home » Hairstyles » International legal personality of state-like entities. State-like entities (free cities) as subjects of international law State and state-like entities

International legal personality of state-like entities. State-like entities (free cities) as subjects of international law State and state-like entities

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

COURSE WORK

on the topic: “Legal personality of state-like entities”

Introduction

Chapter 1. Legal personality of state-like entities, partially recognized by states

1.1 Vatican

1.2 Order of Malta

1.3 The question of international recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia

Chapter 2. Legal personality of entities with dubious status

2.1 Sealand

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

International relations may involve special political-territorial entities (sometimes called state-like entities), which have internal self-government and, to varying degrees, international legal personality.

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 government bodies, the right to issue regulations, and have limited armed forces.

This topic is relevant due to the fact that in the modern world there is a fairly large number of such subjects, both known to the general public and unfamiliar. The first include South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, and the Vatican. To the second Sealand, the Free City of Christiania.

The purpose of this work is to study the legal personality of state-like entities. To achieve this goal, a number of tasks must be completed:

1) Define state-like entities

2) Study state-like entities by category and specific examples.

The time frame covered by this work is limited to the present time and describes the legal personality of entities existing at the time of writing, however, in order to explore the state of these entities, we will resort to the historical method and study the past of the objects in question.

international recognition status public education

Chapter1. Legal personalitystate-likeformations,partiallyrecognizedstates

1.1 Vatican

Vatican (lat. Status Civitatis Vatican, Italian. Stato della Cittа del Vaticano, the name Vatican City State is also used) is a dwarf enclave state (the smallest state in the world) within the territory of Rome, associated with Italy. The state got its name from the name of the hill Mons Vaticanus, from the Latin vaticinia - “place of fortune-telling”. The status of the Vatican in international law is an auxiliary sovereign territory of the Holy See, the seat of the highest spiritual leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. The sovereignty of the Vatican is not independent (national), but stems from the sovereignty of the Holy See. In other words, its source is not the population of the Vatican, but the papal throne.

Diplomatic missions of foreign countries are accredited to the Holy See, not to the Vatican City State. Foreign embassies and missions accredited to the Holy See, due to the small territory of the Vatican, are located in Rome (including the Italian embassy, which is thus located in its own capital).

The Holy See (not the Vatican) has been a permanent observer to the UN since 1964, having collaborated with the organization since 1957. In July 2004, the rights of the Holy See Mission to the UN were expanded. In addition, since August 2008, the Vatican began cooperation with Interpol on an ongoing basis.

The history of the Vatican goes back almost two thousand years, despite the fact that the Vatican State has officially existed since 1929. Since the Vatican is an auxiliary sovereign territory of the Holy See, its history is directly related to the history of the papacy. In antiquity, the territory of the Vatican (“ager vaticanus”) was not inhabited, since in Ancient Rome this place was considered sacred. In 326, after the advent of Christianity, the Basilica of Constantine was erected over the supposed tomb of St. Peter and since then the place has been populated. The later Papal State covered most of the Apennine Peninsula, but was liquidated by the Kingdom of Italy in 1870. As a result, the so-called “Roman Question” arose. In the summer of 1926, negotiations began between the Holy See and the government of Benito Mussolini to resolve the “Rome Question”. On the part of the Pope, the negotiations were conducted by Secretary of State Gasparri; An important role in the series of negotiations, which consisted of 110 meetings and lasted three years, was also played by the lawyer Francesco Pacelli, brother of the future Pope Pius XII.

The three documents that constituted the Agreement between Italy and the Holy See were signed on February 11, 1929 at the Lateran Palace by Secretary of State Gasparri and Mussolini. The Lateran agreements remain in effect. Italy recognized the sovereignty of the Holy See over the Vatican City (Stata della citta del Vaticano), a restored Church State with an area of one and a half square kilometers. The Vatican and Italy mutually exchanged ambassadors. The Concordat in 44 articles also regulated the relationship between the state and the Church in Italy: it ensured complete freedom of the Church and declared the Catholic religion as the state religion. The Holy See had the right to establish relations with the clergy and with the entire Catholic world. Church representatives were exempt from military service. The appointment of bishops is the prerogative of the Holy See (in the absence of political objections from the state). The Holy See recognized the secularization of church property that had taken place by that time. Church property was exempt from taxes.

The Concordat was supplemented by a financial agreement under which Italy pledged to pay the Holy See 750 million Italian lire in cash and at the same time allocate a five percent Italian firm government loan amounting to one billion Italian lire. The Vatican agreed to support Benito Mussolini, returned to public life, and prohibited divorce. On June 7, 1929, the constitution of the Vatican City State was published. In 1984, after successful negotiations with Italy, some outdated clauses of the Agreements were changed, mainly concerning the state status of the Catholic Church in Italy.

The Vatican is located on Vatican Hill in the northwestern part of Rome, a few hundred meters from the Tiber. The total length of the state border, passing through Italian territory only, is 3.2 kilometers, although the Lateran Agreements gave the Vatican some extraterritoriality (some basilicas, curial and diocesan offices and Castel Gandolfo). The border largely coincides with a defensive wall built to prevent illegal crossings. In front of St. Peter's Basilica, the boundary is the edge of an oval-shaped square (indicated by white stones in the paving of the square). The Vatican has a non-profit planned economy. Sources of income are primarily donations from Catholics around the world. Profits in 2003 amounted to 252 million dollars, expenses - 264. In addition, tourism brings in large incomes (sale of postage stamps, Vatican euro coins, souvenirs, fees for visiting museums). The majority of the workforce (museum staff, gardeners, janitors, etc.) are Italian citizens. The Vatican budget is US$310 million. The Vatican has its own bank, better known as the Institute of Religious Affairs.

Almost the entire population of the Vatican are subjects of the Holy See (Vatican citizenship does not exist), having a passport (this passport has the diplomatic status of the Holy See, indicates belonging to the inhabitants of the Apostolic Capital (Vatican) and is issued by the Secretariat of State) and are ministers of the Catholic Church.

As of December 31, 2005, of the 557 subjects of the Holy See, 58 are cardinals, 293 people have the status of clergy and are members of the Pontifical Missions, 62 people are other representatives of the clergy, 101 are members of the Swiss Guard, and the remaining 43 are laymen. In 1983, not a single newborn was registered in the Vatican. Just under half, 246 citizens, retained their first citizenship. Citizenship in the Vatican is not inherited and cannot be acquired by birth in the state. It can only be obtained on the basis of service to the Holy See and is canceled in the event of termination of employment in the Vatican.

