home » Hats » Decisions of international organizations. The term "soft law"

Decisions of international organizations. The term "soft law"

This week, US President Donald Trump made his debut at the UN General Assembly. The meeting was a good reason to shake up the US foreign policy stalled due to internal turmoil and once again outline the priorities that The White house intends to follow in the international arena.

Photo Twitter.com

The day before, Trump came up with another high-profile initiative - on the reform of the UN. In principle, talks about reforming this organization, created in the hot pursuit of World War II, have been going on for a long time. However, the matter does not go further than talk, for a simple reason: no one knows how to reform. Any attempts to transform the UN run up against numerous contradictions among the member states of the organization.

And so Trump got down to business with his usual cowboy determination. Criticism of the UN sounded from him even during the election campaign. The main complaints are excessive bureaucracy and low efficiency, non-transparency of spending schemes financial resources... In addition, Trump again used his favorite argument - the disproportionately large, in his opinion, the contribution of the United States to the content of the UN. Not so long ago, he made similar claims to NATO, making a big stir in the North Atlantic alliance.

Trump's proposals were supported by 130 states, but the document is likely to remain at the level of a non-binding declaration of intent. Russia, China and France are permanent members of the UN Security Council - an initiative American President rejected. According to the Russian Permanent Representative to the UN Vasily Nebenz, the US proposals "help to reduce the role of the UN and establish a unipolar world order."

It seems that behind the innocent proposals for de-bureaucratization and optimization lies the US striving for a much more radical reform. Washington has long been burdened by the decision-making system that exists in the UN Security Council, which allows permanent members to veto any resolution, as a result of which many initiatives beneficial to the United States fail. This is very annoying for Washington, which, as Trump likes to emphasize, bears the main costs of funding the UN. And investments, as you know, should give a return, businessman Trump knows this very well.

At the same time, the resolution on reforms became a good trial balloon and a test of loyalty to Washington's hegemony. One hundred and thirty countries that supported Trump's initiative have become more than a clear illustration of the continuing influence of the United States in the international arena, and Washington will certainly use this asset.

As for Trump's speech at the General Assembly, in it he generally repeated his already well-known foreign policy guidelines. Trump once again attacked the DPRK, threatening the North Korean leadership nuclear war if it persists in developing its missile program and also criticized the nuclear deal with Iran, which was named among the main threats to peace and security in the Middle East. At the same time, Trump reaffirmed the rejection of the "policy of values" and the imposition of other states of his way of life and thoughts.

However, this does not mean at all, and Trump's rhetoric confirms this that the United States will abandon the practice of interfering in the affairs of other states. Trump calls for strengthening the sovereignty and independence of all countries, and also promises to respect others cultural traditions and values, but at the same time the national interests of the United States remain a priority, which is natural. Will it not turn out that the protection of the US national interests will turn into a convenient pretext for interfering in the affairs of third countries, up to and including armed aggression? The rhetoric and actions of the Trump administration suggest that this is the case. The United States is not at all going to abandon the active foreign policy, and their sphere of interest is the whole world. However, if earlier American fighters and bombers carried freedom and democracy on their wings, now they will defend the national interests of the United States - in Korea, Afghanistan, Syria or Iran. The rhetoric has changed, the essence has not.

The problem of the use of force has always been and remains one of the most difficult and controversial in international law. On the one hand, it is obvious that force has been used and continues to be used to solve a variety of tasks, on the other hand, the entire UN system is aimed at ensuring that the percentage of use of force is as small as possible. The use of force both through peacekeeping under the auspices of the UN, and through humanitarian intervention, through armed conflicts, through civil wars, today acquires a particularly acute sound. The problems of expediency, possibilities, and most importantly, the boundaries of the use of force have long been acute in international law.

UN, as the foundation of modern international law, cannot remain aloof from these problems, since in fact it is the UN, being the largest international forum and making the most legitimate decisions, in terms of quantitative representation, should most clearly reflect the position of the modern international community on the framework of the use of force. It can be stated unequivocally that, in one form or another, force is regularly used in modern international relations, which currently makes the possibility of a complete ban on the use of force impracticable. It should be noted that the most frequently used grounds and pretexts for the use of force are obligations under a treaty, the protection of their own citizens abroad, and a humanitarian disaster.

That is why the task of the UN is to maximize alignment real application strength and legal basis for this use: “As the bitter experience of the United Nations over the past decade has shown, no amount of good intentions can replace real opportunity direct capable forces, in particular to ensure the success of a comprehensive peacekeeping operation. But force alone cannot secure peace; power can only prepare the space in which peace can be built. "

As Yu.N. correctly notes Maleev, “on the one hand, it is impossible to tolerate the massacres of people at the will of the rulers or as a result of tribal and other similar enmity; on the other hand, it is highly desirable that armed actions external forces aimed at stopping these atrocities were approved by an authoritative international body or were carried out by such a body itself. "

The greatest debate from this perspective is caused by the problem of the lawful use of force, since "the use of the UN armed forces by a group of states or by individual states outside the UN framework is, in one way or another, the use of armed force by some states against other states."

