Collective security policy definition. On the strategic concept of the CSTO

COLLECTIVE SECURITY SYSTEM - state international relations excluding the violation of world peace or the creation of a threat to the security of peoples in any form and implemented by the efforts of states on a global or regional scale.

Security collective security is based on the principles of peaceful coexistence, equality and equal security, respect for the sovereignty and borders of states, mutually beneficial cooperation and military detente.

The question of creating a collective security system was first raised in 1933-1934. at the negotiations of the USSR and France on the conclusion of a multilateral regional European treaty of mutual assistance (later called the Eastern Pact) and the negotiations of the USSR with the US government on the conclusion of a regional Pacific pact with the participation of the USSR, the USA, China, Japan and other states.

However, in Europe, the persistent opposition of Great Britain, the maneuvers of the French government, which was trying to negotiate with Germany, and the tricks of A. Hitler, who demanded equal rights for Germany in the field of armaments - all this thwarted the conclusion of a regional pact and the discussion of the issue of collective security resulted in a fruitless discussion.

The growing threat of aggression from Nazi Germany forced the USSR and France to start creating a collective security system with the conclusion of the Soviet-French Mutual Assistance Treaty (May 2, 1935). Although it did not provide for the automaticity of mutual assistance obligations in the event of an unprovoked attack by any European state and was not accompanied by a military convention on specific forms, conditions and amounts of military assistance, nevertheless it was the first step in organizing a collective security system.

On May 16, 1935, a Soviet-Czechoslovak agreement on mutual assistance was signed. However, in it the possibility of rendering assistance to Czechoslovakia by the USSR, as well as Czechoslovak assistance to the Soviet Union, was limited by an indispensable condition for extending a similar obligation to France.

On the Far East The USSR proposed to conclude a Pacific regional pact between the USSR, the USA, China and Japan in order to prevent the aggressive designs of Japanese militarism. It was supposed to sign a non-aggression pact and non-assistance to the aggressor. Initially, the United States positively welcomed this project, but, in turn, proposed expanding the list of participants in the pact, including Great Britain, France and Holland.

However, the British government evaded a clear answer on the creation of a Pacific regional security pact, as it connived at the Japanese aggression. The Kuomintang government of China did not show sufficient activity in supporting the Soviet proposal, as it hoped for an agreement with Japan. Given the growth of Japanese armaments, the United States embarked on the path of a naval arms race, declaring that "there is no faith pact" and that only a strong navy is an effective guarantor of security. As a result, by 1937 negotiations on concluding a regional pact to collectively secure peace in the Far East had stalled.

In the second half of the 1930s. the question of a collective security system was discussed more than once at the Council of the League of Nations in connection with the Italian attack on Ethiopia (1935), the introduction German troops to the demilitarized Rhineland (1936), a discussion about changing the regime of the Black Sea straits (1936) and the safety of navigation in the Mediterranean Sea (1937).

Pursuance by the Western powers of the policy of "appeasement" of Germany and inciting it against the USSR on the eve of the Second World War of 1939-1945. led to the delay by the British and French governments of negotiations on concluding an agreement with the USSR on mutual assistance and on a military convention in the event of an attack on one of the three countries. Poland and Romania also showed an unwillingness to help organize a collective rebuff to fascist aggression. The fruitless negotiations of the military missions of the USSR, Great Britain and France (Moscow, August 13-17, 1939) became the last attempt in the interwar period to create a system of collective security in Europe.

In the post-war period, to maintain peace and international security the United Nations was created. However, the achievement of a collective security system was hampered by the deployment of " cold war"and the creation of two opposing military-political groups - NATO and the Department of Internal Affairs. At the Geneva meeting in 1955, the USSR submitted a draft of the All-European Treaty on Collective Security, which provided that the states participating in military-political blocs would undertake obligations not to use armed force against each other. However, the Western powers rejected this proposal.

The relaxation of international tension, achieved in the second half of the 1960s - the first half of the 1970s, contributed to the creation of political guarantees of international security. In August 1975, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE, since 1990 - ). The “Final Act…” of the CSCE included the Declaration of Principles of Relations between States: sovereign equality; non-use of force or threat of force; territorial integrity of states; peaceful settlement of disputes; non-interference in the internal affairs of other states; development mutually beneficial cooperation in the political, economic, cultural and humanitarian spheres. The implementation of these principles in practice opens up wide opportunities for solving the most important international task- Strengthening peace and security of peoples.

Orlov A.S., Georgiev N.G., Georgiev V.A. Historical dictionary. 2nd ed. M., 2012, p. 228-229.

The common interest of states in maintaining the international legal order contributed to the creation of a system of collective security.

Collective security is a system of joint actions of states established by the UN Charter with the aim of maintaining international peace and security, preventing or suppressing acts of aggression.

Collective security as a system of joint actions of states includes the following elements:

1) generally recognized principles of modern international law, the most important of which are the principle of non-use of force or threat of force, inviolability of borders, territorial integrity, non-interference in internal affairs;

2) collective measures to prevent and eliminate threats to peace and acts of aggression;

3) collective measures to limit and reduce armaments, up to and including complete disarmament.

Collective measures to prevent and eliminate threats to peace and acts of aggression as an element of collective security are actions of an unarmed or armed nature, committed by a group of states or regional and universal organizations authorized to maintain and restore international peace and security.

The creation of a collective security system is based on the principle indivisibility of the world the content of which is the danger of military conflicts for all states of the world. This principle requires states to respond to any violation of peace and security in any area the globe, to participate in joint actions on the basis of the UN Charter in order to prevent or eliminate threats to peace.

In international law, there are two types of collective security system: universal and regional.

