home Vitamins and dietary supplements International legal personality of peoples fighting for independence. Nations and peoples fighting for independence

International legal personality of peoples fighting for independence. Nations and peoples fighting for independence

Feature of modern international law lies in the possibility of recognition of MFN as its independent subjects. Not every nation or people fighting for their liberation has the right to claim such status. The subject of international law can only be those MFNs who, in the process of their liberation struggle, create power structures capable of speaking on behalf of the entire nation in interstate communication.

The right of nations to self-determination- one of the cogent principles of general international law, enshrined in the UN Charter, the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, the Helsinki Act of 1975. The right to secede and form an independent state is an indispensable element of a nation’s right to self-determination. The population of non-self-governing territories (colonies, dependent territories) has this right; peoples living in the territory that, in accordance with the constitution of the relevant state, has the right to secede; peoples living on the territory of a state in which there is a violation of the principle of the right of nations to self-determination. In any case, the right to self-determination is precisely a right, and not a duty, of a nation. The right to self-determination can be exercised by any means, including military; however, the right to self-determination is incompatible with nationalism and separatism.

International legal personality MFN first appeared during the First World War, during the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman Empires. Further, the international legal personality of MFN was recognized during the Second World War. Largest quantity Such subjects acted in international communication during the period of massive collapse of the colonial system. IN modern world The significance of the international legal personality of the MFN is that it is the right of every nation building its own statehood to independently, without outside interference, determine its internal and external political status.

The ability to have international rights and obligations and the ability to independently implement them are organically interconnected and constitute the international legal personality of MFN. The latter have all the elements of international legal personality: the right to participate in the conclusion of international agreements, to be a member international organizations, have their official representative offices in other states, participate in international conferences. The main international right of a people fighting to create their own state is international treaty capacity. Representatives of the national liberation movement act on behalf of the nation when concluding an international treaty or acceding to it.

One of the most important powers of the MFN is the right to international protection and support from other states, the right to directly submit claims to international bodies. In international organizations and international conferences MFNs usually have observer status.

The main problem of the international legal personality of MFN is the need to recognize a nation as a subject of international law. In modern international law there is no normative international legal regulation of this issue. A particularly difficult question is: how many states must recognize MFN in order for it to receive the status of a subject of international law. Currently, these issues are resolved on the basis of international practice and international customs. However, such recognition is not received by the nation or the people as a whole, but by specific bodies leading the national liberation movement. UN documents refer specifically to the recognition of the national liberation movement. The specificity of recognizing MFN as a subject of international law is determined by the fact that the problem of recognition arises in relation to a people, and for recognition it is necessary that this people have a certain economic, cultural, historical community, and awareness of their unity. If the problem of recognition arises in relation to a nation, a linguistic community is also necessary.

Modern international practice on the issue of recognizing MFN as subjects of international law is based on the “Estrada Doctrine,” which applies not only to the recognition of governments, but also to the recognition of nations fighting for independence. At the same time, certain objective criteria are necessary to recognize MFN as a subject of international law.

In 1974, based on a UN General Assembly resolution, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was endowed with international legal personality. It was recognized as a nation fighting for independence (the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state). In early 2003, under the auspices of the UN, Israel and the PLO adopted a “Road Map” towards a permanent solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in accordance with the two-state principle. The plan's goal is to propose "a permanent two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." That same year, Israel began construction of a protective “security barrier” approximately 350 km long. He must divide Israel and the Palestinian territories, as well as secure areas in the West Bank where the main Israeli settlements are concentrated from terrorist attacks. However, in 2004, the International Court of Justice of the PLO declared Israel's construction of the "security barrier" illegal. According to the Court, the wall violates the Palestinians' rights to freedom of movement and employment, and damages caused by its construction to all individuals and entities should be compensated.

Currently, the Palestinian Authority really exists (in fact, an independent state). The PLO can no longer be considered a nation fighting for independence (although formally, legally, this status continues to be preserved); she is one of political movements operating in the Palestinian Authority and fighting for power in the new state (along with the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), the Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine (Fatah), etc.).