Article 9 of the Lateran Treaty of 1929 between the Vatican and Italy states that if a person ceases to be a citizen of the Vatican and does not have the citizenship of any other state, he is granted Italian citizenship. Ethnically, most of them are Italian, with the exception of members of the Swiss Guard. The “daytime” population of the Vatican also includes about 3,000 Italians working there, but they live outside the state. In 2005, 111 marriages were registered in the Vatican.

The Vatican itself does not establish diplomatic relations, does not participate in international organizations and does not conclude international treaties, since it is the sovereign territory of the Holy See, and the sovereignty of the former directly stems from the sovereignty of the latter. The See of the Roman Bishops has been recognized as a sovereign subject of international law since early medieval times. And between 1860 and the Lateran Agreements of 1929, the sovereignty of the Holy See was recognized not only by the Catholic powers, but also by Russia, Prussia and Austria-Hungary.

Diplomatic relations between the Vatican and the Holy See are administered by the State Relations Section of the Secretariat of State. The Section is headed by the Secretary for Relations with States in the rank of Archbishop - currently Dominique Mamberti, titular Archbishop of Sagona.

The Holy See maintains diplomatic relations with 174 countries of the world, in which it is represented by papal ambassadors (nuncios). The Vatican also maintains diplomatic relations with the EU and the Palestine Liberation Organization and is a member of 15 international organizations, including WHO, WTO, UNESCO, OSCE and FAO.

In the early 1990s, the Vatican established diplomatic relations with countries in Eastern and Central Europe that had previously been ruled by communist parties, as well as with several states of the former Soviet Union.

The Vatican actively advocates for the preservation of peace and the resolution of international conflicts. In 1991 he warned against war in the Persian Gulf. The Catholic Church played a prominent role in ending the civil wars in Central America. During his trips to the region, the pope called for an end to the civil war in Guatemala, reconciliation in Nicaragua, and the establishment of “a new culture of solidarity and love.”

The Holy See is the oldest (1942) diplomatic ally of the Republic of China and is now the only sovereign subject of international law in Europe that formally recognizes the Republic of China. In 1971, the Holy See announced its decision to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in order to "provide moral support to the principles which form the basis of the Treaty itself." In 2007, the Holy See established diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia.

1.2 MalteseOrder

The Order of Malta (Sovereign Military Order of the Knights Hospitaller of St. John of Jerusalem, Rhodes and Malta, Sovereign Military Hospitable Order of St. John, Jerusalem, Rhodes and Malta) is a knightly religious order of the Roman Catholic Church. The world's oldest order of knighthood.

The Order of Malta has observer status at the UN. It has diplomatic relations with 104 countries, supported by a large number of ambassadors. According to international law, the Order of Malta is a state-like entity, while the order itself positions itself as a state. The sovereignty of the Order of Malta is considered at the level of diplomatic missions, but not as state sovereignty. Sometimes viewed as a dwarf state.

The Order issues its own passports, prints its own currency, stamps, and even issues license plates. The Grand Master of the Order serves as papal viceroy, providing procedural support to Vatican diplomats in filing petitions, proposing amendments, and when necessary in making decisions in the field of international diplomacy. The order's claims to sovereignty are disputed by some scholars.

The forerunner of the order was the Amalfi Hospital, founded in Jerusalem in 1080, a Christian organization whose purpose was to care for the poor, sick or injured pilgrims in the Holy Land. After the Christian conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 during the First Crusade, a religious-military order with its own charter. The order was entrusted with the care and protection of the Holy Land. Following the seizure of the Holy Land by Muslims, the order continued its activities in Rhodes, of which it was the ruler, and then acted from Malta, which was a vassal subordinate to the Spanish Viceroy of Sicily. After Napoleon's capture of Malta in 1798, Russian Emperor Paul I gave the knights refuge in St. Petersburg. In 1834, the order established a new headquarters in Rome. For a long time, the Order owned only a complex of mansions in Rome, but in 1998, the government of Malta transferred Fort Sant'Angelo to the knights for the exclusive use of a period of 99 years, while the structure was granted extraterritorial status and designated. Currently, the Italian Republic recognizes the existence of the Order of Malta on its territory as a sovereign state, as well as the extraterritoriality of his residence in Rome (Palace of Malta, or Magistral Palace at 68 Via Condotti, residence, and Villa Magistral on the Aventine). Since 1998, the Order also owns Fort Sant'Angelo, which also has extraterritorial status for 99 years from the date of the agreement with the government of the Republic of Malta. Thus, the Order formally has a territory over which it exercises its own jurisdiction, but the question of the actual status of this territory (the Order’s own territory or the territory of a diplomatic mission temporarily transferred to its needs) is a subject for abstract legal discussions. In fact, the Order is an extremely influential structure, and its political positions are such that the question of clarifying the status of its headquarters is unlikely to arise in the near future.

According to the order, its members are 13 thousand people; the order also includes 80 thousand volunteers and more than 20 thousand medical workers. There are about 10.5 thousand subjects of the Order who have its passport. The Order of Malta passport is recognized by many countries, its holder has the right to visa-free entry into 32 countries.

According to the Constitution, members of the Order are divided into three classes. All members must lead exemplary lives in accordance with the teachings and precepts of the Church and devote themselves to the Order's humanitarian work.

Members of the First Class are Knights of Justice, or Established Knights, and Established Monastic Chaplains, who have taken vows of "poverty, chastity and obedience leading to perfection according to the Gospel." They are considered monks by Canon Law, but are not required to live in monastic communities.

Members of the Second Class, who have taken a vow of obedience, must live according to Christian principles and the highest moral principles of the Order. They are divided into three categories:

Knights and Dames of Honor and Devotion in Obedience

Knights and Dames of God's Grace and Devotion in Obedience

Knights and Dames of the Master's Grace and Devotion in Obedience

The third class consists of secular members who have not taken religious vows or oaths, but who live in accordance with the principles of the Church and the Order. They are divided into six categories:

Knights and Dames of Honor and Devotion

Monastic Chaplains ad honorem

Knights and Dames of God's Grace and Devotion

Mainline chaplains

Knights and Dames of the Master's Grace

Donates (men and women) Devotion

Requirements for admission to the various classes and categories are determined by the Code.

According to Article 5 of the Constitution of the Order of Malta, the main legal documents are:

1). Constitution, Code of the Order and, as an appendix, Canon Law;

2). Legislative acts of the Grand Master in accordance with Article 15, second paragraph, paragraph 1 of this Constitution;

3). International agreements approved in accordance with the principles set forth in Article 15, second paragraph, paragraph 8 of this Constitution;

4). Traditions and privileges of the Order;

One of the most ancient manuscripts with the rules and Code of the Order dates back to 1253.