Universal Collective Security System

It was based on the norms of the UN Charter and provides for the actions of states in accordance with the decisions of this organization. The beginning of a universal system of collective security was laid by the alliance of states of the anti-Hitler coalition, with the adoption of the United Nations Declaration of January 1, 1942. Directed against a block of aggressive countries, the coalition was an example of the possibility of broad cooperation between states with different socio-economic systems and ideological views. By the time of the defeat of Nazi Germany (1945), the coalition united 47 states.

In the post-war period, a worldwide system of collective security was created in the form of the United Nations, the main task of which is to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." The system of collective measures provided for by the UN Charter covers: measures to prohibit the threat or use of force in relations between states (clause 4, article 2); measures for the peaceful resolution of international disputes (Chapter VI); disarmament measures (arts. 11, 26, 47); measures for the use of regional security organizations (Chapter VIII); provisional measures to suppress violations of the peace (art. 40); compulsory security measures without the use of armed forces (art. 41) and with their use (art. 42).

The maintenance of international peace and security is built on the basis of universally recognized principles and norms of international law and is carried out by the General Assembly and the UN Security Council, whose competence in this area is clearly demarcated.

UN peacekeeping operations deserve special attention. Their task is as follows: a) investigation of incidents and negotiations with the conflicting parties in order to reconcile them; b) verification of compliance with the ceasefire agreement; c) assistance in maintaining law and order; d) provision of humanitarian assistance to the local population; e) monitoring the situation.

Depending on the task ahead, UN operations may be military surveillance missions or limited troop deployments.

In all cases, operations must strictly adhere to the following principles: 1) the adoption by the Security Council of a decision to conduct an operation, the definition of its mandate and the exercise of general leadership with the consent of the parties to the conflict to conduct the operation;

2) the voluntariness of the provision of military contingents by Member States acceptable to the parties; 3) funding by the international community; 4) the command of the Secretary General with the granting of powers arising from the mandate given by the Security Council; 5) impartiality of forces and minimizing the use of military force (only for self-defence).

Regional systems of collective security

They are represented by agreements and organizations that ensure security on individual continents and regions. Their significance is by no means diminished by the fact that modern means of warfare have acquired a global character. The ability to prevent any local conflict that could escalate into a full-scale war forces states to unite at various levels. This provision is enshrined in paragraph 1 of Art. 52 of the UN Charter allowing for the existence of regional arrangements or bodies "provided that such arrangements or bodies and their activities are consistent with the purposes and principles of the Organization". Effective regional systems of collective security require the participation of all the states of a given region, regardless of their social and political systems. They pursue the same goal as the universal mechanism of collective security - the maintenance of international peace and security. At the same time, their scope is limited in relation to the universal system of collective security. First, regional organizations are not authorized to take any decisions on issues affecting the interests of all states of the world or the interests of states belonging to other or several regions; secondly, the participants in a regional agreement have the right to resolve only such issues that relate to regional actions that affect the interests of the states of the corresponding group.

The competence of regional organizations primarily includes ensuring the peaceful resolution of disputes between their members. According to paragraph 2 of Art. 52 of the UN Charter, the members of these organizations must make every effort to achieve an amicable settlement of local disputes within their organizations before referring disputes to the Security Council, and the latter in turn must encourage this method of dispute resolution.

Given the differences in regions and situations occurring in them, the UN Charter does not provide a precise definition of regional agreements and bodies, which provides flexibility in the activities carried out by a group of states to resolve an issue suitable for regional action. This situation gives grounds to speak about the established model of relations between regional organizations and the UN and about the formal "division of labor" in maintaining peace.

The Security Council can use regional organizations to carry out enforcement actions under its leadership. The regional organizations themselves are not authorized to take any coercive measures without the permission of the Security Council. Regional organizations have the right to use coercive measures only to repel an attack already committed against one of the participants in the regional system of collective security.

Another important task of regional organizations is to assist in the reduction and elimination of armaments, primarily weapons of mass destruction.

Considerable attention is paid to the creation of regional systems of collective security in the practical activities of states. On the European continent before the Second World War, despite the efforts of the Soviet Union, it was not possible to create a system of collective security. In the post-war period, international relations in Europe were built on the basis of the confrontation between the two "world systems". Western countries in 1949 signed the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO). The response step of the socialist countries was the signing in 1955 of the Warsaw Pact.

The texts of both treaties contained specific obligations of the parties to maintain peace and security: to refrain from the threat or use of force, to resolve international disputes peacefully. But it was about these obligations only in relation to the states - parties to these treaties. As for the relationship of organizations to each other, they were in a state of "cold war". It is impossible not to note the fact that NATO was formalized in violation of the basic conditions for concluding regional security agreements, recorded in Ch. VII of the UN Charter "Regional agreements": it includes countries that are located in different regions.

According to the treaty, NATO's goal is to unite the efforts of all its members for collective defense and for the preservation of peace and security. However, measures to create a powerful military structure are not consistent with this goal.

The admission of new states to NATO indicates a violation of Art. 7 of the Treaty, which provides for the invitation of states, and not acceptance upon their personal application. The very expansion of NATO to the east indicates an increase in the military machine at the expense of new members, which does not contribute to European security. The "transformation" of NATO, which its leaders declare, also does not correspond to its goals. The conduct of peacekeeping operations and the implementation of the Partnership for Peace program is not provided for by the 1949 Treaty. The role assumed by NATO on the European continent also goes beyond its competence.

The Warsaw Pact was concluded in strict accordance with the UN Charter and its distinctive feature as a defensive organization was the desire to create a system of collective security for all European states. In Art. 11 of the Treaty stated: "In the event of the creation in Europe of a system of collective security and the conclusion for this purpose of the All-European Treaty on Collective Security, to which the Contracting Parties will steadily strive, this Treaty will lose its force from the date of entry into force of the All-European Treaty."

The processes that have taken place in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe since the mid-1980s, which led to the liquidation of the "world socialist system", predetermined the fate of the Warsaw Treaty Organization. In 1991, the Department of Internal Affairs ceased to exist.

