The protection of peace, justice and security is one of the main tasks of the UN. For its implementation, the principle of resolving international disputes by means without using weapons was developed, which was disclosed in a number of documents, including the UN Charter. This article gives a brief description of the structures and bodies entrusted with the task of assisting countries in resolving an interstate dispute in pre-trial and judicial order.
Definition of the principle of peaceful settlement of a dispute between states and varieties of international conflicts
In accordance with international legal norms, any country and subjects of world law must resolve conflicts among themselves, without resorting to armed attack. Security, peace and justice must not be compromised.
The rule for resolving interstate conflicts without the use of weapons refers to the peremptory principles of world law. The concept of peaceful means of resolving international disputes is disclosed in the sources of international law. The latter include the Paris Charter for a New Europe (1990), the CSCE Final Act (1975), the UN Charter (1970) and many other regional, bilateral and universal agreements.
The establishment of the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes took place gradually. He received especially rapid development after each world war. The League of Nations and the UN were called to monitor its compliance.
Conflicts between countries are settled on the basis of independence of the subjects of the MP and subject to the principle of free selection of methods in accordance with the obligations reflected in the UN Charter, the principles of justice and in accordance with international law. No one has the right to infringe upon the independence of another country when resolving the conflict. This rule logically implies a provision according to which the borders of any state are inviolable and cannot be violated. Thus, the content of the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes presupposes the preservation of territorial integrity and respect for the sovereignty of another state.
The UN Charter classifies conflicts by hazard degree into 2 groups: creating a threat to world security (Article 34) and other conflicts (provisions of Articles Art. 33, 35, 36).
In addition to the disclosure of the concept of the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes, the document contains the term “situation”. The latter can cause disagreement between countries or lead to conflict. The situation and conflicts are managed by UN units (for example, the Security Council or the General Assembly).
The UN Charter and other amicable agreements lack a strict separation of legal and political conflicts. In accordance with Article 36 of this document, conflicts relating to international law should be referred to the International Court of Justice. The second type of conflict, which includes political differences (on the issue of territorial ownership, the establishment of state borders, etc.), is settled by political methods.
The list of varieties of methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes in the UN Charter is closed. Individual methods are more likely to be declarative than imperative.
Peaceful means of resolving international disputes: concept and sources
The Declaration on the Principles of World Legislation of 1970 contains a provision according to which world conflicts are settled on the basis of the independent equality of countries and according to the unhindered choice of methods for the peaceful settlement of conflicts. The use of the process of resolution of disagreements or the approval of such a process should not be considered as contrary to the principle of independent equality of subjects of international legal relations.
In accordance with Art. 33 countries have an obligation to try to achieve a fair and quick settlement of disputes, they can do this in several ways. Peaceful means of resolving international disputes are divided into the following types: arbitration, examination, negotiations, conciliation, mediation, appeal to regional structures or treaties, court proceedings and other methods at your discretion.
In search of such a solution to the dispute, states are obliged to discuss those non-violent methods that will prove most effective in a particular situation.
Non-violent conflict resolution methods cannot be called conservative. They progress and focus on the balance of power in the global political arena.
Among the international legal methods for resolving disagreements of subjects of international law are the following: interstate negotiations, consultations, interstate investigative commissions, good offices and the participation of a third party (mediator), conciliation structures. All of the above involves a pre-trial resolution of the situation. In addition to international courts, judicial resolution of international disputes is carried out by: interstate arbitration court, interstate judicial structures. This may be the ECHR, the interstate tribunal for the law of the sea, the International Court of Justice.
Peaceful means of resolving international disputes: concept and types. Interstate negotiations
This method is considered the most active and effective conflict resolution tool. No wonder in Art. 33 of the UN Charter states that negotiations are one of the main ways to resolve interstate disagreements. They provide an opportunity to find various solutions to problems. The recognition by countries and international bodies of this instrument has been recorded in many agreements and constituent documents of various structures. This is the dominant means of implementing the principle of resolving international disputes by non-violent means.
In the process of negotiations, countries or interstate bodies have the right to develop various methods for resolving conflicts. Negotiations play the role of a method of resolving interstate disagreements and at the same time are an additional tool. Almost all types of means of resolving international disputes constantly start with direct negotiations on the use of these funds and often end with such discussions.