The situation is complicated by the presence of the most conflicting opinions on this issue: “Many experts are convinced that early and decisive military intervention can become an effective deterrent to further killings. Others believe that the most that humanitarian intervention can give is the suspension of bloodshed, which may be enough to start peace negotiations and to provide various forms of assistance. That is, it allows you to gain time, but it does not solve the problems underlying the conflict. "

It can be stated that there is no unity in the doctrine of international law regarding the legality of the use of force.

The existing UN peacekeeping doctrine proceeds from the recognition of the existence of the factor of military force, and for the settlement of different types and stages of conflict developed different classifications types of peacekeeping activities carried out by the United Nations. The first typology has five components: preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peace promotion, peacekeeping, and peace enforcement. It should be noted that none of these terms is found in the UN Charter, and the classification itself is a product of many years of experience, "trial and error" of peacekeeping activities.

The term "preventive diplomacy" was first used by D. Hammarskjold in a report of the Secretary-General on the work of the organization in 1960, where, under preventive diplomacy, he called "the efforts of the United Nations to localize disputes and wars that could aggravate confrontation between two warring parties."

B. Boutros-Ghali gives a slightly different definition of this activity: “... these are actions aimed at easing tensions before these tensions escalate into conflict, or, if a conflict has begun, taking immediate measures to contain it and eliminate the causes underlying it. basis ". “D. Hammarskjöld's concept was aimed at strengthening the role of the Secretary General and the UN Security Council during the period of“ cold war»And expand the range of methods they use. According to D. Hammarskjold, the reason for the start of preventive action was that the situation contained the danger of escalating into a broader crisis or war between East and West. In the early 90s of the 20th century, the situation in world politics was different, and above all, it was the withdrawal of the Cold War. Therefore, B. Boutros-Ghali's approach is based on the concept of responding to violent conflicts as they arise and spread. Time dictated the need to develop a concept of preventive diplomacy that would meet the situation that developed in the second half of the 1990s. Very often, the terms "preventive diplomacy" and "crisis prevention" interchangeably ".

Thus, the main factor in the implementation of preventive diplomacy is the establishment of trust, which directly depends on the authority of the diplomats and the organization itself. In addition, the concept of preventive diplomacy is complemented by the concept of preventive deployment, according to which it is permissible to use armed forces to create demilitarized zones. Many authors, however, do not share this concept, and believe that any use of military force under the auspices of the UN refers directly to operations to maintain or enforce peace.

“Peace-building involves taking actions that help rebuild national institutions and infrastructure destroyed during civil war, or the creation of mutually beneficial ties between countries that participated in the war in order to avoid a renewal of the conflict. "

In the modern doctrine of UN peacekeeping, this term is almost never used, since it was actually replaced by the term "peacebuilding", within the framework of which it is supposed to help countries that have survived the conflict in the restoration of infrastructure and national institutions, assistance in holding elections, i.e. actions aimed at preventing a relapse of the conflict. A feature of this type of activity is that it is used only in the post-conflict period.

"Promoting peace is the process of resolving differences and resolving problems that lead to conflict, mainly through diplomacy, mediation, negotiation or other forms of peaceful settlement." This term, like “the establishment of peace”, is not used at the present time in the legal literature; instead, the term “means of peaceful settlement of disputes” is usually used. In general, today the division of the peacekeeping concept is often used not into five parts, but into two, more extensive ones - firstly, peacekeeping without the use of military force, which in the classical doctrine includes preventive diplomacy, peacebuilding and means of peaceful settlement of disputes, and secondly , peacekeeping involving the use of military force, which includes maintaining and enforcing peace. Peacekeeping refers to "measures and actions using military forces or military observers, taken by the UN Security Council to maintain or restore international peace and security."

There is currently no precise legal definition of peace enforcement operations recorded in the documents.

In addition, often in the legal literature, peacekeeping and enforcement operations are united under the general term "peacekeeping operations", which is not equivalent to the concept of "UN peacekeeping", which is understood as the totality of all the means used by the UN to maintain international peace and security. In its most general form, the purpose of any peacekeeping means is to persuade the opposing parties to an agreement and to help them resolve conflicts. Typically, to achieve these goals, the following practical tasks are used: “… forcing one or more warring parties to stop violent actions, conclude a peace agreement between themselves or with the current government; protection of the territory and (or) population from aggression; isolation of a territory or a group of people and limiting their contact with the outside world; observation (tracking, monitoring) of the development of the situation, collection, processing and delivery of information; providing or assisting in meeting the basic needs of the parties involved in the conflict. "

An important aspect is the right of states to self-defense. According to Art. 51 of the Charter: “This Charter does not in any way affect inalienable right to individual or collective self-defense in the event of an armed attack on a Member of the Organization, until the Security Council takes the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. The measures taken by the Members of the Organization in exercising this right to self-defense shall be communicated immediately to the Security Council and shall in no way affect the powers and responsibilities of the Security Council, in accordance with this Charter, in relation to the enterprise at any time such actions as it deems necessary for maintaining international peace and security ”.

