The United Nations has the largest amount of legal personality. Its members are 185 states. The Republic of Belarus is one of the 50 founding states of the UN, having signed its Charter at the San Francisco Conference in 1945.
The legitimacy of any international organization is determined by the conformity of its statutory principles with the principles of the UN Charter. In the event of a conflict between the state's international obligations under the UN Charter, priority is given to the UN Charter.
The legal personality of an international organization exists regardless of the will of the member states, even if its constituent documents do not explicitly state that an international organization has legal personality, and a special one at that, i.e. limited by the goals of the organization and its charter.
As a subject of international law, any international intergovernmental organization has the right to conclude agreements, but only on issues stipulated by the UN Charter, to have representation in member states (for example, the UN office in the Republic of Belarus).
Thus, an international (interstate) organization is an association of states created on the basis of an international treaty to fulfill certain goals, having an appropriate system of bodies, having rights and obligations that are different from the rights and obligations of member states, and established in accordance with international law.
18. Legal personality of state-like entities.
State-like formations are endowed with a certain amount of rights and obligations, act as participants in international communication, and have sovereignty.
Examples of state-like entities include free cities (Jerusalem, Danzig, West Berlin), whose status was determined by an international agreement or a resolution of the UN General Assembly (for Jerusalem). Such cities had the right to conclude international treaties and were subject only to international law. These subjects were characterized by demilitarization and neutralization.
The Vatican, established on the basis of the Lateran Treaty in 1929, is a state-like entity. It participates in a number of international organizations and conferences and is headed by the head of the Catholic Church, the Pope.
19. International legal personality of individuals
The problem of recognizing an individual as a subject of international law is debatable, in many ways controversial. Some authors deny the legal personality of an individual, while others recognize for him certain qualities of a subject of international law.
Thus, A. Ferdross (Austria) believes that “individuals, in principle, are not subjects of international law, since international law protects the interests of individuals, however, it gives rights and obligations not directly to individuals, but only to the state of which they are citizens” 2 . Other experts believe that an individual can only be a subject of international legal relations. “Individuals, being under the rule of the state, do not act in the international arena on their own behalf as subjects of international law,” writes V. M. Shurshalov. “All international treaties and agreements on the protection of the individual, fundamental human rights and freedoms are concluded by states, and therefore specific the rights and obligations arising from these agreements are for States, not for individuals. Individuals are under the protection of their state, and those norms of international law that are aimed at protecting fundamental human rights and freedoms are mainly implemented through states” 1 . In his opinion, according to the current norms of international law, an individual sometimes acts as a subject of specific legal relations, although he is not a subject of international law 2 .
As early as the beginning of the 20th century. approximately the same position was held by F. F. Marten. Separate individuals, he wrote, are not subjects of international law, but have certain rights in the field of international relations, which follow from: 1) the human person, taken by itself; 2) the status of these persons as citizens of the state 3 .
The authors of the seven-volume "Course of International Law" refer the individual to the second category of subjects of international law. In their opinion, individuals, “having a certain rather limited range of rights and obligations under international law, do not themselves directly participate in the process of creating norms of international law” 4 .
The English international lawyer J. Brownlie takes a controversial position on this issue. On the one hand, he rightly believes that there is a general rule according to which an individual cannot be a subject of international law, and in certain contexts an individual acts as a subject of law in the international plane. However, according to J. Brownlie, “it would be useless to classify an individual as a subject of international law, since this would imply that he has rights that do not actually exist, and would not eliminate the need to distinguish between an individual and other types of subjects of international rights" 5 .
A more balanced position is taken by E. Arechaga (Uruguay), according to whom, “there is nothing in the very structure of the international legal order that could prevent states from granting individuals certain rights arising directly from any international treaty, or providing for them any then international remedies” 1 .
L. Oppenheim noted back in 1947 that “although states are normal subjects of international law, they can consider individuals and other persons as directly endowed with international rights and obligations and, within these limits, make them subjects of international law.” Further, he clarifies his opinion as follows: “The persons involved in piracy were subject to the rules established primarily not by the domestic law of various states, but by international law” 2 .