Discussion of the problem can be between two countries or between a group of states. In the latter case, as a rule, we are talking about an interstate conference.
Interstate legal norms do not contain a common negotiation algorithm for all. In reality, a successful discussion by the parties to a conflict situation goes through the following key stages: a country proposes, by several countries (for example, the European Union) or other MPs, to discuss the dispute; the achievement by the parties to the conflict of an agreement regarding negotiations (where they will be held, at what level, when, etc.); developing a negotiation process; direct discussion; adoption by the parties of a joint document.
Negotiations are classified:
- By the number of parties: multilateral and bilateral.
- On the subject of the conflict: negotiations on social, political, economic and other disagreements.
- According to the situation of state representatives: at the highest level (country leaders, heads of national executive bodies); at the level of employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; at the level of embassies or endowed with special powers of employees of state structures.
International disputes
Consider the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes. An example is consultation. As a rule, the objects of consultations are issues of very great importance for countries or interstate structures. This means of implementing the principle of international law for the peaceful settlement of disputes was formed at the beginning of the 20th century. In world practice, 2 types of consultations are used: mandatory and additional (optional). The latter are consultations for which participants apply by mutual agreement.
The use of binding recommendations is documented in multilateral and bilateral multinational agreements.
Interstate investigative structures
The powers and procedure for the formation of investigative bodies (commissions) are reflected in the UN Charter and articles 9-35 of the 1907 Convention. The bodies under consideration are created on the basis of a special agreement between the direct participants in the conflict. The main goal of investigative commissions is to simplify conflict resolution by studying the situation with the help of objective and respectable investigative measures.
The parties to the dispute have the right to appoint special officials, ordering them to protect their interests and mediate between the investigation and them. States have the opportunity to delegate to the designated authorities, advisers or defenders to explain and support their claims before the commission of inquiry. At the appointed time, all parties to the conflict explain to the investigation and the opponent the circumstances of the case. Each state must present normative acts and documents, as well as a list of eyewitnesses and specialists who can strengthen its position and prove the legitimacy of the claimed requirements.
The interrogation of eyewitnesses is controlled by the head of the commission of inquiry. Representatives of this body have the right to ask any witness questions directly related to the case. Discussion of evidence and the study of documents is carried out behind closed doors and is not subject to publicity. Each verdict of the commission shall be issued by a majority of votes. The final conclusion of the investigation on the essence of a specific conflict is reduced solely to the identification of facts and does not have the legal force of a decision of the International Arbitration Court. States may freely use this information in the future.
Reconciliation Bodies
At the moment, relatively few interstate agreements involve the formation of a conciliation commission to study the differences between the two countries.
The most detailed algorithm for the formation and functioning of such a means of monitoring the implementation of the principles of the law on the resolution of international disputes is described in 85 of the Convention on the Representation of Countries in Their Relations with Interstate Structures of a Universal Character, adopted in the Austrian capital in 1975.
In general, the procedure for the formation of conciliation commissions is as follows: if the conflict could not be resolved following the results of the consultation, then each country participating in the consultation has the right to refer the matter to the conciliation authority and to state this fact in writing to the structure at which such country, as well as other countries participating in the consultations. Any reconciliatory instance includes three officials: a leader and two people who are representatives of the parties (one from each state).
The structure under consideration introduces its own order and process conditions and makes decisions based on a majority of votes. The conciliation commission has the right to advise the unit, if it is endowed with the UN competence, to demand an advisory opinion of the Interstate Court regarding the use or clarification of the provisions of the 1975 Vienna Convention.
If the commission fails to reach an agreement between the parties to the conflict on the settlement of disagreements within 60 days from the date of approval of its leader, then it is obliged to draw up a report on its actions as quickly as possible and forward it to the parties to the conflict. The report should include the findings of the conciliation court regarding the facts and legal issues, as well as the advice it gave to the parties to the conflict to resolve the differences. The councils of this instance are not law for states until they are approved by all parties to the conflict. Along with this, each state in the conflict has the right to unilaterally announce the implementation of related advice in the report.
Compared with investigative commissions, whose task is solely to identify the truth that makes up the essence of the interstate conflict, the conciliating authorities clarify the facts and develop tips to assist in resolving disagreements.
