In the current eventful time, the verb “denounce” is heard more and more often. Sometimes with a question mark (what is it?), And even more often with an exclamation mark (do it immediately!) However, before proceeding with decisive actions, it makes sense to figure out what it means to denounce?
What is denunciation?
The term "denunciation" (denunciation) is derived from the French dénoncer (terminate, declare) and means the refusal to comply with an international agreement of one of the parties. In other words, denouncing a decision, an agreement, means simply terminating their effect.
However, in practice, such a cancellation of the contract is not as elementary a process as it might seem. And there are several reasons for this. One of them - there are agreements that do not allow denunciation at all. Such, for example, are the Geneva Conventions of 1949. These are international legal agreements whose main task is to care for the victims of military conflicts. Being the basis of world humanitarian law, conventions require the parties to armed confrontation to distinguish between civilians and direct participants in hostilities, and to protect civilians and civilian objects. And, important! It is impossible to denounce (synonym - break) these wartime agreements. The reason, I think, is obvious.
About some features of denunciation
So denounce - what does it mean? The denunciation of an international treaty differs from another way of terminating it in that the right to denounce is specified in the text of the document itself. Therefore, it cannot be considered a violation of the contract - on the contrary, it is a completely natural and legitimate way to terminate it: after all, the agreement of the contracting parties is based on! The document usually prescribes the order of possible denunciation (for example, advance warning of the opposite side). Any violation of this procedure may be grounds to challenge the fact of denunciation.
On termination of international treaties
The inability to denounce a treaty, of course, does not mean that it cannot be terminated at all. There is another way that is fully consistent with international legal standards - cancellation: the state unilaterally terminates the bilateral agreement it concluded. However, its cancellation requires fundamental political and legal grounds. Such can be considered the impossibility of observing it, legal nullity, illegality of the contract, significant changes in the circumstances preceding its conclusion. A serious reason for the cancellation of the contract may be its violation by the opposing party. In exceptional cases, cancellations of contracts are recognized as legitimate if they were concluded by the predecessors of the current leadership of the state. The above procedure should be carried out in accordance with prevailing international practice, including advance notification of all parties to the contract.
For an inexperienced person, there is not much difference in the above terms. Annul, denounce - what does it mean? And the fact that the contract is no more, but isn’t this the main thing? A good lawyer will never agree with such a formulation of the question. Because there are no trifles in the nuances of law (especially international): both terminology and compliance with any formalities are important.
Something about Crimea
“Denounce the Crimea!” - More recently, this slogan was quite popular both in the media and in the speeches of some Russian politicians. What is the meaning of this call?
A little bit about the history of the issue. Soviet Union, 1954. A memorable date is approaching - the 300th anniversary of the reunification of Russia and Ukraine. I want a vivid propaganda gesture, symbolizing the eternal friendship of the peoples-brothers. And an idea appears, framed in the form of a Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR on the transfer of the Crimean region to Ukraine. This resolution is published in the central newspapers just in time for the anniversary date, and the opinion arises: the volunteer Khrushchev (at that time the head of the Soviet state) gave Crimea to Ukraine!
Of course, not everyone accepts this Decision with enthusiasm: many condemn Khrushchev for an unjustifiably generous gift. Some people have a desire to restore justice - to take away Crimea from Ukraine (“denounce”). And if in the era of the USSR such a question for obvious reasons does not arise, then after its destruction the idea of ​​returning the Crimea to Russia begins to slowly take over the masses.
A different view of the same problem
But is the tyrant Khrushchev really so simple, for the sake of a beautiful gesture, scattered around the earth? People close to the leader have a different view on this issue. The famous journalist, Khrushchev’s son-in-law, A. Adzhubey, spoke in an interview about a trip with his father-in-law in the Crimea in 1953. He noted the terrible desolation of these places after the war, the devastation, the impossibility of the full functioning of the national economy. And therefore, Ajubey argued, the decision to transfer the peninsula was mainly connected with the desire to save this blessed land, to breathe life into it.
Approximately the same reason, and the son of N. S. Khrushchev, Sergei. He also considers the issue with Crimea almost technical, designed to ensure the restoration and further development of this area. However, S. Khrushchev draws attention to another point: in fact, it was not his father who transferred Crimea to Ukraine, but B. Yeltsin. The logic of this reasoning is simple: in 1954, Ukraine and Russia were part of a single state, the USSR, and therefore the transfer of the peninsula from one subject to another was to some extent a formality. But at the conclusion of the Bialowieza agreements, Crimea could be tried to be returned to Russia, but Yeltsin did not do this - therefore, it was he who gave the peninsula to Ukraine.
And again about the meaning of denunciation
S. Khrushchev noted absolutely correctly: at the time of the “donation” of Crimea, Russia and Ukraine were subjects of one state. It is doubtful that their agreement would be drawn up in the form of an international treaty, just as it is impossible to present the opportunity provided by the text to “roll back” the process back, to pick up a “gift”. Therefore, no matter how you relate to the location of the peninsula "as part of a particular state, the call for" denunciation of the Crimea "was hardly worth anything from a position of law.
Thanks to the well-known events in Ukraine and the referendum in Crimea, the peninsula is again part of Russia, and for this it did not even have to “denounce” anything. What does this mean for Crimea, evil or good, how will relations between people and states develop in the future? All these questions can only be answered by time. However, the activists are not appeasing: another call is already coming: “Denounce the Bialowieza Agreement!” And again, to appreciate this idea, one should turn to historical events.
About Union Treaty
Russian Empire, 1917,
February Revolution, later October. A huge country collapses overnight, leaving behind a pile of debris (they will later be called the Soviet republics). External aggression and a monstrous civil war, the brother destroys his brother, the battles of the red and white, anarchists and monarchists - these disasters last several years, bringing only grief, pain and ruin. The suffering of the whole country and everyone living in it can be discussed for a long time. However, here is finally a positive point.
On December 29, 1922, at a conference, delegates to the congresses of the Soviets of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Transcaucasia signed the Treaty on the Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The document was approved on December 30, 1922 - this day was called the date of formation of the Soviet Union, although the governing bodies of the new power were created a little later.
About the Bialowieza Agreement
The ambiguous history of the formed state, all its achievements and failures are the subject of another, very serious discussion. At the time of its collapse, in 1991, the Soviet Union consisted not of 4, but of 15 republics: free, as the country sang in the national anthem, having, as stated in the Constitution, the right to self-determination, up to secession. And in memorable December 1991, 3 of 4 state founders, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus (the Transcaucasian SSR did not exist then) decided to exercise this right and gain independence. The famous Bialowieza Agreement was signed , and the USSR as a united state did not. The Union Treaty was denounced.
How to evaluate a fait accompli? For more than twenty years, politicians and ordinary citizens, historians and jurists have been arguing about this. Probably, Putin Putin expressed himself more precisely than others in 2010: “He who does not regret the collapse of the USSR has no heart. And those who want to restore it in its original form have no head. ”
What does it mean to denounce the agreement adopted in Belovezhskaya Pushcha? Reanimate the Soviet Union, or what? However, denouncing the denounced is not too tricky? Is everything in order from the legal side? And what to do with those (and there are many of them!) Who do not want to denounce anything? What will it do? Forced reunion, brotherly love at gunpoint?
Conclusion
Any word has the right to exist, and the verb “denounce” is no exception. Nevertheless, a reasonable person, before starting to juggle with slogans, would prefer to think over his thought. The people correctly noticed: "The word is not a sparrow ..."