This principle was established with the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945. The process of its development continues. The name of the principle itself has not been finally established: one can find references to both territorial integrity and territorial inviolability. The significance of this principle is very great from the point of view of stability in interstate relations. Its purpose is to protect the territory of the state from any encroachment.
The UN Charter prohibited the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity (inviolability) and political independence of any state. In the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States in accordance with the UN Charter, 1970, when disclosing the content of the wording of paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter reflected many elements of the principle of territorial integrity (inviolability), although this principle itself was not separately mentioned. In particular, it was established that each state “must refrain from any actions aimed at violating the national unity and territorial integrity of any other state or country.” It was also noted that "the territory of a State shall not be the subject of military occupation resulting from the use of force in violation of the provisions of the Charter" and that "the territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State as a result of the threat or use of force." In this regard, it was further noted that any territorial acquisitions resulting from the threat or use of force should not be recognized as legal. However, as you know, the law does not have retroactive effect. Therefore, the declaration stipulated that the above provisions should not be interpreted as violating the provisions of the UN Charter or any international agreements concluded before the adoption of the Charter and having legal force in accordance with international law.
The next stage in the development of this principle was the Final Act of the 1975 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which contains a separate and most complete formulation of the principle of territorial integrity of states: “The participating states will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating states. In accordance with this, they will refrain from any action inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations against the territorial integrity, political independence or unity of any participating State and, in particular, from any such action constituting the use or threat of force. likewise refrain from making each other's territory the subject of military occupation or other direct or indirect measures of force in violation of international law, or the subject of acquisition by means of such measures or the threat thereof.No occupation or acquisition of such kind will be recognized as lawful ".
The content of this principle in the CSCE Final Act goes beyond the provisions prohibiting the use of force or the threat of force, or the transformation of territory into an object of military occupation, or acquisition through the use or threat of force. Let us recall that, according to the Final Act, states, committing to respect each other’s territorial integrity, must “refrain from any actions incompatible with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.” Thus, we're talking about about any actions against territorial integrity or inviolability. For example, the transit of any means of transport through foreign territory without the permission of the territorial sovereign is a violation not only of the integrity of borders, but also of the integrity of state territory, since it is it that is used for transit. All Natural resources are integral components of the territory of the state, and if the territory as a whole is inviolable, then its components, that is, natural resources in their natural form, are also inviolable. Therefore, their development by foreign persons or states without the permission of the territorial sovereign is also a violation of territorial integrity.
TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF STATES AND ITS ENSURANCE: THEORETICAL-LEGAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL DIMENSIONS
N.V. Ostroukhov
Department of International Law Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
st. Miklouho-Maklaya, 6, Moscow, Russia, 117198
The article analyzes the principle of territorial integrity of states as one of the principles of modern international law and reveals its theoretical, legal and international legal foundations.
Key words: territorial integrity, state, international law, international legal principles.
The territorial integrity of a state is an integral element of its sovereignty and is achieved by adopting a set of political, legal, organizational, diplomatic, military, special and other measures at the international and domestic levels. An important place among these measures is given to international legal measures regulating the activities of states and other subjects of international law in this area.
The principle of territorial integrity has successfully fit into the system of basic principles of international law. Based on the fact that this system covers the principles in accordance with which the UN organizes its activities, it can be assumed that the purpose of the system coincides with the purpose of this organization - maintaining international peace and security and developing friendly relations and cooperation between states.
For the first time legally designated at the universal level in the UN Charter of 1945 and reflecting the most important property of any state, the international legal principle of territorial integrity was further developed in a number of international treaties, the Declaration of Principles of International Law relating to friendly relations and cooperation between states in accordance with the Charter United Nations of 1945, the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe of 1975, as well as enshrined in many other international documents. International law guards the principle of the territorial integrity of states and does not encourage separatism and other attacks on this principle.
However, in Russian legal practice the name of this principle has not been finally established: one can find references to territorial
nal integrity and territorial inviolability. This situation arose due to inconsistencies between the formulations of the principle of non-use of force and the threat of force (abstinence from the use of force and the threat of force) in the Russian and English texts of the UN Charter. The Russian version speaks of “territorial integrity,” while the English version speaks of “territorial integrity.”
At the same time, the concept of territorial integrity is repeatedly found both in the UN Charter itself and in the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Declaration), its Preamble, and its other provisions, for example, those related to the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples.
IN international law The principle of territorial integrity of states, unfortunately, is not disclosed. In the doctrine of international law, its content is also often given different meanings; the relationship of this principle with other principles of international law, in particular with the principle of the inviolability of state borders, the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples, is not clearly defined. This often leads to different assessments of events occurring in the world.
In the UN Charter and the Declaration, the principle of territorial integrity is not highlighted as an independent principle of international law, although this is often noted in the doctrine of international law, but, undoubtedly, it is a generally recognized, basic principle of international law, the norm of jus cogens and is one of the cementing principles of international law and world order. Note that, in our opinion, it is more correct to talk about the principle of “observance or respect for the territorial integrity of the state” as a basic principle of international law, closely related to other principles of international law.
Thus, in the preamble of the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, it is stated that all states should refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against either the territorial integrity (territorial integrity - N.O.) or the political independence of any state, or any - in any other way incompatible with the purposes of the UN (the principle of non-use of force or threat of force).
Any attempt aimed at partial or complete violation of the territorial integrity of a state is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. The Declaration recalls the obligation of states to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of pressure directed against the territorial integrity of any state.
In essence, this is a prohibition of forceful or non-forceful actions, their attempts or the threat of such actions against the territorial integrity of the state. Moreover, this refers to the external form of influence on states. Such pressure can be exercised through military, political, economic and other means, aimed at the complete or partial dismemberment of the state. In particular, actions against territorial integrity can be expressed in the form of aggression
Russia War of aggression is a crime against peace, which entails liability under international law. States are obliged to refrain from promoting wars of aggression.
