The concept of collective security and its system. Collective security: concept, types

SIST E MA "COLLECT AND VNOY SAFETY BUT SNOST"

"Collective security" system- condition 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, the Soviet Union joined the League of Nations and was immediately accepted as a permanent member of the 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 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.

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 the legal basis for the creation of 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 the newly independent states had already joined, 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 arms, attempts to interfere from outside to destabilize the domestic political situation and - last but not least - international terrorism along with the policy of 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 "strategic nuclear forces 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. According to regulations 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 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.

The problem of ensuring the peaceful coexistence of various states before today remains the most global. The first attempts to create organizations to protect against external aggression appeared after the end of the First World War. Each military invasion led to the onset of deplorable consequences for the life and health of various nationalities, as well as for the economy of states. The collective security system was created to eliminate the threat to peace on a planetary scale. For the first time, the issue of creating such a system was brought up for discussion during the negotiations between the USSR and France.

The creation of a collective security complex provides for the adoption of comprehensive measures that are being implemented by various states at the universal or regional levels. The purpose of creating such a protective complex is to eliminate the threat to peaceful coexistence, suppress acts of external aggression, as well as create the necessary level global security. Today, in practice, the collective security complex is understood as a set of forms and methods of struggle of the countries of the world against the aggression shown.

How did the security system develop at the interstate level?

As already mentioned, the first attempts to create a system of collective security in Europe were made in 1933. An agreement on mutual assistance was concluded between the Soviet Union and France. Subsequently, this document was called the Eastern Pact. Further, multilateral negotiations were held, in which, in addition to the indicated countries, the USA, China, Japan and a number of other states participated. As a result, an agreement was reached on the conclusion of the Pacific Pact.

The Pacific Pact was never concluded due to the influence of Germany and its demands for equal rights in the field of armaments. Due to the manifestation of aggression from the German side, the Soviet Union concluded a number of agreements on mutual military assistance with European countries. These were the first steps towards becoming a connected security scheme.

Historical facts indicate that the USSR carried out actions aimed at signing peace agreements and non-aggression pacts.

After 1935, the issues of ensuring international protection became the subject of repeated discussions in the Council of the League of Nations. It was supposed to expand the composition of the countries participating in such negotiations. However, the UK refrained from signing any agreements. Numerous attempts by the Soviet Union to create a public system of international security in the interwar period were in vain. After the Second World War, the United Nations was created, which documented the agreement on collective security.

Elemental composition and classification of public security systems

The united protection of the rights and interests of the entire population at the interstate level includes a number of components:

• Compliance with the principles of international law;
• Respect for sovereignty and inviolability of borders;
• Non-interference in the internal political affairs of the country;
• Adoption of common measures aimed at combating aggression and eliminating the threat to the world community;
• Limitation and reduction of armaments.

The basis for the creation of such a large-scale complex was the principle of the indivisibility of the world. It is generally accepted to distinguish two main types of public safety systems:

• Universal;
• Regional.

On the video - about the system of collective security in Europe:

Today, the United Nations is the guarantor of compliance with international law and the principles of peaceful coexistence. Collective activities that are carried out to maintain peace are enshrined in the UN Charter. The statutory document provides for the following provisions:

• List of prohibited measures (threat or use of force in interstate relations);
• Measures for a peaceful settlement contentious issues;
• List of measures for the disarmament of the powers;
• Creation and functioning of regional defense organizations;
• Coercive response measures without the use of weapons.

The maintenance of peace on a planetary scale is carried out by the UN Security Council and the General Assembly. The tasks assigned to an international organization within the framework of the universal system include:

• Investigation of cases and incidents threatening peace;
• Conducting diplomatic negotiations;
• Verification of the implementation of ceasefire or military intervention agreements;
• Maintaining the rule of law and the legal order of the member states of the organization;
• Humanitarian assistance to needy subjects;
• Control over the current situation.

Regional security systems are presented in the form of organizations or agreements that regulate peaceful coexistence in a particular region or continent. Regional complexes may include several participants. The competence of such an organization extends exclusively to the countries that have signed the relevant agreement.

On the video - the speech of V.V. Putin at the plenary meeting of the Collective Security Council:

Conditions for the operation of an international organization in the field of peacekeeping

Since the creation of the UN until today, in the event of military situations or an external invasion, the organization can carry out peacekeeping operations. The conditions for such transactions are:

• Obligatory consent of both parties to the conflict to perform any regulatory actions;
• Cessation of fire and guarantee of protection and security for peacekeeping units;
• The adoption by the Security Council of an appropriate decision on the conduct of operations over which the Secretary General exercises personal control;
• The coordinated activity of all formed military units that are aimed at resolving the conflict;
• Impartiality and non-interference in the internal political affairs of peacekeeping organizations and units;
• Financing the activities of regulators international bodies through financial assistance and special contributions.

Principles of construction and functioning of the public protection complex

Among the building principles collective system protection and its functioning are the following:

• Development of certain approaches, documents, concepts, views on emerging problems of peaceful coexistence;
• Ensuring national (domestic) and global security;
• Military construction, formation of headquarters and training of qualified military personnel;
• Development of regulatory documents in the state that comply with the norms of international law in the field of defense and peace;
• Bilateral or multilateral cooperation of states in commonwealths;
• Joint peaceful use of the constituent elements of the militarized infrastructure, water and air spaces.

Creation of a peaceful space in the CIS

In 1991, Russia, Ukraine and Belarus signed an agreement to form the Commonwealth Independent States. Later, other countries of the post-Soviet space joined this Union (for example, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan). The defining activity of the CIS is the maintenance of peace and the creation of safe living conditions for the population.

