Final act 1975. Helsinki meeting. See what the "Helsinki Act" is in other dictionaries

August 1, 1975 in Helsinki, the capital of Finland, representatives of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, the German Democratic Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland, Spain, Italy, Canada, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway , Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Holy See, United Kingdom, United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Turkey, Finland, France, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, Sweden and Yugoslaviasigned the final act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

The meeting was convened at the suggestion of the socialist participating statesWarsaw Pact and took place in three stages. 3 to 7 July 1973 Ministers of Foreign Affairs met in Helsinki. The second stage of the meeting was held in Geneva from 18 September 1973 to July 21, 1975 d. Tours lasting from 3 to 6 months at the level of delegates and experts nominated by the participating States. The final chord was the meeting in Helsinki 30 July - 1 August 1975 d. top state and political leaders.

Interstate agreements were grouped into several sections.

In the first section, relating to security issues in Europe, 10principles that determine the rules and norms of relations and cooperation of all states participating in the Conference: sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty; non-use of force or threat of force; inviolability of borders; territorial integrity of states; peaceful settlement of disputes; non-interference in internal affairs; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; equality and the right of peoples to control their own destiny; cooperation between states; conscientious fulfillment of obligations under international law.

The second section coordinated the main areas of cooperation in the field of economy, science and technology and environmental protection.

The third section included questions relating to security and cooperation in the Mediterranean.

The fourth section contained provisions on cooperation in the field of culture, education, information and other humanitarian fields, subject to the agreed principles of interstate relations, including the principles of non-interference in internal affairs and respect for the sovereign rights of states.

The original of the Final Act was drawn up in English, Spanish, Italian, German, Russian and French, andhanded over to the government of FinlandRepublic for storage in its archives. Each of the participating States received a certified copy of the Act.

The agreement on the way forward after the meeting provided for the continuation of the multilateral process initiated by pan-European meeting, which resulted in whole line new agreements toprevent interstate conflicts and overcome their consequences. In 1994d. The meeting was renamed the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Lit .: Zagorsky A. B. Helsinki process: (Negotiations within the framework of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe 1972-1991). M., 2005; Krohin V. A. Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe // Large soviet encyclopedia. T. 24. Book. 1. M., 1976; Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe: website. 1995-2015. URL : http:// www. osce. org/; Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. final act. Helsinki, 1975; Chervov Ya. F. Helsinki meeting // Soviet military encyclopedia. T. 8. M., 1976; Same [Electronic resource]. URL : http:// militera. lib. ru/ enc/ enc1976/ index. html.

See also in the Presidential Library:

Soviet statesman, diplomat Andrey Gromyko was born // On this day. July 18, 1909 .

This version of the page has not been reviewed by members with the appropriate rights. You can read the last checked or so-called. stable version dated 01.01.01, however it may differ significantly from the current version. Checks require 1 edit.
Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe(English) Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe), also known as Helsinki final Act(English) Helsinki Final Act), Helsinki agreements(English) Helsinki Accords) or Helsinki declaration(English) Helsinki Declaration) - a document signed by the heads of 35 states in the Finnish capital Helsinki on July 30 - August 1, 1975. The meeting was convened at the suggestion (1965) of the socialist states participating in the Warsaw Pact.

final act

The text of the final act is available in many languages, and in particular in Russian.

Interstate agreements grouped into several sections:

in the international legal field: consolidation of the political and territorial results of the Second World War, a statement of the principles of relations between the participating states, including the principle of inviolability of borders; territorial integrity of states; non-interference in internal affairs foreign countries; in the military-political area: agreement on confidence-building measures in the military field (prior notification of military exercises and major troop movements, the presence of observers at military exercises); peaceful settlement of disputes; in the economic field: coordination of the main areas of cooperation in the field of economy, science and technology and environmental protection; in humanitarian field: harmonization of commitments on human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of movement, contacts, information, culture and education, the right to work, the right to education and health care.

http://ru. wikipedia. org/wiki/Final_act_of_the_Meeting_on_Security_and_Cooperation_in_Europe

MEETING ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE

FINAL ACT

HELSINKI 1975

Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, started in Helsinki on July 3, 1973

mindful about my common history and recognizing that the existence of common elements in their

traditions and values ​​can help them develop their relationships, and fulfilled desires

seek, fully taking into account the originality and diversity of their positions and views,

opportunities to combine their efforts in order to overcome mistrust and build trust,

resolve issues that divide them and cooperate in the interests of humanity;

recognizing the indivisibility of security in Europe, as well as their common interest in

development of cooperation throughout Europe and among themselves, and expressing their intention to undertake

accordingly efforts;

recognizing close link between peace and security in Europe and in the world at large, and conscious of

the need for each of them to contribute to the strengthening of international peace and

security and in the promotion of fundamental rights, economic and social progress and

the well-being of all peoples;

accepted the following:

a) Declaration of principles by which the participating States will

manage relationships

Member States

affirming its commitment to peace, security and justice and the process

development of friendly relations and cooperation;

recognizing that this commitment, reflecting the interests and aspirations of peoples, embodies for

of each participating State, the responsibility now and in the future, increased as a result of

past experience;

affirming, in accordance with their membership in the United Nations and in

consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, its full and active

support for the United Nations and enhance its role and effectiveness in

strengthening international peace, security and justice and in helping to resolve

international problems, as well as the development of friendly relations and cooperation between

states;

expressing its common commitment to the principles set out below, which

are in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as well as their common will

act, in the application of these principles, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter

the United Nations;

declare about their determination to respect and apply in the relations of each of them with all

other participating States, regardless of their political, economic and social

systems, as well as their size, geographic location and level economic development,

the following principles, which are all of paramount importance and which they will

be guided in mutual relations:

I. Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty

The participating States will respect each other's sovereign equality and identity, and

all the rights inherent in and covered by their sovereignty, which include, in particular,

the right of every state to legal equality, to territorial integrity, to freedom and

political independence. They will also respect each other's right to freely choose and

develop their political, social, economic and cultural systems, as well as the right

establish their own laws and administrative regulations.

own conscience.

The participating States on whose territory there are national minorities will

respect the right of persons belonging to such minorities to equality before the law, will

provide them with the full enjoyment of the actual enjoyment of human rights and fundamental

freedoms and will thus protect their legitimate interests in this area.

The participating States recognize the universal importance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

whose respect is an essential factor for peace, justice and well-being,

necessary to ensure the development of friendly relations and cooperation between them,

as well as between all states.

They will at all times respect these rights and freedoms in their mutual relations and will

make efforts, jointly and independently, including cooperation with the Organization

United Nations, in order to promote universal and effective respect for them.

They confirm the right of persons to know their rights and obligations in this area and to act in

accordance with them.

In the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the participating States will act in

accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are

will also fulfill their obligations as set out in international declarations and

agreements in this area, including but not limited to the International Covenants on Human Rights, if

they are connected.

VIII. Equality and the right of peoples to decide their own destiny

The participating States will respect equality and the right of peoples to dispose of their

destiny, acting at all times in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and

relevant rules of international law, including those relating to

territorial integrity of states.

Based on the principle of equality and the right of peoples to control their own destiny, all peoples

always have the right, in complete freedom, to determine, when and how they wish, their

internal and external political status without outside interference and exercise in their own way

discretion of its political, economic, social and cultural development.

The participating States reaffirm the universal importance of respect and effective

implementation of equality and the right of peoples to control their own destiny for development

friendly relations between them, as well as between all states; they also remind

on the importance of excluding any form of violation of this principle.

