One of the basic principles. It was preceded by the principle of compliance with international treaties (the emergence and development is closely related to Roman law; pacta sunt servanda (treaties must be respected).

Having long story in the 20th century this principle acquired a new legal quality. Why? Because it extended its effect not only to treaty obligations, but also to other norms of international law. The content of this principle is disclosed in the Declaration of Principles of International Law (1970), and the OSCE participating states confirmed these provisions in the final act (1975) “that conscientious observance of the principles of international law relating to friendly relations and commonwealth between states is of the utmost importance importance for the maintenance of international peace and security."

The state cannot evade fulfillment of obligations arising from international legal norms, and cannot refer to the provisions of domestic law or other circumstances as a reason for non-fulfillment or refusal to fulfill its obligations. By virtue of this principle, the subjects of small business are obliged to fulfill their obligations, only then can we talk about good faith.

The meaning of the principle is that it is the basis of international law that without him the activities of the MP would be problematic.

Considering that treaties are the source of all branches of international law (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 and Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations, or between International Organizations 1986). It also acts as a general principle of modern international law and acquired an imperative character (jus cogens).

A state may refuse to fulfill international legal obligations, but such a refusal must be carried out only on the basis of the International Law, as reflected in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969).

It (the principle) acts as a condition for stability, law and order, consistency, efficiency, etc. With the help of this principle, subjects (MPs) receive a legal basis to mutually demand the fulfillment of conditions and obligations.

One of the signs of this principle is the inadmissibility of arbitrary unilateral refusal of assumed obligations, which raises the question of responsibility and attacks on the principle itself.

The meaning of the principle is that it is a universal and cardinal norm recognized by all states (see the UN Charter), expressing the legal obligation of the subjects of international law. The abolition of jus cogens (peremptory norm) would mean the elimination of all international law.

3. The principle of the duty of states to cooperate with each other (cooperation of states).

For the first time, the recognition and consolidation of the principle as a legal principle in the UN Charter was obtained as a result of the interaction of the states of the anti-Hitler coalition in the Second World War and as a criterion for communication in the future in a qualitatively new, more high level interaction than traditional relationship maintenance. Thus, paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the UN Charter declares that one of the goals of the UN is “international cooperation in resolving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, humanitarian nature, education, health care, promoting the implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, the development of international its codification. The principle of cooperation cannot be taken literally. But it must be considered with other principles. In particular, state sovereignty.

The normative content of the principle of cooperation between states is revealed as follows: “states are obliged to cooperate with each other regardless of their political, economic and social systems in various fields of international relations, with the aim of maintaining international peace and security, promoting international economic stability, progress, the general welfare of peoples and international cooperation free from discrimination based on such differences.”

The legal framework is clearly defined:

1. The duty to cooperate in all areas of international communication, regardless of differences in political systems.

2. Cooperation must be subordinated to the achievement of certain goals.

3. Promoting international economic stability.

4. Promoting economic growth in developing countries.

This is the subject of Chapter 9 of the UN Charter “International and Social Cooperation” and the Final Act of the Conference (1975) on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The act more specifically specifies the areas of cooperation “to improve the well-being of the people, “to use mutual benefits from scientific and technical progress, social, economic, scientific, technical, cultural, and humanitarian fields.” In this case, the interests of all, in particular developing countries, will be taken into account.” At the same time, mutual understanding and trust, friendly and neighborly relations, security and justice will be achieved.

4. The principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms .

The UN Charter, in second place, after getting rid of the scourge of war, set the task of “reaffirming faith in fundamental human rights”; “in the promotion and development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all” (clause 3 of Article 1). There is an inextricable link with the adoption of the UN Charter and the preservation of international peace and security in respect of fundamental rights and freedoms. The Charter contains legally binding norms, principles of respect for human rights: the dignity and values ​​of the human person; equality of peoples; equal rights of men and women, inadmissibility of discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, language and religion.

However, the Declaration of Principles of International Law (1970) did not single out any of the principles as fundamental.

It took millennia, eras and historical events to establish human rights in national law, and in many countries this process is still at an early stage.

One can also conclude that a violation of any principle will sooner affect violations of human rights and freedoms.