Japanese professor Sh. Oda believes that “after the First World War, a new concept was formulated, according to which individuals can be liable for violations against international peace and law and order, and they can be prosecuted and punished according to the international procedure” 3 .
Oxford University professor Antonio Cassis believes that, in accordance with modern international law, individuals have an international legal status. Individuals have limited legal personality (in this sense, they can be put on a par with other, apart from states, subjects of international law: rebels, international organizations and national liberation movements) 4 .
Of the Russian international lawyers, the most consistent opponent of the recognition of the legal personality of an individual is S. V. Chernichenko. The individual "does not and cannot possess any element of international legal personality", he believes 5 . According to S.V. Chernichenko, an individual “cannot be “introduced into the rank” of subjects of international law by concluding agreements that allow direct appeals of individuals to international bodies” 6 As noted above (§ 1 of this chapter), subjects of international law must: first, to be real (active, acting) participants in international relations; secondly, to have international rights and obligations; thirdly, to participate in the creation of norms of international law; fourthly, to have the authority to ensure the implementation of international law.
Currently, the rights and obligations of individuals or states in relation to individuals are enshrined in many international treaties. The most important of these are the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 1949; Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 1949; Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949; Charter of the International Military Tribunal 1945; Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948; Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948; Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, 1956; Convention on the Political Rights of Women, 1952; Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984; numerous conventions endorsed by the ILO 1 . For example, Art. 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 states: "Everyone, wherever he may be, has the right to recognition of his legal personality."
From regional treaties, we note the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 and 11 protocols to it; CIS Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1995. There are similar conventions in other regions of the world.
These treaties establish the rights and obligations of individuals as participants in international legal relations, provide an individual with the right to appeal to international judicial institutions with a complaint against the actions of subjects of international law, determine the legal status of certain categories of individuals (refugees, women, children, migrants, national minorities, etc.). .).
The international rights of individuals, arising from the generally recognized principles and norms of international law, are enshrined in about 20 multilateral and a number of bilateral treaties.
For example, according to Art. 4 of the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery of 1956, a slave who has taken refuge on a ship of a state participating in this Convention, 1p50 GASH becomes free. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 recognizes the right of every person to: a) participation in cultural life; b) use of the results of scientific progress and their practical application; c) enjoying the protection of moral and material interests arising in connection with any scientific, literary or artistic works of which he is the author.
In accordance with Art. 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, the right to life is the inalienable right of every person. This right is protected by law. No one can be arbitrarily deprived of life. Thus, in this article, international law guarantees the individual the right to life. Article 9 of the Covenant guarantees the individual the right to liberty and security of person. Anyone who has been a victim of unlawful arrest or detention is entitled to enforceable compensation. According to Art. 16 Every person, wherever he may be, has the right to recognition of his legal personality.
The 1995 CIS Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states: “Every person, wherever he is, has the right to recognition of his legal personality” (Article 23).
The International Court of Justice, in its decision of June 27, 2001 in the case of the Lagrand brothers v. USA, noted that the violation of Art. 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Agreements of 1963 by the United States constitutes a violation of the individual rights of the Lagrand brothers 1 .
The Russian Federation recognizes and guarantees the rights and freedoms of man and citizen in accordance with generally recognized principles and norms of international law(Article 17 of the Constitution).
The question of the legal personality of individuals is enshrined in bilateral treaties of the Russian Federation. For example, in Art. Article 11 of the 1993 Treaty of Friendly Relations and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and Mongolia states that the parties will do their best to expand contacts between the citizens of both states. Approximately the same rate
enshrined in the Treaty of Friendly Relations and Cooperation between the RSFSR and the Republic of Hungary in 1991
1. International responsibility of individuals. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal of 1945 recognizes the individual as the subject of international legal responsibility. According to Art. 6 leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices who participated in the formulation or implementation of a general plan or conspiracy aimed at committing crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity, are responsible for all actions committed by any persons with a view to the implementation of such a plan. The official position of the defendants, their position as heads of state or responsible officials of various government departments should not be considered as grounds for exemption from liability or mitigation of punishment (Article 7). The fact that the defendant acted at the behest of the government or the order of his superior does not relieve him of liability (art. 8).