Until recently, there were two points of view on the content of the right to self-defense: the literal interpretation of Art. 51 of the UN Charter, which excludes any self-defense if it is not carried out in response to an armed attack, and an expansive interpretation allowing self-defense in the face of the threat of an armed attack looming over the state.

For a long time in the West, the doctrine of the admissibility of interference in the internal affairs of other states for so-called "humanitarian" reasons has been formed, and practice shows that the use of force unilaterally, bypassing the Security Council, is becoming a trend.

In the practice of the Red Cross, such action is defined as “intervention motivated by humanitarian considerations to prevent and alleviate human suffering”. This concept gives rise to a number of legal conflicts. On the one hand, any UN peacekeeping actions are inherently humanitarian in nature and are based on the principle of observance and respect for human rights, however, on the other hand, if such actions are carried out without UN sanction, the organization condemns them, even if these actions had positive consequences. For example, the UN condemned the entry of Vietnamese troops into Cambodia in 1978, although this operation ultimately had a humanitarian effect, as it put an end to Pol Pot's genocidal policy.

Conflicts last generation are increasingly of an intrastate nature, which limits the possibility of UN interference by virtue of state sovereignty. However, it is obvious that for many sovereignty is not an absolute concept: “In essence, the internal order has never been autonomous in the strict sense. Sovereignty endows the nation with only the main competence; it is not, and never has been, an exclusive competence. " Chapter VII of the Charter allows for intervention in the event of "a threat to the peace, a violation of the peace or an act of aggression." Thus, supporters of the intervention believe that the concept of "humanitarian catastrophe" can be equated with "a threat to the peace, a violation of the peace or an act of aggression." In addition, supporters of this concept also refer to the Preamble and Art. Art. 1, 55 and 56 of the UN Charter, which stipulate the possibility of "taking joint and independent action" for "universal respect and observance of human rights." In fact, such a theory has a right to exist, since the term "peacekeeping operations", as well as the term "intervention for humanitarian reasons", is absent in the Charter, which, however, does not prevent the successful application of PKOs based on an expansionary interpretation of the provisions of the UN Charter.

Western researchers note that “the majority of peacekeeping and humanitarian operations is carried out for reasons of national public interest rather than according to international standards". Nevertheless, the regularity of such interference does not yet allow us to recognize it as legitimate from the point of view of international law: "... the doctrine of the right-duty humanitarian intervention is still quite controversial, and the grounds for such interference have not yet been determined."

Obviously, sovereignty cannot remain unchanged for centuries. That everything is today large quantity issues are transferred to the global level - this is a natural phenomenon, and the security sector could not be an exception. "Principle sovereign equality gives states the opportunity to negotiate, because this can only be done on an equal footing. To question this principle means to question international law itself - the result of agreements between states ”.

Some researchers believe that “a number of the original provisions of the UN Charter no longer meet the new conditions. The UN Charter mainly regulates interstate relations, including conflicts between countries ... The UN Charter can do little to help when it comes to conflicts within the state, interethnic, interethnic clashes. "

Clause 4 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter establishes the generally recognized principle of the non-use of force or the threat of force. However, not everyone agrees with his generally accepted interpretation: “My main postulate, with which I have already appeared in print: such a principle (non-use of force, prohibition of the use of force) has never existed, does not exist, and most importantly, it cannot be in the nature of human society ... On the contrary: strength, and only strength, structures human society- it is another matter that it should be applied adequately and proportionally ”.

Thus, it can be stated that the problem of the use of force in modern international law has not been completely resolved, and, despite the formal recognition of the UN as the only international structure having the right to the legitimate use of force, forceful methods are often used by various states to resolve conflicts and pursue their own national interests.

Thus, analyzing everything stated in the second chapter of this study, a number of conclusions can be drawn.

First, the Security Council plays an extremely important role in the activities of the Organization. It is the main body for the maintenance of international peace and sustainable rule of law. UN Security Council decisions have a mandatory legal force for all participating countries.

Secondly, the Security Council is empowered to consider any international dispute or conflict situations that could lead to military action. The UN Security Council is doing everything in its power to resolve the conflict situation peacefully. However, if necessary, the Security Council can take military action against the aggressor.

At the direction of the Security Council, if necessary, in conflict situations, the UN Armed Forces, consisting of the military units of the participating countries, can be used. As part of the UN Secretariat, there is a Department of Peacekeeping Operations, which directs the activities of military and civilian personnel involved in such operations.

Currently, the UN armed contingents ("blue helmets") totaling over 75 thousand people are carrying out 18 peacekeeping operations in different countries peace on four continents.

Third, the UN has undoubtedly made an outstanding contribution to preventing a new world war on the planet with the use of deadly chemical, bacteriological and nuclear weapons. The issues of disarmament, strengthening peace and security have always occupied and continue to occupy the most important place in the activities of the UN.

Fourth, thanks to the efforts of the UN, over the past 60 years, more international legal documents have been adopted in the world aimed at maintaining the rule of law than in the entire previous history of mankind.