In recent years, even during the Cold War, the world community has adopted a number of important documents in the field of human rights.

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, in two international covenants of 1966 “on civil and political rights”; “on economic, social and cultural rights”; lists the rights and freedoms that states have undertaken to provide to all persons under their jurisdiction through legislative and other measures. So, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation in (1993), “a person, his rights and freedoms are the highest value.” In the Russian Federation, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are “recognized and guaranteed” in accordance with generally accepted principles and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution (Article 17, Part 1). The above article gives grounds to assert that international law is part of the law of a country. In Russia, “laws should not be issued that abolish or infringe upon the rights and freedoms of man and citizen.”

In developing this formula, states recognized in the final document of the Vienna OSCE meeting (1989) that all rights and freedoms are of paramount importance and must be fully implemented in appropriate ways.

According to these and other documents, states pledged to: (1) - suppress gross and massive violations of human rights arising primarily from international crimes (war crimes, aggression, genocide, apartheid, international terrorism, mass discrimination, segregation, separatism); (2) - guarantee and protect the interests of various categories of citizens and individuals (disabled people) and organizations; state rights; guarantee separate categories rights (labor, family, cultural, freedom of information, freedom of association, rights of national minorities, migrants, refugees, etc.).

Among the international treaties, the most significant is the “European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” with its complementary protocols and the CIS Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: World Conference on Human Rights (1993).

For a long time, the practical implementation of human rights was considered as an area of ​​internal competence. The universal and strict observance of the principle of respect for human rights is greatly damaged by attempts at politicization and use for purposes that have nothing to do with concern for human rights.

Some states use the principle of sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs (or socio-economic, religious, ideological or simply national characteristics) to justify violations of human rights.

Human rights are increasingly being used to put forward unreasonable demands for self-determination (the right to secession), which damages the territorial integrity of the state and infringes on human rights, including the right to life.

What has been said does not in any way lose its international aspect. Each state has the sovereign power to issue rules defining the rights and obligations of citizens, however, the implementation of this power must occur within the framework of the international law, in particular, international control in this area, which does not contradict the principle of non-interference. The Document of the Moscow Meeting of the OSCE Human Dimension Conference (1991) confirms that “issues relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms constitute one of the foundations of international order.”

The relevant obligations are of “direct and legitimate interest to all participating States and do not relate exclusively to the internal affairs of the State concerned.”

The principle of respect for the individual in national law occupies a central position: “laws should not be issued that abolish or impede the rights and freedoms of man and citizen” (Article 17, Part 1).

The content of these provisions determines the nature interactions international legal and domestic norms in the field humanitarian cooperation; sets generally accepted standards; enacts international protections for mass assaults; becomes a direct regulator and guarantor of certain elements legal status personality. This is the role of international law and its branch of international humanitarian law.

Basic provisions of the principle of respect for human rights (from the analysis of international acts):

Each state has the responsibility to promote, through individual and joint action, universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, in accordance with the UN Charter (that is, each state and the international community has a responsibility to promote universal respect for rights and freedoms);

The state is obliged to respect and ensure to all persons within its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms recognized by international law without distinction: gender, language, race, skin color, religion, political or other beliefs, national and social origin, class;

recognition of the inherent dignity of all members of the human family, their equal and inalienable rights, freedom, justice and world peace;

human rights must be protected by the rule of law, which will ensure national peace and order;

Each person has responsibilities towards other people and the society and state to which he belongs;

The state is obliged to take legislative or other measures necessary to ensure internationally recognized human rights;

The state guarantees effective means legal protection;

the state is obliged to know its rights and human rights and act in accordance with them.

Human rights are inextricably linked with issues of democracy. Charter of Paris for new Europe confirms that democracy is recognized by the participants, the only system of government, of the democratic order, both in international relations and in national systems. It is necessary to clarify that human and civil rights in international law mean: rights, freedoms and obligations. Moreover, in many constitutions foreign countries freedoms and responsibilities are considered as human and civil rights.

5. Territorial integrity of the state.

Territory is a necessary condition for the coexistence of the state and its material basis. The UN Charter obliges us to refrain from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity (Article 2, paragraph 4). Although there is no direct statement of such a principle in the UN Charter. It is enshrined in the final act (1975).