Any violation of territorial integrity cannot be recognized as legitimate from the outset. The territory of a state must not be subject to military occupation resulting from the use of force in violation of the provisions of the UN Charter. The territory of a State must not be subject to acquisition by another State as a result of the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.
The threat or use of force should never be used as a means of settling international issues; it is contrary to the principle of the peaceful settlement of international disputes, according to which States resolve their international disputes by peaceful means in a manner that does not jeopardize international peace and security and justice.
Often it is territorial disputes that lead to a violation of the territorial integrity of the state. The use of peaceful means is often aimed at a fair resolution of such disputes. But even with a positive outcome of this process, the previous territorial configuration of the disputing states can be changed, on the basis of mutual agreement regarding changes in their territories and changes in the joint state border.
The Declaration does not directly indicate the relationship between the principle of territorial integrity and the principle of cooperation, which is ensured through the obligation of states to cooperate in order to maintain international peace and security, to carry out their international relationships in the economic, social, cultural, technical and commercial fields in accordance with the principles sovereign equality and non-interference. UN member states are obliged, in cooperation with the UN, to take joint and individual measures provided for by the relevant provisions of the Charter, which include, among other things, repelling aggression directed against the territorial integrity of states and establishing fair state borders.
It is impossible not to point out the relationship between the principle concerning the obligation, in accordance with the UN Charter, not to interfere in matters within the internal competence of any state (the principle of non-intervention) with the principle of territorial integrity. No state or group of states has the right to interfere directly or indirectly for any reason in the internal and external affairs of another state. As a consequence, armed intervention and all other forms of intervention or any threats directed against the legal personality of a State or against its political, economic and cultural foundations are a violation of international law.
Violation of territorial integrity can be carried out without the use of armed force against the state, namely by influencing inner life state or promoting negative processes occurring in states, for example, armed conflicts of a non-international nature, aggravation of national contradictions in the state, religious strife.
Often states secretly or openly support certain forces located on the territory of their own or another state aimed at dismembering the territory of a foreign state. Each State is obliged to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands, including mercenaries, to invade the territory of another State. This also applies to organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil war or terrorist acts in another state or from condoning organizational activities within one's own territory aimed at the commission of such acts, in the case where the acts mentioned here involve a threat force or its use.
No state shall also organize, assist, incite, finance, encourage or tolerate armed, subversive or terrorist activities aimed at changing the system of another state through violence, or interfere in internal struggles in another state. The use of force to deprive peoples of their national existence is a violation of their inalienable rights and the principle of non-interference.
The principle of sovereign equality of states is directly related to the principle of territorial integrity. All states enjoy sovereign equality. They have the same rights and obligations and are equal members of the international community, regardless of differences of economic, social, political or other nature. In particular, the concept of sovereign equality includes such elements as the duty of each state to respect the legal personality of other states, to fulfill fully and faithfully its international obligations and to live in peace with other states. The territorial integrity and political independence of the state are inviolable.
The principle of faithful fulfillment by states of international obligations is a fundamental, cementing principle of international law and is aimed, among other things, at ensuring the obligations of states to respect each other’s territorial integrity and prevent its violation by third states.
Historically, self-determination of peoples quite often becomes the reason for the violation of the territorial integrity of states and their collapse. The creation of a sovereign and independent state, the free accession to or association with an independent state, or the establishment of any other political status freely determined by the people, as
defined by the Declaration, are the ways in which these people exercise their right to self-determination. Thus, this document clarifies the list of ways within which a particular people can self-determinate. This is due to certain territorial changes or self-determination in the form of autonomy.
The Declaration highlighted the connection between the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples and the principle of territorial integrity.
This principle was legally enshrined at the universal level in the UN Charter and was thereby recognized as a generally recognized principle of international law. Because of this, all peoples have the right to freely determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every state is obliged to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the UN Charter. Other states have an obligation to promote, through joint and independent action, universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the UN Charter, including the right of peoples to self-determination, which is among collective rights and human freedoms.
Each state is obliged to promote, through joint and independent action, the implementation of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples in accordance with the provisions of the UN Charter and to assist this international organization in fulfilling the responsibilities assigned to it by the Charter in relation to the implementation of this principle. In addition, each state is obliged to refrain from any violent acts that deprive the peoples, as stated above, in the specification of this principle, of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence.
At first glance, the Declaration contains a contradiction between the sovereign right of a state in relation to its territory to ensure its territorial integrity and the right of peoples to self-determination, the implementation of which can lead to territorial disintegration.
However, in accordance with this document, the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples should not be interpreted as authorizing or encouraging any action that would lead to the dismemberment or partial or complete violation of the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states operating in compliance with this principle, having governments representing all the people belonging to a given territory, without distinction as to race, creed or color.
Thus, the principles of the UN Charter are interrelated, represent a system and each principle, as noted in the Declaration, must be considered in the context of all other principles.
All states must be guided by these principles in their international activities and develop their relationships on the basis of their strict adherence. At the same time, it should be noted that the UN Charter and the Declaration provided a limited list of basic principles of international law. The doctrine of international law is not limited to this list and
counts among them the principle of respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms, the principle of the inviolability and inviolability of state borders, which are also related to the principle of territorial integrity. Thus, the principle of the inviolability of state borders (the principle of prohibition of unlawful changes to state borders) is a generally recognized, basic principle of international law, the norm of jus cogens. It is derived, first of all, from the principle of non-use (abstinence from the use) of force or the threat of force, other related basic principles of international law, including the principle of territorial integrity.
In turn, the principle of inviolability of state borders (the principle of respecting the passage of the state border on the ground and its regime) is a generally recognized principle of international law. It is derived, first of all, from the principle of non-use of force or threat of force, the sovereign equality of states, other related basic principles of international law, as well as the principle of territorial integrity of states (the principle of prohibition of the use of force against the territory of a foreign state).