IX. Cooperation between states

The participating States will develop their cooperation with each other, as with all

states, in all fields, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. Developing your

cooperation, the participating States will attach particular importance to areas as they

defined within the framework of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, each of them

will contribute in full equality.

They will strive, developing their cooperation as equals, to promote

mutual understanding and trust, friendly and good neighborly relations among themselves,

international peace, security and justice. They will equally strive

developing their cooperation, improve the well-being of peoples and contribute to the implementation of

life of their aspirations, using, in particular, the benefits arising from the expanding mutual

familiarization and their progress and achievements in the economic, scientific, technical, social,

cultural and humanitarian fields. They will take steps to promote the conditions

conducive to making these benefits available to all; they will take into account

the interests of all in reducing differences in levels of economic development and, in particular, the interests

developing countries around the world.

They confirm that governments, institutions, organizations and people can play

appropriate and positive role in helping to achieve these goals of their cooperation.

They will seek, by expanding their cooperation, as defined above, to develop

closer relations among themselves on a better and more solid basis for the benefit of the peoples.

X. Fulfillment in good faith of obligations under international law

The participating States will fulfill in good faith their obligations under

international law, as well as those obligations that flow from generally recognized principles and

norms of international law, as well as those obligations that follow from the relevant

international law of treaties or other agreements to which they are parties.

In exercising their sovereign rights, including the right to make their own laws and

administrative rules, they will be consistent with their legal obligations

under international law; they will, moreover, take due account of and carry out

provisions of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

The participating States reaffirm that, where the obligations of members

United Nations under the Charter of the United Nations will be in

conflict with their obligations under any treaty or other international

agreement, their obligations under the Articles shall prevail, in accordance with Article

103 of the UN Charter.

All the principles outlined above are of paramount importance, and therefore __________, they

will be equally and rigorously applied in interpreting each of them with regard to the others.

The participating States express their determination to fully respect and apply these

principles, as set forth in this Declaration, in all aspects to their mutual relations

and cooperation in order to provide each participating State with the benefits,

arising from the respect and application of these principles by all.

States Parties, having due regard to the principles set out above and, in

in particular, the first sentence of the tenth principle, "Fulfillment in good faith of obligations under

international law", note that this Declaration does not affect their rights and

obligations, as well as relevant contracts and other agreements and arrangements.

The participating States are convinced that respect for these principles will

promote the development of normal and friendly relations and the progress of cooperation

between them in all areas. They also express the conviction that respect for these principles

will contribute to the development of political contacts between them, which, in turn,

will contribute to a better mutual understanding of their positions and views.

The participating States declare their intention to exercise their relations with all

other States in the spirit of the principles set forth in this Declaration.

b)Questions, relating to the implementation of certain

from the principles, above

i) States- participants,

affirming that they will respect and enforce the non-use of force

or threats of force, and convinced of the need to make it an effective law

international life,

declare that they will respect and honor in their dealings with each other, including

the following provisions, which are in accordance with the Declaration of Principles, which

The participating States will be guided in their mutual relations by:

– To put into practice and express in all ways and in all forms that they deem

appropriate, the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force in relations

together.

– To refrain from any use of armed force inconsistent with the aims and

principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the provisions of the Declaration of Principles by which States

participants will be guided in mutual relations, against another state-

participant, in particular from intrusion or attack on its territory.

- To refrain from all manifestations of force for the purpose of coercion of another state -

party to renounce the full exercise of its sovereign rights.

– Refrain from any act of economic coercion aimed at subjugation

its interests in the exercise by another State Party of the rights inherent in its

sovereignty, and thus securing advantages of any kind.

– Take effective measures which, by virtue of their scope and nature, are steps towards

direction of achieving eventually general and complete disarmament under strict and

effective international control.

To promote by all means which each of them may think fit, the creation

atmosphere of trust and respect among peoples, consistent with their obligation to abstain

from propaganda of aggressive wars or any use of force or threat of force,

inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations and with the Declaration of Principles which

the participating states will be guided in mutual relations, against the other

participating state.

– Make every effort to resolve any disputes between them, continued

which could threaten the maintenance of international peace and security in Europe,

exclusively by peaceful means, and above all to try to resolve disputes through

peaceful means specified in Article 33 of the UN Charter.

– Refrain from any action that could impede a peaceful settlement

disputes between member states.

ii) States- participants,

affirming ____________ their determination to resolve their disputes, as defined in principle

peaceful settlement of disputes;

convinced that the peaceful settlement of disputes is complementary to the non-use

force or threat of force, both of which are significant, although not

exceptional, to maintain and promote peace and security;

wanting strengthen and improve the means at their disposal for peaceful

dispute resolution;

1. Determined to continue to consider and develop a generally accepted method of peaceful

dispute resolution aimed at supplementing existing remedies, and to this end

work on the "Draft Convention on European system peaceful settlement of disputes,

presented by Switzerland at the second stage of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in

Europe, as well as other proposals related to it and aimed at developing such

2. Decide that a meeting of experts will be convened at the invitation of Switzerland

of all participating States in order to fulfill the task set out in paragraph 1, within the framework of and under

compliance with the procedures for the next steps after the Meeting, as defined in the section "Further

steps after the meeting.

3. This meeting of experts will take place after the meeting of the representatives appointed by the Ministers

Foreign Affairs of the participating States, planned in accordance with the section "Further

steps after the Meeting" for 1977; the results of this meeting of experts will

submitted to governments.

Paper on Confidence-Building Measures and Certain Aspects

security and disarmament

States- participants

wanting eliminate the causes of tension that may exist between them, and that

contribute to strengthening peace and security in the world;

determined build trust among themselves and thereby contribute to strengthening

stability and security in Europe;

determined also refrain in their mutual, as well as in general in their

international relations from the threat or use of force as against territorial

integrity or political independence of any state, or any other

in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations and with the

Declaration of principles to guide the participating States in their mutual

relationships;

recognizing the need to help reduce the risk of armed conflict,

misunderstanding or misjudgment of military activities that could

give rise to fears, in particular in circumstances where participating States lack a clear and

timely information on the nature of such activities;

pay attention to considerations relating to efforts to reduce

tensions and promotion of disarmament;

recognizing I that the exchange by invitation of observers at military exercises will be

to promote contacts and mutual understanding;

having studied question of prior notification of major troop movements

in relation to confidence building;

recognizing that there are other means by which individual states can

further contribute to the achievement of their common goals;

convinced in the political importance of advance notice of major military

exercises to promote mutual understanding and build confidence, stability and security;

taking responsibility of each of them to promote these goals and

implement this measure in accordance with the agreed criteria and conditions, which is essential

to achieve these goals;

recognizing that this measure, stemming from a political decision, is based on a voluntary

adopted the following:

Advance notification of major military exercises

They will notify their major military exercises to all other participating States

through the usual diplomatic channels in accordance with the following provisions:

Notices will be given of major military exercises ground forces general

numbering more than people, carried out independently or jointly with any

possible air or naval components (in this context the word

"troops" includes amphibious and airborne troops). In the case of independent exercises

amphibious or airborne troops, or joint exercises in which they participate, these

troops will also be included in this number. Notices may also be given if

joint exercises that do not reach the number indicated above, but in which

ground forces, together with a significant number of amphibious or airborne

troops or both.

Notifications will be given about major military exercises that are taking place in Europe on

the territory of any State Party, and, if applicable, in adjacent

sea ​​area and airspace.

In the event that the territory of a Member State extends beyond Europe,

advance notices should only be given for exercises that take place within

250 km from its border facing any other European Member State

or in common with it, however, it is not necessary for a State Party to give notice in

when this area also adjoins its border facing non-European

non-participating state or common with it.