Territorial integrity (like political independence) is not formally named as a principle of MP. It is only the object of the principle of refraining from the threat or use of force. For example, the seizure of territory; armed invasion not pursuing the goal of territorial seizure; temporary occupation of a part of the territory, that is, its content is reflected in other principles (the principle of not the use of force obliges to refrain from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity, but the equal use of military political, economic or other forms of pressure).

Consequently, territorial integrity and inviolability are provided in a broader form. It is emphasized that the territory of a state should not be subject to military occupation resulting from the use of force in violation of the UN Charter.

The territory should not be object of acquisition, no acquisitions resulting from the threat of force will be recognized as legal. The concept of the territorial integrity of the state was put forward after the Second World War, in response to the desires of the colonial powers (metropoles) to impede the national liberation movement of the colonies.

The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted by the UN General Assembly (12/14/1960), specifically noted that “all peoples have an inalienable right to the integrity of their national territory.”

The Declaration of Principles of International Law (1970) states that the content of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples should not be interpreted as authorizing or encouraging actions that would lead to the dismemberment or partial or complete violation of the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.

A legal change in the territory of a state can occur as a result of the people’s exercise of the right to self-determination, the right to liberation from foreign oppression; if we are talking about a state acting in compliance with the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples, then its territorial integrity cannot be violated.

The principle is known when part of the territory is seized (acquired) by other states. As is known, the seizure of part of the territory of the states responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War is recognized by the UN Charter (Article 107). (Kaliningrad region, Sudetes) The final step in the progressive development of this principle was the CSCE documents (1975). In particular in Art. IV in the Declaration of Principles, the final act of the Conference “on respect for territorial integrity”, “political independence”, “unity of any participating state” is included. That is, the final act singled out “territorial integrity” as a separate principle (independent). Any actions incompatible with the UN Charter and against territorial integrity are prohibited. It follows from this, can there be actions compatible with the Charter? Undoubtedly, these include actions in the exercise of the right to self-determination.

Inviolability of territory also means the inadmissibility of using its natural resources. Every year, the message of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly stated that “territorial integrity covers both space and resources.”

The principle of territorial integrity is enshrined in the joint declaration, justifying the relationship between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China (12/18/1992); In the Treaty on the Fundamentals of Interstate Relations and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Uzbekistan (05/30/1992); in Art. 5 League Pact Arab states. According to Art. 4 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the sovereignty of the Russian Federation extends to its entire territory. The Russian Federation ensures the integrity and inviolability of its territory.

Leaders of the CIS countries 04/15/1994 adopted the “Declaration on the observance of the sovereignty of the territorial integrity and inviolability of the borders of the CIS participants.” IN Lately more often used complex formula- the principle of integrity and inviolability of state territory.

6. The principle of inviolability of borders .

This principle complements the principle of territorial integrity. Its meaning is determined by respect for existing borders, as a necessary condition for peaceful relations between states.

In the Declaration of Principles international law (1970), the content of the principle is set out in section on the principle of no use of force:“Every State has the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force for the purpose of violating the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of settling international disputes, including territorial disputes and matters relating to state borders».

The Final Act of the 1975 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe formulated the principle that “the participating States regard as inviolable all the borders of each other, as well as the borders of all States in Europe, and will therefore refrain now and in the future from any encroachment to these borders."

This means a renunciation of any territorial claims. States are obliged to refrain from violating demarcation lines, that is, temporary or preliminary boundaries of armistice lines established on an agreed basis or on any other basis. (Demarcation line between North Korea and South Korea).

As an independent principle, the principle of the inviolability of borders was formed by the Final Act of the CSCE (1975). The principle contains obligations to recognize the inviolability of all state borders in Europe. It is known that the defeated states did not fully recognize the borders established as a result of the Second World War, which complicated international relations. Thus, it must be recognized that the principle of the inviolability of borders has not been established in general international law (there are acute territorial disputes on the Asian, African, and American continents - see section 3).

CSCE participating States consider all borders of each other and the borders of all states in Europe as indestructible. They undertake to refrain, now and in the future, from any encroachment upon these frontiers, and from any demands and actions aimed at seizing and usurping almost or all the territory of any participating State.