The foundations of the system of collective security in Europe were laid by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Final Act (1975) signed in Helsinki contains a set of principles for cooperation between states and their relations, specific measures in the field of disarmament are outlined, including confidence-building measures in military area, practical steps to ensure European security are indicated. Distinctive feature final act as the basis of the European system of collective security lies in the fact that it does not provide for the use of coercive measures.

Since the signing of the Final Act of the CSCE (1975), the norms that ensure the stability of security in Europe have been adopted in subsequent documents of the CSCE. Particularly noteworthy are the packages of decisions adopted at the meetings of the heads of state and government of the CSCE participating states in Helsinki on July 9-10, 1992 and in Budapest on December 5-6, 1994. Among the acts of the Budapest meeting - Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security. Noteworthy is the thesis that democratic political control over military and paramilitary forces, internal security forces, intelligence services and the police is regarded as an indispensable element of stability and security.

The documents adopted within the framework of the CSCE-OSCE contributed to the creation of a new form of relations between European states based on joint approaches to the creation of a security system. A significant outcome of this process was the signing in March 1995 in Paris of the Stability Pact in Europe, which was later submitted by the European Union to the OSCE for finalization and implementation in close cooperation with the Council of Europe.

The practice of regional organizations, whose documents contain provisions on collective measures in the event of an armed attack against any of the members (LAS, OAU, OAS), knows cases of using peacekeeping forces (for example, the creation in 1981 by the Organization of African Unity of inter-African Stabilization Force in Chad).

Collective Security within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)

The member states of the CIS, in accordance with the Charter of the CIS, assumed obligations to pursue a coordinated policy in the field of international security, disarmament and arms control and to maintain security in the Commonwealth.

In the event of a threat to the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of one or more Member States or to international peace and security, the states shall activate the mechanism of mutual consultations in order to coordinate positions and take measures to eliminate the threat that has arisen, including peacekeeping operations and use, if necessary, on the basis of decisions of the Council of Heads of State of the Commonwealth of Armed Forces in the exercise of the right to individual or collective self-defense in accordance with Art. 51 of the UN Charter.

All specific issues of military-political cooperation between the CIS member states are regulated by special agreements, the most important of which is the Collective Security Treaty, signed in Tashkent on May 15, 1992. The Treaty provides for the obligation to refrain from the use of force or the threat of force in interstate relations. The participating states undertake to resolve all disagreements among themselves and with other states by peaceful means (Article 1). An obligation was adopted not to enter into military alliances and not to take part in any groupings of states, as well as actions directed against another participating state, to respect the independence and sovereignty of each other, to consult on all important issues of international security affecting their interests.

The collective security of the CIS is built on the basis of the norms of the UN Charter (collective self-defense). Proceeding from this, the Treaty also contains an appropriate mechanism of mutual assistance in case of aggression. It includes the provision of military assistance as well as mutual support. The use of armed forces to repel aggression is accepted exclusively by the heads of the CIS member states. The use of armed forces outside the territory of the States Parties may be carried out only in the interests of international security in strict accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the legislation of the States Parties to this Treaty. The treaty does not affect the right of the participating states to individual and collective defense against aggression.

The treaty is purely defensive in nature. It is open for accession by all interested states that share its goals and principles. Moreover, it provides for the desire to create a system of collective security in Europe and Asia, on which the necessary changes to this Treaty will depend.

The decision to conduct peacekeeping operations within the CIS is taken by the Council of Heads of State with the consent of all the conflicting parties, and also subject to an agreement between them on a ceasefire and other hostile actions.

Peacekeeping teams within the CIS are recruited in each specific case on a voluntary basis by the states parties to the Agreement, with the exception of the conflicting parties.

The Council of CIS Heads of State is obliged, in accordance with the Agreement of March 20, 1992, to immediately inform the UN Security Council and the CSCE Council (now the OSCE) of the decision to conduct a peacekeeping operation.

SIST E MA "COLLECT AND VNOY SAFETY BUT SNOST"

"Collective security" system- the state of international relations, in which the joint efforts of states exclude the violation of world peace on a global or regional scale. In the 1930s, the USSR and France sought to create such a system, aimed at deterring aggression, primarily German. The main ideologists of "collective security" in the interwar period were French Prime Minister L. Barthou and People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR M. M. Litvinov.

The path to the idea of ​​"collective security"

Japan's attack on Manchuria in 1931 and especially the rise of the Nazis to power in Germany in 1933 forced the USSR to rethink its former foreign policy guidelines. The new German leadership openly declared its negative attitude to the Soviet ideology and did not abandon the goal formulated by Hitler to win "living space in the East" for Germany. This created a potential danger for the USSR. From supporting the revision of the Versailles order, Soviet foreign policy moved to a position of defending the foundations of the post-war status quo. At the 17th Party Congress, Stalin said that "things are moving towards a new imperialist war." He named several possible scenarios the beginning of the conflict and expressed the opinion that any of these scenarios would be deplorable for its organizers. With regard to Germany, Stalin noted that the suspicion of the USSR towards the new authorities of this country was due not so much to the essence of fascist ideology as to Hitler's plans for conquest. N. I. Bukharin took a tougher stance: after reading a few excerpts from Hitler’s Mein Kampf and other works by Nazi and Japanese authors, the editor-in-chief of Pravda declared: deal with all those huge historical battles that history has placed on our shoulders.

Back in June 1933, the USSR announced to Germany that military cooperation between the countries would be terminated from September. After that, Moscow entered into consultations with the French side on the conclusion of an agreement on mutual assistance. On December 29, 1933, speaking at the IV session of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs M. M. Litvinov outlined a "new course" for Soviet foreign policy for the coming years. It was assumed that the USSR would, firstly, adhere to the principle of non-aggression and observe neutrality in any conflict; secondly, to pursue a policy of appeasement towards Germany and Japan; thirdly, to participate in the creation of a system of collective security; fourth, to be open in dialogue with Western democracies. For two years, the “new course” brought a number of successes to Soviet diplomacy: Back in November 1933, the USSR recognized the United States, which was facilitated by Litvinov’s visit to Washington and his negotiations with President F. Roosevelt, and in the summer of 1934 - Romania, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria. In September of the same year Soviet Union joined the League of Nations and was immediately admitted to permanent members Council of the League as a great power.