The last mentioned principle is also a generally recognized principle of international law, the norm of jus cogens. It is derived from the principle of non-use (abstention from the use) of force or threat of force, the principle of territorial integrity, and other related basic principles of international law.
Ensuring the territorial integrity of states is one of the pressing problems of our time.
History shows numerous cases of the disintegration of states into their component parts, attempts to separate parts of their territory from states.
At the same time, we can say with confidence that the world has developed a system for ensuring the territorial integrity of states, although it is not yet effective enough, but is in constant development. Moreover, the main goal of this system is to protect the vital interests of states from threats to their territorial integrity. Particular goals, that is, second-order goals, include goals such as weakening the influence, and if possible, eliminating the causes and conditions that contribute to the emergence and action of these threats, their neutralization and elimination of consequences.
These goals are predetermined by the role played by the system of ensuring territorial integrity in the functioning of the security systems of specific states, including Russian Federation. In addition, these goals are components of the goals of systems more high level, lying in the sphere of provision international security and maintaining international law and order. This indicates that the system for ensuring the territorial integrity of states can be considered an integral component of such global systems.
Directions international cooperation to ensure territorial integrity must correspond to the nature of the threats. First of all,
their internal and external character. This is due to the fact that territorial integrity is influenced by both internal and external factors. Their understanding can be approached from both interstate and intrastate positions and established doctrines.
The international approach is of particular interest.
External influences on the state often lead to certain territorial changes. Although, internal processes not related to external influence can also lead to a violation of the territorial integrity of states.
In our opinion, the most pressing issues of international cooperation, which are the most important components of the system for ensuring the territorial integrity of states, deserve the greatest attention, such as:
International legal registration of the state border of neighboring states as a guarantee of reliable consolidation of the state border line with the help of international means;
Changes in accordance with international law of the passage of state borders;
International legal counteraction to separatism as one of the main sources of destruction of the territorial integrity of states;
International cooperation in the field of state border protection, allowing for coordination of joint activities of states;
Ensuring the territorial integrity of states within the framework of the functioning of the international security system, aimed at preventing, suppressing and neutralizing external threats.
The question of boundaries has great importance for each state. The range of interests of states is concentrated at the borders, many of which are vital and form the basis national security each of them. The establishment of fair and durable state borders and their proper design is an important factor in ensuring international security and developing friendly relations between states.
At the same time, the clarity of the definition of the state border in the treaty of neighboring states and its establishment on the ground contributes to the implementation in practice of such fundamental principles modern international law as the territorial integrity of states and the inviolability of state borders. The preservation and strengthening of international peace and security largely depends on this, since territorial disputes and claims of one state on the territory of another very often led to conflicts, armed clashes and wars between them.
If there really are grounds for territorial claims, then any change in the ownership of state territory is possible only peacefully, on the basis of an agreement of interested states, with the help of which new state borders can be established and legally formalized. The establishment of a fair state border is of great importance for the normalization of relations between rivals.
effective states, especially in cases where there were disagreements between them in the past over border issues.
Any change in the territory of a state, its new political and legal outlines, with the exception of cases of exclusion of part of the territory of a state that has committed an act of aggression (in this case, the consent of such a state is not required - N.O.), must be carried out on the basis of a voluntary agreement of neighboring states, the principle of equality and self-determination of the peoples inhabiting the relevant territory, taking into account other legitimate interests of states. New borders must be formalized in an agreement between neighboring states or in international custom.
An unclear definition of the state border, different approaches to its establishment, determined by the historical, economic and other interests of states, the absence of clear agreements on the passage of the border, the ambiguity of their wording, and even errors in documents on border delimitation, inaccurate border demarcation can lead to territorial disputes. Such disputes are very important issue and reduce the level of security of the state, its vital interests, one of the elements of which is ensuring the territorial integrity of the state.
The threat to the territorial integrity of states is created by separatism, the danger of which has always accompanied humanity, and certain signs of which, as an illegal phenomenon, were reflected in the resolution of the UN General Assembly that approved the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970. It is noteworthy that the first international treaty in which separatism was defined was its composition was fixed, the Shanghai Convention on Combating Terrorism, Separatism and Extremism of 2001, which, as is known, is a regional international treaty, became established.
The international community can and should take action real steps to counter separatism, namely, neutralize the causes and conditions conducive to the emergence of separatism, localize its development in states, combat separatism, minimize and (or) eliminate the consequences of manifestations of separatism. The issue of countering separatism began to come to the attention of international intergovernmental organizations.
The main goal of international cooperation in countering separatism should be to ensure the protection of the territorial integrity of states from the threats of separatism. The main tasks are to develop common approaches of states to counter separatism; improving the legal framework for cooperation, as well as the development and harmonization of state legislation in this area; identifying and eliminating the causes and conditions conducive to separatism; its prevention and suppression; countering the financing of separatism in any form; increasing the efficiency of interaction between competent authorities of states to prevent, identify, suppress and investigate separatism, identify and suppress the activities of organizations and individuals involved in it; creating an atmosphere of complete rejection of separatism in the world.
Along with security measures at joint borders, states take measures for their joint protection, which is carried out by border agencies of neighboring states.
Neighboring states, in the interests of ensuring their security, as a rule, enter into bilateral and multilateral international treaties on a system of interrelated issues related to the protection of the common state border. Agreements on cooperation on border issues ensure timely and coordinated exchange of information, including about persons for whom, in accordance with national legislation, there are restrictions on entry into the territory of these states or on leaving them, including persons participating in separatist activities.
The parties agree on a joint border policy, develop and implement joint programs on border issues, and implement a long-term strategy for mutually beneficial border cooperation. The main activities in this area, as a rule, are; unification of the legislative and regulatory framework of the participating states in the field of border policy; formation of a unified system of border and customs control at the borders; unification of approaches to concluding international agreements with third countries on border issues; management integration and interaction optimization government agencies states in the field of ensuring security on their borders. There is a practice of states providing mutual assistance to each other in protecting borders with third states, within the framework of relevant international treaties. International organizations are also one of the important tools ensuring the territorial integrity of states through coordinating efforts to protect the borders of their members.