There is a customary rule in international law that foreign interference, including in the form of financial contributions, cannot take place in the struggle for a nation's right to self-determination. For example, by 2008 the volume of Russian subsidies South Ossetia more than double the gross domestic product (GDP) of the republic itself. The bulk of the subsidies were directed to military expenditures, reaching 50% of the GDP of Abkhazia and 150% of the GDP of South Ossetia. The international community does not recognize these states primarily due to Russia's direct participation in the conflict. The secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia is regarded not as the realization of the legitimate right of nations to self-determination, but as a violation territorial integrity and political unity of Georgia.

The legal personality of fighting nations, like the legal personality of states, is objective in nature, i.e. exists independently of anyone's will. Modern international law confirms and guarantees the right of peoples to self-determination, including the right to free choice and development of their socio-political status.

The principle of self-determination of peoples is one of the basic principles of international law; its formation dates back to late XIX- beginning of the 20th century It acquired especially dynamic development after October revolution 1917 in Russia.

With the adoption of the UN Charter, the right of a nation to self-determination finally completed its legal formalization as a fundamental principle of international law. The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 1960 concretized and developed the content of this principle. Its contents were most fully formulated in the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, which states: “All peoples have the right freely to determine, without outside interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the obligation to respect this right in in accordance with the provisions of the UN Charter."

In modern international law there are norms confirming the legal personality of fighting nations. Nations struggling to establish an independent state are protected by international law; They can objectively apply coercive measures against those forces that prevent the nation from acquiring full international legal personality and becoming a state. But the use of coercion is not the only and, in principle, not the main manifestation of the international legal personality of nations. Only a nation that has its own can be recognized as a subject of international law political organization, independently performing quasi-state functions.

In other words, a nation must have a pre-state form of organization: popular front, the beginnings of authorities and management, the population in the controlled territory, etc.

It must be taken into account that international legal personality in own meaning This word can (and does) not be possessed by all, but only by a limited number of nations - nations that are not formalized into states, but are striving for their creation in accordance with international law.

Thus, almost any nation can potentially become a subject of legal relations of self-determination. However, the right of peoples to self-determination was recorded in order to combat colonialism and its consequences, and as an anti-colonial norm, it fulfilled its task.

Currently, another aspect of the right of nations to self-determination is acquiring particular importance. Today we are talking about the development of a nation that has already freely determined its political status. In current conditions, the principle of the right of nations to self-determination must be harmonized and consistent with other principles of international law and, in particular, with the principle of respect for state sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. In other words, we need to talk no longer about the right of all (!) nations to international legal personality, but about the right of a nation that has received its statehood to develop without outside interference.

A struggling nation enters into legal relations with the state that controls this territory, other states and nations, and international organizations. By participating in specific international legal relations, it acquires additional rights and protection.

There are rights that a nation already possesses (they stem from national sovereignty) and rights that it struggles to possess (they stem from state sovereignty).

The legal personality of a struggling nation includes a set of the following fundamental rights: the right to independent expression of will; the right to international legal protection and assistance from other subjects of international law; the right to participate in international organizations and conferences; the right to participate in the creation of international law and independently fulfill accepted international obligations.

Thus, the sovereignty of a struggling nation is characterized by the fact that it does not depend on its recognition as a subject of international law by other states; the rights of a struggling nation are protected by international law; a nation, on its own behalf, has the right to take coercive measures against violators of its sovereignty.

Only the presence of all three of the above elements (possession of rights and obligations arising from international legal norms; existence in the form of a collective entity; direct participation in the creation of international legal norms) gives, in my opinion, grounds to consider this or that entity a full-fledged subject of international law . The absence of at least one of the listed qualities in a subject does not allow us to speak of possessing international legal personality in exact value this word.

Fundamental rights and obligations characterize the general international legal status of all subjects of international law. The rights and obligations inherent in entities of a certain type (states, international organizations, etc.) form special international legal statuses for this category of entities. The totality of the rights and obligations of a particular subject forms the individual international legal status of this subject.