"Collective security": achievements and costs

Taking into account the fact that on January 26, 1934, Germany signed a non-aggression pact with Poland, Moscow set its sights on a more intensive rapprochement with France. The Soviet leadership supported the proposals of the French Foreign Minister L. Barthou. The first of these was that all the states of Eastern and Central Europe, including Germany and the USSR, should sign an agreement on the obligation to provide mutual assistance to one of them who would become a victim of aggression. This agreement, the so-called "Eastern Pact", was to become an analogue of the Locarno agreements for Western Europe. The second proposal provided that France and the USSR would sign bilateral treaty on mutual assistance in the event of military aggression in Europe and, thus, will link together two systems of collective security, Eastern and Western European (Locarno). The French and Soviet sides began to jointly develop a draft Eastern Pact, but Germany immediately flatly refused to sign such an agreement, and Poland also declared its unwillingness to do so. On October 9, 1934, in Marseille, L. Bartu was killed along with the King of Yugoslavia, Alexander I, by Croatian terrorists. Toward the draft Eastern Pact new head The French Foreign Ministry P. Laval did not return, but he supported the idea of ​​a Soviet-French treaty. After Germany, violating one of the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, restored compulsory military service, the USSR and France signed a bilateral agreement on mutual assistance in the event of a military attack in Europe. This happened on May 2, 1935, and two weeks later the USSR signed a similar pact with Czechoslovakia. In parallel, there was a Soviet-British rapprochement, the apogee of which was the visit to Moscow of British Foreign Minister E. Eden in March 1935.

On October 3, 1935, Italian troops invaded Ethiopia, and the Italo-Ethiopian War began. Soviet diplomats in the League of Nations advocated the application of sanctions against the aggressor, up to an embargo on oil supplies, which Mussolini feared. However, due to the indecision of the actions of France and Great Britain, it was not possible to put pressure on Italy.

On February 28, 1936, nine months after the signing, the Soviet-French Treaty of Mutual Assistance was ratified. Hitler used this as an excuse to remilitarize the Rhineland. On March 7, 1936, stating that France had responded to Germany's assurances of friendship with an alliance with the Soviet Union "opening the gates of Europe to Bolshevism", he ordered troops to enter the territory of the Rhineland. Thus, the German authorities violated the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno agreements. In Moscow, Hitler's step was reacted by a statement of readiness to undertake, together with France and Great Britain, within the framework of the League of Nations, all necessary measures to enforce existing treaties. As for the great powers of the West, they shied away from active action, not wanting to bind themselves with obligations to the USSR.

In July 1936, the Civil War in Spain. Italy and Germany supported the rebels who opposed the legitimate republican government in Madrid. Over time, the Italo-German assistance to Franco became more and more significant. Despite the fact that the establishment of the Franco regime in Spain posed a greater threat to London and Paris than to Moscow, France and Great Britain offered international obligations of non-intervention. The USSR was forced to join, although at the very beginning of the war in Spain it made it clear that it was on the side of the legitimate government. Despite the fact that Germany and Italy formally joined the obligations, they continued to support the rebels. With this in mind, in the fall of 1936, Moscow decided to independently provide assistance to the republican government: send weapons, send instructors, as well as volunteers, from which international brigades were formed.

In October 1936, Germany and Italy entered into an agreement on military-political cooperation, creating the so-called Berlin-Rome Axis. On November 25, 1936, Germany and Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Pact in Berlin. A year later, Italy joined him. As a result, a bloc was formed, which, under the slogans of fighting communism, began active preparations for war. In March 1938, Germany carried out the "Anschluss" of Austria - the territory of the republic became part of its northern neighbor. The French and British governments limited themselves to a formal condemnation of the Anschluss. The USSR called for a collective rebuff to aggression, but his proposal did not meet with support.

The Munich Agreement and the collapse of the “collective security” policy

Western powers, counting on Hitler to limit his expansionist plans eastbound, embarked on a policy of concessions to Nazi Germany. In September 1938, Hitler demanded that the authorities of Czechoslovakia transfer the Sudetenland to Germany, where the Germans made up the majority of the population. Prague was ready to defend itself, but France abandoned its allied obligations and, together with Great Britain, persuaded the Czechoslovak government to cede the Sudetenland. The Soviet side offered the Western powers to jointly defend Czechoslovakia, but those not interested in the fall of the National Socialist regime in Germany refused. The USSR also refused aid from Czechoslovakia, whose authorities feared that this would create conditions for Soviet intervention. On the night of September 29-30, 1938, at a conference of heads of government and foreign ministers of four states in Munich, an agreement was signed, which in Soviet historiography was called the "Munich Agreement". According to his condition, the Sudetenland became part of Germany. Representatives of the USSR were not invited to Munich, and the Soviet Union itself was the only state that refused to recognize the consequences of the agreement reached in Munich. The example of Germany untied the hands of the Italian dictator B. Mussolini: in April 1939, Italian troops occupied Albania.

The Munich Agreement showed that the Western powers were not ready to cooperate with the USSR within the framework of a collective security system, and this forced the Soviet leadership to reconsider the principles of the country's foreign policy. Moscow took a course of neutrality in the event of a conflict between the capitalist powers, counting on deriving benefits from a future war. In April 1939, in the face of increasing military threat, the USSR began negotiations with Great Britain and France on mutual obligations to provide assistance in the event of aggression against any of the three countries in Europe, but attempts to negotiate reached a dead end. Britain, meanwhile, was secretly negotiating with Germany to direct Hitler's aggression against the USSR. In August 1939, the Soviet side proposed that the same states sign a military convention providing for joint action armed forces three powers in the event of German aggression. It was assumed that the USSR would be able to lead troops through the territory of Poland in order to reach the German border. Warsaw, which by that time already had guarantees from France and Great Britain about protection in the event of a German attack, categorically refused, and the French and British governments did not try to convince her otherwise. The negotiations again failed, and this crossed out the last attempt to create a united anti-Hitler front in Europe.