The principle of the inviolability of borders for the Russian Federation, among other principles, is the basis of relations with other states, which is confirmed by its treaties.

For example, the Agreement on the Creation of the CIS (12/08/1991) and the Alma-Ata Declaration (12/21/1991) confirm the recognition and respect for the inviolability of existing borders. The agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Poland on friendly and good-neighborly cooperation (05/22/1992) includes: “the parties recognize the inviolable border existing between them and confirm that they do not have any territorial claims against each other, and will not make such claims in the future "

Treaties between the Russian Federation and Ukraine; Russia and the Republic of Azerbaijan (07/03/1997) on friendship, cooperation and security.

Founding Act on mutual relations, cooperation and security between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (05/27/1997); The act established permanent Council Russia-NATO.

The principle of the inviolability of state borders means the obligation of states to respect the borders of each foreign state established in accordance with international law.

THE PRINCIPLE OF FAIR PERFORMANCE OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS is one of the fundamental imperative principles of modern international law. It arose in the form of the international legal custom pacta sunt servanda in the early stages of the development of statehood, and is currently reflected in numerous bilateral and multilateral international agreements. As a generally accepted standard of conduct for entities, this principle is enshrined in the UN Charter, which is emphasized by the determination of UN members to create conditions under which justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be observed. According to paragraph 2 of Art. 2 of the Charter, all Members of the United Nations fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed under this Charter in order to ensure to all of them collectively the rights and benefits arising from being Members of the Organization. The development of international law clearly confirms the universal nature of P.d.v.m.o. According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, each act is binding on its parties and must be carried out by them in good faith. A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as an excuse for its failure to comply with the treaty.

Sphere P.d.v.m.o. has expanded noticeably in recent years, which is reflected in the wording of the relevant international legal documents. Thus, according to the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, everyone is obliged to fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the UN Charter, obligations arising from generally recognized norms and principles of international law, etc. obligations arising from international treaties valid in accordance with generally recognized principles and norms of international law. The authors of the Declaration sought to emphasize the need for conscientious compliance, first of all, with those obligations that are covered by the concept of “generally recognized norms of international law” or stem from them. Different legal and socio-cultural systems have their own understanding of integrity, which directly affects states’ compliance with accepted obligations. The concept of integrity has been enshrined in a large number of international treaties, resolutions of the UN General Assembly, in declarations of states, etc. However, it should be recognized that the precise legal content of the concept of good faith in real situations can be difficult. It seems that the legal content of good faith should be derived from the text of the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties, mainly the sections “Application of Treaties” (Articles 28-30) and “Interpretation of Treaties” (Articles 31-33). The application of the provisions of a treaty is largely determined by its interpretation. From this point of view, it can be assumed that the application of a contract will be fair if it is interpreted in good faith (in accordance with the ordinary meaning that should be given to the terms of the contract in their context, and also in the light of the object and purpose of the contract).

Principle of P.d.v.m.o. applies only to valid agreements. This means; that the principle in question applies only to international treaties concluded voluntarily and on the basis of equality. Any unequal, first of all, violates and as such violates the UN Charter, since the United Nations is founded on the principle sovereign equality all its members, who, in their turn, took upon themselves to develop friendly relations between nations on the basis of respect for the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples. It should be considered generally accepted that any treaty contrary to the UN Charter is void, and no state can invoke such a treaty or enjoy the benefits of it.

Economics and law: dictionary-reference book. - M.: University and school. L. P. Kurakov, V. L. Kurakov, A. L. Kurakov. 2004 .

See what the “PRINCIPLE OF FAIR PERFORMANCE OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS” is in other dictionaries:

PRINCIPLE OF FAIR PERFORMANCE OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS- one of the fundamental imperative principles of modern international law. It arose in the form of the international legal custom pacta sunt servanda in the early stages of the development of statehood, and is currently reflected in... ... Legal encyclopedia

INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS PRINCIPLE OF FAIR PERFORMANCE- THE PRINCIPLE OF FAIR FULFILLMENT OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS... Legal encyclopedia

- (see PRINCIPLE OF FAIR PERFORMANCE OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS) ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Economics and Law