According to the 1968 War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Convention, in the event of the commission of any crime, namely war crimes and crimes against humanity, whether or not they were committed in time of war or in peacetime, as defined in the Charter of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, no statute of limitations applies.
The subjects of liability are representatives of public authorities and private individuals who act as perpetrators of these crimes or accomplices in such crimes or directly incite others to commit such crimes or participate in a conspiracy to commit such crimes, regardless of their degree of completion, as well as representatives of state authorities allowing them to be committed (art. 2).
The Convention obliges States parties to take all necessary domestic measures, legislative or otherwise, aimed at in accordance with international law create all conditions for the extradition of persons referred to in Art. 2 of this Convention.
The individual is subject to international legal responsibility, and under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, persons who commit genocide or any other acts (for example, complicity in genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide) are punished regardless of whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, officials or private individuals Persons accused of committing genocide and other such acts should be tried by the competent court of the state in whose territory the act was committed, or by an international criminal court. Such a court may be established by the States Parties to the Convention or the UN.
2. Giving an individual the right to appeal to an international
other judicial institutions. According to Art. 25 European Convention
on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, any person or
a group of persons has the right to send a petition to the European Commission
on human rights. Such a petition must contain persuasive
evidence that these individuals are victims of violations
respective State party to the Convention of their
rights. Applications shall be deposited with the Secretary General
Council of Europe 1 . The Commission may consider the case
niyu only after, in accordance with generally recognized
international law exhausted all internal
means of protection and only within six months from the date of adoption
final internal decision.
According to Art. 190 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, an individual has the right to sue a state party to the Convention and demand that the case be heard by the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
The individual's right to appeal to international judicial bodies is recognized in the constitutions of many states. In particular, paragraph 3 of Art. 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states: everyone has the right, in accordance with the international treaties of the Russian Federation, to apply to international bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms, if all available domestic remedies have been exhausted (art. 46).
3. Determination of the legal status of certain categories of individuals
dov. According to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, personal
The status of a refugee is determined by the laws of the country of his domicile or,
if he does not have one, the laws of his country of residence. Kon
venice secures the right of refugees to work for hire, the choice
professions, freedom of movement, etc.
The 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families states that every migrant worker and every family member everywhere has the right to recognition of his legal personality. This, of course, is primarily about the recognition of international legal personality, since according to Art. 35 of the Convention, states must not interfere with the international migration of workers and members of their families.
International law also determines the legal status of a married woman, a child, and other categories of individuals.
The above examples give grounds to assume that states, for a number of problems (even a few), endow individuals with the qualities of international legal personality. The volume of such legal personality, no doubt, will grow and expand, because each historical epoch gives rise to its own subject of international law.
For a long time, only states were the only full-fledged subjects of international law. In the XX century. new subjects - intergovernmental organizations, as well as nations and peoples fighting for their independence. In the 21st century the scope of the legal personality of individuals will be expanded, the legal personality of other collective entities (for example, international non-governmental entities, transnational corporations, church associations) will be recognized.
Opponents of recognizing an individual as a subject of international law as the main argument in support of their position refer to the fact that individuals cannot conclude international public law treaties and thus cannot participate in the creation of international law norms. Indeed, this is a fact. But in any area of law, its subjects have inadequate rights and obligations. For example, in international law, treaty capacity is fully inherent only in sovereign states. Other entities - intergovernmental organizations, state-like entities, and nations and peoples fighting for independence - have limited contractual capacity.
As Prince E.N. Trubetskoy noted, anyone who is able to have rights is called a subject of law, regardless of whether he actually uses them or not 1 .
Individuals have international rights and obligations, as well as the ability to ensure (for example, through international judicial bodies) that the subjects of international law comply with international legal norms. This is quite enough to recognize in an individual the qualities of a subject of international law
20. The concept of recognition And its legal consequences.
International legal recognition- it is a unilateral voluntary act of the state in which it states that it recognizes the emergence of a new subject and intends to maintain official relations with it.