Throughout history, there has been a continuous process of development of three main documents. It should be noted that throughout their existence, documents, like all sources, were based on the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church. Its principles formed the basis of all legal acts of the Order. Thus, changes in the main document of the Church entailed corresponding changes in the documents of the Order. An example is the changes to the Code of Canon Law of 1917, 1983. Also in 1969, the Order's Statutes responded to the instructions of the decree of the Second Vatican Council on the renewal of monastic life in relation to modern conditions" "Perfectae Caritatis" and the apostolic letter "Ecclesiae Sanctae". In addition to the documents listed in the Constitution, "the customs of the Order, all the privileges granted and recognized by the popes.<…>Particular mention should be made of the Constitution of Pope Benedict XIV “Inter illustria” of 1753. Rights, customs and privileges are valid as long as they remain in force in accordance with the rules of canon law, the Constitution of the Order and the Code.”

On September 17, 1919, the Grand Master, together with the Order Council, approved the “Organic norms of the Sovereign Knightly Order of Malta” (Norme organiche del sovrano Ordine militare di Malta). Then they were replaced by the Provisional Charter or Provisional Statutes, after 1921 they gained legal force. At the insistence of the Vatican, on May 5, 1936, the updated Charter of the Order of Malta was adopted, which emphasized the subordination of the Order's law to the new general church law. This was necessary for the Papal See to stop the trend of the Order of Malta becoming a purely secular organization. “Thus, from this moment we can already speak unequivocally about the transformation of the Order of Malta into a purely “papal” one, and the final consolidation of the power of the Vatican over the Order.” In 1961, the Holy See approved the Constitution of the Order, and in 1966 - the Charter and Code of the Order.

As for the latest changes to the Constitution, they were made by decisions of the Extraordinary Meeting of the General Chapter, held in Italy in 1997. The new text was approved by the Vatican and published in the “Official Bulletin” of the Order on January 12, 1998. This is what John Paul II said about the Constitution: “It is based on the fundamental values of mercy and charity that have continually inspired the Order through the centuries.”

The Order has diplomatic relations with 104 states. Has observer status at the UN. The sovereign status of the order is recognized by many international organizations of which it is a member. In addition to the United Nations, it is recognized by other organizations. Several states do not recognize the Maltese passport and do not have diplomatic relations with it: the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Iceland and Greece.

The relationship of the Order of Malta with Russia has changed several times. Emperor Paul I established close cooperation with him, accepting the status of Grand Master and Protector of the Order. The order system of Russia and the Order of Malta itself were partially integrated.

However, after the assassination of Paul I, relations with the Order were severed quite quickly and were absent until the end of the existence of the Russian Empire. The Russian priories of the Order were liquidated in the period 1803-1817.

The alleged behind-the-scenes interaction between the Order and the USSR during the reign of Gorbachev became the subject of numerous speculations, but reliable documents on this subject were never published.

Official relations with Russia were restored in 1992 by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation B.N. Yeltsin and are now carried out at the level of official representatives with the rank of ambassadors with accreditation in states - places of representation (Rome). The interests of Russia are represented by the Representative of the Russian Federation to the Vatican. Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Order of Malta to the Russian Federation - Mr. Gianfranco Facco Bonetti (since April 22, 2008).

1.3 InternationalconfessionSouthOssetiaAndAbkhazia

The Supreme Council of the Republic of South Ossetia (RSO) declared the independence of the republic on May 29, 1992, during an armed conflict with Georgia. Abkhazia declared independence after the war with Georgia in 1992-1993. Its constitution, in which the republic was declared a sovereign state and a subject of international law, was adopted by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Abkhazia on November 26, 1994. The declaration of independence of the republics did not cause a wide international response; until the second half of the 2000s, these states were not recognized by anyone. In 2006, Abkhazia and South Ossetia recognized each other's independence; in addition, their independence was recognized by the unrecognized Transnistria.

The situation with international recognition changed after the war in South Ossetia in August 2008. After the conflict, the independence of both republics was recognized by Russia. In response, the Georgian parliament adopted a resolution “On the occupation of the territories of Georgia by the Russian Federation.” These events were followed by reactions from other countries and international organizations.

On August 20, 2008, the Parliament of Abkhazia turned to Russia with a request to recognize the independence of the republic. On August 21, 2008, this appeal was supported by the national assembly of Abkhazia. On August 22, 2008, a similar appeal was received from the Parliament of South Ossetia. On August 25, 2008, the Russian Federation Council adopted an appeal to President Dmitry Medvedev to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. 130 members of the Federation Council voted for the appeal, with no abstentions or votes against. On the same day, the State Duma, with 447 votes in favor and no votes against (0 abstained, 3 did not vote), adopted a similar appeal to the President of Russia. The Duma sent an appeal to the parliaments of UN member states and international parliamentary organizations, in which it called on them to support the recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent, sovereign and independent states.

On August 26, 2008, Russia followed international legal recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This decision was announced by President Dmitry Medvedev in his address: “Taking into account the free expression of the will of the Ossetian and Abkhaz peoples, guided by the provisions of the UN Charter, the 1970 Declaration of Principles of International Law relating to Friendly Relations between States, the Helsinki Final Act of the CSCE of 1975, and other fundamental international documents, I signed Decrees on the recognition by the Russian Federation of the independence of South Ossetia and the independence of Abkhazia.” On August 29, 2008, Georgia broke off diplomatic relations with Russia. On September 9, 2008, Russia officially established diplomatic relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. On December 15, 2008, the first Russian Ambassador to Abkhazia, Semyon Grigoriev, presented copies of his credentials to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the republic, Sergei Shamba. The next day, December 16, 2008, the President of Abkhazia Sergei Bagapsh accepted Semyon Grigoriev’s credentials. On the same day, President of South Ossetia Eduard Kokoity accepted the credentials of the first Russian ambassador to South Ossetia, Elbrus Kargiev. On January 16, 2009, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev accepted the credentials of the first ambassadors of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to Russia - Igor Akhba and Dmitry Medoev. In February 2009, the Russian embassy was opened in South Ossetia. On May 1, 2009, the Embassy of the Russian Federation was opened in Sukhum. On May 17, 2010, the opening ceremony of the Abkhazian Embassy took place in Moscow. On April 7, 2011, Dmitry Medvedev signed a law ratifying the Agreement with Abkhazia and South Ossetia on mutual visa-free travel

Immediately after the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by the Russian Federation, assumptions appeared in the media (for example, Leonid Slutsky, Deputy Chairman of the Russian State Duma Committee on International Affairs) that other UN member states could also recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Countries such as Venezuela (recognized on September 10, 2009), Cuba, Belarus, Iran, Syria, and Turkey were named. In July 2009, President of Abkhazia Sergei Bagapsh expressed hope that the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia would be recognized by Belarus, and not Papua New Guinea or Zimbabwe, and he also stated that he still did not abandon the idea of creating some kind of new “union state”, where his republic and South Ossetia will enter along with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan

Officials of some countries of the world (Belarus, Venezuela, Iran, Armenia, Lebanon) expressed support for Russia’s actions to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, or their right to self-determination. On April 27, 2011, it became known about the upcoming recognition of Abkhazia by three states and one of South Ossetia.