One of the oldest branches of international law, including a set of customary and conventional principles and norms. which regulate the procedure for preparation and conclusion. implementation, interpretation, revision, termination or recognition... ... Encyclopedia of Lawyer

- (Latin conventio and French convention agreement, treaty, transaction) one of the most common names of treaties (agreements) between states. predominantly multilateral in nature. In K.m. the rights and obligations of subjects are fixed... ... Encyclopedia of Lawyer- branch of law regulating political, economic, military, cultural and other relations between states. According to the definition adopted in Soviet legal science, law is a set of norms expressing the will of the ruling class... Diplomatic Dictionary

- (UN) created on the initiative of the states of the anti-Hitler coalition as a result of adoption on June 26, 1945 at a diplomatic conference in San Francisco constituent document Charter is an international organization whose objectives are to maintain... ... Encyclopedia of Lawyer

L.M. CHURKINA, lawyer The formation of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations, the role of the principle in the process of compliance with international treaties, as well as in the process of monitoring the implementation of such obligations, including monitoring the execution of decisions of international courts, is considered.

This article was copied from https://www.site

UDC 340.132.8

Magazine pages: 21-24

L.M. Churkina,

The formation of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations, the role of the principle in the process of compliance with international treaties, as well as in the process of monitoring the implementation of such obligations, including monitoring the implementation of decisions of international courts, is considered.

Keywords: the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations, control of the execution of decisions of international courts.

The Role of the Principle of Fulfillment in Good Faith of Obligations under the International Law

The author of the article considers the development of the principle of fulfillment in good faith of international obligations in compliance of an international treaty, and also in the course of the control for fulfillment of international obligations, including the control for execution of international judgments.

Keywords: principle of good faith fulfillment of international obligations, monitoring of implementation of decisions of international courts.

Relations between states in different historical periods developed and were regulated differently. The development of economic, political and cultural ties stimulated the strengthening of relations and determined the conclusion of bilateral agreements. International agreements gradually became increasingly important. However, a mutually beneficial agreement was of great value when it was strictly observed by the participants.

The principle of faithful compliance with international obligations has become the main guarantor of strict implementation of signed agreements. The most important step for the general recognition of this principle was the London Conference of 1871, dedicated to the revision of the Paris Peace Treaty of 1856. The European powers recognized as an essential principle of international law that no power can either exempt itself from the obligations of the treaty or change its provisions except with the consent of the contracting parties, achieved through a friendly agreement. This decision, in fact, for the first time established at the international level the principle of faithful fulfillment of obligations, which was interpreted as the principle “contracts must be respected.”

Over time, the principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations received a more specific interpretation. Clause 2 of Art. 1 of the Charter of the League of Nations provided for the condition by which states could become members of the League: to provide valid guarantees of their sincere intention to comply with international obligations.

The inclusion of the principle of faithful performance of obligations under international law in the text of the UN Charter was crucial for universal acceptance. In the preamble and in Art. 4 of the UN Charter speaks of the determination of peoples “to create conditions under which justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be observed,” and paragraph 2 of Art. Article 2 establishes the obligation of UN members to conscientiously fulfill the obligations assumed under the Charter, “in order to ensure to all of them collectively the rights and benefits arising from being members of the Organization.”

Later the principle was reflected in Art. 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which states that “every treaty in force is binding on its parties and must be performed by them in good faith.”

The principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations is specified in the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter, as well as in the Final Act of the 1975 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. In particular, it is emphasized that each state is obliged to conscientiously fulfill obligations arising from both generally recognized principles and norms of international law, and from international treaties valid in accordance with generally recognized principles and norms of international law.

In international legal practice, various legal mechanisms are used to increase the effectiveness of the principle of faithful compliance with international obligations. These include the creation and activities of special international bodies that monitor the implementation of international legal norms.

As practice shows, states themselves enshrine in international agreements provisions on monitoring the fulfillment of their obligations through the use of different forms and methods of international control that help verify compliance by states with international legal obligations and take measures to implement them.

As G.A. emphasized Osipov, the voluntariness of control should be understood in the sense that states, as sovereign participants in international communication, themselves agree to certain international legal norms. However, when these norms are agreed upon and enshrined in a treaty that has entered into force, its provisions, including those on control, are legally binding for all participating states.