Notifications will be sent 21 days or more before the start of the exercise, or at the next

before the start date if the exercise is scheduled for a shorter period.

The notification will contain information about the title, if any,

the general purpose of the exercise, the states participating in it, the type or types and number of participating

troops, area and the proposed date of its implementation. The participating States will also, if

may provide relevant additional information, in particular such

which concerns the components of the participating forces and the timing of the involvement of these forces.

Advance notification of other military exercises

The participating States recognize that they can contribute to further strengthening

confidence and enhance security and stability, and for this purpose may also notify

military exercises on a smaller scale, other participating States, especially those that

located near the area where such exercises are to be conducted.

To the same end, participating States also recognize that they may notify other

military exercises conducted by them.

Exchange of observers

The participating States will invite other participating States, on a voluntary basis

order and on a bilateral basis, in the spirit of reciprocity and goodwill towards all states-

participants, send observers to attend military exercises.

The host State will, in each case, determine the number of observers

the terms and conditions of their participation and to provide such other information as it may deem

useful. It will provide appropriate facilities and hospitality.

The invitation will be sent through the usual diplomatic channels as

as far in advance as possible.

Advance notification of major troop movements

participating States have explored the issue of prior notification of major movements

troops as a confidence-building measure.

Accordingly, participating States recognize that they may, in their own

discretion and to help build confidence, notify major movements

their troops.

In the same spirit, the participating States of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in

Europe, further consideration will be given to the issue of prior notification of

major troop movements, bearing in mind, in particular, the experience gained during

implementation of the measures set out in this document.

Other confidence building measures

The participating States recognize that there are other means by which

contribute to their common goals.

In particular, they will, with due regard to reciprocity and with a view to a better mutual understanding,

facilitate exchanges by invitation between military personnel, including military visits

delegations.

In order to make a more complete contribution to their common goal confidence-building, state-

participants, carrying out their military activities in the area covered by the provisions on

advance notice of major military exercises will be duly taken into account

attention and respect this goal.

They also recognize that the experience gained from the implementation of the provisions

outlined above, together with subsequent efforts, could lead to the development and expansion of measures

designed to build confidence.

Questions related to disarmament

The participating States recognize the interest of all of them in efforts aimed at

The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which began in Helsinki on July 3, 1973 and lasted in Geneva from September 18, 1973 to July 21, 1975, was completed in Helsinki on August 1, 1975 by the High Representatives of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, the German Democratic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland, Spain, Italy, Canada, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Holy See, United Kingdom, United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Turkey, Finland, France, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, Sweden and Yugoslavia...

The High Representatives of the participating States have solemnly adopted the following.

Questions related to security in Europe

The states participating in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe ... adopted the following.

1. a) Declaration of principles which will guide the participating States in their mutual relations

The participating States ... declare their determination to respect and apply in relation to each of them with all other participating States, regardless of their political, economic and social systems, as well as their size, geographical location and level of economic development, the following principles, which all are of paramount importance, and by which they will guide their mutual relations:

I. Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty

The participating States will respect each other's sovereign equality and identity, as well as all the rights inherent in and covered by their sovereignty, which include, in particular, the right of each State to legal equality, to territorial integrity, to liberty and political independence...

P. Non-use of force or threat of force

The participating States will refrain, in their mutual relations, as in their international relations in general, from the use or threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations and with this Declaration. No considerations may be used to justify recourse to the threat or use of force in contravention of this principle...

III. Inviolability of borders

The participating States regard as inviolable all one another's frontiers, as well as the frontiers of all states in Europe, and therefore they will refrain now and in the future from any encroachment on these frontiers...

IV. Territorial integrity of states
The participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States...

V. Peaceful settlement of disputes

The participating States will settle disputes between them by peaceful means in such a way as not to endanger international peace and security and justice...

VI. Non-intervention in internal affairs

The participating States will refrain from any interference, direct or indirect, individual or collective, in the internal or external affairs falling within the internal competence of another participating State, regardless of their relationship ...

VII. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief

The participating States will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion...

VIII. Equality and the right of peoples to control their own destiny The participating States will respect the equality and right of peoples to control their own destiny, acting at all times in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant rules of international law, including those relating to
territorial integrity of states...

IX. Cooperation between states
The participating States will develop their cooperation with each other, as with all States, in all fields in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter...

X. Fulfillment in good faith of obligations under international law

The participating States will fulfill in good faith their obligations under international law, both those obligations arising from the generally recognized principles and norms of international law, and those obligations arising from treaties or other agreements consistent with international law to which they are parties ...

All the principles set out above are of paramount importance and, therefore, they will apply equally and rigorously when interpreting each of them with regard to the others.

The participating states declare their intention to conduct their relations with all other states in the spirit of the principles set forth in this Declaration ... (27. P. 270-279)

12. Statement by the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR Yu.V. Andropov Moscow. November 24, 1983

The leadership of the Soviet Union has already brought to the attention of the Soviet people and other peoples its assessments of the militaristic course of the current American administration and has warned the US government and the Western dangerous consequences such a course.

However, Washington, Bonn, London and Rome did not listen to the voice of reason - the deployment of American medium-range missiles begins on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, Great Britain and Italy. Thus, the appearance on the European continent of American "Pershings" and cruise missiles becomes a fait accompli...

Deployment of American nuclear missiles in Western Europe- this is by no means a step caused by a reaction to some alleged concern in the West about the current alignment of forces in Europe. It has been proven many times, on specific numbers - and many agree with this politicians and experts in the West - that at present in Europe between NATO and the Warsaw Pact there is approximately equality in medium-range nuclear weapons, and in nuclear warheads a significant advantage is on the side of NATO. So if anyone can have a concern, then it should be experienced by the Warsaw Pact countries, which are threatened by the military machines of the NATO states ...

After carefully weighing all aspects of the situation, the Soviet leadership made the following decisions.

First. Since the United States, by its actions, undermined the possibility of reaching a mutually acceptable agreement at the talks on the limitation of nuclear weapons in Europe, and their continuation under these conditions would only be a cover for the actions of the United States and a number of other NATO countries aimed at undermining European and international security, the Soviet Union considers it impossible to further participation in these negotiations.

Second. The obligations undertaken unilaterally by the Soviet Union, which were aimed at creating more favorable conditions for achieving success in the negotiations, are being cancelled. This lifts the moratorium on the deployment of Soviet medium-range nuclear weapons in the European part of the USSR.

Third. By agreement with the governments of the GDR and Czechoslovakia, the preparatory work begun some time ago, as announced, will be accelerated for the deployment of operational-tactical extended-range missiles on the territory of these countries.

Fourth. Since the United States increases the nuclear threat to the Soviet Union by deploying its missiles in Europe, the corresponding Soviet funds will be deployed taking into account this circumstance in ocean areas and seas. In terms of their characteristics, these weapons of ours will be adequate to the threat posed to us and our allies by American missiles deployed in Europe.

Other measures will, of course, be taken to ensure the security of the USSR and other countries of the socialist community...