Meanwhile, the statement made by the Ambassador of Somalia to the Russian Federation, who said that in the near future the Somali government is going to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, was refuted by the Director General of the Ministry of External Relations and International Cooperation of Somalia, Muhamed Jama Ali.

The current President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, when he was an oppositionist, stated that Ukraine must recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and support the will of the peoples of the unrecognized republics. At the same time, he noted: “The recognition by the Russian Federation of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is a logical continuation of the process that was launched by Western countries regarding the recognition of the independence of the Kosovo region.” However, having become president, Yanukovych stated that he did not mean that he was ready to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but exclusively opposed double standards when a large number of countries recognized the independence of Kosovo

Georgian Deputy Foreign Minister Giga Bokeria said: “Recognition is a hidden annexation of territories that are part of Georgia.” Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, in his address to the people, stated: “The actions of the Russian Federation are an attempt at the military annexation of a sovereign state - the state of Georgia. This directly violates international law and threatens the international security system that has guaranteed peace, stability and order for the past 60 years. Russia's decision today confirms that its invasion of Georgia was part of a broader, premeditated plan to reshape the map of Europe. Today Russia has violated all treaties and agreements that were previously signed. Russia's actions were condemned in the strictest terms by the entire international community, which confirmed its support for the territorial integrity of Georgia. The Government of Georgia is grateful for the worldwide support. According to international law, the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are within the borders of Georgia.”

The head of the State Chancellery of Georgia, Kakha Bendukidze, in an interview with Russian Newsweek magazine, answered the correspondent’s question “Do you think you have lost South Ossetia and Abkhazia or not?”: “No. I think that the existence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia will move from one plane to another. Previously, it was, in a sense, a get-together, a discussion with Russian accompaniment. This is now an international dispute. There was an incomprehensible riddle: Russia was both a party and a peacemaker. She was a sponsor of one of the parties and verbally recognized the territorial integrity of Georgia. Now this picture has become much clearer."

NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said the Russian decision “is a direct violation of numerous UN Security Council resolutions regarding the territorial integrity of Georgia, resolutions that Russia itself has approved. Russia's actions in recent weeks call into question its commitment to peace and security in the Caucasus. "NATO firmly supports the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia and calls on Russia to respect these principles."

On 27 August, the NATO Ambassadorial Council, having discussed NATO's relations with Russia and Georgia in connection with Russia's recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, condemned this decision and called for its annulment, expressing full support for the principle of Georgia's territorial integrity: “Russia's decision violates many resolutions adopted the UN Security Council regarding the territorial integrity of Georgia, and it is incompatible with the fundamental principles of the OSCE on which stability in Europe is based.”

The NATO Council, saying that Russia's decision called into question its commitment to peace and security in the Caucasus, called on Russia, in order to ensure the security and stability of Georgia, to “respect the territorial integrity of Georgia and fulfill its obligations under the six-point agreement signed by Presidents Saakashvili and Medvedev"

Chapter 2. Legal personality of entities with dubious status

2.1 Sealand

The Principality of Sealand (English: Principality of Sealand, in English literally “sea land”; also Sealand) is a virtual state proclaimed in 1967 by retired British Major Roy Bates. Claims sovereignty over the territory of an offshore platform in the North Sea, 10 kilometers off the coast of Great Britain. Bates proclaimed himself the monarch (prince) of Sealand, and his family the ruling dynasty; they and persons who consider themselves subjects of Sealand are engaged in creating and developing the attributes of this principality, similar to the attributes of the states of the world (flag, coat of arms and anthem, constitution, government positions, diplomacy, collectible postage stamps, coins, etc. are issued).

Sealand is a constitutional monarchy. The head of state is Prince Roy I Bates and Princess Joanna I Bates. Since 1999, direct power has been exercised by Crown Prince Regent Michael I. The constitution adopted on September 25, 1975, consisting of a preamble and 7 articles, is in force. The sovereign's orders are issued in the form of decrees. The executive branch has three ministries: Internal Affairs, Foreign Affairs and Telecommunications and Technology. The legal system is based on British common law.

The physical territory of Sealand emerged during the Second World War. In 1942, the British Navy built a series of platforms on the approaches to the coast. One of them was Roughs Tower. During the war, the platforms housed anti-aircraft guns and were garrisoned by 200 men. After the end of hostilities, most of the towers were destroyed, but the Rafs Tower, being outside British territorial waters, remained untouched.

In 1966, retired British Army Major Paddy Roy Bates and his friend Ronan O'Reilly chose the Roughs Tower platform, long abandoned by then, for the construction of an amusement park. However, after some time they quarreled, and Bates became the sole owner of the island. In 1967 O'Reilly tried to take control of the island and used force to do so, but Bates defended himself with rifles, shotguns, Molotov cocktails and flamethrowers, and O'Reilly's attack was repulsed.

Roy did not build an amusement park, but chose a platform to base his pirate radio station, Britain's Better Music Station, but this radio station never broadcast from the platform. On September 2, 1967, he announced the creation of a sovereign state and proclaimed himself Prince Roy I. This The day is celebrated as the main public holiday.

In 1968, British authorities tried to take over the platform. Patrol boats approached her, and the Bateses responded by firing warning shots into the air. The matter did not come to bloodshed, but a trial was launched against Major Bates as a British subject. On September 2, 1968, an Essex judge made a ruling that supporters of Sealand's independence attach to historical significance: he found the case outside British jurisdiction. In 1972, Sealand began minting coins. In 1975, Sealand's first constitution came into force. A flag and coat of arms appeared.

In August 1978, a putsch took place in the country. It was preceded by tension between the prince and his closest ally, the country's prime minister, Count Alexander Gottfried Achenbach. The parties differed in their views on attracting investment to the country and accused each other of unconstitutional intentions. Taking advantage of the absence of the prince, who was negotiating with investors in Austria, Achenbach and a group of Dutch citizens landed on the island. The invaders locked young Prince Michael in a basement and then took him to the Netherlands. But Michael escaped from captivity and met his father. With the support of the country's loyal citizens, the deposed monarchs managed to defeat the usurpers and return to power.