The history of international relations knows cases of immediate recognition of new states and governments, as well as stubborn refusals to recognize it. For example, the United States was recognized in the 18th century. France at a time when they had not yet completely freed themselves from dependence on England. The Republic of Panama was recognized by the United States in 1903 literally two weeks after its formation. The Soviet government was recognized by the United States only in 1933, that is, 16 years after its formation.
Recognition usually takes the form of a state or group of states addressing the government of the emerging state and declaring the extent and nature of its relationship with the newly emerged state. Such a statement, as a rule, is accompanied by an expression of a desire to establish diplomatic relations with the recognized state and to exchange representations. For example, in a telegram from the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR to the Prime Minister of Kenya dated December 11, 1963, it was noted that the Soviet government “solemnly declares its recognition of Kenya as an independent and sovereign state and expresses its readiness to establish diplomatic relations with it and exchange diplomatic representations at the level of embassies ".
In principle, a declaration of the establishment of diplomatic relations is the classical form of recognition of a state, even if the proposal for the establishment of such relations does not contain a declaration of official recognition.
Recognition does not create a new subject of international law. It can be complete, final and official. This kind of recognition is called the recognition of her ^re. An inconclusive confession is called ye gasto.
Confession be Gaso (actual) takes place in those cases when the recognizing state does not have confidence in the strength of the recognized subject of international law, and also when he (the subject) considers himself a temporary entity. This type of recognition can be implemented, for example, through the participation of recognized entities in international conferences, multilateral treaties, international organizations. For example, there are states in the UN that do not recognize each other, but this does not prevent them from participating normally in its work. As a rule, the recognition of s!e Gasto does not entail the establishment of diplomatic relations. Trade, financial and other relations are established between the states, but there is no exchange of diplomatic missions.
Since the recognition of an unemployed is temporary, it may be withdrawn if the missing conditions required for recognition are not met. The withdrawal of recognition takes place when recognizing ye. ("the yoke of a rival government that managed to win a strong position, or when recognizing the sovereignty of a state that has annexed another state. For example, Great Britain took back in 1938 the recognition of Ethiopia (Abyssinia) as an independent state in connection with the recognition<1е ]иге аннексию этой страны Италией.
Confession ye dogge (official) is expressed in official acts, for example, in resolutions of intergovernmental organizations, final documents of international conferences, in government statements, in joint communiqués of states, etc. This type of recognition is realized, as a rule, by establishing diplomatic relations, concluding agreements on political , economic, cultural and other issues.
The maintenance of international law and order can only be ensured with full respect for the legal equality of participants. This means that each state is obliged to respect the sovereignty of other participants in the system, that is, their right to exercise legislative, executive, administrative and judicial power within their own territory without any interference from other states, as well as independently pursue their foreign policy. The sovereign equality of states is 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 overwhelming 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, their gradual democratization led to the expansion of the content of the principle of the sovereign equality of states. In modern international law, it is most fully reflected in the Declaration on the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation between states in accordance 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 economic, social, political or other differences. Since states are equal participants in international communication, they all have fundamentally the same rights and obligations.
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 its political, social, economic and cultural systems;
- f) every state is obliged to fulfill fully and in good faith its international obligations and to 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, domestic laws and administrative rules, the right to determine and exercise, at their own discretion and in accordance with international law, relations with other states. Among the elements of the principle of sovereign equality is 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.
An indication of the relationship between the principle of sovereign equality and respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty simultaneously concretizes and expands the content of this principle, which underlies international cooperation. The noted connection is especially clearly manifested 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 has been 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. One example of this is the special legal status of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
There are assertions that normal international relations are impossible without limiting sovereignty. Meanwhile, sovereignty is an inalienable 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 norms of international law they have created 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, 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 in connection with the increase in the number of global problems, the expansion of areas of international cooperation and, accordingly, the increase in the number of objects of international legal regulation. In a number of international organizations, the founding states have moved away from formal voting equality (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 budget of the organization 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, the states have an unequal number of votes, and the small EU member states have repeatedly and at the official level noted that such a situation contributes to strengthening 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 Organization (INMARSAT).