In an effort to prevent a real threat of war, the Soviet government entered into a dialogue with Germany. Negotiations began on August 15, 1939, and already on August 23, the parties signed in Moscow a non-aggression pact for a period of ten years, and at the same time an additional secret protocol, which stipulated the delimitation of the spheres of interests of both states in Eastern Europe. From the German side, the head of the country's Foreign Ministry, I. Ribbentrop, signed the documents, and from the Soviet side, his colleague V. M. Molotov. Back in May 1939, he replaced M. M. Litvinov, the main ideologist of the policy of collective security in Europe, as the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR. The conclusion of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact put an end to the plans of the USSR to create a system of collective security in Europe.

historical sources

Kollontai A. M. From my life and work. M., 1974.

Litvinov M. Against aggression. M., 1938.

Maisky I. M. Memoirs of a Soviet diplomat. M., 1971.

COLLECTIVE SECURITY COUNCIL

On the Concept of Collective Security of the Participating States

SOLUTION
about the concept of collective security
member states of the Collective Security Treaty

Collective Security Council

1. Approve the Collective Security Concept of the States Parties to the Collective Security Treaty (attached).

2. Consider at the session of the Collective Security Council the draft Plan for the implementation of the Collective Security Concept.

For the purpose of developing a draft Plan, create a temporary working group under the Secretary General of the Collective Security Council from representatives of the participating states.

Done in the city of Almaty on February 10, 1995 in one original copy in Russian. The original copy is stored in the Archives of the Government of the Republic of Belarus, which will send to each state that signed this Decision, its certified copy.

For the Republic of Armenia
L. Ter-Petrosyan

For the Republic of Belarus
A. Lukashenko

For the Republic of Georgia
E.Shevardnadze

For the Republic of Kazakhstan
N.Nazarbayev

For the Kyrgyz Republic
A.Akaev

For the Russian Federation
B. Yeltsin

For the Republic of Tajikistan
E. Rakhmonov

For the Republic of Uzbekistan
I. Karimov

* The decision was signed by the Republic of Belarus with a note: "See comments" (published on p.51).
** The decision is not signed by the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Application. The concept of collective security of the member states of the Collective Security Treaty

Application
to the decision of the Council of the collective
security about the concept of collective
the security of participating States
Collective Security Treaties
February 10, 1995

COLLECTIVE SECURITY CONCEPT
STATES PARTIES TO THE TREATY
ON COLLECTIVE SECURITY

The Collective Security Concept of the States Parties to the Collective Security Treaty of May 15, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Concept) is a set of views of the States Parties to the Collective Security Treaty (hereinafter the States Parties) on the prevention and elimination of threats to peace, joint defense against aggression, ensuring their sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The concept is based on the principles of the UN, the OSCE, the Collective Security Treaty, as well as the provisions of other documents adopted by the participating states in its development.

The concept includes: basics military policy participating states, the basics of ensuring collective security, the main directions and stages of creating a collective security system.

The implementation of the provisions of the Concept provides for the implementation of agreed political, economic, military and other measures.

In political and military relations, the participating states do not consider any state or coalition of states to be their adversary, they see all states of the world community as equal partners.

1. Fundamentals of the military policy of the participating states

The participating states are united by military-political and economic interests, the existing military-technical base and infrastructure, and the desire to pursue a coordinated policy to ensure collective security.

The participating States will hold consultations in order to coordinate positions and pursue an agreed security policy:

in relation to other CIS member states - on issues of military cooperation and mutual assistance in solving problems of military organizational development;

in relation to NATO and other military-political organizations - on issues of cooperation and partnership, participation in existing and new structures of regional security that are being created.

The participating States ensure collective security with all the possibilities at their disposal, with priority given to peaceful means. When developing measures to ensure collective security, they take into account the following.

The end of the global confrontation between East and West has significantly reduced the risk of a world war.

At the same time, there is a significant number of regional interstate and intrastate problems, the aggravation of which is fraught with escalation into armed conflicts and local wars. The prerequisites for this remain in social, political, economic, territorial, national-ethnic, religious and other contradictions, as well as in the commitment of a number of states to resolve them by force.

The participating states consider the following to be the main sources of military danger:

territorial claims of other countries to the participating states;

existing and potential centers of local wars and armed conflicts, primarily in the immediate vicinity of the borders of the participating states;

the possibility of using (including unauthorized) nuclear and other types of weapons mass destruction, which is in service with a number of states;

proliferation of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and the latest technologies military production combined with the attempts of individual countries, organizations and terrorist groups to realize their political and military aspirations;

the possibility of undermining the stability of the strategic situation as a result of violation of international agreements in the field of limitation and reduction of armed forces and armaments, unreasonable buildup military power other states and military-political unions;

attempts to interfere from the outside in the internal affairs of the participating states, to destabilize their internal political situation;

international terrorism, blackmail policy.

As factors that can lead to the escalation of a military danger into a direct military threat, the participating States consider:

building up groupings of troops (forces) in the regions adjacent to the external borders of the participating states to the extent that violates the existing balance of forces;

creation and training on the territory of other states of armed formations intended for use against participating states;

unleashing border conflicts and armed provocations from the territory of neighboring states;

the introduction of foreign troops into the territories adjacent to the participating States (if this is not related to measures to restore and maintain peace in accordance with the decision of the UN Security Council or the OSCE).