The government acted in strict accordance with international law. The captured foreign mercenaries were soon released, as the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War requires the release of prisoners after the end of hostilities. The organizer of the coup was removed from all posts and convicted of high treason in accordance with Sealand laws, but he had a second - German - citizenship, so the German authorities became interested in his fate. The British Foreign Office refused to intervene in this matter, and German diplomats had to negotiate directly with Sealand. The senior legal adviser of the German embassy in London, Dr. Niemuller, arrived on the island, which became the pinnacle of the actual recognition of Sealand by real states. Prince Roy demanded diplomatic recognition of Sealand, but in the end, given the bloodless nature of the failed putsch, he agreed to verbal assurances and generously released Achenbach.

The losers continued to insist on their rights. They formed the government of Sealand in exile (FRG). Achenbach claimed to be the chairman of the Sealand Privy Council. In January 1989, he was arrested by the German authorities (who, of course, did not recognize his diplomatic status) and handed over his post to Minister for Economic Cooperation Johannes W. F. Seiger, who soon became Prime Minister. Re-elected in 1994 and 1999.

Sealand's position compares favorably with that of other virtual states. The Principality has a physical territory and has some legal grounds for international recognition. The requirement for independence is based on three arguments. The most fundamental of these is the fact that Sealand was founded in international waters before the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea came into force, prohibiting the construction of artificial structures on the high seas, and before the expansion of the UK's sovereign maritime zone from 3 to 12 nautical miles in 1987 year. Due to the fact that the Rafs Tower platform on which Sealand is located was abandoned and struck off the British Admiralty lists, its occupation is considered as colonization. The settlers who settled on it believe that they had every right to establish a state and establish a form of government at their discretion. According to international standards, the size of a state cannot be an obstacle to recognition. For example, the recognized British possession of Pitcairn Island has only about 60 people.

The second important argument is the 1968 British court decision that the UK had no jurisdiction over Sealand. No other country has claimed rights to Sealand either.

Thirdly, there are several facts of de facto recognition of Sealand. The Montevideo Convention states that states have the right to existence and self-defense regardless of official recognition. In modern international practice, tacit (non-diplomatic) recognition is a fairly common phenomenon. It arises when a regime does not have sufficient legitimacy, but exercises actual power on its territory. For example, many states do not recognize the Republic of China diplomatically, but de facto view it as a sovereign country. There are four similar pieces of evidence regarding Sealand:

1. Great Britain does not pay Prince Roy a pension for the period when he was in Sealand.

2. The UK courts refused to hear the 1968 and 1990 claims against Sealand.

3. The Foreign Ministries of the Netherlands and Germany entered into negotiations with the government of Sealand.

4. The Belgian Post accepted Sealand stamps for some time.

Theoretically, Sealand's position is very convincing. If recognized, the principality would become the smallest country in the world and the 51st state in Europe. However, according to the constituent theory, more common in modern international law, a state can only exist insofar as it is recognized by other states. Therefore, Sealand cannot be accepted into any international organization and cannot have its own postal address or domain name. None of the countries established diplomatic relations with him.

Sealand is trying to get independence recognized by some major state, but has not tried to achieve independence through the UN.

Conclusion

We studied the legal personality of state-like entities using the example of the most typical representatives. We studied the legal personality of entities that are recognized as states only by a certain circle of other states, thus being, as it were, quasi-states. We also studied, using the example of the Principality of Sealand, entities that are not recognized by states at all, however, de facto play such a role in international relations, moreover, they have their own territory, jurisdiction, taxation, thus, as if having internal legitimacy, established historically.

We saw the relevance of this topic, which lies in the fact that international relations are not in a static state, but are constantly changing and developing, in connection with this, the emergence of new subjects related to the topic of research is possible. Also, the emergence of new entities is possible due to circumstances independent of international politics. In this study, we saw that events related to these entities are still happening today, for example, the issue of recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is still unresolved.

Developing ways to resolve these issues is an important task for international law and the international community. At this time, when preference is declared for the peaceful resolution of such conflicts, it is necessary to have a legal basis for this. It should not be forgotten that if such an entity is a community formed along ethnic or national lines, then this issue lies within the sphere of nations for self-determination or borders on it.

Bibliography

2. Constitution of the Republic of Abkhazia // http://www.abkhaziagov.org/ru/state/sovereignty/index.php

3. Constitution of the Order of Malta // http://www.orderofmalta.int/order-and-its-organization

4. Lateran Pacts of 1929 // http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/treaty.htm

5. Federal Law of the Russian Federation of April 5, 2011 N 54-FZ “On the ratification of the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of South Ossetia on mutual visa-free travel of citizens of the Russian Federation and the Republic of South Ossetia” // Russian newspaper. - 2011. - No. 5451. - April 7.

6. DECREE of the President of the Russian Federation dated August 26, 2008 N 1260 “On recognition of the Republic of Abkhazia” // http://document.kremlin.ru/doc.asp?ID=47559

7. DECREE of the President of the Russian Federation dated August 26, 2008 N 1261 “On recognition of the republic

8. South Ossetia" // http://document.kremlin.ru/doc.asp?ID=47560

9. Manhattan A. History of the Vatican. Power and the Roman Curia. - M.: Monolit-Evrolints - Tradition, 2008. - p.450

10. Vinogradov V.A. Fundamentals of government structure of the Vatican City State // Journal of Russian Law. 2002. No. 9.

11. Zakharov V.A. History of the Order of Malta. XI - XX centuries. - M.: SPSL - “Russian Panorama”, 2008. - p. 464.

12. ELECTRONIC RESOURCES

13. Official website of the Sealand state [Electronic resource] - Access mode: http://www.sealandgov.org

14. Act of Declaration of Independence of the Republic of South Ossetia [Electronic resource] - Access mode: http://osinform.ru/1646-akt_provozglashenija_nezavisimosti_respubliki_juzhnaja_osetija_5032.html

15. Appeal of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to the President of the Russian Federation D. A. Medvedev on recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia [Electronic resource] - Access mode: http://www.council.gov.ru/inf_ps/chronicle/2008 /08/item7997.html

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Chapter 1. General provisions of subjects of international law

§1. Concept and characteristics of subjects of international law

In any branch of law, its extremely important element is the subject, and international law is no exception. It is the concept of a subject that consolidates and limits the circle of participants in those social relations that are regulated by a particular industry.

A subject of international law is a bearer of international rights and obligations; this is a person (in a collective sense) whose behavior is governed by international law and who can enter into international public legal relations and protect his rights by directly filing his claims with international bodies.

Due to the specifics of international law as a branch, its subjects are also characterized by certain characteristics unique to them:

) status in international relations;

2) external isolation;

) speaking in international relations as a single person;

) the ability to develop, express and implement autonomous will;

) participation in the adoption of international law.