Currently, the military-political situation in the world has acquired a qualitatively new character, quite complex and contradictory. Its development is influenced by a large number of external and internal factors that are closely interconnected and interdependent. Exists significant amount regional interstate and intrastate problems, the aggravation of which is fraught with escalation into international armed conflicts and local wars. The prerequisites for this remain in social, political, economic, territorial, national-ethnic, religious and other contradictions, as well as in the commitment of a number of states to resolve them by force.
Currently, there are attempts on the part of individual countries or groups of countries to pursue a course towards regional or global dominance, occupying a special place in the world system due to their military-strategic, economic or scientific and technical potential, and the operation of a position of power.
The situation on the borders and ensuring territorial integrity are also influenced by factors within states. Presence of armed conflict zones
non-international character, the complexity of the transition period, the reasons for which lie in the unresolved mutual claims of independent states and new national entities to each other, the actions of many unconstitutional armed formations within states negatively affect the internal political situation and are main reason instability in these states.
One of effective means ensuring the territorial integrity of states is the creation of a reliable system collective security, which, as is known, can be general (universal) or regional. Such a system is an organizational form and a set of coordinated joint measures by states around the world or a certain geographical area, taken to prevent and eliminate threats to peace, suppress acts of aggression or other violations of the peace, as well as to protect against other external threats to the vital interests of states. The functioning of this system is impossible without appropriate international legal measures.
Thus, territorial integrity is manifested in the unity of the territory over which the sovereignty of the state extends. This is a qualitative characteristic of the state. Territorial integrity is determined by its ability to maintain its territory within the boundaries established in accordance with international law, to counter external and internal threats aimed at changing the territory of the state. Preservation of the territorial integrity of states is both intrastate and international problem. In this regard, the scientific study of the entire complex of international legal issues that affect the territorial integrity of states and contribute to its strengthening is of particular relevance.
LITERATURE
Lukashuk I.I. International law. General part: Textbook for students of law faculties and universities. - M.: Wolters Kluwer, 2005.
Chernichenko S.V. Theory of international law. In 2 volumes - Vol. 1. Modern theoretical problems. - M., 1999.
TERRITOTIAL INTEGRITY OF STATES AND ITS GUARANTEE: THEORETICAL-LEGAL AND INTERNATIONAL-LEGAL
The Department of International Law People" Friendship University of Russia
6, Miklukho-Maklaya st., Moscow, Russia, 117198
The are analyzed principle of territotal integrity of states as one of the general principles of the
modern international law and also studied the main theoretical-legal and international-legal bases of this
principle in the actual.
Key words: territorial integrity, stete, international law, international-legal principles.
Lukashuk I.I. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Obschaya chast": Uchebnik dlya studentov yuridiche-skikh fakul"tetov i vuzov. - M.: Volters Kluver, 2005.
Chernichenko S.V. Teoriya mezhdunarodnogo prava. V 2 t. - T. 1. Sovremennye ieoreti-cheskie problemy. - M., 1999.
Cassese A. International Law in Divided World. - New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
High-level Panel on Treats, Challenges and Challenges. A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility // Un Doc. A/59/565. 2 December 2004.
Human Security Report: War and Peace in the 21st Century. - Vancouver: Human Security Centre, University of British Columbia, 2005.
Maill H. The Peacemakers: Peaceful Settlement of Disputes since 1945. - New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992.
The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations / Ed. by Thomas G. Weiss and Sam Daws. - Oxford University Press, 2008.
Weiss T. (ed.). Collective Security in a Changing World. - Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1993.
Territory serves as the material basis of any state and is a necessary condition for its existence. All natural resources are integral components of the territory of the state, and if the territory as a whole is inviolable, then its components, that is, natural resources in their natural form, are also inviolable. Their development by foreign persons or states without the permission of the territorial sovereign is recognized as a violation of the territorial integrity of the state. Therefore, states pay special attention to ensuring its integrity. The League of Nations Statute also obliged the territorial integrity of the member states to be respected and preserved against any external attack. This principle was established with the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945.
Sometimes the principle of territorial integrity of states is also called the principle of the integrity of state territory or the principle of inviolability of state territory, but the essence here is the same - the prohibition of the forcible seizure, annexation or dismemberment of the territory of a foreign state.
In paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter contains a requirement to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of states, thereby definitively establishing the principle of the territorial integrity of states, albeit in a condensed formulation.
The 1970 Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations states that each State “shall refrain from any action tending, in whole or in part, to interfere with the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or countries". It also notes that “the territory of a State shall not be the subject of military occupation resulting from the use of force in violation of the provisions of the Charter,” and that “the territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State as a result of the threat or use of force.” Any territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force should not be recognized as legal.
This principle of international law was further developed in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975, which contains a separate and most complete formulation: “The participating states will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating states. Accordingly, they will refrain from any action inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations against the territorial integrity, political independence or unity of any participating State and, in particular, from any such action constituting the use or threat of force . The participating States will likewise refrain from making each other's territory the object of military occupation or other direct or indirect measures of force in violation of international law, or the object of acquisition by means of such measures or the threat of their implementation. No occupation or acquisition of this kind will be recognized as legal." Moreover, this applies to any actions against territorial integrity or inviolability. For example, the transit of any vehicles through foreign territory without the permission of the territorial sovereign is a violation not only of the inviolability of borders, but also of the inviolability of state territory, since it is precisely this territory that is used for transit.
In the modern political life of the world, the problems of the relationship between the principle of territorial integrity of the state and the right of nations to self-determination occupy, perhaps, one of the most prominent places. This is due to both the stable independent functioning of the state and the desire of certain social groups to a separate existence.