It should be noted that along with major and unconditional achievements in the UN peacekeeping practice, there were significant omissions and flaws. The UN was unable to contribute to the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the peacekeeping operations in Somalia and Rwanda ended in failure, the failure of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Yugoslavia was discovered, where the UN was unable to prevent the bombing of this country air forces NATO. Belatedly, the UN joined the process of peaceful settlement of the conflict situation in Iraq. Some peacekeeping operations were accompanied by atrocities by UN peacekeepers (for example, in Africa).

Peace and maintenance of international law and order in modern conditions globalization is gaining in importance and demanding priority attention.

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.

It can be stated that there is no unity in the doctrine of international law regarding the legality of the use of force.

The existing UN peacekeeping doctrine is based on the recognition of the existence of the factor of military force, and various classifications of the types of peacekeeping activities carried out by the United Nations have been developed to resolve various types and stages of conflicts. The first typology has five components: preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peace promotion, peacekeeping, and peace enforcement. It should be noted that none of these terms is found in the UN Charter, and the classification itself is the product of many years of experience, "trial and error" of peacekeeping activities.

The term "preventive diplomacy" was first used by D. Hammarskjold in a report of the Secretary-General on the work of the organization in 1960, where, under preventive diplomacy, he called "the efforts of the United Nations to localize disputes and wars that could aggravate confrontation between two warring parties."

B. Boutros-Ghali gives a slightly different definition of this activity: “... these are actions aimed at easing tensions before these tensions escalate into conflict, or, if a conflict has begun, taking immediate measures to contain it and eliminate the causes underlying it. basis ". “The concept of D. Hammarskjöld was aimed at strengthening the role of the Secretary General and the UN Security Council during the Cold War and expanding the range of methods they used. According to D. Hammarskjold, the reason for the start of preventive action was that the situation contained the danger of escalating into a broader crisis or war between East and West. In the early 90s of the 20th century, the situation in world politics was different, and above all, it was the withdrawal of the Cold War. Therefore, B. Boutros-Ghali's approach is based on the concept of responding to violent conflicts as they arise and spread. Time dictated the need to develop a concept of preventive diplomacy that would meet the situation that developed in the second half of the 1990s. Very often, the terms "preventive diplomacy" and "crisis prevention" interchangeably ".

“Peace-building involves the implementation of actions that help rebuild national institutions and infrastructure destroyed during the civil war, or create mutually beneficial ties between countries that have participated in the war in order to avoid a renewal of conflict.”

There is currently no precise legal definition of peace enforcement operations recorded in the documents.

An important aspect is the right of states to self-defense. According to Art. 51 of the Charter: “This Charter does not in any way affect the inalienable right to individual or collective self-defense in the event of an armed attack on a Member of the Organization, until the Security Council takes the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. The measures taken by the Members of the Organization in exercising this right to self-defense shall be communicated immediately to the Security Council and shall in no way affect the powers and responsibilities of the Security Council, in accordance with this Charter, in relation to the enterprise at any time such actions as it deems necessary for maintaining international peace and security ”.

For a long time in the West, the doctrine of the admissibility of interference in the internal affairs of other states for so-called "humanitarian" reasons has been formed, and practice shows that the use of force unilaterally, bypassing the Security Council, is becoming a trend.

Conflicts of the last generation are increasingly of an intrastate nature, which limits the possibility of UN intervention due to state sovereignty. However, it is obvious that for many sovereignty is not an absolute concept: “In essence, the internal order has never been autonomous in the strict sense. Sovereignty endows the nation with only the main competence; it is not, and never has been, an exclusive competence. " Chapter VII of the Charter allows for intervention in the event of "a threat to the peace, a violation of the peace or an act of aggression." Thus, supporters of the intervention believe that the concept of "humanitarian catastrophe" can be equated with "a threat to the peace, a violation of the peace or an act of aggression." In addition, supporters of this concept also refer to the Preamble and Art. Art. 1, 55 and 56 of the UN Charter, which stipulate the possibility of "taking joint and independent action" for "universal respect and observance of human rights." In fact, such a theory has a right to exist, since the term "peacekeeping operations", as well as the term "intervention for humanitarian reasons", is absent in the Charter, which, however, does not prevent the successful application of PKOs based on an expansionary interpretation of the provisions of the UN Charter.

Western researchers note that "the majority of peacekeeping and humanitarian operations are carried out for reasons of national state interests rather than in accordance with international norms." Nevertheless, the regularity of such interference does not yet allow us to recognize it as legitimate from the point of view of international law: "... the doctrine of the right-duty humanitarian intervention is still quite controversial, and the grounds for such interference have not yet been determined."

Obviously, sovereignty cannot remain unchanged for centuries. The fact that today an increasing number of issues are being transferred to the global level is a natural phenomenon, and the security sector could not be an exception. “The principle of sovereign equality gives states the opportunity to negotiate, because this can only be done on an equal footing. To question this principle means to question international law itself - the result of agreements between states ”.