Thus, the legal position various subjects international law is not the same, since the volume of international norms that apply to them and, accordingly, the range of international legal relations in which they participate are different.

International legal personality of states

It is necessary to take into account that not all, but only a limited number of nations can (and do) have international legal personality in the proper sense of the word - nations that are not formalized into states, but strive to create them in accordance with international law.

International legal personality of international organizations

International organizations form a separate group of subjects of international law. It's about about international intergovernmental organizations, i.e. organizations created by the primary subjects of international law.

Non-governmental international organizations, such as the World Federation of Trade Unions, Amnesty International, etc., are established, as a rule, by legal entities and individuals (groups of persons) and are public associations “with a foreign element.” The charters of these organizations, unlike the charters of interstate organizations, are not international treaties. True, non-governmental organizations can have consultative international legal status in intergovernmental organizations, for example, in the UN and its specialized institutions. Thus, the Interparliamentary Union has the status of the first category in the Economic and Social Council UN. However, non-governmental organizations do not have the right to create rules of international law and, therefore, cannot, unlike intergovernmental organizations, have all the elements of international legal personality.

International intergovernmental organizations do not have sovereignty, do not have their own population, their own territory, or other attributes of a state. They are created by sovereign entities on a contractual basis in accordance with international law and are endowed with certain competences recorded in the constituent documents (primarily in the charter). In a relationship constituent documents international organizations the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 is in force.

The organization’s charter defines the goals of its formation and provides for the creation of a certain organizational structure(acting bodies), their competence is established. The presence of permanent organs of the organization ensures the autonomy of its will; international organizations participate in international communication on their own behalf own name, and not on behalf of member states. In other words, the organization has its own (albeit non-sovereign) will, different from the will of the participating states. At the same time, the legal personality of the organization is functional in nature, i.e. it is limited by statutory goals and objectives. In addition, all international organizations are obliged to comply with the basic principles of international law, and the activities of regional international organizations must be compatible with the purposes and principles of the UN.

The basic rights of international organizations are as follows:

the right to participate in the creation of international legal norms;
the right of the organization’s bodies to exercise certain powers, including the right to make binding decisions;
the right to enjoy the privileges and immunities granted to both the organization and its employees;
the right to consider disputes between participants, and in some cases, with states not participating in the organization.

International legal personality of state-like entities

Some political-territorial entities also enjoy international legal status. Among them were the so-called. "free cities", West Berlin. This category of entities includes the Vatican and the Order of Malta. Since these entities most resemble mini-states and have almost all the characteristics of a state, they are called “state-like formations.”

The legal capacity of free cities was determined by relevant international treaties. Thus, according to the provisions of the Vienna Treaty of 1815, Krakow (1815-1846) was declared a free city. According to the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919, Danzig enjoyed the status of a “free state” (1920-1939), and in accordance with the peace treaty with Italy of 1947, the creation of the Free Territory of Trieste was envisaged, which, however, was never created.

West Berlin (1971–1990) enjoyed a special status granted by the 1971 Quadripartite Agreement on West Berlin. In accordance with this agreement, the western sectors of Berlin were united into a special political education with its authorities (Senate, prosecutor's office, court, etc.), to which part of the powers was transferred, for example, the publication of regulations. A number of powers were exercised by the allied authorities of the victorious powers. The interests of the population of West Berlin in international relations were represented and protected by German consular officials.

The Vatican is a city state located within the capital of Italy - Rome. This is where the head's residence is located. catholic church- The Pope. The legal status of the Vatican is determined by the Lateran Agreements, signed between the Italian state and the Holy See on February 11, 1929, which are basically still in force today. In accordance with this document, the Vatican enjoys certain sovereign rights: it has its own territory, legislation, citizenship, etc. The Vatican actively participates in international relations, establishes permanent missions in other states (the Vatican also has a representative office in Russia), headed by papal nuncios (ambassadors), participates in international organizations, conferences, signs international treaties, etc.

The Order of Malta is a religious formation with its administrative center in Rome. The Order of Malta actively participates in international relations, concludes treaties, exchanges representations with states, and has observer missions to the UN, UNESCO and a number of other international organizations.