A certain aggravation of this problem occurred in the last decade of the twentieth century. First of all, this was due to the collapse of the USSR and the socialist system, when the weakening of the central government in the states of Eastern Europe and the USSR not only caused a completely predictable reaction from national opposition forces trying to implement democratic reforms, but also led to a chain reaction associated with the implementation of separatist manifestations individual territorial organizations. The realities of this period were expressed by the formation of new states in space former USSR(partially recognized – Abkhazia and South Ossetia and unrecognized - the Transnistrian Moldavian Republic and Nagorno-Karabakh) and the former Yugoslavia (partially recognized Kosovo). It should be noted that the period of the late twentieth century. was not the only time when there was an intensification of manifestations of territorial separatism. Thus, the previous aggravation of this issue was caused by the processes of decolonization in Africa and Asia in the 50-60s. XX century
The central issue in analyzing the problem of the relationship between the principle of territorial integrity of a state and the right of nations to self-determination is the relationship between the sovereignties of unrecognized self-governing parts of the state ( unrecognized states) and the states on whose actual territory they are located. Let us note that in modern political reality, manifestations of secessionist demands are quite common, while the justification of unilateral actions directed against the central government of the “metropolis,” as A. Buchanan accurately notes, “is based on the idea of why the state exists at all.” , under what conditions it has the right to control territory and people.”
It hardly makes sense to unambiguously answer the question of the legality or illegality of secession without taking into account specific historical, political, legal and other circumstances. Moreover, such circumstances are interpreted by the parties to secession relations, as a rule, in their favor. Thus, V.A. Makarenko, pointing out the consequences of past annexations as arguments for the right to secession; self-defense from an aggressor; discrimination in distribution, believes that every argument for secession must justify the rights of separate groups to a given territory. Naturally, the central government of the state opposes secession. In his opinion, the arguments against secession boil down to the following: overcoming anarchy and eliminating political bargaining that undermines the principle of the majority.
It seems possible to distinguish three variants of such manifestations. Firstly, the situation with a negotiated resolution of the conflict between a region striving for secession and the central government is “completed secession.” As a result, a new state appears. Examples here include the separation of Eritrea from Ethiopia, as well as the secession of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia from the USSR in 1991. Secondly, “stable functioning of an unrecognized state.” This is expressed, on the one hand, in the inability of the central government to restore supremacy throughout its territory, and on the other, in the non-recognition or partial recognition as a subject of international law of a region seeking secession, which effectively controls its territory and population. Here you can point to the PMR, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Kosovo. And finally, thirdly, regions striving to secede may, for one reason or another, be unable to gain international recognition. As a result, we have the restoration of the supremacy of the central government by various means - “suppression of the desire for sovereignty.” An example is the conflicts associated with the desire for independence of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Gagauzia, and in the more distant past - Katanga and Biafra.
The most lenient version of the state’s attitude to the separation of its constituent part presupposes the presence of a legislatively enshrined mechanism of secession. The most predictable outcome here seems to be “completed secession.” In this case, two equally probable results of the secession process are possible.
Firstly, this is the implementation of secession - the withdrawal of a region from the state. One example here is Montenegro’s exit from single state Serbia and Montenegro in 2006. This right was reserved for Montenegro and Serbia under Art. 60 of the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro. At the same time, the member state that exercises the right of secession does not inherit the international legal personality of a single state, which continues to represent the remaining union state Part.
You can also give the example of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, which in 1991 seceded from the USSR on the basis of Art. 72 of the USSR Constitution on the right of a union republic to secede from the USSR. In fact, the Baltic republics implemented the procedure provided for in Art. 20 of the USSR Law “On the procedure for resolving issues related to the withdrawal of a union republic from the USSR.” The sovereignty of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia was finally confirmed by three decisions of the State Council of the USSR on September 6, 1991.
Secondly, the option of ending secession is possible - the state exercising its right to territorial integrity. As an example of a failed attempt to implement the secession process, we can cite two referendums in the Canadian province of Quebec, within the framework of which the question of declaring its independence was raised.
The first referendum on secession from Canada took place in Quebec in 1980. Then 60% of the province's population opposed secession. A second referendum was held in 1995. 49.4% of the votes were cast for the independence of Quebec, only 50.6% of Quebecers voted against secession from Canada.
In 1998, a Supreme Court of Canada ruling said Quebec could not secede unless it received a solid majority in a referendum on a clearly defined issue. According to Yu.V. Irkhin, “after the 2000 elections, Quebec, in fact, returned to the previous and effective model - strong representation in the central parliament of a single Federation. By the optimal federal principle, many realistically thinking Canadian political scientists understand a way of dividing powers in such a way that the central and regional governments in a certain area are independent, but act in a coordinated manner.”
In addition, based on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Quebec Parliament adopted the Quebec Law “On the procedure for the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the population of Quebec and the State of Quebec.” Article 2 states that the people of Quebec have the inalienable right to freely choose the political regime and legal status of Quebec. Section 4 of this Act provides that the result of a referendum for Quebec to secede from Canada is recognized if 50% of the votes plus one vote are cast in favor of secession.
It is also fundamentally important to take into account whether the desire for secession is a true expression of the interests of the majority of the people of the subject or is it the desire of the ruling nomenklatura, the ethnocracy to establish its undivided power, selfish separatism. In practice, secession sometimes responded to the views of all three parties, as was the case in Malaysia: the federation, the seceding entity (Singapore) and the remaining entities.
Sometimes provisions on secession are found in the constitutions of unitary states that have autonomy. The emergence of autonomous Karakalpakstan, which is a form of self-determination of the Kara-Kalpak people, subject to a number of requirements, is allowed by Art. 74 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan of 1992, but this is possible only with the approval of the national parliament.
The option of “stable functioning of an unrecognized state” should be considered, first of all, in relation to the characteristics of the state. The key features here are territoriality, sovereignty, and population. Active manifestations of secession demands have a significant impact on the redistribution of the content of these characteristics between the central government and regions striving for self-determination. Thus, a region that is not actually subject to the jurisdiction of the central government is excluded from the structure of the state territory. And vice versa, a region striving for independence acquires the sign of territoriality. Otherwise, the statement about the desire for state isolation from the main state will not make sense.