Some researchers believe that “a number of the original provisions of the UN Charter no longer meet the new conditions. The UN Charter mainly regulates interstate relations, including conflicts between countries ... The UN Charter can do little to help when it comes to conflicts within the state, interethnic, interethnic clashes. "

Clause 4 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter establishes the generally recognized principle of the non-use of force or the threat of force. However, not everyone agrees with his generally accepted interpretation: “My main postulate, with which I have already appeared in print: such a principle (non-use of force, prohibition of the use of force) has never existed, does not exist, and most importantly, it cannot be in the nature of human society ... On the contrary: force, and only force, structures human society - it's another matter that it should be applied adequately and proportionally. "

Thus, it can be stated that the problem of the use of force in modern international law has not been completely resolved, and, despite the formal recognition of the UN as the only international structure that has the right to the legitimate use of force, force methods are often used by various states to resolve conflicts and implement their own national interests.

Thus, analyzing everything stated in the second chapter of this study, a number of conclusions can be drawn.

First, the Security Council plays an extremely important role in the activities of the Organization. It is the main body for the maintenance of international peace and sustainable rule of law. The decisions of the UN Security Council are legally binding for all participating countries.

Secondly, the Security Council is empowered to consider any international disputes or conflict situations that may lead to military action. The UN Security Council is doing everything in its power to resolve the conflict situation peacefully. However, if necessary, the Security Council can take military action against the aggressor.

Conclusion

2012 marks the 67th anniversary of the founding of the largest international organization - the UN. The organization was created in 1945 as a result of the defeat of the aggressive fascist coalition in the Second World War. The UN Charter was signed on June 26, 1945 by representatives of 51 states in San Francisco and entered into force on October 24, 1945. Since then, this date has been annually celebrated as UN Day.

The United Nations was established on the basis of a voluntary association of sovereign states with the aim of maintaining international peace and security, as well as developing multilateral cooperation between states. The most significant contribution to the creation of the UN was made by representatives of the three allied states - the USSR, the USA and England, supported by other countries of the anti-fascist bloc.

The creation of the UN was a historic milestone in the struggle of peace-loving forces against extremism, militarism and aggression. The United Nations, as a universal international institution, has begun to play a vital role in socio-economic, political, legal, military, ethnic, religious and other processes in all regions and parts of the world.

Perhaps no other international organization or structure has made such a significant contribution to the development of friendly relations between nations, raising the standard of living, protecting human rights, promoting social progress and preserving the environment.

According to the UN Charter, its main organs are: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice and the Secretariat.

The organization also has a whole network of programs, funds, functional committees and commissions. The specialized agencies of the United Nations are: International Labor Organization (ILO), World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), Universal Postal Union (UPU), United Nations Educational Scientific Organization and Culture (UNESCO), United Nations industrial development(UNIDO), etc.

The General Assembly usually meets once a year, although extraordinary sessions can be called, for example, in cases of violation of the peace or an act of aggression, as well as special sessions to discuss major international problems. In work The General Assembly all members of the organization participate. Its competence includes the discussion of any issues concerning all countries, nations or ethnic groups. Each country-member of the UN, regardless of its territorial size and population, as well as its economic, scientific and technical potential has one vote in voting procedures. Formal equality ensures respect for the rights of any State that is a member of the United Nations.

The Security Council plays an extremely important role in the activities of the Organization. It is the main body for the maintenance of international peace and sustainable rule of law. The decisions of the UN Security Council are legally binding for all participating countries.

The Security Council is empowered to consider any international dispute or conflict situation that may lead to military action. The UN Security Council is doing everything in its power to resolve the conflict situation peacefully. However, if necessary, the Security Council can take military action against the aggressor.

Currently, the UN armed contingents ("blue helmets") totaling over 75 thousand people are carrying out 18 peacekeeping operations in various countries of the world on four continents.

The UN has undoubtedly made an outstanding contribution to the prevention of a new world war on the planet with the use of deadly chemical, bacteriological and nuclear weapons. The issues of disarmament, strengthening peace and security have always occupied and continue to occupy the most important place in the activities of the UN.

The UN provides systematic assistance to less developed countries and regions of the world. Through specialized programs in more than 130 countries around the world, the UN provides $ 5 billion in aid annually in the form of grants and over $ 20 billion in loans. The UN provides assistance and support to many hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged people: the poor, refugees, people who have lost their homes.

The UN is developing national strategies to reduce and eliminate poverty in 60 countries around the world. The UN is waging a purposeful fight against drug trafficking. The UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs is the main intergovernmental body for the development of activities in the field of drug trafficking and drug trafficking control. International program The UN Narcotics Control Board provides overall guidance for international efforts to combat drug addiction.

Thanks to the efforts of the UN, over the past 60 years, more international legal documents aimed at maintaining law and order have been adopted in the world than in the entire previous history of mankind.

In 1948, it was the UN that adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - a truly historic document that proclaimed the equality of men and women, people with different skin colors and different religions, and individual rights and freedoms. Since then, in addition to this universal declaration, over 80 UN treaties and conventions have been adopted to protect specific human rights.

The United Nations has supported the development of democratic processes in more than 70 countries by providing concrete assistance in organizing and holding elections there.

The UN has played an outstanding role in the movement to grant independence to colonial peoples. As a result of decolonization, more than 80 states gained their independence.

The UN provides systematic assistance to the poorest countries in the world. The UN World Food Program is the largest free aid program, providing over one third of the world's food aid.