Mediation and good offices
When considering the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes, it is worth paying attention to the fact that in accordance with Art. 2 of the 1907 Convention, countries, in the presence of a serious dispute with each other, should turn to good offices or the participation (as an intermediary) of one or more allied states. Neutral countries have the right to offer good offices.
Mission of the intermediary, according to Art. 4 of the aforementioned source of international law, consists in the discussion of mutual claims and in the suppression of hostility, if it appeared between the conflicting countries. The powers of the mediator expire if one of the parties to the dispute (or the mediator) is not convinced that the proposed methods of concluding an amicable agreement were rejected. The participation of a mediator and good offices are not imputed to the parties to the dispute. These means of peaceful settlement of the conflict are advisory in nature.
If a conflict between countries is potentially fraught with a threat to interethnic and world security, the conflicting powers will determine a country that will be empowered to establish contact with a country chosen by the opposite country to prevent violation of peace agreements. The period for reconciliation should not be longer than one month. During this time, the parties to the dispute cease to interact on the subject of disagreement. Intermediary countries are obligated to do everything possible to resolve the conflict peacefully.
A country (group of countries) or interstate structures may become an intermediary or provide good services. Such entities do not participate in the negotiation process, unless the parties to the conflict put forward a corresponding request. If there is a mediator, a third party may take part in the discussion of the disputed situation and provide written or conversational recommendations regarding the differences.
A vivid example of the implementation of the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes through good offices can serve as the role played by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Soviet Union in establishing relations between Pakistan and India. Thanks to the efforts of the USSR in 1966, the countries signed the Tashkent Declaration, which put an end to the armed clashes of the Hindus and Muslims.
Interstate Arbitration Court
In accordance with Article 38 of the Convention on the Peaceful Settlement of Interstate Conflicts of 1907 on issues of legal origin and mainly on the use or interpretation of interstate agreements, the authority in question was declared by countries to be the most effective and at the same time the most fair way to resolve conflicts that could not be resolved by political means.
The aforementioned normative act advises participating countries to file an appeal with the arbitral tribunal if such a need arises. Such structures include the Permanent Court of Arbitration formed in 1899. This body is located in The Hague and is empowered to study any situation in which a violation of international principles for resolving international disputes may occur, requiring appropriate judicial intervention.
Any country that has ratified the 1907 Convention selects four representatives who have excellent command of interethnic jurisprudence, have an impeccable reputation and express a desire to entrust the work of an arbitrator to their shoulders. The term of office of the members of the Chamber of Arbitration is 6 years.Their legal status can be restored. These people are included as members of the Chamber in a special list, the contents of which are brought to the attention of each country that has signed the above normative act.
, . . .
.
, 1920 . . ( ) . . . .
() , . , 37- 15.11.1982 ., , .
, , . , , . , .
: , ; , .
, , , , , .
15 , . . 6 1982 . – ().
This body includes a college of 21 people selected from people who have a spotless good name and who are famous for objectivity, honesty and justice and who are considered the luminaries in the field of maritime law. The instance should include the key legal systems of the planet and a fair geographical balance of power. The members of the collegium must include at least three people from all geographical categories defined by the UN General Assembly
The organization in question has the right to create cameras that include three or more members of the board, which in its opinion will best cope with the consideration of a certain group of conflicts. The camera makes a verdict on behalf of the entire court.
The dispute is considered openly if the Tribunal has not decided to make it closed, or if the participants in the process do not apply for non-disclosure of the hearing. The verdict is passed by a majority vote. It is necessary to spell out the reasons and reasons for which the corresponding decision was made. It also lists the names of the people who participated in the dispute.
The verdict of the court is considered final and must be executed by each participant in the conflict. If the judicial organization has not decided otherwise, then each participant shall reimburse its costs for the process at its own expense.
ECtHR This is the only court of justice of the Council of Europe (CE) created on the basis of the document on the protection of fundamental freedoms and human rights (1950 Convention) and consisting of 45 members (including the Russian representative). The ECHR plays an important role in monitoring compliance with the principles of the law on the resolution of international disputes and, above all, ensures the protection of the population of the participating countries from the arbitrariness of authorities. The headquarters of the court is located in France (Strasbourg).