The main property of a subject is the legal ability for independent international actions, including the creation of agreed upon international legal norms, and the independent exercise of rights and obligations established by these norms.

Professor V.L. also points to this same ability as the main property of a subject of international law. Tolstykh: “a subject of international law is an entity that has the right to participate in international relations and has rule-making capacity (including the ability to conclude international treaties).”

From the above we can conclude that subjects of international law occupy equal positions relative to each other and are not under anyone’s authority or subordination.

In the theory of international law, the following subjects are distinguished:

) states;

2) international organizations;

) state-like entities;

) nations and peoples fighting for independence.

The generally recognized subjects of international law are states and interstate organizations. The legal personality of nations and peoples fighting for the creation of an independent state is not so clearly recognized. As an exception, there are atypical subjects - the Vatican, the free city.

The concept of a subject is inextricably linked with such categories of law as legal capacity, legal capacity and delictual capacity.

Legal capacity is the ability of a subject of international law to have subjective rights and legal obligations. It is possessed by: states - from the moment of formation; nations fighting for independence - from the moment of recognition; international intergovernmental organizations - from the moment the constituent documents enter into force.

Legal capacity is the exercise by a subject of international law independently, through his conscious actions, of his rights and obligations.

Tort capacity means the ability to be legally responsible for crimes committed.

The concept of “international legal personality” is also highlighted. International legal personality is the ability to participate in international relations, to have international rights and obligations and to exercise them within the framework and on the basis of international law.

According to the point of view of R.M. Valeev, legal personality in international law has two meanings and is accordingly considered in two aspects: as a qualitative characteristic (property) of a subject of international law and as an element of the system of international law.

International legal personality as a qualitative characteristic of a subject of international law means a legal property expressed in a person’s belonging to the category of a subject of international law. This legal property is determined by the presence of signs and qualities in a person that characterize him as a subject of international law. It reflects a person's ability to be a subject of international law and, therefore, to have rights and obligations.

However, the subjective composition of international law remains a controversial category.

The steady trend of development and improvement of international relations and the international system as a whole has a positive impact on the evolution of the science of international law and international legal views. In this sense, views on a wider range of subjects of international law are now increasingly recognized, which, in addition to the subjects listed above, also include persons and entities that were not previously traditionally considered as subjects of international law. In addition to states, peoples, international organizations and state-like entities, they also include individuals, international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), a number of international business associations (TNCs) and individual international judicial institutions. It should be noted that the legal personality of non-traditional subjects of international law still remains controversial in the science of international law.

As B.A. writes Kurkin, in the domestic doctrine the prevailing point of view is the essence of which boils down to the fact that individuals objectively cannot be participants in intergovernmental, interstate relations and thereby subjects of international law. The current trend towards expanding direct access of individuals to international bodies is associated with a growing desire to protect human rights through international mechanisms. In itself, such access does not transform them into subjects of international law, but only means that the parties to the relevant treaty undertake a mutual obligation to ensure this access using the legal and organizational means at their disposal.

G.V. Ignatenko has a different opinion and, in support of his point of view, says the following: in the discussion that is taking place in the domestic 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 the current state of 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 English scientist G. Lauterpacht, back in 1950, in his book “International Human Rights Law” published in London, noted that there are no rules in international law that would prevent individuals from acquiring rights granted by customary or treaty international law. Later, in 1980, Uruguayan lawyer E.H. Arechaga, who was for a number of years the President of the International Court of Justice, expressing a similar thought, recognized the possibility of granting certain rights to individuals by interstate treaties, as well as international means of protecting these rights*.

According to him, “real proof of an individual’s international legal personality would be to provide him not only with certain rights and privileges, but also with the means to ensure their enforcement and compliance, as well as the ability to protect these rights on his own behalf, without the mediation of the state” ( Jimenez de Arechaga E. Modern international law. M., 1983. S. 259-260). Today we see exactly this reality.

However, R.M. Valeev comes to the conclusion that the recognition of a wide range of subjects of international law is due to globalization and the current level of development of international law. However, this does not change the essence of international law as, first and foremost, the law of interstates. Due to the very nature of international law as the main regulator of international, interstate relations, states have been, remain, and will remain the main subjects of international law for a long time.

Thus, the issue of subjects of international law (individuals, legal entities) remains debatable, in contrast to such subjects as states and international organizations. This suggests that the industry is developing, absorbing the changing trends of the entire global community as a whole.

§2. Classification of subjects of international law

All subjects of international law are divided into two main groups.

Sovereign (primary) subjects of international law are states; nations and peoples fighting for independence.

The primary (main) participants in international relations arise for natural historical reasons due to their inherent sovereignty. Nobody creates them as such.

They are characterized by such a political and legal property as sovereignty (state or national). Thanks to this, their legal personality has an absolute, unconditional character, does not depend on anyone’s outside will, is not predetermined by any international institution or calling; having arisen, they inevitably come into contact with each other, creating rules of mutual communication.

Non-sovereign (secondary, derivative) subjects - interstate organizations and international bodies; state-like entities.

Derivatives, that is, dependent, subjects of international law and international legal relations.

There are sufficient grounds for the distinction in the international legal system between law-creating entities and law-enforcing entities. To be more precise, they differentiate:

) subjects who create law and at the same time apply law, because those who participate in the rule-making process cannot be aloof from the practice of applying norms, and 2) subjects who are only law-enforcers, but do not have rule-making ability. 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.

Chepurnova N.M. gives a brief but meaningful description of all subjects of international law, including elements of classification.

States are traditional, primary, basic, original, universal, typical, sovereign, law-creating and law-enforcing subjects of international law. The state as the primary subject of international law is not created by anyone; its emergence is the result of a natural historical process. The state has sovereignty and international legal personality by virtue of the very fact of its origin.

Nations fighting for independence (hereinafter referred to as MFN) are traditional, primary, derivative, basic, atypical, universal, potentially sovereign, law-creating and law-enforcing subjects of international law. MFN is also not created by anyone, but arises as a result of historical development. However, MFN must be recognized as such by states at the international legal level, therefore their international legal personality is derivative. Unlike states that constantly function in the international arena, MFNs are not always present in international life, therefore they are atypical subjects of international law.

State-like entities (hereinafter - GPO) are traditional, secondary, derivative, basic, partially sovereign, atypical, universal, law-creating and law-enforcing subjects of international law. GPOs are created by states on the basis of an international treaty, therefore they are secondary subjects; the scope of their international legal personality is determined by states and is derivative in nature. Based on international agreement, GPOs have partial sovereignty. Like MFN, they do not always exist in principle on the international stage, and therefore are also atypical entities.