As a result of activities The World Organization Healthcare and the United Nations Children's Fund carried out measures for the large-scale vaccination of children against diseases that pose a lethal danger. As a result, the lives of over 2 million children were saved.

It should be noted that along with major and unconditional achievements in the UN peacekeeping practice, there were significant omissions and flaws. The UN was unable to contribute to the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the peacekeeping operations in Somalia and Rwanda ended in failure, the failure of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Yugoslavia was revealed, where the UN was unable to prevent the bombing of this country by NATO air forces. Belatedly, the UN joined the process of peaceful settlement of the conflict situation in Iraq. Some peacekeeping operations were accompanied by atrocities by UN peacekeepers (for example, in Africa).

The issues of ensuring peace and maintaining international law and order in the modern conditions of globalization acquire special significance and require priority attention.

V last years The UN has been subjected to serious criticism from both the right and the left on more than one occasion. The leadership of this organization was accused of ineffective spending of financial resources, sluggishness, inhibited reaction to acute conflict situations, bureaucratization, etc. In fairness, it should be admitted that a significant share of criticism was justified. Over the past decades, the world has experienced drastic changes political, military, economic and cultural nature. Meanwhile, most of the UN structures remained unchanged. As a result, there was a mismatch between the deprecated organizational system and new challenges and requirements due to rapidly changing life events.

UN Secretary General K. Annan was forced to admit: “We are experiencing a crisis in the international system. The UN urgently needs radical reform. " K. Annan in March 2005 made a report “Towards Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights”. In it, he formulated the introduction of fundamental changes in the structure of some UN bodies. In particular, the number of member states of the Security Council is expected to be expanded from 15 to 24, while maintaining the veto right for the five largest states: the United States, China, Russia, Great Britain, and France. Six new states will receive the status of permanent members (it is assumed that they will include Germany, Japan, India, Brazil). Three new members of the Security Council will become non-permanent, elected for a 2-year term. In addition, instead of the Commission on Human Rights, it is planned to create a UN Human Rights Council with broad rights and powers.

Other changes are envisaged, which will not be easy to implement, since the Annan Plan has both supporters and opponents. Nevertheless, the very existence of a reorganization plan testifies to the vitality and internal reserves of the UN.

The UN really needs reform - a thoughtful, large-scale, serious reorganization. At the same time, the United Nations retains its enormous intellectual potential, experience in holding large-scale events, its universal character, and its commitment to the lofty ideals of humanism, goodness and justice.

Despite certain negative moments, omissions, discrepancies, and some erroneous decisions, the United Nations remains the only truly universal international organization on a global scale. The UN maintains close ties with over 1,600 non-governmental organizations. The UN remains a universal forum, a unique international tribune for discussing the most significant and important issues modernity, for the development of appropriate decisions and the adoption of specific measures for the implementation of certain programs. No other organization on the planet provides such extensive assistance to populations affected by floods, earthquakes, crop failures and droughts. No other organization provides such support to refugees fleeing military conflicts and persecution as the UN. No public or state structure does not pay as much attention to the problems of eradicating hunger and poverty on earth as the United Nations.

As a multilevel, multinational, open, universal system, the UN is a prototype of a mechanism for uniting all countries, all organizations and public structures in the course of the twenty-first century implementation of the principle: unity in diversity. The UN provides an opportunity to discuss any controversial and difficult issues, facilitating the dialogue of representatives different languages and dialects, different religions, cultures, dissimilar political views.

Preserving and strengthening the UN is the most important task of all peace-loving forces, all peacekeeping organizations and people of goodwill on the planet.

Bibliographic list

1. Abugu, A.I. Preventive diplomacy and its implementation in modern international law: Abstract of a dissertation for competition academic degree candidate of legal sciences [Text] / A.I. Abugu. - M., 2000 .-- 18 p.

2. Adamishin, A. On the way to world government [Text] / A. Adamishin // Russia in global politics. - 2009. - No. 1. - November December. - S. 87.

3. Berezhnov, A.G. Individual rights: some theoretical questions [Text] / A.G. Berezhnov. - M., 2011 .-- 211 p.

4. Bovett, D. United Nations Armed Forces. Per. from English [Text] / D. Bovett. - M .: Politizdat, 1992 .-- 312 p.

5. Bogdanov, O. V. General and complete disarmament [Text] / O.V. Bogdanov. - M., 2008 .-- 514 p.

6. Boutros Boutros-Ghali - Sixth General Secretary UN: Collection of materials [Text]. - M .: Publishing house of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, 2005 .-- 211 p.

7. Gavrilov, V.V. UN and Human Rights: Mechanisms for the Creation and Implementation of Normative Acts [Text] / V.V. Gavrilov. - Vladivostok, 2008 .-- 543 p.

8. Gavrilov, V.V. Cooperation of States in the Field of Human Rights and the United Nations Organization [Text] / V.V. Gavrilov. - M., 2010 .-- 543 p.

9. Ganyushkina, E.B. Formation of an international economic order[Text] / E.B. Ganyushkina // International law and international organizations. - 2012. - No. 1. - S. 10-33.