Within the framework of the CIS, there are two main regulatory mechanisms.

On the video - about the cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan:

The first mechanism is provided by the Charter. In the event of a threat to the constitutional order or external interference, the participating countries must consult with each other and take measures to peacefully resolve disputes. If necessary, a peacekeeping mission can be carried out using armed units. At the same time, the action of the armed forces must be clearly coordinated between all participants.

The second mechanism was enshrined in the security agreement general security. This documentary act was adopted in 1992. The treaty provides for the refusal of countries to take part in the manifestation of aggression on the part of any state. A feature of the agreement is that if one of the states shows aggressive actions, this will be regarded as a manifestation of aggression against the entire Commonwealth. Any necessary assistance, including military assistance, will be provided to a state that is subjected to aggression. In these documents, the mechanism for managing and regulating the provision of peace is not clearly fixed and may be contained in other international documents. The above Charter and the Agreement have a reference character to other regulatory acts of the CIS.

Principles of international security law.

Sources of international security law.

The main sources of modern international security law include: the UN Charter, as well as the 1970 Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security adopted within the UN, the Declaration on the Prevention and Elimination of Disputes and Situations that May Threaten International Peace and Security, and on Enhancing the Role of the United Nations Nations in this area 1988; General Assembly Resolution 14/21 of November 15, 1989 on strengthening international peace and security and international cooperation in all its aspects in accordance with the UN Charter; UN Fact-Finding Declaration in the Maintenance of International Peace and Security of December 9, 1991.

The basic principles of international security law are enshrined in the 1945 UN Charter and the 1970 Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security:

The principle of refraining in international relations from the threat or use of force as against territorial integrity or political independence any state, or in any other way inconsistent with the purposes of the UN;

The principle of sovereign equality of states;

The principle of non-use of force and threat of force;

The principle of inviolability of state borders;

The principle of territorial integrity of states;

The principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes;

The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states;

The principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations; as well as

The principle of the centralized use of armed forces in accordance with the UN Charter;

The principle of the inescapable responsibility of states for violation of the law of international security.

In a legal sense, the concept of international security implies the creation and functioning of such a system of international legal order, which would be based on the primacy of international law and a unified approach on the part of the world community to the assessment of actions that violate the peace and security of peoples.

The concept of international security includes 2 aspects: international legal norms in this area and the organizational and legal mechanism for maintaining peace by the world community.

The UN Charter is the main source of international security norms, and the United Nations itself is the most important and the only instrument for maintaining international peace and security based on the universally recognized principles and norms of international law and the actions of the General Assembly and the Security Council.

The competence of these bodies in matters of ensuring international peace and security of the UN is clearly demarcated.

General Assembly have the right to discuss any questions or matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security, namely:

Consider general principles cooperation;

The Security Council is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.

The Security Council has the right to take both preventive and enforcement actions on behalf of the UN, including by the joint armed forces.

Preventive actions include: comprehensive sanctions, both economic and political; imposition of an embargo on the supply of weapons and military materials; air embargo; naval and air blockades; interruption of telegraph and postal communications.

Coercive actions include the use of unified UN forces under the direct authority of the Security Council to restore international peace and security.

The UN Charter establishes that joint armed forces may be used in case of threats to the peace, violations of the peace and acts of aggression, in exceptional cases, when other measures may prove or have already proved insufficient.

The combined armed forces cannot be used for purposes contrary to the Charter.

The actions of the Security Council in the field of peacekeeping begin with the qualification of the situation. Under Article 39 of the UN Charter, he must determine whether he is dealing with a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression. These qualifications are the legal basis for its further peacekeeping activities.

Depending on the qualification of the situation, the Security Council, in accordance with Article 40, may resort to temporary measures: the demand for a ceasefire, the withdrawal of troops to previously occupied positions, the withdrawal of troops from the occupied territory, the drawing of a temporary demarcation line. Creation of a demilitarized zone, etc.

If the situation continues to worsen, the Council has the right to take both measures not related to the use of armed forces, and measures with their use.

Measures not related to the use of armed forces are provided for in Article 41 and include: complete or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraph, radio or other means of communication, as well as the severance of diplomatic relations.

The application of measures using armed force is defined by Article 42, under which the Security Council is empowered to take action by air, sea or ground forces if he considers that the measures provided for by Art. 41 may not be sufficient or have already proved to be insufficient. Thus, the Security Council can take action on the use of armed forces both after the implementation of the measures under Art. 41, simultaneously with them, and as a primary measure.

Article 43 of the UN Charter defines the following procedure for the provision by UN members to the Security Council of the necessary armed forces, assistance, facilities:

1. The Security Council decides to put at its disposal armed forces from UN members.

2. Based on this requirement, the Security Council concludes a special agreement or agreements with the UN member states, with their subsequent ratification.

3. In accordance with Article 47, the Security Council must decide all questions related to the creation and use of the armed forces, relying on the assistance and advice of the Military Staff Committee, consisting of the Chiefs of Staff permanent members Council or their representatives.

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

Ensuring 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, it contains the possibility of assistance to Czechoslovakia from the USSR, as well as Czechoslovak assistance Soviet Union, was limited by the indispensable condition for the extension of 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 race naval armaments, stating that "there is no faith pact" and that only a strong fleet 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, the United Nations was created to maintain peace and international security. 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 - ). « final act...” The CSCE included a Declaration of Principles on 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.