International legal status of the subjects of the federation

In international practice, as well as foreign international legal doctrine, it is recognized that the subjects of some federations are independent states, the sovereignty of which is limited by joining the federation. The subjects of the federation are recognized as having the right to act in international relations within the framework established by federal legislation.

The international activities of the subjects of foreign federations are developing in the following main directions: concluding international agreements; opening representative offices in other countries; participation in the activities of some international organizations.

The question arises: Are there any rules in international law on the international legal personality of the subjects of the federation?

As is known, the most important element international legal personality is contractual legal capacity. It represents the right to directly participate in the creation of international legal norms and is inherent in any subject of international law from the moment of its emergence.

Issues of conclusion, execution and termination of treaties by states are regulated primarily by the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties of 1969. Neither the 1969 Convention nor other international documents provide for the possibility of independent conclusion of international treaties by constituent entities of the federation.

Generally speaking, international law does not contain a ban on the establishment of contractual relations between states and subjects of federations and subjects among themselves. However, international law does not classify these agreements as international treaties, just as contracts between a state and a large foreign enterprise are not such. In order to be a subject of the law of international treaties, it is not enough to be a party to one or another international agreement. It is also necessary to have the legal capacity to conclude international treaties.

The question arises about the international legal status of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

International legal status of the subjects of the Russian Federation

However, the processes of sovereignization that engulfed the newly independent states raised the question of the legal personality of the former national-state ( autonomous republics) and administrative-territorial (regions, territories) entities. This problem acquired particular significance with the adoption of the new Constitution of the Russian Federation in 1993 and the conclusion of the Federal Treaty. Today, some constituent entities of the Russian Federation declared their international legal personality.

Subjects of the Russian Federation are trying to act independently in international relations, enter into agreements with subjects of foreign federations and administrative-territorial units, exchange representations with them and enshrine the corresponding provisions in their legislation. The Charter of the Voronezh Region of 1995, for example, recognizes that the organizational and legal forms of international relations of the region are those generally accepted in international practice, with the exception of treaties (agreements) at the interstate level. Taking part in international and foreign economic relations independently or with other constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the Voronezh region opens on the territory foreign countries representative offices to represent the interests of the region, which act in accordance with the legislation of the host country.

The regulations of some constituent entities of the Russian Federation provide for the possibility of them concluding international treaties on their own behalf. Yes, Art. 8 of the Charter of the Voronezh Region of 1995 establishes that international treaties of the Voronezh Region are part of the legal system of the region. Norms of similar content are fixed in Art. 6 of the Charter of the Sverdlovsk Region 1994, art. 45 of the Charter (Basic Law) Stavropol Territory 1994, art. 20 of the Charter of the Irkutsk Region of 1995 and other charters of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as in the constitutions of the republics (Article 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Tatarstan).

Moreover, some constituent entities of the Russian Federation have adopted regulations governing the procedure for concluding, executing and terminating contracts, for example, the law of the Tyumen region “On international agreements of the Tyumen region and agreements of the Tyumen region with constituent entities of the Russian Federation” was adopted in 1995. The law of the Voronezh region “On legal normative acts of the Voronezh region" of 1995 establishes (Article 17) that the state authorities of the region have the right to conclude agreements, which are normative legal acts, with the state authorities of the Russian Federation, with the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, with foreign states on issues that represent their common, mutual interest.

However, statements by subjects of the Russian Federation about their international contractual legal capacity do not mean, in my deep conviction, the presence of this legal quality in reality. An analysis of the relevant legislation is required.

Federal legislation does not yet address this issue.

According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation (clause “o”, part 1, article 72), coordination of international and foreign economic relations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is the joint responsibility of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Federation. However, the Constitution does not directly speak about the possibility of constituent entities of the Russian Federation to conclude agreements that would be international treaties. The Federative Treaty does not contain such norms.