International control over the implementation of treaty norms is carried out by the collective efforts of states with the help of international organizations and includes a system of measures aimed at verifying the accuracy of compliance with the international legal obligations of states, identifying possible violations and ensuring compliance with international obligations within the framework of an international treaty. This is only possible with the effective assistance of the states themselves. The state in this aspect can be considered as a controlled structure, the activities of which are aimed at the voluntary implementation of international treaties on its territory.

According to international treaties, participating states undertake obligations to take a number of actions in relation to their domestic life, including taking legislative or other internal measures that may be necessary to implement the rights and obligations enshrined in international agreements.

The state also determines itself effective ways control over the implementation of their international obligations. Internal control functions are implemented by government bodies, officials and other entities and are enshrined in relevant laws.

According to Art. 31 of the Federal Law of July 15, 1995 No. 101-FZ “On International Treaties of the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as the Law on International Treaties), international treaties of the Russian Federation are subject to conscientious implementation in accordance with the terms of the international treaties themselves, the norms of international law, the Constitution of the Russian Federation and this law , other acts of legislation of the Russian Federation.

Article 32 of the Law on International Treaties, as well as Art. 21 of the Federal Constitutional Law of December 17, 1997 No. 2-FKZ “On the Government of the Russian Federation” provides that the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation take measures aimed at ensuring the implementation of international treaties. Federal executive authorities must ensure the fulfillment of state obligations.

In accordance with paragraph 4 of Art. 32 of the Law on International Treaties and paragraph 1 of Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated March 12, 1996 No. 375 “On the coordinating role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation in pursuing a unified foreign policy line of the Russian Federation,” the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs exercises general control over the implementation of the international obligations of the Russian Federation.

Forms and methods of domestic control can be established by both legislative and executive bodies state power. Federal Law of November 5, 1997 No. 138-FZ “On ratification of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Accumulation and Use of chemical weapons and on its destruction" provides that the fulfillment of the obligations of the Russian Federation arising from the Convention is ensured by federal government bodies and government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation within the limits of their powers. According to this law, the President of the Russian Federation determines the main directions of the Russian Federation's policy in the field of chemical disarmament, the measures necessary to ensure the safety of citizens and environmental protection during the destruction of chemical weapons in accordance with the Convention, as well as measures to monitor their implementation. Moreover, this law contains provisions on the responsibilities of the Government of the Russian Federation and Federal Assembly to ensure compliance with obligations under the Convention.

As a result of the exercise of national control, the state has the right to bring to justice those responsible for failure to fulfill international obligations. For example, in accordance with Art. 40 of the Federal Law of December 17, 1998 No. 191-FZ “On the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation” officials, citizens and legal entities for violation of this law and international treaties of the Russian Federation are held accountable in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.

Thus, the current Russian legislation contains provisions on ensuring the international obligations of the Russian Federation and on monitoring the implementation of these obligations in various areas.

In national law, judicial control acts as one of the forms of state control. In international law, the resolution of disputes arising in connection with the fulfillment of international obligations by international judicial bodies refers to methods of international control. The possibility of considering a dispute in an international judicial institution follows directly from the provisions of an international treaty. Many universal multilateral conventions contain provisions providing for recourse to the International Court of Justice. These include the UN Convention on maritime law of 12/10/1982, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change of 05/03/1992, Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer of 03/22/1985, etc.

The International Court makes a decision that is binding on the basis of the principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations. If the court determines that the state did not fulfill its treaty obligations in good faith and abused the rights granted under the treaty, it may make a decision indicating the need to fulfill the obligations under the treaty. The court's requirements are also based on the principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations.

On the one hand, international courts issue law enforcement acts, on the other hand, they act as a mechanism for monitoring the fulfillment of international obligations by states, thereby contributing to the implementation of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations. Consequently, international judicial institutions are engaged in the implementation of obligations that arise from international legal acts.