The participating states consider the following priority areas in joint activities to prevent a military threat:

participation with other states and international organizations in the creation of collective security systems in Europe and Asia;

coordination of actions to implement existing and develop new international agreements on disarmament and arms control;

expansion of confidence-building measures in the military field;

establishment and development of equal partnerships with NATO, other military-political organizations and regional security structures aimed at effective solution peace consolidation tasks;

intensifying the dialogue on the preparation and adoption of effective international agreements in the field of naval forces and armaments, as well as restrictions on naval activities;

conducting peacekeeping operations by decision of the UN Security Council, OSCE, in accordance with international obligations;

coordinating efforts to protect the external borders of the participating states;

maintaining the armed forces and other troops of the participating states at a level that ensures defense sufficiency.

II. Fundamentals of ensuring collective security

The goal of the participating states in ensuring collective security is to prevent wars and armed conflicts, and in the event of their unleashing, to guarantee the protection of the interests, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the participating states.

AT Peaceful time this goal is achieved by settling controversial issues, international and regional crises exclusively by political, conciliatory means, maintaining the defense potential of each state, taking into account both national and collective interests.

Each participating State shall take appropriate measures to ensure the stability of its borders. On the basis of mutual agreement, they coordinate the activities of the border troops and other competent services to maintain the established regime in the border zones of the participating States.

In the event of a threat to the security, territorial integrity and sovereignty of one or more participating States or a threat international peace the participating states immediately put into action the mechanism of joint consultations in order to coordinate their positions and take concrete measures to eliminate the threat that has arisen.

Strategic nuclear forces The Russian Federation performs the function of deterrence from possible attempts to implement aggressive intentions against the participating states in accordance with the military doctrine of the Russian Federation.

In the event of aggression, the participating States, in accordance with Article 4 of the Collective Security Treaty, repel it and take measures to force the aggressor to cease hostilities. To achieve this, they determine and plan in advance the content, forms and methods of joint action.

The collective security of the participating states is based on the following basic principles:

indivisibility of security: aggression against one participating state is considered as aggression against all participating states;

equal responsibility of the participating states for ensuring security;

observance of territorial integrity, respect for sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs and consideration of each other's interests;

collectivity of defense, created on a regional basis;

making decisions on fundamental issues of ensuring collective security on the basis of consensus;

compliance of the composition and readiness of forces and means with the scale of the military threat.

III. Collective security system.
The main directions of its creation

The basis of collective security is the system of collective security, which the participating states consider as a set of interstate and state governing bodies, forces and means that ensure, on a common legal basis (taking into account national legislation), the protection of their interests, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The interstate bodies of the collective security system are:

The Collective Security Council is the highest political body at the interstate level, which ensures coordination and joint activities of the participating states aimed at the implementation of the Collective Security Treaty;

The Council of Foreign Ministers is the highest advisory body of the Collective Security Council on issues of coordinating the domestic and foreign policies of the participating states;

The Council of Defense Ministers is the highest advisory body of the Collective Security Council on military policy and military development of the participating states.

To solve specific problems of ensuring collective security, other control bodies may be created, acting on a permanent or temporary basis.

The state bodies of the collective security system are the bodies of the political and military leadership of the participating states.

As forces and means of the collective security system, the participating states consider:

the armed forces and other troops of the participating States;

coalition (joint) groupings of troops (forces) in the regions that will be created to repel aggression against the participating states;

joint (unified) system air defense, other systems.

The creation of forces and means of the collective security system is aimed at deterring a possible aggressor, timely opening of the preparation of a possible aggression and repulsing it, ensuring the protection of the borders of the participating states, participation in peacekeeping operations.

The Collective Security Council for peacekeeping operations conducted in accordance with the decision of the UN Security Council, the OSCE, may create collective peacekeeping forces.

The participating states consider the following as the main directions for creating a collective security system:

approximation of the main provisions of the legislative acts of the participating states in the field of defense and security;

holding regular consultations on the problems of military construction and training of the armed forces of the participating states;

development of common approaches to the issues of bringing troops (forces) into higher degrees combat readiness, forms and methods of their training, operational and combat use, as well as coordinated mobilization preparation of the economies of the participating states;

achievement of multilateral agreements on the use of elements of military infrastructure, air and water space of the participating states;

coordinating the issues of operational equipment of the territories of the participating states in the interests of collective defense;

carrying out joint measures of operational and combat training of the armed forces and other troops of the participating states;

coordination of training programs for military personnel and specialists;

coordination of plans for the development, production, supply and repair of weapons and military equipment;

development of uniform approaches to the norms for the creation and maintenance of stocks of material resources.

The formation of a collective security system is carried out sequentially (in stages), taking into account the development of the military-political situation in the world.

At the first stage:

basically complete the creation of the armed forces of the participating States;

develop a program of military and military-technical cooperation between the participating states and begin its implementation;

develop and adopt legal acts regulating the functioning of the collective security system.

At the second stage:

create coalition (unified) groupings of troops (forces) to repel possible aggression and plan their use;

create a joint (unified) air defense system;

consider the creation of a joint armed forces.

At the third stage, complete the creation of a system of collective security of the participating states.

The participating states in their activities to ensure collective security will comply with the UN Charter, generally accepted international legal norms and principles.

This Concept of Collective Security consolidates the commitment of the participating States to the goals of preventing wars and armed conflicts, eliminating them from the system of international relations, creating conditions for the comprehensive development of individuals, societies and states based on the ideals of humanism, democracy and universal security.

The provisions of the Concept will be supplemented, clarified and improved as further development and strengthening of cooperation between the participating States and the formation new system international relations.

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
to the Decision on the Concept of Collective Security
member states of the Collective Security Treaty
The Republic of Belarus

Section II. Fundamentals of ensuring collective security

1. In paragraph 1, after the words "participating States", add "on the basis of bilateral agreements".

2. In paragraph 4, delete the words "or threats to international peace" (this goes beyond the scope of the Collective Security Treaty).