If the United States and other NATO countries show their readiness to return to the situation that existed before the start of the deployment of American medium-range missiles in Europe. The Soviet Union will also be ready to do this. Then the proposals we made earlier on the issues of limiting and reducing nuclear weapons in Europe would regain strength ... (27. P. 311-314)

13. Political report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the XXVII Congress of the CPSU Moscow. February 25, 1986

Today, more than ever, it is important to find ways of closer and more productive cooperation with governments, parties, public organizations and movements that are really concerned about the fate of peace on Earth, with all peoples for the sake of creating a comprehensive system of international security. The fundamental principles of such a system are as follows:

1. In the military field

Refusal nuclear powers from war against each other or against third states - both nuclear and conventional;

Prevention of an arms race in space, cessation of all tests nuclear weapons and its complete elimination, prohibition and destruction chemical weapons, refusal to create other means mass extermination;

Strictly controlled reduction in the levels of military potentials of states to the limits of reasonable sufficiency;

The dissolution of military groups, and as a step towards this - the rejection of their expansion and the formation of new ones;

Proportionate and commensurate cuts in military budgets.

2. In the political field

Unconditional respect in international practice for the right of every nation to sovereignly choose the ways and forms of its development;

Fair political settlement international crises and regional conflicts;

Development of a set of measures aimed at strengthening confidence between states, at creating effective guarantees against attacks on them from outside, the inviolability of their borders;

Development of effective methods for preventing international terrorism, including the security of using international land, air and sea communications.

3. In the economic field

Exclusion from international practice of all forms of discrimination; renunciation of the policy of economic blockades and sanctions, if this is not directly provided for by the recommendations of the world community;

Joint search for ways to justly settle the debt problem;

Establishment of a new world economic order, which guarantees equal economic security all states;

Development of principles for using for the benefit of the world community, primarily developing countries, part of the funds that will be released as a result of reductions in military budgets;

Combining efforts in the exploration and peaceful use of outer space, solving global problems on which the fate of civilization depends.

4. In the humanitarian field

Cooperation in spreading the ideas of peace, disarmament, international security; raising the level of general objective awareness, mutual familiarization of peoples with each other's life; strengthening in relations between them the spirit of mutual understanding and harmony;

The eradication of genocide, apartheid, the preaching of fascism and any other racial, national or religious exclusivity, as well as discrimination against people on this basis;

Expanding - while respecting the laws of each country - international cooperation in the implementation of political, social and personal human rights;

Solving in a humane and positive spirit the issues of family reunification, marriage, the development of contacts between people and organizations;

Strengthening and searching for new forms of cooperation in the field of culture, art, science, education and medicine... (27. P. 317-318)

Kingdom of Belgium, Republic of Bulgaria, Republic of Hungary, Federal Republic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Iceland, Kingdom of Spain, Republic of Italy, Canada, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Norway, Republic of Poland, Portuguese Republic, Romania, United Kingdom Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Turkish Republic, the French Republic and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, hereinafter referred to as the States Parties...

Being committed to ensuring that within the area of ​​application of this Treaty the numbers of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty do not exceed 40,000 battle tanks, 60,000 armored combat vehicles, 40,000 pieces of artillery, 13,600 combat aircraft and 4,000 attack helicopters;...

agreed on the following:

1 Article IV. Within the area of ​​application as defined in Article II, each State Party shall limit and, as necessary, reduce its battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft and attack helicopters so that, 40 months after entry into force of this Treaty and thereafter, for the group of States Parties to which it belongs, as defined in Article II, the aggregate numbers shall not exceed:

(A) 20,000 battle tanks, of which not more than 16,500 in regular units;

(B) 30,000 armored fighting vehicles, of which no more than 27,300 in regular units. Of the 30,000 armored fighting vehicles, no more than 18,000 are infantry fighting vehicles and heavy weapons fighting vehicles; of infantry fighting vehicles and heavy weapons fighting vehicles, no more than 1,500 are heavy weapons fighting vehicles;

(C) 20,000 pieces of artillery, of which no more than 17,000 in regular units;

(D) 6,800 combat aircraft; and

(E)2000 attack helicopters…

Article XIV

1. For the purpose of verifying compliance with the provisions of this Treaty, each State Party shall have the right to conduct, and be under an obligation to accept, within the area of ​​application, inspections in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol on Inspections.

Article XIX

1. This Agreement is termless. It can be supplemented by a subsequent treaty... (27, p. 352-353)

New era of democracy, peace and unity

We, the Heads of State and Government of the member states of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, have gathered in Paris at a time of profound change and historic expectation. The era of confrontation and division of Europe is over. We declare that from now on our relations will be based on mutual respect and cooperation.

Europe is liberated from the legacy of the past. The courage of men and women, the strength of the will of the peoples and the power of the ideas of the Helsinki Final Act ushered in a new era of democracy, peace and unity in Europe.

Our time is the time for the realization of those hopes and expectations that have lived in the hearts of our peoples for decades: a firm commitment to democracy based on human rights and fundamental freedoms; prosperity through economic freedom and social justice and equal security for all our nations...

Human rights, democracy and the rule of law

We commit ourselves to building, consolidating and strengthening democracy as the only system of government in our countries. In this endeavor, we will be guided by the following.

Human rights and fundamental freedoms belong to all people from birth, they are inalienable and guaranteed by law. Their protection and assistance is the first duty of the government. Their respect is an essential safeguard against an over-powerful state. Their observance and full implementation is the basis of freedom, justice and peace.

Democratic government is based on the will of the people, expressed regularly through free and fair elections. Democracy is based on respect for the human person and the rule of law. Democracy is the best guarantee of freedom of expression, tolerance towards all groups in society and equality of opportunity for every individual.

Democracy that is representative and pluralistic entails accountability to voters, a commitment public authorities uphold the laws and impartial administration of justice. No one should be above the law...

Economic freedom and responsibility

Economic freedom, social justice and environmental responsibility are absolutely essential to prosperity...

Preservation of the environment is a shared responsibility of all our countries. Supporting efforts in this area at the national and regional levels we must also keep in mind the urgent need for joint action on a broader basis.

Friendly relations between participating states

Now that dawn breaks over Europe new era, we are determined to expand and strengthen friendly relations and cooperation between the states of Europe, the United States of America and Canada, and to promote friendship between our peoples ...

Our relationship will be based on our shared commitment to democratic values ​​as well as human rights and fundamental freedoms. We are convinced that the development of democracy and the respect and effective exercise of human rights are absolutely essential to strengthening the peace and security of our nations. We reaffirm the equal rights of peoples and their right to decide their own destiny in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant rules of international law, including those relating to the territorial integrity of states...

Safety

The strengthening of democracy and the strengthening of security will have a favorable effect on the friendly relations between us.

We welcome the signing by twenty-two States Parties of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, which will lead to a reduction in the levels of armed forces ...

Directions for the future

Based on our firm commitment to full compliance with all the principles and provisions of the CSCE, we now decide to give new impetus to the balanced and comprehensive development of our cooperation in order to meet the needs and aspirations of our peoples ...

New Structures and Institutions of the CSCE Process

The follow-up meetings of the participating States will normally be held every two years to enable the participating States to take stock of past events, review their implementation of their commitments and consider next steps in the CSCE process.

We decide to establish a conflict prevention center in Vienna to assist the Council in reducing the risk of conflict.

We decide to establish an office for free elections in Warsaw to facilitate contacts and exchange of information on elections in the participating States…

The original of the Charter of Paris for new Europe, written in English, Spanish, Italian, German, Russian and French, will be given to the Government of the French Republic, who will keep it in their archives. Each of the participating States will receive from the Government of the French Republic a certified copy of the Charter of Paris... (27. P. 353-358)

XXVII. Western countries in the 1990s - early XXI in.

1. Treaty on European Union. ("Maastricht Treaty") Maastricht. February 7, 1992

His Majesty the King of the Belgians, Her Majesty the Queen of Denmark, President of the Federal Republic of Germany, President of the Hellenic Republic, His Majesty the King of Spain, President of the French Republic, President of Ireland, President of the Italian Republic, His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, President of the Portuguese Republic , Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland... have agreed as follows.