As a result of the consideration of disputes by international courts and the issuance of rulings between the parties, new legal relations arise, new international legal obligations aimed at implementing the court ruling. Their legal binding results from the provisions of international treaties concluded by the parties, in which they accepted the jurisdiction of the court. At the same time, in connection with the emergence of new legal obligations related to the execution of decisions of an international judicial institution, the problem of monitoring the fulfillment of these obligations arises. Failure to comply with decisions of international courts by states entails appeal to control bodies, specially created international organizations, the absence of which may lead to a violation of the principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations. For the International Court of Justice, such a body is the Security Council, for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights - the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, for the EU Court of Justice - the European Parliament, for the European Court of Human Rights - the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

The control mechanism of the European Court of Human Rights is of particular interest to the Russian Federation. In accordance with Art. 46 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, parties undertake to comply with final court orders in cases in which they are parties. Monitoring the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is carried out by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

The state has an obligation to implement the decree, but it is free to choose the means of enforcement. The control functions of states are assigned to the legislative and executive authorities. Thus, by virtue of articles 79 and 87 of the Dutch Constitution, the permanent advisory bodies on matters of legislation and public administration and the States General of the Netherlands perform a control function over the adoption of measures at the national level to implement the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

In some member states of the Council of Europe, a control mechanism (judicial, parliamentary and executive) over the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is provided for at the legislative level. In Ukraine, it is regulated by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Rules of the European Court of Human Rights, the laws of Ukraine “On the execution of decisions and the application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights”, “On Enforcement Proceedings”, the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Administrative Code legal proceedings of Ukraine and some other regulatory legal acts. At the same time, the main regulatory legal act - the law “On the execution of decisions and application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights” - has no analogues in other states party to the Convention. Article 11 of this law authorizes the representative body to monitor and receive from the bodies that are responsible for the implementation of additional measures of an individual nature provided for in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on a friendly settlement, information on the progress and consequences of the implementation of such measures, as well as to submit to the Prime Minister submissions to the Minister of Ukraine regarding ensuring the implementation of additional measures of an individual nature. The government commissioner for the European Court of Justice must submit a report on the state of execution of decisions, to whom, in turn, the Department of State Enforcement Service is obliged to provide relevant information.

In 2006, Italy passed a law giving the Prime Minister and Parliament a special function to monitor the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The law obliged the Prime Minister to monitor the actions of the Cabinet in the implementation of European Court judgments made against Italy, and also provided for the preparation of an annual report on the implementation of European Court judgments by Italy and its submission to the country's parliament.

The practice of exercising control functions by parliament in the United Kingdom is interesting. Since March 2006, this state has adopted the practice of annual reports on the implementation of European Court judgments issued against the country. The reports are prepared by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and submitted to Parliament, where they are analyzed and the recommendations made by the committee are put to a vote. As a result, a decision is made to approve the recommendations and apply them in practice or to reject them.

In the Russian Federation, the process of monitoring the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is not regulated. This leads to a lack of objective and prompt analysis by the authorities of the decisions made against Russia, which, in turn, entails a significant delay in taking general measures and an increase in the number of complaints from Russian citizens.

A reduction in the number of complaints and rulings could be facilitated by the urgent adoption of the law “On the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Russian Federation” or by vesting the Commissioner of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights with control functions. Perhaps the creation of a special service under the Russian Ministry of Justice would help improve the situation regarding Russia’s fulfillment of international obligations undertaken upon joining the Council of Europe and ratifying the Convention. Control can also be exercised through existing supervisory mechanisms and institutions - such as the prosecutor's office or the presidiums of federal courts.

Particularly worthy of attention are proposals regarding control within the framework of prosecutorial supervision over the implementation of international obligations. Part 4 art. 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation proclaimed the generally recognized principles and norms of international law, as well as international treaties of Russia, as an integral part of its legal system. Clause 1 of Art. 5 of the Law on International Treaties repeats this provision. In accordance with Art. 21 of the Federal Law of January 17, 1992 No. 2202-1 “On the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation,” the prosecutor’s office supervises the implementation of laws and, accordingly, international treaties. Thus, the prosecutor's office is obliged to monitor the implementation of the international obligations of the Russian Federation. However, the scope and procedure for supervision by the prosecutor's office over the implementation of international obligations, including the execution of judgments of the European Court, are not specifically defined. This leads to the fact that the prosecutor's office is unable to ensure effective control over the implementation of such decisions.