The Federal Law “On International Treaties of the Russian Federation” of 1995 also places the conclusion of international treaties of the Russian Federation within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. It has been established that international treaties of the Russian Federation affecting issues within the jurisdiction of the constituent entities of the Federation are concluded in agreement with the relevant bodies of the constituent entities. At the same time, the main provisions of agreements affecting issues of joint jurisdiction must be sent for proposals to the relevant bodies of the subject of the federation, which, however, do not have the right to veto the conclusion of an agreement. The 1995 law says nothing about agreements between the subjects of the Federation.

It should also be taken into account that neither the Constitution of the Russian Federation nor the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation” dated July 21, 1994 establishes rules on verifying the constitutionality of international treaties of the constituent entities of the Federation, although such a procedure is provided for in relation to international treaties of the Russian Federation.

In Art. 27 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Judicial System of the Russian Federation” of December 31, 1996, which establishes the competence of the constitutional (statutory) courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, among the legal acts that may be the subject of consideration in these courts, international treaties of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are also not named.

Perhaps the only norm of federal legislation indicating that the constituent entities of the Russian Federation have elements of contractual legal capacity is contained in Art. 8 of the Federal Law “On State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activities” of 1995, according to which constituent entities of the Russian Federation have the right, within their competence, to enter into agreements in the field of foreign trade relations with constituent entities of foreign federal states and administrative-territorial entities of foreign states.

However, provisions on the recognition of certain elements of international legal personality for the subjects of the Russian Federation are enshrined in many agreements on the delimitation of powers.

Thus, the Treaty of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Tatarstan dated February 15, 1994 “On the delimitation of jurisdiction and mutual delegation of powers between government bodies of the Russian Federation and bodies state power of the Republic of Tatarstan" provides that government bodies of the Republic of Tatarstan participate in international relations, establish relations with foreign states and enter into agreements with them that do not contradict the Constitution and international obligations of the Russian Federation, the Constitution of the Republic of Tatarstan and this Treaty, and participate in the activities of relevant international organizations ( paragraph 11 of article II).

In accordance with Art. 13 of the Agreement on the delimitation of jurisdiction and powers between state authorities of the Russian Federation and state authorities of the Sverdlovsk region dated January 12, 1996. The Sverdlovsk region has the right to act as an independent participant in international and foreign economic relations, if this does not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal laws and international treaties of the Russian Federation , conclude appropriate treaties (agreements) with subjects of foreign federal states, administrative-territorial entities of foreign states, as well as ministries and departments of foreign states.

As for the practice of exchanging representations with subjects of foreign federations, this quality is not the main one in the characteristics of international legal personality, however, we note that neither the Constitution nor the legislation of the Russian Federation this question has not yet been resolved. These representative offices are not opened on the basis of reciprocity and are accredited with any government authority of a subject of a foreign federation or territorial unit. These bodies, being foreign legal entities, do not have the status of diplomatic or consular missions and are not subject to the provisions of the relevant conventions on diplomatic and consular relations.

The same can be said about the membership of constituent entities of the Russian Federation in international organizations. It is known that the charters of some international organizations (UNESCO, WHO, etc.) allow the membership of entities that are not independent states. However, firstly, membership in these organizations of subjects of the Russian Federation has not yet been formalized, and, secondly, this feature, as already mentioned, is far from the most important in the characteristics of subjects of international law.

Taking into account the above, we can draw the following conclusion: although at present the subjects of the Russian Federation do not fully possess all the elements of international legal personality, the tendency for the development of their legal personality and their registration as subjects of international law is obvious. In my opinion, this issue requires resolution in federal legislation.

International legal status of individuals

The problem of international legal personality of individuals has a long tradition in legal literature. Western scientists have been recognizing the quality of international legal personality for an individual for quite some time, arguing their position with references to the possibility of bringing individuals to international responsibility, and the individual’s appeal to international bodies for the protection of their rights. In addition, individuals in European Union countries have the right to bring claims to the European Court. Following the ratification of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 1998, individuals in Russia can also apply to the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights.

Soviet lawyers for ideological reasons for a long time denied the individual's international legal personality. However, at the end of the 80s. and in the domestic international legal literature, works began to appear in which individuals began to be considered as subjects of international law. Currently, the number of scientists who share this point of view is constantly increasing.