There is every reason to believe 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. However, this in no way means a belittling 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. In addition, states, as a rule, 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 in the system of principles of modern international law. Its strict observance ensures the free development of every state and people.
sovereign equality international legal order
The principle of the sovereign equality of states is the legal basis of modern interstate communication. That is why the 1970 Declaration calls this principle of paramount and fundamental importance. According to this principle, all states are equal in their rights and obligations in the international arena, have equal opportunities to implement their domestic and foreign policies. It is important to emphasize that the current international law establishes an organic link between the equality of states and such an attribute as sovereignty. Sovereignty in international law is understood as the supremacy of the state in its internal affairs and independence in international relations. Sovereignty as a property of state power is equally inherent in any state, so we are not talking about the actual equality of states, but only about sovereign equality. States are equal to each other because the sovereignty of each of them is a constant value. Just as people are born equal by virtue of the very fact of belonging to a given biological species, so states are equal by virtue of having sovereignty. Therefore, only sovereign states are equal to each other, and sovereignty itself, in turn, is inconceivable without the equality of subjects of international relations. This is not sophistry, but a formula for a complex dialectical connection between sovereignty and the legal equality of all states. A number of important consequences follow from this formula. For example, the principle under consideration is not applicable to relations between subjects of the federation, self-governing political and territorial entities, autonomies and sovereign states, since only the latter have sovereignty in the international legal sense of the word.
The 1970 Declaration names the following elements of the sovereign equality of states:
1) all 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 states are inviolable;
5) every state has the right to freely choose and develop its political, economic and social system;
6) each state is obliged to fulfill its international obligations in good faith.
As can be seen from the above, the principle of the sovereign equality of states cannot be considered in isolation from a number of other principles of international law, since sovereignty necessarily implies legal personality, free development, political independence, etc.
The final act of 1975, revealing the content of the principle of sovereign equality of states, named a number of other rights inherent in states by virtue of sovereignty: participation in international treaties, membership in international organizations, exercise of jurisdiction, establishment of diplomatic relations. All of these powers (as practice, including judicial practice, shows that their list is not exhaustive) are immanently inherent in state sovereignty; the deprivation of any state of any of these rights is recognized as a gross violation of the principle in question. As for the UN Charter, it specifically emphasizes that the United Nations itself and its member states act on the basis of the sovereign equality of all its members.
The consolidation of the principle of sovereign equality of the state is also known in the contractual practice of the Republic of Kazakhstan. For example, in Article 1 of the Treaty of Friendship, Mutual Understanding and Cooperation between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the French Republic of September 23, 1992, it is stipulated that the parties "... in mutual relations act as sovereign, equal states."
An analysis of existing international legal documents and the practice of international relations shows that international law establishes not actual, but legal equality of states. From this point of view, the huge differences between the possibilities of various states to influence international relations and the policies of individual organizations do not always contradict the principle of the sovereign equality of states. For example, the five states that are permanent members of the UN Security Council have much more powers than the rest of the states. However, their special status is enshrined in the current international law, it is generally recognized and, to a certain extent, is itself a manifestation of the state sovereignty of members of the world community. In other words, the legal status of the permanent members of the Council is a voluntary decision of the UN members, an act of their sovereign power. Therefore, the inequality of states in this case cannot be interpreted as contradicting the principle of sovereign equality. A similar statement can be made about various international organizations that have adopted a system of so-called weighted voting. In such organizations, the different "weight" of states is a free decision of all their members. Finally, the practice of granting special benefits and preferences to the least developed and developing states is not a deviation from the principle of sovereign equality, since it is aimed at strengthening international peace and security and eliminating an unfair economic order. It is easy to see that similar norms are inherent in national legislation, which proclaims the equality of citizens before the law with differences in their legal status.
At the same time, it should be recognized that in practice the principle of the sovereign equality of states has been grossly violated more than once. Designed to prevent unilateral political leadership in international relations, this principle often becomes an obstacle to the aggressive foreign policy of individual countries. As a rule, ignoring this peremptory norm of international law leads to serious complications in international relations.