10. Getman-Pavlova, I.V. International law: lecture notes [Text] / I.V. Getman-Pavlova. - M., 2007 .-- 400 p.

11. Report of the group on UN peace operations. A / 55/305 - S / 2000/809 [Electronic resource]. URL: http: // www.un.org/russian/ peace / reports / peace_operations.

12. Zimnenko, B.L. International law and legal system Russian Federation... General part: Course of lectures [Text]. - M .: Statut, RAP, 2010 .-- 416 p.

13. Kartashkin, V.A. United Nations Organization in the Modern Globalizing World [Text] / V.А. Kartashkin. - M., 2011 .-- 541 p.

14. Kibalnik, A.G. Modern international criminal law: concept, objectives and principles [Text] / Under scientific. ed. doct. jurid. Sciences A.V. Naumova. - SPb., 2008 .-- 342 p.

15. Kochubei, M.A. Political and legal risks of the International Criminal Court [Text] / M.А. Kochubey // Russia: from reforms to stability: Scientific works Institute of International Law and Economics. A.S. Griboyedov. - M., 2009 .-- 324 p.

16. Lenshin, S.I. Legal regime Armed Conflict and International Humanitarian Law: Monograph [Text]. - M: For the rights of military personnel, 2009 .-- 240 p.

17. McFarley, N. Multilateral interventions after the collapse of bipolarity [Text] / N. McFarley // International processes. - 2011. - No. 1. - S. 22-29.

18. Maleev, Yu.N. Conceptual substantiation of preventive humanitarian intervention [Text] / Yu.N. Maleev // International Law. - 2009. - No. 2 (38). - S. 6-20.

19. Maleev, Yu.N. The United Nations Organization and the Use of Armed Force by States (“High Idealism” and Reality) [Text] / Yu.N. Maleev // 60 years of the UN. 50 years of the Russian Association for the United Nations. - M .: RUDN, 2006 .-- S. 65-107.

20. International and domestic protection of human rights: Textbook [Text] / Ed. R.M. Valeeva. - M .: Statut, 2011 .-- 830 p.

21. International law. Special part: Textbook for universities [Text] / M.V. Andreev, P.N. Biryukov, R.M. Valeev and others; otv. ed. R.M. Valeev, G.I. Kurdyukov. - M .: Statut, 2010 .-- 624 p.

22. International public law: Textbook [Text] / Ed. D.K. Bekyashev. - M., 2009 .-- 553 p.

23. International economic development... Summary of the United Nations [Text]. - M., 2012 .-- 22 p.

24. Memorandum of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR of September 11, 1964 "On the question of the financial situation of the UN" [Text] // International affairs. - 1964. - No. 11.

25. Modin, N.V. "Humanitarian intervention" as a method of regulation international conflicts[Text] / N.V. Modin // Power. - 2007. - No. 3. - S. 94-97.

26. Morozov, G.I. International organizations: some questions of theory [Text] / G.I. Morozov. - M., 2011 .-- 415 p.

27. Neshataeva, T.N. International organizations and law. New trends in international legal regulation [Text] / T.N. Neshataeva. - M., 2008 .-- 386 p.

28. Pechurov, S. Armed forces in peacekeeping operations [Text] / S. Pechurov. - M., 2010 .-- 311 p.

29. Sazonova, K.L. Peacekeeping doctrine of the UN and the problem of the use of force in international law [Text] // International public and private law. - 2011. - No. 6. - S. 19-22.

30. Semenov, V.S. On the question of the legal basis of the UN Armed Forces [Text] / V.S. Semenov // Military Law Journal. - 2009. - No. 1. - S. 56-62.

31. Sokolova, N.A. Mechanism international management UN system in the field of environmental protection [Text] / N.А. Sokolova // Journal of Russian Law. - 2008. - No. 8. - S. 123-130.

32. Transcripts of speeches and answers to media questions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation S. Ivanov [Text]. - M .: Publishing house of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, 2004 .-- 213 p.

33. Falk, R. United Nations. Per. from English [Text] / R. Falk. - M., 2010 .-- 609 p.

34. Fedorenko, N. Fundamental principles of the UN [Text] / N. Fedorenko. - M., 2008 .-- 98 p.

35. Halderman, J. Legal basis of the UN Armed Forces [Text] / J. Halderman // Diplomatic Academy. Collection of materials on the international law of military conflicts. - M., 2012 .-- S. 189-202.

36. Holiki, A., Rakhimov, N. History of the appearance and state of the art preventive diplomacy [Text] / A. Holiki, N. Rakhimov. - M., 2009 .-- 167 p.

37. Shlyantsev, D.A. International law: Course of lectures [Text] / D.А. Shlyantsev. - M .: Yustitsinform, 2011 .-- 256 p.

Posted on Allbest.ru

International legal doctrine

According to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the Court uses, as an auxiliary means for determining legal norms, "the doctrines of the most qualified specialists in public law of various nations" ( English text, by the way, is somewhat different: "the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations"). In its decisions, the court rarely cites scientific opinions of researchers of international law, but its decisions, as well as decisions of international arbitrations.