The composition of the organization is determined by PACE by a majority of votes from the list of candidates proposed by the CE members. The composition of the court is selected for 6 years. Subsequently, his re-election is allowed.
The jurisdiction of the court also includes the use and interpretation of the provisions of the 1950 Convention. Each country included in the Council of Europe is entitled to always declare its recognition of ipsofacto.
According to Art. 33 of the Convention, each state that has ratified it has the right to submit for consideration the question of any fact of possible non-compliance with the norms of the Convention and relevant protocols by another country.
The trial will only begin when the European Commission on Human Rights declares the futility of all measures taken to implement the principle of peaceful resolution of an international dispute. The ECtHR verdict is final. The countries that are part of the Council of Europe should implement it in all cases where they act as parties. The decision of the court is forwarded to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which monitors the implementation of the decision of the ECHR.
Conflict Resolution in the OSCE and Interstate Structures
If we consider the resolution of disputes within the framework of international organizations briefly, it can be noted that the powers for the peaceful settlement of disputes, except for the above-mentioned International Court of Justice, are vested in the General Assembly and the UN Security Council. The first has the right to offer methods of non-violent resolution of any dispute that could violate world peace. UN Security Council has great opportunities in the issue of non-violent conflict resolution. Its functions include: the provision of good offices; assuming the role of mediator in negotiations; conducting investigative actions and concluding a settlement agreement. Peaceful conflict resolution is also the responsibility of the Security Council.
First of all, the Security Council is studying those conflicts that could potentially become a threat to world security and lead to a destabilization of the political situation. If the severity of the conflict is not revealed, then the Security Council has the right to conduct an investigation to find out how dangerous the situation or dispute is. Disputes of a legal nature are referred to the International Court of Justice. If the conflict is serious and can develop into an armed conflict, then according to the UN Charter, it has the right to offer those means of peaceful resolution of international disputes that it considers the most effective in a particular situation.
When considering conflicts within the framework of the OSCE, legal sources are such sources of international law as the Paris Charter for a New Europe in 1990, the CSCE Final Act of 1975 and the Final Document of the meeting in the Austrian capital of 1989.
The resolution of international disputes within the OSCE is based on 10 fundamental principles:
- abstinence from the use or threat of the use of force in relation to the sovereignty or territorial integrity of the state borders of another country;
- countries resolve conflicts in non-violent ways;
- the internal policies of each country are sovereign;
- countries should be in partnership according to the UN Charter;
- all countries are equal;
- all nationalities are equal and can determine their own historical fate;
- countries must properly fulfill the obligations assigned to them by the UN Charter;
- country borders are inviolable;
- violation of the territorial integrity of another country is unacceptable;
- human rights and fundamental freedoms must be respected.
The procedures for adhering to the principles of international law on the peaceful settlement of disputes have been elaborated and documented in such normative acts as the Results of the CSCE Meeting on the Peaceful Resolution of Conflicts (Geneva, October 12-23, 1992) and the principles of conflict resolution and the provisions of the CSCE process for non-violent conflict resolution (Valletta , 02/08/1991). In any controversial situation, the OSCE member states should do everything possible to prevent war.
In the event of a conflict, states should begin a discussion of the problem as soon as possible. If countries cannot independently find a compromise in the conflict, but seek to avoid violating the principle of resolving an international dispute by peaceful means, then they discuss the process of resolving this conflict. Countries can refer a case to interstate courts (for example, the UN International Court of Justice) and then follow the appropriate judicial process.
Actually, the OSCE mechanism for implementing the principle of resolving international disputes by peaceful means includes one or more members, elected with the single approval of the parties to the conflict from the list of experienced applicants, which is compiled by the relevant institution. The list includes up to four people selected by each country that wants to take part in resolving the situation. Moreover, each of these people should not be a citizen of the state that is involved in the dispute, or permanently live in it. By agreement of the parties to the dispute, the list of members may include people whose names are not on the list.
If the parties to the conflict could not agree on the composition of the mechanism within 60 days from the moment of the first petition of one of the states to form the mechanism, the head of the approving institute in the course of discussion with the participants of the conflict selects seven persons from the list instead of four.