International intergovernmental organizations (hereinafter referred to as IGOs) are traditional, primary, typical, secondary, derivative, sectoral, non-sovereign, law-creating and law-enforcing subjects of international law. They are created by states (secondary subjects) and receive the quality of international legal personality by the direct expression of the states (derivative subjects).

MMPOs have neither territory nor population, therefore they are non-sovereign entities and, for objective reasons, can only have sectoral legal personality. MMPOs are permanent participants in international relations, their number, role and importance tend to increase. In this regard, MMPOs are typical subjects of international law.

Chapter 2. State-like entities as subjects of international law

§1. The concept and characteristics of state-like entities

The category of derivative subjects of international law usually includes special political-religious or political-territorial units, which, on the basis of an international act or international recognition, have a relatively independent international legal status.

Such political-religious and political-territorial units in international law are called state-like entities.

State-like entities (quasi-states) are a special type of subjects of international law that have some characteristics (features) of states, but are not such in the generally accepted sense.

They are endowed with the appropriate scope of rights and obligations and thereby become subjects of international law.

K.K. Hasanov identifies the following characteristics of state-like entities:

) territory;

) permanent population;

) citizenship;

) legislative bodies;

) government;

) international treaties.

The question arises: why are state-like entities not among the primary ones?

The answer to this question is given by R.M. Valeev: state-like entities do not have such a property as sovereignty, since, firstly, their population is not a people, but a part of a nation or representatives of various nations; secondly, their international legal capacity is severely limited; they do not have real independence in the international sphere. The emergence of such entities is based on international acts (treaties).

In the historical aspect, state-like entities include the “free cities”, West Berlin, and currently the most striking examples are the Vatican and the Order of Malta.

The Free City is a self-governing political entity, which has been granted international legal status by an international treaty, allowing it to participate mainly in economic, administrative and cultural international legal relations.

The creation of a free city, as historical experience shows, is usually the result of resolving the controversial issue of its belonging to one state or another.

In 1815, to resolve contradictions between the great powers, the Treaty of Vienna declared Krakow a free city under the auspices of Russia, Austria and Prussia. In 1919, they tried to resolve the dispute between Germany and Poland regarding Danzig (Gdansk) by granting it the status of a free city under the guarantee of the League of Nations. The city's external relations were carried out by Poland.

To resolve the claims of Italy and Yugoslavia regarding Trieste, the Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste was developed. The territory had to have a constitution, citizenship, a people's assembly, and a government. At the same time, the constitution and government activities had to comply with the Statute, i.e. international legal act. In 1954, Italy and Yugoslavia divided the territory of Trieste between themselves.

state-like entity international law

Therefore, the highest legal act for it, as mentioned above, is an international treaty, which determines the special international legal personality of the city.

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 the special rights they assumed after the surrender of Nazi Germany, and then in the conditions of the existence of two German states rights and responsibilities in relation to West Berlin, which maintained official relations with the GDR and the Federal Republic of Germany. The GDR government entered into a number of agreements with the West Berlin Senate. 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. Due to the reunification of Germany, formalized by the Treaty of the Final Settlement concerning Germany of 12 September 1990, the rights and responsibilities of the Four Powers regarding West Berlin ceased as it became part of the unified Federal Republic of Germany.

The question of the international legal personality of the Vatican and the Order of Malta has a certain specificity. We will consider them in more detail in the following paragraphs of this chapter.

Thus, state-like entities should be classified as derivative subjects of international law, since their legal personality is the result of the intentions and activities of primary subjects of international law.

§2. Vatican

The Vatican is the only theocratic city-state in the world, located within the capital of Italy - the city of Rome, on the right bank of the Tiber (the map of the Vatican is shown in Appendices No. 1 and No. 2). Occupied area - 0.44 sq. km. The Vatican is the largest religious and ideological center of Catholicism. The population of the Vatican in 2012 is 836 people.

The Vatican is a city-state that is the seat of the center of the Catholic Church - the Holy See. Due to established custom, it has a specific international legal personality. It participates in international relations under the name "Holy See".

I.I. Lukashuk writes that in international practice it is often emphasized that we are talking about a special entity - the Holy See, and not about the Catholic Church. Otherwise, it would be unclear why other churches were not given similar status.

The Vatican got its name from the name of the hill Mons Vaticanus, from the Latin vaticinia - “place of fortune-telling”.

The Vatican has its own coat of arms, flag, anthem, post office, radio, telegraph, press and other attributes of state power (the coat of arms and flag are shown in Appendix No. 3). He is also a major owner of capital and a holder of shares in a number of companies and banks, and has his own real estate in Italy, Spain, Germany and a number of Latin American countries. An important source of income for the Vatican also comes from contributions from national Catholic churches, production and sale of postage stamps, coins, and souvenirs.

The Vatican is home to the Roman Curia - the church government, consisting of congregations (departments corresponding to the status of a ministry in a secular state), tribunals and secretariats, whose administrative apparatus employs over a thousand people, mostly clergy.

Modern international law provides for the ability of the Holy See, represented by the pope, to participate in the process of international rule-making and enter into official relations with states and international organizations as a subject of international law sui generis, representing the interests of the Catholic Church in the international arena.

The acquisition of international legal personality by the Holy (Apostolic) See was the result of its long historical development, a consistent change in the doctrinal approaches of Catholicism to the issue of the relationship between state and church authorities, secular and spiritual sovereignties.

The first signs of the international legal personality of the Holy See appeared in the Middle Ages, when popes began to conclude special international agreements with secular sovereigns - concordats. The first such act of international rule-making with the participation of the Holy See was the Concordat of Worms of 1122. At this stage, a significant feature of concordats emerged that distinguishes them from “traditional” international treaties - a mixed object of legal regulation: the Concordat of Worms regulated both the political relations of the parties and the operating conditions Catholic Church on the territory of the state.

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. Currently, the international legal status of the Vatican is determined by the 1984 agreement between Italy and the Holy See.

The unique position of the Apostolic See in the system of subjects of international law, its special legal nature and religious specificity determine the methods of its activities in the international arena, the direction of foreign policy goals and priorities. The main vector of the papacy's policy is the protection of human rights and freedoms, primarily religious, and the church as a whole, as well as activities to prevent international conflicts.