Sovereignty, like territory, has an indivisible legal nature. In this sense, a region striving for self-determination often corresponds to the concept of “state” to a greater extent than “metropolis”, since the sovereignty of the latter excludes supremacy on the territory of the region striving for independence. The population of such a region also seems to have a greater political and legal connection with the region than with the central government of the “metropolis.” Thus, the PMR exercises the supremacy of power on its territory, and also ensures political and legal connections with the population living on its territory through citizenship relations. On the contrary, the Republic of Moldova does not have the opportunity to actually exercise the supremacy of power on the territory of Transnistria, which is formally part of Moldova, and also does not have a political and legal connection through citizenship relations with the vast majority of the population of the unrecognized state entity. This, it seems, was clearly demonstrated by the referendum held on September 17, 2006, in which the population of the PMR voted for independence, and not for functioning as part of Moldova. A similar situation can be observed in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which as of January 1, 2011 were recognized by four states (Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru).
Thus, the situation with unrecognized states implies a forced limitation of the sovereignty of the metropolitan state. According to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, “the reaction to the events of August 8 and to Russia’s recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia once again showed that we live in a world of double standards. We acted responsibly - in the interests of restoring international legality and justice. Understanding that any hesitation or attempts to postpone these steps would be fraught with an even more serious humanitarian catastrophe. Against this background, the position of our partners, who recently made every effort to bypass the norms of international law to achieve the separation of Kosovo from Serbia and recognition of this self-proclaimed region as a subject of international law, and now, as if nothing had happened, criticize Russia, looks openly biased.”
The third option – “suppression of the desire for sovereignty” – sufficiently depends on the relationship between the legal framework and the power capabilities of the central government and the self-determining region in favor of the central government. It is here that we should talk about restoring the state’s right to territorial integrity as part of the implementation of the indivisibility of state sovereignty.
P.A. Ol speaks about the indivisibility of sovereignty: “Belonging to sovereignty as the highest political power the dominant subject presupposes the structural construction of the political system of society, where the place of other subjects relative to the sovereign is clearly defined, which is based on the principle of the indivisibility of sovereignty.”
First of all, this is a situation of violation of state sovereignty by illegal actions of a self-determining region. In this case, the restoration of the territorial integrity of the state is carried out either by legal means or by force. The force option involves either the use of the military resources of the state, or the intervention of the armed forces of third states or interstate organizations.
A striking example of the use of UN armed forces to suppress the aspirations of a separatist-minded region for sovereignty are the events surrounding the declaration of independence of the Republic of Katanga in 1960 and its secession from the Republic of the Congo.
The Congolese government sought support from the UN, and such support was implemented in UN Security Council resolutions. Thus, paragraph 2 of UN Security Council Resolution 143 of July 14, 1960 authorized the UN Secretary General “to take, in consultation with the government of the Republic of the Congo, the necessary measures to provide that government with the military assistance it needs, and to provide it until national forces security through the efforts of the Congolese Government and with the technical assistance of the UN will not be able, in the opinion of this Government, to fully carry out its tasks.” Further, the UN Security Council, by Resolution 145 of July 22, 1960, “invites all States to refrain from any action that might interfere with the restoration of law and order and the exercise of the Government of the Congo’s powers, and also to refrain from any action that might undermine the territorial integrity and political independence of the Republic of the Congo." On 9 August 1960, in Resolution 146, the UN Security Council stated that “the entry of UN armed forces into the province of Katanga is necessary for the full implementation of this resolution”, and confirmed that the UN armed forces located in the Congo would not participate in any internal -an ongoing conflict of a constitutional or other nature, will not interfere in any way with such a conflict and will not be used to influence its outcome.”
At the same time, the confrontation between the central government of the Congo and the separatist Katanga continued, the leaders of the Republic of the Congo, led by P. Lumumba, were killed. In this situation, the UN Security Council, in Resolution 161 of 21 February 1961, insisted “that the UN immediately take all appropriate measures to prevent the outbreak of civil war in the Congo, including measures for a ceasefire, the suspension of all military operations and the prevention of clashes, resorting if necessary to use force as a last resort." In addition, in the said Resolution, the UN Security Council calls for the restoration of parliamentary institutions “so that the will of the people finds expression through a freely elected parliament.” And further: “the imposition of any solution, including the formation of any government, not based on genuine reconciliation, not only will not resolve any issues, but will significantly increase the danger of conflicts within the Congo and the threat to international peace and security.”
The adoption of Resolution 161 opens the second stage in the UN's actions. On April 15, 1961, the UN General Assembly, being seriously concerned about the threat of civil war, confirmed the organization's policy towards the Congo.
On 25 August 1961, S. Linner, one of the senior officers in charge of UN operations in the Congo, publicly stated that "the UN will support any policy that seeks to return Katanga to the Congo."
UN Security Council Resolution 169 of November 24, 1961 explicitly provides for the use of force “against mercenaries” and completely rejects the assertion that Katanga is a “sovereign independent state.” In addition, the Resolution strongly condemns the separatist activities illegally carried out by the administration of the province of Katanga with the help of external resources and the hands of foreign mercenaries, and declares that “all separatist activities directed against the Republic of the Congo are contrary to the Basic Law and the decisions of the Security Council.”
Let us note that the decisive intervention of the UN in the Congo is an exceptional case in the practice of the UN, especially in the conditions of bipolarity in the international political space. According to Zorgbibe, in the case of the Congo, UN forces ensured not only the isolation of the internal conflict in order to prevent the escalation of the Cold War, but also, rather, the prevention of the secession of Katanga. As a result, in January 1963, the province was returned to the country with the participation of UN peacekeeping forces.