Section I General terms

In accordance with this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish the European Union, hereinafter referred to as the "Union" ...

The Union is established on the basis of the European Community, supplemented by areas of policy and forms of cooperation in accordance with this Treaty. Its task is to organize, by means of methods characterized by cohesion and solidarity, relations between Member States and between their peoples.

The Union sets itself following goals:

Promote sustainable and harmonious economic and
social progress, especially through the creation of a space without internal borders, economic and social cohesion and the creation of an economic and monetary union, eventually including the introduction of a single currency in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty;

Contribute to the assertion of his individuality in the international arena, especially through the implementation of a common external
policy and a common security policy, including the possible formation of a common defense policy in the future, which
could eventually lead to the creation common forces defense;

Strengthen the protection of the rights and interests of citizens of the Member States through the introduction of citizenship of the Union;

Develop close cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs;

Fully maintain and rely on the level of Community integration (acquis communautaire) achieved so far in order to determine, through the application of the procedure set out in Article 2, to what extent the policies and forms of cooperation formulated
this Treaty need to be reviewed in order to ensure the effectiveness of the mechanisms and institutions of the Community ...

… The Union should especially ensure the coherence of its foreign policy actions in the overall context of foreign policy, security policy, economic and development assistance. The Council and the Commission are responsible for ensuring this consistency. They ensure the implementation of this policy in accordance with their authority ...

1. The Union shall respect the national identity of the Member States whose political systems based on the principles of democracy.

2. The Union shall respect the fundamental rights of the individual as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
freedoms, signed on November 4, 1950 in Rome, and as they flow from the common constitutional traditions of the Member States, as
general principles of Community law.

3. The Union endows itself with the means necessary to achieve its aims and carry out its policies...

Section V. Provisions on the Common Foreign and Security Policy

The Union begins to pursue a common foreign and security policy, which is governed by the following provisions.

Article J.1

1. The Union and its Member States determine and implement a common foreign and security policy, governed by
provisions of this section and covering all areas of foreign and security policy.

2. The objectives of the common foreign and security policy are:

Protection of the common values, fundamental interests and independence of the Union;

Strengthening the security of the Union and its Member States by all means;

Preservation of peace and strengthening of international security, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter
Nations, as well as with the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and the objectives of the Charter of Paris;

Assistance international cooperation;

Development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms…

Article J.4

1. The common foreign policy and the common security policy include matters relating to the security of the Union, including the formation, in the final analysis, of a common defense policy that could eventually be transformed into a common defense.

2. The Union refers to the Western European Union, which is an integral part of the development of the Union, in order to develop
and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union of defense significance. The Council, in agreement with the institutions of the Western European Union, takes the necessary practical measures ... (27. P. 422-429)

North American Free Trade Agreement. (NAPHTHA)

Preamble

The Government of Canada, the Government of the United States of Mexico and the Government of the United States of America... have agreed to the following...

Article 102. Purposes

1. The purposes of this Agreement, as specified in the principles and rules established by this Agreement relating to the sections on national treatment, most favored nation treatment and transparency, are:

a) removing barriers to trade and improving processes free movement goods and services on the territory of the member states of the Agreement;

b) ensuring conditions for fair competition in the free trade zone;

c) increase to a large extent the possibilities of making investments in the territory of the states-participants of the Agreement;

d) ensuring adequate and effective measures to protect and
implementation of intellectual property rights in practice on the territory of the States Parties to the Agreement;

e) the establishment of effective procedures for the implementation and
the practical application of this Agreement, to coordinate the joint management of these procedures, as well as to resolve disputes;

f) establishing the basis for further trilateral, regional and multilateral cooperation, with the aim of increasing the acquisition of benefits and advantages from the use of this Agreement ...

Article 2001 Free Trade Commission

1. The States Parties to the Agreement shall establish a Commission for
free trade, which includes representatives at the level of ministries of the States Parties to the Treaty or persons appointed by them.

2. Commission:

(a) supervises the entry into force (implementation) of this Agreement;

(b) oversee the further development of the provisions of this Agreement;

(c) resolve disputes that may arise in the course of interpretation or application;

(d) oversee the work of all committees and working groups established under this Agreement...

(e) consider any matters that may in any way
influence the execution of the provisions of this Agreement.

The commission may:

(a) establish and delegate responsibilities to temporary or permanent committees, working groups or expert groups;

(b) seek advice from non-governmental groups or individuals individuals;

(c) by mutual agreement of the States Parties to the Agreement,
take any action to perform its functions ...

Article 2204. Admission of new members

1. Any country or group of countries may be eligible to participate
in this agreement on terms and conditions to be agreed between
the relevant country or countries and the Commission after and approved in accordance with the legislative procedures of each country.

2. This agreement will not apply between any of the participating countries and a newly acceding country or
countries, if at the time of accession one of the parties is against its application ... (27. P. 429-431)

Introduction

1. At the April 1999 meeting in Washington, D.C.
highest level NATO Heads of State and Government endorsed the new Strategic Concept for the Alliance.

NATO has successfully secured the freedom of its members and prevented the outbreak of war in Europe for forty years
« cold war". Combining defense and dialogue, it has played an indispensable role in the peaceful resolution of the confrontation between the East and
West...

With the disappearance of the danger of the Cold War, promising prospects have opened up, but at the same time difficult ones have arisen.
challenges, new opportunities and risk factors. There is a process of formation of a new, based on greater integration of Europe, a
the Euro-Atlantic security structure in which NATO plays
main role. The Alliance has been the focus of efforts to
the development of new forms of cooperation and understanding in the Euro-Atlantic region, devoting ourselves to important new activities in the interest of a wider spread of stability...

Part I. Purpose and objectives of the Alliance

6. NATO's fundamental and enduring purpose, as articulated in the Washington Treaty, is to protect the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means...

7. The Alliance embodies the inextricable transatlantic link between the security of North America and the security of Europe. It is a practical expression of the effective collective efforts of its members aimed at ensuring their common interests.

8. Fundamental guiding principle activities
Alliance are the joint obligations and cooperation of sovereign countries to ensure the indivisibility of the security of all its members ...

10. As an alliance of nations committed to the Washington Treaty and the Charter of the United Nations, the Alliance pursues the following primary security objectives in order to achieve its primary purpose.

Security: to provide one of the vital pillars of sustainable security in the Euro-Atlantic region, based on the development of democratic institutions and a commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes, in which no state can intimidate or pressure another through the threat or use of force.

Consultations: In accordance with Article 4 of the Washington Treaty, serve as the principal transatlantic forum for consultations among Allies on matters affecting their vital interests, including possible developments that pose a risk to the security of Member States, and for appropriate coordination of their efforts on matters of common concern.

Deterrence and Defence: To provide deterrence and defense against any threat of aggression against any NATO member state in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of the Washington Treaty...

Security Challenges and Risk Factors

20.Despite the positive developments in the security area and the very unlikely possibility of large-scale conventional aggression against the Alliance, the possibility of such a threat in the long term remains. The security of the Alliance continues to be exposed to a wide range of military and non-military potential threats from various sources and often difficult to predict...

21. Presence of powerful nuclear forces outside the Alliance is also a major factor
which should be taken into account in order to maintain
security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region.

22. The proliferation of nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons and their means of delivery remains a matter of serious concern.
concerns. Despite positive results in strengthening international regimes non-proliferation, major proliferation issues remain unresolved...