The text of the document is verified by:
"Commonwealth"
(Information Bulletin of the CIS) N 1,
Minsk, 1995

After the events of 2010 in Kyrgyzstan, it became necessary to adapt the Organization's crisis response mechanisms to such situations, in connection with which a number of new documents were adopted. With the introduction of amendments to the Collective Security Treaty and the Charter, it became obvious that the doctrinal foundations of the CSTO, in particular, the Collective Security Concept adopted back in 1995, are significantly outdated. Accordingly, it was decided to develop a new edition of this document, as well as the Collective Security Strategy and the Strategic and Operational Planning System within the CSTO. A group of Member State experts is currently working on a package of these documents.

The concept of collective security of 1995 of the states parties to the Treaty is a set of views of states on the prevention and elimination of threats to peace, joint defense against aggression, ensuring their sovereignty and territorial integrity. The concept, as emphasized in its text, is based on the principles of the UN, the OSCE and the CST. The goal of states in ensuring collective security is to prevent wars and armed conflicts, and in the event of their unleashing, to guarantee the protection of the interests, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.

The document defines the system of collective security. This is a set of interstate governing bodies, forces and means that ensure, on a common legal basis (taking into account national legislation), their protection [ participating States] interests, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

In order to create a system of collective security, the participating states pledged to follow the following principles: convergence of the main provisions of the legislative acts of states in the field of defense and security; holding regular consultations on problems of military construction and training of the armed forces of states; development of common approaches to military issues.

The formation of the collective security system was to take place in three

At the first stage - the completion of the creation of the armed forces of the participating states; development of a program of scientific and technical cooperation and the beginning of its implementation; development and adoption of legal acts regulating the functioning of the collective security system.

At the second stage - the creation of coalition (combined) groupings of troops (forces) to repel possible aggression and planning their use; creation of a joint (unified) air defense system; consideration of the issue of creating a unified armed forces.

At the third stage - the completion of the creation of a system of collective security of the participating states.

The tasks outlined at the first stage were generally achieved. However, the tasks of the second and third stages were not fulfilled within the scheduled time frame (approximately until 2000-2002). At present, the Organization is still in the second rather than the third phase.

The second stage in the formation of a collective security system is the creation of coalition groupings of troops, which should protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the states parties to the Treaty. In the event of an act of aggression against any of the participating countries, the formation of a regional grouping of troops of one collective security region may (at the request of one or more parties) participate in repelling aggression in another collective security region. However, in practice, the use of one regional grouping in another region may be unlikely for political reasons.

Within the framework of the CSTO, there are three regions of collective security (Eastern European, Caucasian and Central Asian). Such geographic diversity gives experts a reason to talk about the absence of a unified security system and put forward proposals for the development of Russia's military ties with Belarus and Armenia on a bilateral basis, and not within the framework of the CSTO, which has been developing its main activity in recent years in the Central Asian direction.

There are reasons for such statements. Thus, the regional grouping of troops in the Russian-Belarusian direction was created on a bilateral basis, although it also operates within the framework of the CST / CSTO: in 1997, an agreement was signed on the joint provision of regional security between Russia and Belarus, and in 2000 a resolution was adopted Supreme State Council of the Union State on the creation of a regional grouping of troops.

The Caucasian grouping was also formed on a bilateral basis. On August 27, 2000, an Agreement was signed between Russia and Armenia on issues of joint planning and the use of troops (forces) in the interests of ensuring joint security. It is legal basis to create a joint grouping of troops of the two states "to solve the problems of joint defense under a single command" (Article 1). At the same time, it should be noted that both agreements with Belarus and Armenia include a reference to the CST in the preamble.

Regional security in the Central Asian direction was also ensured for a long time on the basis of bilateral agreements between Russia and Kazakhstan, Russia and Tajikistan, Russia and Kyrgyzstan. Activation of militants of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan on the territory of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan in 1999 and 2000. prompted Russia and the countries of Central Asia (CA) to conclude multilateral agreements, in particular, to the creation in 2001 of the Collective Rapid Deployment Force for the Central Asian region of collective security. However, the regional grouping of troops for this region of collective security was never created. In recent years, it was planned to form a regional grouping of troops based on the CRRF, but its expediency is called into question: groupings of troops are aimed at responding to classical types of military threats (an attack from another state), and for the Central Asian countries, threats from non-state actors are primarily relevant. The current Collective Security Concept states that CST members do not consider any state or coalition of states to be their adversary.

The document specifically states that the members of the Collective Security Treaty will consult to agree on positions regarding NATO and "other military-political organizations" on issues of cooperation and partnership and even participation. Thus, it was assumed that some member countries of the Collective Security Treaty would be able to participate in other regional organizations security. Recall that in January 1994, NATO launched the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program, to which by the time the Concept was signed all new independent states, except for Tajikistan, which was in a state of civil war. It only became a PfP participant in 2002. After the conflict in the Caucasus in August 2008, Russia temporarily froze its participation in this program.

With regard to consultations and harmonization of positions, these provisions were often not respected in practice. Thus, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Central Asian countries of the CSTO had to face the dilemma of whether or not to provide assistance to the anti-terrorist coalition in Afghanistan. After consultations with Russia, a positive response was given. Coalition bases appeared in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan (the latter at that time was not a member of the CSTO). Interestingly, with the emergence of a real need for consultations in the CSTO format, the interested states preferred to negotiate on a bilateral basis. In this regard, President of Belarus A. Lukashenko has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction with the presence of NATO troops on the territory of the Central Asian members of the CSTO. He pointed out that no preliminary consultations had been held between the CSTO members on the deployment of NATO contingents - although this is provided for by the Organization's legal framework.