In my opinion, the answer to the question whether an individual is a subject of international law depends on what characteristics this subject, in our opinion, should have.

If we assume that a subject of international law is a person who is subject to international legal norms and who is endowed with subjective rights and obligations by these norms, then the individual is certainly a subject of international law. There are many international legal norms that can directly guide individuals (Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War 1949, Additional Protocols I and II thereto 1977 g., New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958, etc.).

However, the concepts and categories of international law, as already noted, are not always identical to the concepts of domestic law. And if we believe that a subject of international law not only has rights and obligations arising from international legal norms, but is also a collective entity, and, most importantly, takes a direct part in the creation of norms of international law, then the individual is classified as a subject of international law it is forbidden.

International organizations

Only international intergovernmental organizations are classified as derivative (secondary) subjects of international law. Non-governmental international organizations do not have this quality.

Unlike the legal personality of states, the legal personality of international intergovernmental organizations is functional in nature, since it is limited by the competence, as well as the goals and objectives defined by the constituent document.

International organizations are often recognized as having the right to “implied powers,” i.e., those that the organization has the right to exercise in order to implement its statutory functions, but which are not spelled out in the charter. This concept can be accepted if it implies the agreement of the organization's members.

In addition to intergovernmental organizations, other international bodies may also be subjects of international law. So, in accordance with Art. 4 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of July 17, 1998, the said court has international legal personality. Naturally, the legal personality of the International Criminal Court is limited compared to that of intergovernmental organizations. The International Criminal Court has such international legal personality as is necessary to carry out the goals and objectives within its competence.

Nations (peoples) fighting for independence

If a nation (people) begins a struggle for independence and creates liberation bodies that effectively exercise management and control over a significant part of the people and territory, ensure compliance with the norms of international law during the struggle, and also represent the people in the international arena, then it can be recognized as a /d legal personality.

The belligerent party is the National Committee of Fighting France, later the French Committee of National Liberation, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

State-like entities

The Vatican (Holy See) is a state-like entity.

The Vatican State is a special entity created in accordance with the Lateran Treaty between Italy and the Holy See of February 11, 1929 and endowed with certain features of statehood, which means a purely formal expression of the autonomy and independence of the Vatican in world affairs.

It is now generally accepted that the Holy See is a subject of international law. It received such recognition from the international community due to its international authority as an independent leadership center of the Catholic Church, uniting all Catholics of the world and actively participating in world politics.

It is with the Vatican (Holy See), and not with the city state, that the Vatican maintains diplomatic and official relations 165 countries of the world, including Russian Federation(since 1990) and almost all CIS countries. The Vatican participates in many bilateral and multilateral international agreements. Has official observer status at the UN, UNESCO, FAO, and is a member of the OSCE. Vatican concludes special international agreements- concordats that regulate the relationship of the Catholic Church with government authorities, has ambassadors in many countries called nuncios.

In the international legal literature one can find the statement that the Sovereign Military Order of St. has a certain international legal personality. John of Jerusalem, Rhodes and Malta (Order of Malta).

After the loss of territorial sovereignty and statehood on the island of Malta in 1798, the Order, reorganized with the support of Russia, settled in Italy in 1844, where its rights as a sovereign entity and international legal personality were confirmed. Currently, the Order maintains official and diplomatic relations with 81 states, including the Russian Federation, is represented as an observer at the UN, and also has its official representatives at UNESCO, FAO, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Council of Europe.

The headquarters of the Order in Rome enjoys immunity, and the head of the Order, the Grand Master, has the immunities and privileges inherent in the head of state.

However, the Order of Malta is, in essence, an international non-governmental organization engaged in charitable activities. The preservation of the term “sovereign” in the name of the Order is a historical anachronism, since only the state has the property of sovereignty. Rather, this term in the name of the Order of Malta, from the point of view of modern international legal science, means “independent” rather than “sovereign”.