Part III. Approach to Security in the 21st Century

26. The Alliance seeks to maintain peace and enhance Euro-Atlantic security and stability by: maintaining the transatlantic link; maintaining a military potential at a level sufficient for deterrence and defense and the fulfillment of the entire range of its tasks; creating a European security and defense component within the union; ensuring the full potential of funds for successful crisis management; its continued openness to new members; continuing the line of partnership, cooperation and dialogue with other states as an integral part of its collective approach to Euro-Atlantic security, including the area of ​​arms control and disarmament...

European Security and Defense Identity

30. As a bulwark of the collective defense of its members, the Alliance, working to the extent possible to achieve common security goals, remains committed to a balanced and dynamic transatlantic partnership. The European Allied States have taken decisions on the basis of which they will be able to take on more responsibility for security and defense in the name of strengthening peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region, and hence the security of all allies ...

Conflict prevention and crisis management

31. Pursuing a policy of maintaining peace, preventing war
and strengthening security and stability as set out in the Security Priorities, NATO, in cooperation with other organizations, will contribute to the prevention of conflicts and, in the event of a crisis, participate in its effective management in accordance with international law, including the possibility of conducting response operations
to a crisis outside Article 5 of the Washington Treaty…

Partnership, cooperation and dialogue

36. Russia plays an exceptional role in ensuring Euro-Atlantic security. Within the framework of the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Russian Federation, NATO and Russia committed themselves to developing relations based on common interests, reciprocity and transparency in
the name of building a lasting and comprehensive peace in the Euro-Atlantic region on the principles of democracy and security based on cooperation…

37. Ukraine occupies a special place in the Euro-Atlantic security space and is an important and valuable partner in the defense of stability and common democratic values. NATO is firmly committed to further strengthening the Special Partnership Relationship with Ukraine on the basis of the NATO-Ukraine Charter, including political consultations on issues of concern to both parties and on a wide range of issues related to the practical aspects of cooperation…

NATO expansion

39. In accordance with Article 10 of the Washington Treaty, the Alliance remains open to the admission of new members.
In the coming years, he intends to send new invitations for accession to States willing and ready to accept
the responsibilities and obligations of membership, provided that NATO considers that the inclusion of these states in the alliance will serve the common political and strategic interests of the Alliance, strengthen its effectiveness and unity and strengthen common European security and stability. To this end, as part of a broader relationship with aspiring nations, NATO has developed a program of activities to help them prepare for possible future membership. Neither
one democratic European state whose membership will be about

The fundamental document on security and cooperation in Europe is the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), signed in Helsinki on August 1, 1975 by the leaders of 33 European countries, USA and Canada.

The Helsinki Final Act consolidated the political and territorial results of the Second World War and approved ten principles (the Helsinki Decalogue) of relations between states: sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty; non-use of force or threat of force; inviolability of borders; territorial integrity; peaceful settlement of disputes; non-interference in internal affairs; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; equality and the right of peoples to control their own destiny; cooperation between states; fulfillment of international legal obligations.

The Helsinki Final Act formed the basis for the work of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and for a long time fixed key principles world security. But a lot has changed over the years, and now Western countries call for revision of the document. A number of Western politicians recent times began to talk about the inability of the organization to resist modern challenges. Russia does not intend to abandon the Helsinki Act, but proposes to modernize it in accordance with modern realities.

In 2013, a draft concept of a new agreement was proposed, which was called "Helsinki + 40". However, from the very beginning, the participants could not agree on the main components of the document. Thus, Russia opposed the revision of the basic principles of the Helsinki Act and insists only on their actualization. The Russian Foreign Ministry stresses the need to preserve the OSCE.

In December 2014, diplomats agreed to continue the Helsinki+40 process. A special expert body was created, which was called the "Group of Wise Men". Its work should contribute to a constructive dialogue on security issues, as well as the restoration of confidence in the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian regions and the strengthening of OSCE commitments.

The material was prepared on the basis of information from RIA Novosti and open sources

Magomedov Marad Sheikhmagomedovich,

Graduate of the Faculty of Law of the Southern Federal University (former Rostov State University)

August 1, 2010 marked the anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe dated 1 August 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Final Act of the CSCE or the CSCE Act). At a lecture timed to coincide with this anniversary at the University of Helsinki on April 20, 2009, Russian President D. A. Medvedev proposed the development of a new European security treaty, which he called “Helsinki plus”: taking into account the cessation of ideological confrontation and the emergence of new subjects of international law”.

As is known, seven principles have found their consolidation in the UN Charter: conscientious fulfillment of obligations, sovereign equality of states, non-interference in internal affairs, refraining from the threat and use of force, peaceful resolution of international disputes, equality and self-determination of peoples, international cooperation. It is easy to see that the last two principles are not included in Art. 2 (“Principles”), and in Art. 1 ("Goals").

These principles reflected the obligations envisaged for the UN itself, and the obligations assumed by the states participating in it. However, as a result of further implementation, the basic principles began to be recognized as the fundamental principles of all international law. Such recognition was enshrined in the Declaration adopted by the UN General Assembly on October 24, 1970 on the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation between states in accordance with the UN Charter (hereinafter referred to as the 1970 Declaration). The International Court of Justice in the Case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in Nicaragua (1986) characterized the provisions of this Declaration as customary law.

The specificity of the basic principles of international law also lies in the fact that they, falling under Art. 103 of the UN Charter (on the primacy of obligations under the UN Charter over obligations under any other international treaty), at the same time differ from many other provisions of the UN Charter by the quality of a peremptory norm of general international law (the norm jus cogens).

The Final Act of the CSCE included in its text a Declaration of Principles by which "the participating States will guide their mutual relations." The Russian international legal doctrine indicates that this Declaration added three more to the previously existing seven basic principles of international law: the principle of the territorial integrity of states; the principle of inviolability of state borders; the principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. In this regard, the question involuntarily arises as to whether the principles of the CSCE Final Act have all the characteristics just listed (given their updated normative content).

The practical significance of understanding the legal significance of the principles of the Final Act of the CSCE is also due to the fact that in the process of international communication, the highest officials of states geographically located in Europe or directly connected with it, in their statements regarding the confirmation of the existence of any fact or right, often refer to those enshrined in Final Act of the CSCE principles. Accordingly, the legal assessment of such political statements encounters at least the following problems: (1) what is the quantitative composition of the basic principles of international law; and (2) what is the legal content of each of the main principles, since this question raises the issue of changes by the provisions of the Final Act of the CSCE of the norms defined in the Declaration of 1970. In this connection, the more general question is whether the principles of the Final Act of the CSCE are covered by the imperative principle pacta sunt service and, ultimately, whether the non-observance or improper observance of any principle from the CSCE Act entails the responsibility of states under international law.

The importance of providing answers to the questions just outlined is also dictated by the fact that it is the analysis of the previous experience in building a system of interstate communication that can be used as the basis for solving the urgent problem of bringing the existing regulatory superstructure, expressed primarily in the principles of the Final Act of the CSCE, in line with the needs international relations that developed at the end of the first decade of the XXI century in Europe. D. A. Medvedev noted that “one of the main principles of the new treaty on European security should be the rule on the indivisibility of the security space, regardless of existing alliances, it is necessary to include in the document the principles of arms control, measures to strengthen mutual trust and reasonable containment of military construction. In addition, within the framework of this treaty, each signatory state must refuse to deploy strategic offensive weapons outside national territories.