The most interesting part of the Collective Security Concept of 1995 seems to be the enumeration of the main sources of military danger to the CST states. In particular, - territorial disputes, local conflicts near the borders of the participating countries, the use (including unauthorized) of weapons mass destruction(WMD), the proliferation of WMD (which can be used for their own purposes by individual states, organizations and terrorist groups), the violation of agreements on the limitation and reduction of weapons, attempts to interfere from outside to destabilize the domestic political situation and, last but not least, international terrorism along with politics blackmail.

Thus, the Concept deals almost exclusively with “traditional” threats emanating from state actors. At the same time, in the light of the "color revolutions" recent years the point about outside interference with the aim of destabilizing the domestic political situation sounds relevant. Among real threats CSTO countries on present stage one can also name the local conflicts mentioned in the Concept near the borders of the member countries (he meant, first of all, the unstable situation in Afghanistan since 1992).

Noteworthy is the point of the Concept on the violation of agreements on the limitation and reduction of arms - after all, it is Russia that the West accuses of non-compliance with the Istanbul agreements of 1999 under the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). In turn, at the Astana summit in 2004, the heads of the CSTO states called on NATO (including new members of the Alliance that are not parties to this treaty) to ratify the adapted CFE Treaty. In mid-June 2007, the CSTO issued a statement stating that "non-fulfillment by the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance of the new version of the CFE Treaty is contrary to the interests of maintaining stability on the European continent" and that "the agreement has not yet entered into force, as a result of which its viability and effectiveness were lost and its very existence is once again called into question. As is known, in July 2007 Russia announced its suspension of participation in the CFE Treaty until the NATO countries ratify the agreement on its adaptation.

The Concept states that "the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation perform the function of deterrence from possible attempts to implement aggressive intentions against the participating states in accordance with the military doctrine of the Russian Federation." In this regard, it should be noted that in September 2006 in Semipalatinsk (Kazakhstan) Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan signed an agreement on the establishment of a zone free from nuclear weapons(NWFZ). According to it, they assumed obligations to ban the production, acquisition and deployment of nuclear weapons and their components or other nuclear explosive devices on their territories. The idea of ​​signing such an agreement was proposed by the President of Uzbekistan I. Karimov back in 1993, and then the text of the document was agreed upon for many years.

Despite the support of the treaty by the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), its signing in 2006 was boycotted by three nuclear powers- USA, France, UK. They had to put their signatures under a protocol guaranteeing the countries participating in the NWFZ that nuclear weapons would not be used against them (such guarantees were given to participants in already existing NWFZs). This position was due precisely to the principle of collective defense of the CSTO member countries and Article 12 of the NWFZ Treaty itself, which recognizes the priority of the "old obligations" of the countries, i.e. and the Collective Security Treaty. Under the Treaty on NWFZ in Central Asia participating countries reserved the right to transit nuclear weapons through their territory in case of special circumstances. It should be noted that participants in other NWFZs, such as the Pelindaba NWFZ covering Africa, also reserve this right.

Four of the five countries that signed the NWFZ Treaty are members of the CSTO. Under international law, later treaties take precedence over earlier ones. However, Russia has stated that it gives priority to the CST, i.e. reserves the right to defend its allies by all means. Thus, Russian nuclear weapons can “transit” into the territory of the Central Asian countries. In turn, by signing the protocol to the NWFZ Treaty, the United States, France and Great Britain would not have the right to strike at the locations of nuclear weapons in the event of a conflict, say, with Russia. This contradiction between the Collective Security Treaty and the NWFZ Treaty has not yet been resolved.

It should be especially noted that the Concept does not contain any mention of existing or potential threats within the CST space. Recall that they continued until May 1994. fighting between the two members of the Treaty - Armenia and Azerbaijan, until the summer of 1994 - the active phase of the conflict between Georgia and Abkhazia, and until the summer of 1992 - the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict. In 1995, the civil war was still going on in Tajikistan.

The settlement of all these conflicts took place through the CIS. The corresponding decisions were made by the Council of CIS Heads of State (and not by the CST Collective Security Council). For the CST, the function of defense against external threats remained reserved. Thus, statements that the settlement of the inter-Tajik conflict is a merit of the CST are not entirely correct from a legal point of view. Although, in fact, only members of the Collective Security Treaty, who allocated contingents for the CIS collective peacekeeping forces, took part in the settlement, the mechanism of the Treaty itself was not activated. True, it should be noted that the operational management of the peacekeeping operation in Tajikistan was carried out by the Headquarters for the Coordination of Military Cooperation of the CIS Member States (SHKVS), which, before the creation of the Joint Headquarters of the CSTO, also worked on the implementation of the CST, which could give rise to statements about the involvement of the CST in the settlement .

In May 2000, a Memorandum was signed in Minsk on improving the efficiency of the CST and adapting it to the current geopolitical situation. This document has already indicated the need to use the Treaty more fully “in the interests of preventing and resolving conflicts on their territories” (participating countries), for which the Organization will begin to create a consultative mechanism on peacekeeping problems and work on the formation of a collective peacekeeping force of rapid deployment. Recall that peacekeeping CSTO forces were created only in 2010 and are intended for use mainly outside the territory of the members of the Organization.

The last attempt to update the conceptual foundations of the Organization's activities was made in 2006 in the "Declaration of the CSTO Member States on Further Improvement and Efficiency of the Organization", where the CSTO is called "multifunctional international structure security." An important task is proclaimed "further deepening and increasing the effectiveness of interaction in the political sphere." It also formulated such principles of the Organization as:

Priority of allied obligations of the CSTO member states, respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and authority of each of them;

Mutual respect and consideration of national interests and positions of the CSTO member states in the field of foreign policy and security;

Coordination of foreign policy, protection and provision of collective and national interests of the CSTO member states in the international arena.

At the same time, despite the declared priority to improve the effectiveness of the mechanisms for coordinating the foreign policy activities of the Member States, there is a problem of unity of goals and values ​​on the basis of which the Organization's activities are built.