Therefore, the Order of Malta is not considered a subject of international law, despite such attributes of statehood as maintaining diplomatic relations and possessing immunities and privileges.

Story international relations knows other state-like entities that had internal self-government and some rights in the field of international relations. Most often, such formations are temporary in nature and arise as a consequence of the unsettled territorial claims of various countries against each other. It was this category that historically included the Free City of Krakow (1815-1846), the Free State of Danzig (now Gdansk) (1920-1939), and in the post-war period the Free Territory of Trieste (1947-1954) and, to a certain extent, degree, West Berlin, which enjoyed a special status established in 1971 by a quadripartite agreement between the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and France.

Subjects of federal states

Components international legal status republics, regions, territories and other constituent entities of the Russian Federation are embodied in the Federal Law of January 4, 1999 “On the coordination of international foreign economic relations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.” First of all, the constitutional right of the subjects of the Russian Federation, within the powers granted to them, to carry out international and foreign economic relations has been confirmed and specified, i.e. the right to relations that go beyond the domestic framework. Subjects have the right to maintain connections with subjects of foreign federal states, administrative-territorial entities of foreign states, and, with the consent of the Government of the Russian Federation, with government bodies of foreign states. The right to participate in the activities of international organizations within the framework of bodies created specifically for this purpose is also provided. Relations between entities and foreign partners, according to the Law, can be carried out in trade and economic, scientific and technical, economic, humanitarian, cultural and other fields. In the process of this activity, subjects of the Russian Federation have the right to negotiate with these foreign partners and to conclude agreements with them on the implementation of international and foreign economic relations. Such agreements are concluded primarily with equal counterparties - with members (subjects) of foreign federal states and with administrative-territorial units of unitary countries. At the same time, the practice of relations with central authorities of foreign states remains.

At the same time, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in its ruling dated June 27, 2000, confirmed its legal position that “a republic cannot be a subject of international law as a sovereign state and a participant in relevant interstate relations...”. When interpreting this provision, it is permissible to focus specifically on the denial of the sovereign status of the republic, which means the recognition and implementation of international and foreign economic relations (ties) not based on sovereignty with certain counterparties specified in the Federal Law of January 4, 1999.

Individuals

Some textbooks abroad and in Russia state that the subjects of MP are individuals. The human rights situation is usually cited as an argument. The imperative norms of the MP enshrine all fundamental human rights. International human rights courts have been established. Every person with a connection to a violation of his rights can now file a complaint international Court a complaint against one's own state.

In fact, all international legal acts on human rights issues regulate this issue not directly, but through interstate cooperation. International instruments establish the rights and obligations of states as subjects of international law, and only then states provide or are obliged to ensure the corresponding rights in their domestic law.

Human rights are one example of how modern international law concentrates on regulating not the actual behavior of the subjects of international law, but on internal legal regimes. In this case, on the domestic legal regime concerning human rights. International law norms are increasingly influencing the internal legal regimes of states, be it in the economic, financial or constitutional, administrative, and criminal spheres.

That is why it can be argued that the subject of regulation through international relations are two large groups of interstate relations: a) relations between international actors regarding their behavior in the international system; b) relations between small business entities regarding their internal legal regimes. And the emphasis in international legal regulation is gradually shifting to the second group of interstate relations.

Therefore, we can talk about strengthening the mutual interweaving of MP and internal law with the primacy of MP. The unity of domestic law and international law is called Global Law.

Only if we look at any legal problem in the light of Global Law (i.e., a complex of domestic and international law), can we assume that the subjects of Global Law are both public persons and private individuals.

Individuals can be recognized as an individual entrepreneur if only the states themselves recognize them as such. However, there are no international acts on the basis of which one could draw a conclusion about the international legal personality of individuals. Recognizing an individual as a subject of international law would mean that we are already dealing with some other (non-international) law. This “other right” is Global Law.

A manifestation of Global Law can be considered, for example, the presence in international law of an individual’s criminal liability for crimes against the peace and security of mankind, the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, etc. In these cases, it is recognized that international legal norms can give rise to rights and obligations for individuals directly directly, and not through the mediation of states.