In connection with the above, we would like to state our vision of the problems of the topic indicated in the title of this article. However, we do not set ourselves the goal of legally evaluating other (except for the principles) provisions of the Final Act of the CSCE.

The legal significance of an international legal document is determined, first of all, by the possibility of referring to it as an act containing mandatory norms, the non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of which entails responsibility under international law. The initiative put forward by the President of the Russian Federation to change the configuration of the normative regulation of international relations in Europe points to the conclusion of an international treaty. In this regard, it is first necessary to determine whether the Final Act of the CSCE is an international treaty.

Professor G. I. Tunkin noted that the coordination of the wills of states in the process of creating a norm of international law concerns both (1) the rule of conduct and (2) its recognition as a legal norm. When forming the norms of international law, the wills of the states regarding the rules of conduct are first coordinated. When creating treaty norms, this happens through negotiations, during discussions at international conferences, in international organizations, and ends with the adoption of the text as final. This ends the coordination of the wills of states regarding the content of the treaty norm of international law, but does not end the process of its formation. It is important to emphasize that agreement on the wills of states regarding the content of a treaty norm does not yet make it binding on states.

Not every agreement between states is an international treaty; this conclusion was specifically noted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations. Thus, it is necessary to study the will of the participating States of the CSCE Final Act regarding the recognition of its provisions as the norms of treaty international law.

As you know, the Helsinki process was political in nature, and most of the decisions taken within its framework were only the result of political compromises, which seemed to be a more flexible tool that allows finding acceptable formulations and formalizing agreed positions in the conditions of the level of relations between states that existed at that time. in Europe. The main objective of the Final Act of the CSCE was seen as the fact that with the help of this act all disputes between European states remaining after the Second World War would be finally settled, and thus the inviolability of the European world would be confirmed.

Thus, we can conclude that it is impossible to talk about the explicit will of the states participating in the Helsinki process regarding the recognition of the nature of the norms of treaty international law behind the principles of the Final Act of the CSCE.

It can also be argued that the participating states of the Helsinki process quite deliberately tried not to give the CSCE Final Act the quality of an international treaty. Thus, it was specifically stated that the CSCE Act is not subject to registration in accordance with Art. 102 of the UN Charter. The legal consequence of this decision was the absence of the right for the participating states of the CSCE Final Act to refer to it as an international treaty in any of the UN bodies. However, it should be noted that the registration of an international legal act in accordance with Art. 102 of the UN Charter is not considered a constitutive feature of this act as an international treaty. Therefore, the decision of the participating States not to register the CSCE Final Act indirectly indicates that it lacks the quality of an international treaty.

The argument in favor of not recognizing the CSCE Final Act as an international treaty is seen in the absence of provisions defining the procedure for joining the CSCE Act, the procedure for secession from the participating states, and the mechanism of national legal implementation. In support of this thesis, let us point to the statement of the representative of the US State Department: “[p]olitical obligations are not regulated by international law, and there are no rules relating to their observance, modification or refusal.”

Professor A. Ya. Kapustin, in a textbook dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Russian Association of International Law, described the positions existing in the doctrine regarding the legal significance of the CSCE Final Act: MM.) as an international agreement, but at the same time, not recognizing in it an international treaty within the meaning of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. Such an approach made it possible to deny the legal nature of the obligations arising from it, recognizing only their moral or political significance. A close position was taken by supporters of the recognition of the significance of the act of “soft law” behind the Helsinki Act. The opposite position was taken by some lawyers who proposed considering the Final Act of the CSCE ... as a treaty[a] suit generis. They were joined by those who, without denying the political nature of the obligations contained in the Final Act, emphasized the unique nature of this document, which, in their opinion, had an impact on European development many times greater than the significance of most legally binding treaties.

It should be noted that some lawyers, emphasizing the unique nature of the Final Act of the CSCE, in fact, oppose such categories as the importance and effectiveness of any act and the quality of binding under international law. In this regard, a textbook example can be given when moral or religious norms turn out to be more effective regulators of social relations, however, it is generally recognized that this fact does not give them the quality of law. Apparently, within the framework of the position pointing to the uniqueness of the CSCE Final Act, its supporters should determine what is the impact of such uniqueness on the legal significance of the provisions of the CSCE Act.

The draft Commentary of the UN International Law Commission on the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts contains the following thesis: “[r]commendations made by organs of an international organization or “non-binding” agreements, such as the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference of August 1, 1975 may express obligations or norms which are not intended to be legally binding as such." Violation of such obligations or norms does not give rise to international legal responsibility.

Thus, it can be argued that, using the example of the CSCE Final Act, we are dealing only with the agreement of wills regarding the rule of conduct. Since there is no agreement on the wills of states regarding the recognition of a rule of conduct as a legal norm, the CSCE Act cannot be considered an international treaty. However, in this regard, one should not, going to extremes, downplay or underestimate the element of agreement of wills regarding the rule of conduct, which makes it possible to say that the principles of the CSCE Final Act can acquire the status of customary legal norms.

The Russian legal literature notes that “... the principles (of the territorial integrity of states; inviolability of state borders and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (three principles) - MM.), fixed, it would seem, only for regional (European) application, however, with good reason can be considered and are considered the basic principles of international law. They have found their regulatory and legal recognition and consolidation in thousands of international treaties of a universal and regional nature and in the international practice of states on all continents.” Unfortunately, the content of this statement is not disclosed, so we can only offer our own vision of the mechanism within which the attribution of the status of the main principles of international law to the three principles is explained.

First of all, you should join the position of Prof. Yu. M. Kolosov, who will accurately notice that the principles of the Final Act of the CSCE are not called the basic principles of international law.

Guided by the thesis that there is nothing obvious in international law, but everything must be confirmed, it should be pointed out that the reference to “thousands” of international treaties of a universal and regional nature only means that the principles enshrined in such documents are binding only as treaty-legal for participating States and with the legal content as defined in the text of the relevant treaty. With regard to regional and bilateral treaties, it should be said that, unless specifically stated otherwise, they do not oblige participating states to apply these principles to states of other regions.

Probably, in the statement analyzed at this stage about the belonging of the three principles of the Final Act of the CSCE to the number of basic principles of international law, it is meant that by virtue of their “recognition[s] and consolidation[s] in thousands of international treaties of a universal and regional nature and in international the practice of the states of all continents” acquired such a status and became obligatory under international law as universal customs.

First of all, we note that in the Asylum case (Colombia/Peru, 20.11.1950) the International Court of Justice stated that the party invoking the custom “must confirm that it has been established in such a way that it has become binding on the other party” (§ 276) .

In Art. 38(1)(b) of the Statute International Court of Justice The UN of 26.6.1945 international legal custom is defined as "a general practice recognized as a legal norm." In the decision in the Continental Shelf Case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta, 3.6.1985), the International Court of Justice stated: “It is an axiom that elements of custom in international law must be sought, first of all, in practice and opinio juris states” (§ 27). In fact, this statement of the Court is consistent with the concept of prof. G. I. Tunkina on the harmonization of wills.

Let us assume that the very principles of the CSCE Final Act and the norms of international treaties, in which these principles are reflected, can constitute a practice indicating the agreement of wills regarding the rule of conduct. It is even possible that this practice meets the requirements of almost complete uniformity, breadth and representativeness, as such requirements have been defined by the International Court of Justice (for example, in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, 20.2.1969. § 74).