The foreign policy of the Holy See is characterized by the following distinctive features:

active use by the Holy See, along with central governing bodies and diplomatic missions, of the capabilities of national churches to achieve their foreign policy goals;

the main task of the papal nuncios is to maintain communication between the pope and the bishops in national states and thereby ensure the unity of the church, while the function of developing bilateral political relations between the Holy See and the host state is secondary;

in connection with the religious nature of the policy of the Holy See, one of the priorities of its foreign policy activities is the protection of the privileges of the church, as well as religious rights and human freedoms;

the internationally recognized neutrality of the Holy See and the Vatican in accordance with Article 24 of the Lateran Treaty. The author analyzes the modern teaching of the Catholic Church on war, formulated in the encyclical "Pacem in terris" ("Peace on Earth") of 1963 and the documents of the Second Vatican Council (1962 - 1965), which condemns any form of military solution to international disputes;

the prevalence of mediation in order to resolve international disputes exclusively by peaceful means. As an example of such activities of the Holy See, the author analyzes in detail the participation of the pope as a mediator in the Argentine-Chilean dispute over the ownership of a group of islands in the Beagle Channel (1984).

Today, the Holy See maintains diplomatic relations with 178 countries of the world.

The Holy See can join international organizations and is a full member of some of them.

The Holy See, a member of the international community whose authority is of religious rather than political origin, is the only one of its kind to have permanent observer status at the UN. The Holy See sent its first mission to the UN on March 21, 1964. The status of permanent representative in this organization was granted to the Holy See on April 6, 1964.

The powers of the Holy See as a permanent observer are defined in UN General Assembly resolution 58/314, adopted on July 16, 2004. The main difference between permanent observer status and full membership is that the observer does not have the right to vote at meetings of the UN General Assembly. At the same time, the Holy See is given the right to speak at its sessions, which can be considered a special privilege, since heads of state that are not members of the UN, as a rule, are not given the right to speak before the General Assembly.

The Holy See is a member of various subsidiary bodies of the UN. Within the framework of his mandate, he actively participates in the work of the UN General Assembly and conferences, attends meetings of specialized UN agencies, and is elected to the elected bodies of the Organization. At the same time, as diplomats note, the informal, behind-the-scenes activities of representatives of the Holy See have the greatest influence and effectiveness.

In the book “Secrets of the Vatican. History, shrines, life and death in the holy monastery” S. Shahrad describes the process of electing the Pope. After the death or abdication of the Pope, members of the College of Cardinals come from all over the world and gather in the Sistine Chapel. There, with the doors locked, the solemn procedure for electing the Pope, known as the “conclave,” begins. "Conclave" is a forbidden room (from the Latin con clavis - with a key). This concept was introduced after the death of Clement IV in 1268, when the cardinals hesitated for two years and nine days. Then the city authorities took them to the episcopal palace in Viterbo and locked the gates behind them. There was still no solution, then the local people got down to business, starting to dismantle the roof over the heads of the cardinals. This extreme measure had an effect: the cardinals very quickly elected Gregory X as Pope.

The Pope's death must first be confirmed by Cardinal Carmelengo. Further, no later than 20 days after the death of the Pope, the cardinals march to the Sextine Chapel, where voting takes place. Voting is completely anonymous. If a majority of votes is not obtained, the ballots are burned in a fireplace specially built for this purpose along with a chemical that causes black smoke to appear over the roof of the Sistine Chapel. Once consensus is reached, the ballots are simply burned while the bell rings, announcing the election of the Pope. The bell is also rung in case the smoke is not completely white.

Based on all of the above, we can conclude that no questions arise regarding the Vatican as a subject of international law. Despite the fact that the Vatican is a small state - a dwarf one, this does not in the least detract from its position in the international arena.

§3. Order of Malta

The Order of Malta (Ionites, Hospitallers, Knights of Rhodes) is a spiritual knightly order of St. John, which was founded around 1070 as a brotherhood. The symbol of the Order of Malta is an eight-pointed white cross (Maltese) on a black cloak (Appendix No. 5).

At the moment, the Italian Republic recognizes the existence of the Order of Malta on its territory as a sovereign state, as well as the extraterritoriality of its residence in Rome (Palace of Malta<#"649568.files/image001.gif">

Appendix No. 2

Map of Vatika City

Appendix No. 3

Flag of the Vatican

Vatican coat of arms

Appendix No. 4

Geography of the Order of Malta

Appendix No. 5

Motto of the Order of Malta:

"Tuitio Fidei et Obsequium Pauperum" (Latin)"Defending Justice and Helping the Poor and Suffering""

Flag of the Order of Malta

Coat of arms of the Order of Malta

State-like entities

State-like entities have a certain amount of international legal personality. They are endowed with an appropriate scope of rights and obligations and thereby become subjects of international law. Such entities have territory, sovereignty, have their own citizenship, legislative assembly, government, and international treaties.

Among them were the so-called. "free cities", West Berlin. This category of entities includes the Vatican, the Order of Malta and Holy Mount Athos. 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 (Gdansk) (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.

West Berlin (1971–1990) enjoyed a special status granted by the 1971 Quadripartite Agreement on West Berlin. 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.

Vatican- 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.

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.

Holy Mount Athos (Athos) is an independent monastic state located on a peninsula in Eastern Greece, in the region of Chalkidiki. It is owned by a special Orthodox monastic association. Management is carried out jointly by representatives of each of the 20 monasteries. The governing body of Athos is the Holy Kinot, which includes representatives of all 20 monasteries of Athos. And the highest church power on Athos belongs not to the Patriarch of Athens, but to the Patriarch of Constantinople, as in the Byzantine era. Entry into the territory of a state-like entity is prohibited for women and even for female pets. To visit Holy Mount Athos, pilgrims must obtain a special permit - “diamonitirion”. In recent years, the European Council has repeatedly demanded that the Greek government open access to Mount Athos to everyone, including women. The Orthodox Church strongly opposes this in order to preserve the traditional monastic way of life.

Lecture 5. Subjects of international law

5.6. State-like entities as subjects of international law

History knows of individual political-territorial entities that, in their content, are not states, since their legal personality is derived from the legal personality of the states that created them. These formations include free cities (Krakow -1815 - 1846, Danzig - 1920 - 1939, West Berlin - 1971 - 1990). These entities were created by international treaties that determined their legal status.

Since these entities met almost all the characteristics of a state, but had a derivative legal personality, they began to be called state-like entities in international law.

Currently, such entities include the Vatican and the Order of Malta.

The legal status of the Vatican is determined by the agreement between the Italian Republic and the Holy See of February 11, 1929. In accordance with this agreement, the Vatican is endowed with all the attributes of a state: territory, citizenship, legislation, army, etc.

The Order of Malta is a religious formation actively involved in international relations. Exchanges representation with states, has observer missions to the UN and UN specialized agencies.

State-like entities are special political-religious or political-territorial units that, on the basis of an 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 guard 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 the special rights and responsibilities they assumed after the surrender of Nazi Germany 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 of 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.

Views