Introduction

Principles of law international security

1. Role international law in preventing war

Collective Security

Disarmament and arms limitation

1. Confidence-building measures, narrowing the material base and spatial scope of military conflicts

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

The question of war and peace is the fundamental question of contemporary international relations. The problem of ensuring international security in its broadest sense is the problem of ensuring peace and preventing war. Modern international law, being the law of the world, is called upon to serve this purpose. The desire of states to ensure stable peace on earth depends primarily on foreign policy and on the unconditional implementation of the principles and norms of modern international law. The objective necessity of cooperation between states in matters of ensuring peace determined the process of formation and functioning of a new branch of general international law - the law of international security. It should be borne in mind the changes in the object of legal regulation that have occurred in last years. Today, along with the continuing danger of conflicts between states, the security threat posed by intrastate conflicts generated by interethnic, interethnic, interreligious contradictions and clashes is becoming more and more serious.

Nowadays, the topic of security is very relevant and it is clear why. In the modern era of constant military conflicts, a mechanism for their settlement, and especially prevention, is simply necessary. UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali noted that without peace there can be no development and conflict will begin to brew in society. And without democracy it is impossible to achieve any significant development; in the absence of development, peace cannot be sustained for a long period of time. The Master's work will focus on the law of international security. I will give its concept, talk about the sources, the role of the law of international security, show how it developed and how international security is now maintained.

I.The concept of international security law, sources

International security law is a system of principles and norms governing military-political relations between states and other subjects of international law in order to prevent the application military force in international relations, arms restrictions and reductions.

The main, fundamental realities in the field of international security and interstate relations have already been quite clearly defined, which, in particular, include the following:

1. Ideological and class struggle cannot underlie peaceful interstate relations.
2. Nuclear war cannot be a means to achieve political, economic, ideological or any other goals. Therefore, there are treaties on the prohibition of nuclear weapons and weapons mass destruction.
3. International security is comprehensive. That is, it affects many issues and spheres of public life.
4. International security is indivisible. You cannot build the security of one state at the expense of the security of another. An arms race must not be allowed.
5. The peacekeeping role of the UN in the struggle for security has grown immeasurably

Realities listed above modern world and other factors testify, on the one hand, to the multifaceted and comprehensive nature of international security, and, on the other hand, to the inseparable connection between the security of each individual state and the security of the entire international community as a whole, as well as the connection between security and development. International security law is a system of principles and norms governing military political relations states and other subjects of international law in order to prevent the use of military force. in international relations, arms limitation and reduction.

Like any branch of international law, international security law is based on general principles modern international law, among which the principle of non-use of force or threat of force, the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes, the principles of territorial integrity and inviolability of borders, as well as a number of sectoral principles, such as the principle of equality and equal security, the principle of not causing damage, the security of states, are of particular importance . Taken together, they constitute the legal basis of international security law. (International Security and Disarmament. SIPRI Yearbook 1994, M., 1994, p.15)

As a new branch of modern international law, international security law has one important feature, which is that its principles and norms in the process of regulating international relations are closely intertwined with the principles and norms of all other branches of international law, thus forming a secondary legal structure that serves essentially the entire system of contemporary international law. This feature gives reason to say that the law of international security is a complex branch of modern international law.

The main source regulating the international legal ways and means of ensuring peace is the UN Charter (Ch. I, VI, VII). The maintenance of international peace and security and the adoption of effective collective measures for this are the main goals of the United Nations (Article 1).

UN Resolutions General Assembly containing fundamentally new normative provisions and focused on concretizing the provisions of the Charter, can also be classified as sources of international security law. For example, "On the non-use of force in international relations and the permanent prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons" (1972) or "Definition of aggression" (1974). (International security and disarmament. SIPRI Yearbook 1994, M., 1994, p. 28).

Like any branch of international law, it relies on the general principles of international law, especially on the principle of non-use of force or threat of force, the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes, the principle of territorial integrity and inviolability of borders, as well as a number of industry principles, such as the principle of equality and equal security, the principle no damage, etc.

The law of international security has one feature - this is that its principles in the regulation of international relations are closely intertwined with the principles and norms of all other branches of international law and thus form a secondary structure that essentially serves the entire system of modern international law. This possibility gives grounds to say that the law of international security is a complex branch of modern international law.