Direct suppression of separatist manifestations by the armed forces of the central government took place in relation to the Republic of Biafra, which declared independence from Nigeria on May 30, 1967.
Nigerian President Gowon on June 6, 1967, ordered the suppression of the rebellion and announced mobilization in the northern and western Muslim states. In Biafra, covert mobilization began even before independence. After a short military offensive by the Biafran army, government troops gradually begin to take control of the coast, cutting off Biafra from direct access to the sea. In addition, transport and other infrastructure communications of Biafra were blocked. However, Biafran independence was recognized by Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Côte d'Ivoire. However, other states refrained from recognizing Biafra, and Great Britain and the USSR provided extensive diplomatic and military-technical assistance to the federal government of Nigeria.
In October 1969, Biafran leader Ojukwu called on the UN to mediate a ceasefire as a prelude to peace negotiations. But the federal government refuses to negotiate and insists on Biafra's surrender. On January 12, 1970, Officer Administering the Government of Biafra F. Effiong presented an acknowledgment of surrender to the federal government, which significantly reduced the potential size of the humanitarian disaster.
Another option is to restore the sovereignty of the central government by force after the separatist region violates the terms of the secession agreement. An example here is the restoration of the sovereignty of the Russian Federation in relation to the territory of the current Chechen Republic.
Thus, as a result of the armed confrontation between the separatist region and the federal center in 1991–1996. a situation arose of de facto equal negotiations between the federal center and the authorities of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, which ended with the conclusion on May 12, 1997 of the Treaty on Peace and Principles of Relations between the Russian Federation and the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, in which the phrase “High Contracting Parties ... seeking to establish strong, equal, mutually beneficial relationship".
Within the framework of the previously agreed upon Principles for determining the fundamentals of relations between the Russian Federation and the Chechen Republic, it was stipulated that “An agreement on the fundamentals of relations between the Russian Federation and the Chechen Republic, determined in accordance with generally recognized principles and norms of international law, must be reached before December 31, 2001.” In addition, the document contains requirements for the legislation of the Chechen Republic, which “is based on respect for human and civil rights, the right of peoples to self-determination, the principles of equal rights of peoples, ensuring civil peace, interethnic harmony and the safety of citizens living on the territory of the Chechen Republic, regardless of nationality.” affiliation, religion and other differences.”
Thus, the so-called “deferred status” of the Chechen Republic was formed, the implementation of which was to be carried out over a five-year period.
However, in August 1999, under the slogans of spreading true Islam and jihad against infidels, an invasion of Chechen armed groups led by Sh. Basayev into the territory of Dagestan took place with the aim of creating a caliphate in the Chechen and Dagestan territories populated by Muslims.
A direct threat has arisen to the territorial integrity and security of the Russian Federation. Federal Center and the republican authorities of Dagestan immediately took appropriate measures to suppress the aggression. The Dagestan police, militias and federal armed forces, at the cost of considerable effort and losses, managed to drive Basayev’s troops out of Dagestan. The fact that this adventure was aimed at provoking a new armed conflict with the federal government was later cynically admitted by Sh. Basayev: “Chechnya was threatened by a civil war, and we avoided it by starting a war with Russia.”
The threat to Russia's security and the situation in the North Caucasus as a whole required the authorities to take urgent and decisive measures to ensure security and law and order in the region. At parliamentary hearings in the fall of 2000, the chairman of the Duma Commission on the Chechen Republic, A. Tkachev, emphasized: “During Maskhadov’s reign, the government demonstrated a complete inability to perform its functions on the territory entrusted to it, which resulted in massive violations of human rights and freedoms. The invasion of armed forces from the territory of Chechnya into Dagestan in August 1999 finally disavowed the formal legal status of Maskhadov’s authorities, based on the spirit of the Khasavyurt agreements and the letter of the peace treaty. From that moment on, the formation of government bodies in Chechnya became not only a constitutional, but also an international legal responsibility of the Russian Federation.”
In the fall of 1999, the Russian government, headed by V.V. Putin, made a decision: in order to ensure the national security of the Russian Federation, introduce federal armed forces into Chechnya.
On August 12, 1999, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs of Russia I.N. Zubov stated that a letter had been sent to the President of Chechnya A. Maskhadov with a proposal to conduct a joint operation with federal troops against Islamists in Dagestan. According to him, the letter outlined the position of the Russian leadership and indicated a requirement for the Chechen leadership to clarify the situation regarding what is happening in Dagestan and in the regions bordering Chechnya. “We suggested that he resolve the issue of liquidating bases, storage and rest areas of illegal armed groups, which the Chechen leadership in every possible way denies. We proposed to conduct joint operations. In case of any further actions, we reserve the right to act in accordance with international law,” said I.N. Zubov. However, instead of carrying out such an operation, A. Maskhadov on October 5, 1999 signed the Decree “On the introduction of martial law in the territory of the Chechen Republic of Chechnya.”
On September 13, 1999, Russian President B.N. Yeltsin, in a televised address to the citizens of the country, stated the need to consolidate the branches of government and society to repel terrorism. “Terrorism has declared war on us, the people of Russia,” the head of state noted. “We live in conditions of the threatening spread of terrorism. This means that it is necessary to unite all the forces of society and the state to repel the internal enemy,” the president continued. – This enemy has no conscience, pity and honor. There is no face, nationality and faith. I especially emphasize nationality and faith.”
On September 23, the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation “On measures to increase the effectiveness of counter-terrorism operations in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation” was signed, providing for the creation of a Joint Group of Troops (Forces) in the North Caucasus to conduct a counter-terrorism operation.
Determining the fate of the Khasavyurt agreements, V.V. Putin said that “the so-called Khasavyurt pact was signed in the context of the genocide of the Russian people in Chechnya,” and “from a legal point of view, this is not an agreement at all, since it was signed outside the framework of the legal legal framework of Russia" and nothing more than the moral obligations of the two parties." Noting the lack of a legal basis for the Khasavyurt agreements, V.V. Putin says that in Chechnya, which “Russia did not recognize as a de jure independent state, all authorities of the Russian Federation were actually dismantled.”