It is obvious that control must be carried out both at the international and domestic levels in accordance with the principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations. This principle is directly related to the activities of the states themselves in the international arena, as well as to the control bodies they create that exercise control within the country using national means.

Bibliography

1 See: Peace Treaty between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany (together with the “Statute of the League of Nations”, “Charter International organization Labor", "Protocol") of June 28, 1919 // Treaty of Versailles. - M., 1925.

2 See: Charter of the United Nations // Collection of existing treaties, agreements and conventions concluded by the USSR with foreign countries. Vol. XII. 1956. pp. 14-47.

3 See: Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties // Collection of international treaties of the USSR. Vol. XLII. 1988. pp. 171-197.

4 See: Collection of current treaties, agreements and conventions concluded by the USSR with foreign states. Vol. XXXI. 1977. pp. 544-589.

5 See: Osipov G.A. International legal problems of control over arms limitation and disarmament. - M., 1989. P. 18.

Share this article with your colleagues:

The principle of faithful fulfillment by states of their international obligations- one of the oldest principles of international law, without which it is difficult to imagine the very existence of the international legal system. It is no coincidence that almost simultaneously with the first international treaties, the first means of ensuring them appeared. If states could be arbitrary about the need to strictly adhere to their obligations, all other norms and principles of international law would become meaningless. The very system of principles as generally binding norms inevitably presupposes strict implementation of the relevant rules and only if this condition is present does it become an effective regulator of international relations. Therefore, it is generally accepted that the principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations is basis of modern international law.

Historically, the principle under consideration arose as a development of the formula pacta sunt servanda (contracts must be executed), which was adopted by public international law from Roman law. It is easy to see that the current formulation of the principle significantly expands the scope of its action. According to international legal doctrine, states must conscientiously fulfill not only treaty obligations, but also any obligations assumed in accordance with international law (for example, customary ones).

The UN Charter does not formally contain this principle, since it obliges states to strictly fulfill only those obligations that they have assumed in connection with membership in the Organization. Despite the importance of such obligations, the range of international responsibilities of any state is not limited to them. Therefore, the legal content of the principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations is revealed more fully in the Declaration of Principles of 1970, the Final Act of the CSCE of 1975, as well as in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. The content of this principle includes the following basic provisions.

First, states must fulfill their international obligations in good faith. Conscientious fulfillment means accurate, timely and complete fulfillment of an obligation assumed in accordance with international law. In particular, states must implement international treaties in strict accordance with their spirit and letter, based on ordinary interpretation and in accordance with the basic principles of international law.

Secondly, when fulfilling an international obligation, no state has the right to invoke its national law. On the contrary, this principle requires all states to bring their domestic legislation into conformity with their international obligations, thereby ensuring the primacy of international law over national law.

Thirdly, the obligation to fulfill international obligations in good faith concerns only those obligations that do not contradict the basic principles of international law, and first of all, the system of international legal principles. Any rule of conduct contrary to the spirit and the principles of the UN Charter, is legally void and therefore should not be enforced.

Fourthly, failure to fulfill international obligations by one state or another entails the onset of international responsibility - a system of measures aimed at restoring law and order. The principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations is protected through the activities of special international bodies (judicial and arbitration), through multilateral and bilateral diplomacy, and in some cases, voluntarily by offending states.

Fifthly, international law contains an exhaustive list of grounds on which a state has the right to evade fulfillment of its international obligations. For example, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties allows strictly certain cases the state party to the treaty to refuse to implement it. Such cases cannot be considered a violation of the principle in question, since they are permitted by international law itself.

The practical implementation of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations often, as already noted, comes into conflict with the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. It should be emphasized once again: the obligations assumed by the state to the world community have absolute priority over its national interests and, therefore, cannot be attributed to internal affairs of this state. Therefore, the principle of faithful fulfillment of international obligations should be considered as the foundation of the system of international legal principles and international law in general. It is no coincidence that commitment to this principle in one form or another is enshrined in many international documents. For example, Article 1 of the 1994 Declaration on the Fundamentals of Relations between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Kingdom of Spain contains the intention of the parties to build their relations on the basis of “... the voluntary fulfillment of their international obligations in accordance with international law.”