In the past, however, the doctrines of specialists - for example, G. Grotius or F. Martens - really had a tremendous impact on the development of international law. And at present, references to major works on international law can be seen in the materials of the UN International Law Commission, in arbitration and some court decisions, in the dissenting opinions of members of the International Court of Justice.

Legally irreproachable, well-grounded conclusions based on the results of an in-depth study of international law issues cannot but influence the formation of the corresponding opinion of an international judge, arbitrator, member of the International Law Commission, legal adviser to the negotiating delegation, etc. At the same time, the reality is that the official positions of the respective states will still have a decisive influence on such an opinion.

Decisions of international organizations. The term "soft law"

The decisions of international organizations are not mentioned in the considered list of Art. 38 of the Statute. Nevertheless, in science such decisions (especially those made within the framework of the PLO system) are often referred to as auxiliary sources of international law. In this case, they refer to the fact that, for example, in accordance with Art. 25 of the UN Charter, the Security Council adopts decisions that are binding on all UN member states; that decisions of most intergovernmental organizations on budgetary matters are binding on member states, etc.

Other experts disagree with this, believing that such decisions of international organizations are not separate, not new source international law: after all, the right to make such decisions is laid down in contractual basis the functioning of this organization, i.e. in the UN Charter, in the agreement on the creation of an international organization, etc. And unanimously adopted resolution The UNGA on an issue not resolved by treaty norms is being implemented by the UN member states not because they are convinced that the UNGA resolution is a legally binding document. Such a resolution is implemented if the states proceed from the assumption that the rules formulated in the resolution reflect the prevailing norms. international customary law. This thought is expressed The International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons (1996): "General Assembly resolutions, even if not binding, can sometimes have normative value. They can, in certain circumstances, provide meaningful evidence for the existence of a norm or the emergence of opinio juris."

In this regard, in international practice, the term is used "soft law". The adoption by the UN and other international organizations of a large number of resolutions and recommendations on various issues of international relations is of interest to subjects of international law. These documents are mainly advisory in nature (with the exception of decisions on intra-organizational and financial and budgetary issues). By themselves, they are not bearers of international norms. However, as practice shows, states often strive to ensure that their actions do not disagree with the prescriptions contained in such documents.

For example, it is enough to refer to such UN General Assembly resolutions as, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 1960, the Declaration on the Principles of International Law, "Definition of Aggression" (1974), the Declaration on measures to eliminate international terrorism 1994, etc.

Such resolutions contain patterns of behavior. They borrow specific place during formation of international law: the rules of conduct formulated in these documents may subsequently become (through appropriate recognition by subjects of international law) contractual or ordinary international legal norms.

Views

Decisions of international organizations. The term "soft law"

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

It can be stated that there is no unity in the doctrine of international law regarding the legality of the use of force.

“Peace-building involves the implementation of actions that help rebuild national institutions and infrastructure destroyed during the civil war, or create mutually beneficial ties between countries that have participated in the war in order to avoid a renewal of conflict.”

There is currently no precise legal definition of peace enforcement operations recorded in the documents.

For a long time in the West, the doctrine of the admissibility of interference in the internal affairs of other states for so-called "humanitarian" reasons has been formed, and practice shows that the use of force unilaterally, bypassing the Security Council, is becoming a trend.

Conclusion

Perhaps no other international organization or structure has made such a significant contribution to the development of friendly relations between nations, raising the standard of living, protecting human rights, promoting social progress and preserving the environment.

According to the UN Charter, its main organs are: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice and the Secretariat.

The Security Council plays an extremely important role in the activities of the Organization. It is the main body for the maintenance of international peace and sustainable rule of law. The decisions of the UN Security Council are legally binding for all participating countries.

Currently, the UN armed contingents ("blue helmets") totaling over 75 thousand people are carrying out 18 peacekeeping operations in various countries of the world on four continents.

Thanks to the efforts of the UN, over the past 60 years, more international legal documents aimed at maintaining law and order have been adopted in the world than in the entire previous history of mankind.

The United Nations has supported the development of democratic processes in more than 70 countries by providing concrete assistance in organizing and holding elections there.

The UN has played an outstanding role in the movement to grant independence to colonial peoples. As a result of decolonization, more than 80 states gained their independence.

The UN provides systematic assistance to the poorest countries in the world. The UN World Food Program is the largest free aid program, providing over one third of the world's food aid.

As a result of activities The World Organization Healthcare and the United Nations Children's Fund carried out measures for the large-scale vaccination of children against diseases that pose a lethal danger. As a result, the lives of over 2 million children were saved.

The issues of ensuring peace and maintaining international law and order in the modern conditions of globalization acquire special significance and require priority attention.

Other changes are envisaged, which will not be easy to implement, since the Annan Plan has both supporters and opponents. Nevertheless, the very existence of a reorganization plan testifies to the vitality and internal reserves of the UN.

Preserving and strengthening the UN is the most important task of all peace-loving forces, all peacekeeping organizations and people of goodwill on the planet.

Bibliographic list

Similar documents

International legal doctrine

Decisions of international organizations. The term "soft law"