Thus, as a result of the active actions of federal forces, the political and legal status of the Chechen Republic as a full-fledged subject of the Russian Federation was restored, and constitutional order was restored in the region.
Later, the position that republics cannot secede from the Russian Federation was confirmed by Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of June 7, 2000 No. 10-P, which establishes that the Constitution of the Russian Federation does not allow any other bearer of sovereignty and source of power other than the multinational people of Russia, and, therefore, excludes the existence of two levels of sovereign authorities located in a single system of state power, which would have supremacy and independence, i.e., it does not allow the sovereignty of either republics or other subjects of the Russian Federation.
An option for implementing the process of restoring the violated sovereignty of the central government within the legal framework is legal interaction between the authorities of the Republic of Moldova and representatives of the Gagauz Republic in 1991–1994. This confrontation ended in 1994 with the adoption of the Law of the Republic of Moldova “On the special legal status of Gagauzia (Gagauz Yeri).” In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 1 of this Law “Gagauzia (Gagauz Yeri) is a territorial autonomous entity with a special status as a form of self-determination of the Gagauz people, which is an integral part of the Republic of Moldova.” Part 2 Art. 1 establishes that “Gagauzia, within its competence, independently resolves issues of political, economic and cultural development in the interests of the entire population.”
At the same time, Part 4 of Art. 1 establishes a correlation between the legal status of Gagauzia and the legal status of the Republic of Moldova. Thus, “in the event of a change in the status of the Republic of Moldova as an independent state, the people of Gagauzia have the right to external self-determination.” In addition, in accordance with Article 25 of the said Law, “The Republic of Moldova is the guarantor of the full and unconditional implementation of the powers of Gagauzia, defined by this law.
Thus, based on the above, it seems necessary to draw the following conclusions:
1. The central issue in analyzing the problem of the relationship between the principle of territorial integrity of a state and the right of nations to self-determination is the relationship between the sovereignties of unrecognized self-governing parts of the state (unrecognized states) and the states on whose actual territory they are located.
2. When implementing secession, either the right of self-determination of a territory can be restored if it was initially lost as a result of violent actions of the central government, or the state’s right to territorial integrity if the state’s legislation does not contain the right to secede any territorial entity.
3. In the event of a violation of state sovereignty by illegal actions of a self-determining region, the restoration of the territorial integrity of the state is carried out either by legal or forceful means. The force option involves either the use of the military resources of the state, or the intervention of the armed forces of third states or interstate organizations.
One of the most important features and elements of a state is its territory. Therefore, its inviolability and integrity are the most important value properties of the state, indispensable conditions for its existence.
The purpose of the principle is to protect the territory of the state from encroachment.
However, the very name of this principle has not yet been established; in international acts and literature, both elements - inviolability and integrity, and each of them separately - are indicated in its name. Both of these elements are close in meaning, but their legal content is different.
Territorial integrity is the protection of the territory of the state from any encroachment from the outside; no one should encroach on the territory for the purpose of full or partial occupation or occupation, or enter its land, sea or air space against the will of the given state.
Territorial integrity is a state of unity and indivisibility of the territory of a state; no one should encroach on its territory for the purpose of total or partial violation of its unity, dismemberment, separation, rejection, transfer or annexation of all or part of it to the territory of another state.
The analyzed principle is one of the newest principles. Its formation began only in the middle of the 20th century. Previously, this was impossible: until the 20th century. under the conditions of the then unlimited rule of law by force, the territory of states was constantly the object of attacks, seizures, occupation, forced divisions, exchanges, sales and annexations. The so-called classical international law, legally recognizing the right to war, thereby lethalized the seizures and annexations of foreign territories accompanied by war. Therefore, for centuries, each state ensured its own territorial security.
In paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of states was for the first time prohibited. In the Declaration of Principles of International Law, when disclosing the content of the wording of paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the Charter reflected many of its elements, although the principle itself was not yet separately mentioned. The next stage was the CSCE Final Act of 1975, in which it was highlighted as an independent principle with specific content. According to the principle, states have undertaken the following obligations:
respect each other's territorial integrity;
refrain from any actions. incompatible with the UN Charter, against each other's territorial integrity or unity and from actions constituting the use or threat of force:
refrain from making each other's territory the object of military occupation or other direct or indirect measures of unlawful use of force, or the object of acquisition by means of such measures or the threat of their implementation;
not to recognize as legal any occupation or acquisition of this kind.
Thus, we are talking about any actions against the inviolability or integrity of the territory. For example, the transit of any vehicles through foreign territory without the permission of the authorities of that state is a violation of the inviolability of not only borders, but also the territory, since it is this territory that is used for transit. All natural resources are integral components of the territory of the state, and if the territory as a whole is inviolable, then its components are also inviolable. Therefore, their development by foreign persons or states without the permission of state authorities is also illegal.
IN modern world the significance of this principle is very great from the point of view of ensuring the stability of interstate relations and protecting the sovereignty of all states. Russia in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 4 of the Constitution “ensures the integrity and inviolability of its territory.” Protecting and ensuring the integrity and inviolability of the territory from the danger of attack from the outside is one of the most important functions Russian state, like any state in the world.
More on the topic § 5. The principle of territorial inviolability and integrity of states:
- § 1. State, state formation, territorial autonomy and administrative-territorial division
- INTEGRITY AND DIVERSITY OF THE WORLD. MOBILITY, VARIABILITY OF EXISTENCE. DIFFICULTIES IN COMPREHENSING CONNECTIONS AND INTERACTIONS OF PHENOMENA, THE INTEGRITY OF OBJECTS, THEIR MOVEMENT, CHANGES, DEVELOPMENT. “PAIRED” DIALECTICAL CONCEPTS
- § 1. State, state formation, territorial autonomy and administrative-territorial division