However, there are serious doubts about the ability of this practice to pass the test for compliance with the requirement of sufficient legal conviction ( opinio juris) states in that such principles and their normative content are customary in nature. In this regard, two approaches to assessing opinio juris developed by the International Court of Justice: (1) in some cases (for example, the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, Canada/United States of America. 1984. § 91-93) this Court has concluded that there are opinio juris on the basis of existing state practice or previous court decisions; (2) a more "rigorous" approach, which consists in the need to search more evidence opinio juris (e.g., the Nicaragua case, 1986. § 14). In this article, we will adhere to the second approach, which will allow us to avoid the main drawback of the first, the methodology of which, in modern conditions, may be considered inadequate for proving the corresponding fact.

not in favor opinio juris the recognition of the nature of customary legal norms behind the principles of the Final Act of the CSCE is evidenced by everything that we said earlier in connection with an attempt to identify the quality of an international treaty in the CSCE Act. To this must also be added the following.

When evaluating opinio juris should be paid Special attention to the fact that 56 states are currently members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), i.е. in the 35 years that have elapsed since the signing of the Final Act of the CSCE, the number of members of the organization has increased by 21. This happened due to the accession of Albania and Andorra, the collapse of Czechoslovakia. Later, starting in 1992, 18 new members appeared as a result of the collapse of the USSR and the SFRY.

The view that the principles of the CSCE Final Act apply to these states in exactly the same way as to the original participants in the Act seems superficial. In fact, the analysis of the provisions of the CSCE Act itself tells a somewhat different story. Thus, its participants established that they "consider as inviolable all the borders of each other, as well as the borders of all states in Europe." The interpretation of this provision calls into question what the original participants "consider as inviolable" the borders of the newly formed states in Europe. Similarly, the fact that the new entrants “see as inviolable” their (i.e. new) boundaries is called into question. The reference to the fact that the original and new states never challenged the inviolability of the borders of the newly formed states in an appropriate form cannot be used as direct evidence, since this variant of behavior could be caused not only by a legal conviction in an existing obligation, but also by the fact of awareness of the existence of a right ( on a claim) that simply was not realized (for a variety of reasons).

It seems that in international law there are no rules on succession in relation to an act of a recommendatory nature, which also causes certain difficulties in identifying opinio juris newly formed states.

Most of the principles of the CSCE Final Act contain references to their applicability only in relations between participating States. Thus, even the provisions of the CSCE Act itself do not oblige (at least even morally) states to adhere to a given variant of behavior in relation to non-participating states (or non-European states in the case of the principle of inviolability of state borders). Accordingly, from what has just been said it is impossible to derive a legal conviction of the universality of these principles.

It is doubtful what can be deduced opinio juris some states from the fact of their accession to the CSCE/OSCE. In fact, even if it is recognized that accession entails the assumption of obligations, then their very nature allows us to speak of the acceptance by new participants of only political obligations.

Proving the customary legal status of the principles of the Final Act of the CSCE can be carried out in two ways: through the recognition that these principles belong to universal or regional customs. Apparently, it is difficult to recognize the status of universal customary legal norms behind the three principles of the Final Act of the CSCE.

For objective reasons, the requirements for the formation of a regional custom are not so high, therefore, it is probably advisable to consider the three principles as regional customs that have established themselves within Europe. However, even if one takes this path, one cannot ignore the above arguments about the absence of a precisely established opinio juris. In addition, in theory and practice, the existence of regional and local customs is being questioned. Although in some of its decisions (for example, the Right of Passage over Indian Territory case, Portugal v. India, 11/26/1957. § 39-43) the International Court of Justice referred to such usages, it appears that in the cases under consideration the Court, in fact, applied the provisions on a unilateral act as a source of obligations or the doctrine of estoppel.

When discussing the topic of this work, one cannot but touch upon the possible position of the Russian Federation on the nature of the obligations arising from the principles of the Final Act of the CSCE. So, as it seems, nothing prevents Russia from considering them binding under international law. However, in this regard, it is necessary to consider the likely legal consequences of such a position.

It can be argued that the RF statement regarding the legal significance of the principles of the CSCE Final Act is a unilateral act. Although Art. 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice does not refer to unilateral acts of subjects of international law, the practice of states itself shows that such acts can be a source of obligations under international law. This thesis is also confirmed in judicial practice. Thus, the International Court of Justice in the Nuclear Tests case (New Zealand v. France, 12/20/1974) pointed out that “a statement [to do something] ... entails an obligation (according to international law - MM.) follow this course of action” (§ 267-271).

Without denying that such a unilateral act is an indicator opinio juris Russian Federation in favor of the formation of a customary legal norm, it must be stated that before the formation of a norm of this nature, the Russian Federation will not be able to refer to the applicability of the principles of the CSCE Act under international law to its relations with states that consider these principles only as recommendations. On the contrary, such states may indicate that the Russian Federation has unilaterally assumed obligations under the Final Act of the CSCE.

As it seems, within the framework of this situation, it is necessary to take into account the following point: if the principles of the Final Act of the CSCE contain norms that reflect the course of the foreign policy of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to look for other sources of these norms that are binding on all relevant states; if it is not possible to find binding norms, then it is necessary to seek their inclusion in a new international treaty.

In conclusion, we would like to point out that nothing in this article should be considered as intended to diminish the significance of the principles of the CSCE Final Act. The research done here is necessary for a proper understanding of the legal significance of these principles, as well as for understanding and taking into account for the future when developing Helsinki Plus certain shortcomings in the implementation of the CSCE Act.

As we have established, the principles of the Final Act of the CSCE cannot, on their own, be regarded as either treaty or customary law. However, in general, the significance of the principles of the Final Act of the CSCE can be expressed as follows:

their appearance indicated that states at a certain historical stage were able to cooperate with each other in order to ensure peace and security in Europe;

these principles are new approach states to address security issues in Europe;

although it is worth recognizing the lack of binding quality of these principles under international law, it should be noted that they do not simply recommend a certain rule of conduct, they recognize the legitimacy of the corresponding actions or inactions that could be considered illegal in the absence of these principles;

these principles outlined the features of the general course of the further progressive movement of interstate communication on issues of security and cooperation in Europe. It should be noted that this communication it happened and is happening now with the participation of the four permanent members of the UN Security Council, which inevitably enhances the role of such a process;

provisions of the Final Act of the CSCE may be included in the process of formation of international legal custom, forming part of state practice and/or opinio juris, the other part must be formed by acts binding on international law;

the entire experience of implementing the CSCE Final Act can be taken into account when concluding a new Helsinki Plus Treaty.

Although many representatives of the Russian international legal doctrine emphasize the political nature of the principles of the Final Act of the CSCE, Russian science nevertheless adheres to the position that there are ten basic principles of international law. It seems to us that such a position is quite suitable for educational purposes, but cannot be considered impeccable when proving the relevant fact in the framework of the legal process. However, we do not exclude the possibility of taking into account the position of Russian international scientists in accordance with Art. 38(1)(d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice that "...the doctrines of the most qualified publicists of the various nations as an aid to the determination of legal rules" may be applied.

International Acts Not Constituting Agreements // American Journal of International Law. 1994 No. 1. P. 518.

Kapustin A. Ya. European law // International law / otv. ed. V. I. Kuznetsov, B. R. Tuzmukhamedov, 2nd ed. - M., 2007. S. 914.

Ivanenko V. S., Kuznetsov V.I. Principles of international law // International law/ resp. ed. V. I. Kuznetsov, B. R. Tuzmukhamedov, 2nd ed. - M., 2007. S. 193.

Cm.: Kolosov Yu. M. Principles of international law // International law / otv. ed. Yu. M. Kolosov, E. S. Krivchikova. - 2nd ed. - M., 2005. S. 64.