The main source regulating the international legal ways and means of ensuring peace is the UN Charter (chapter I, chapter VI, chapter VII). To maintain international peace and security and to this end to take effective collective measures ... are the main goals of the United Nations (art. 1)

The resolutions of the General Assembly adopted within the framework of the UN, containing fundamentally new normative provisions and focused on concretizing the provisions of the Charter, can also be classified as sources of international security law. For example, On the non-use of force in international relations and the permanent prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons (1972) or Definition of aggression (1974) An important place in the complex of sources of international security law is occupied by interrelated multilateral and bilateral treaties. They can be divided into 4 groups:

I. Treaties holding back the race nuclear weapons in spatial relation. These include the Antarctic Treaty (1959), the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1968), the Treaty on Principles for the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon, and others celestial bodies(1967), Treaty on the Prohibition of the Deployment of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Bottom of the Seas and Oceans and in Their Subsoil (1971), Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America(Treaty of Tlatelolco, 1967), South Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Pacific Ocean(Treaty of Rarotonga, 1985) and others. Treaties limiting the buildup of armaments in quantitative and qualitative terms. This is the Atmospheric Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. outer space and under water (1963), the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1996), the Convention on the Prohibition of the Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Means of Influencing natural environment(1977), Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (1993). Treaties prohibiting the production certain types weapons and ordering their destruction. These are the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (1972), the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Use of Chemical Weapons and Their Destruction (1993), the Treaty between the USSR and the United States to eliminate their missiles medium range and shorter range (1987). IV. Treaties designed to prevent the accidental (unauthorized) outbreak of war. These are the Agreement on direct communication lines between the USSR and the USA (1963, 1971) (similar agreements were concluded by the USSR with Great Britain in 1967, France in 1966, Germany in 1986), the Agreement on measures to reduce the danger occurrence nuclear war between the USSR and the USA (1971), Exchange of letters between the USSR and France on the prevention of accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons (1976), Agreement between the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the prevention of the accidental occurrence of nuclear weapons war (1977), Agreement between the USSR and the USA on launch notification intercontinental missiles submarines (1988) and some others.

Among the sources of international security law special attention merit the documents adopted in the framework of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), up to the Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, adopted at the Budapest Summit of the CSCE participating States on 5-6 December 1994 (International Security and disarmament, SIPRI Yearbook 1994, Moscow, 1994, pp. 54-59)

Principles of international security law

international security law military

International security is a world order in which favorable international terms for the free development of states and other subjects of international law.

In the conditions of international security, each state has the best conditions for pursuing a policy aimed at raising the material standard of living of people, the free development of the individual, ensuring the full rights and freedoms of man and citizen.

International security is understood in the broad and narrow sense of the word.

International security in a broad sense includes a complex of political, economic, humanitarian, informational, environmental and other aspects of security.

International security in the narrow sense includes only its military-political aspects.

International security law is a branch of international law, which is a system of principles and norms governing the military-political relations of states in order to ensure peace and international security. Industry regulations aim to provide both international and national security.

The sources of international security law are an international treaty, international custom, binding decisions of international organizations, primarily the United Nations Security Council.

The basis of international security law is the generally recognized principles of modern international law, including: non-use of force or threat of force, territorial integrity of states, inviolability of state borders, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, peaceful resolution of disputes, cooperation between states.

In addition to the generally recognized principles of international law, international security law also has its own sectoral principles.

Specialists in the field of international law refer the following to the branch principles of international security law.

The principle of indivisibility of international security means that in the XXI century. the world, as never before, is indivisible. Planet Earth is a small part of the Universe. The states of our planet are closely interconnected. With modern means of communication and transport, it is possible to reach any corner of the planet in a matter of minutes or hours. Life shows that any crisis in one part of the globe, be it natural disasters, armed conflicts or acts of international terrorism, immediately negatively affects other parts of it. The states set themselves the task of improving the universal system of international security, the foundations of which are laid down by the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

The principle of not prejudicing the security of other states involves the conduct of such a foreign policy by the state, which to the maximum extent takes into account the security of not only its own state, but the entire world community. Undoubtedly, ensuring the national security of the state is one of the priorities of the activities of its supreme bodies, because we are talking about the security of society, ensuring and protecting the rights of man and citizen. At the same time, each state, when developing and implementing its foreign policy, maintaining military-political and military-technical ties with other states, must take into account as much as possible all aspects of ensuring the security of both its allies and the international community as a whole.

In the law of international security, for a long time, the principle of equal and equal security was substantiated, which in its essence develops and concretizes the previous principle - non-damage to the security of other states. This means that the state must ensure its own security, commensurate with the possibilities of ensuring the security of other states. It's about about a sort of security parity.

However, real practice shows that this principle is applicable only in relations between militarily powerful states, for example, permanent members of the UN Security Council. As for states that cannot be classified as large and powerful, this principle was often not applied to them. The events of the last two decades, when the United States used force against Grenada (1983), Nicaragua (1984), Yugoslavia (1999), Iraq (2003), clearly show that not everyone is guided by the principle of equal and the same security.

This principle was formed in an era when two main economic and political systems competed in the international arena - socialist and capitalist. Their personification was the USSR and the USA, which, by the power of their weapons, by the beginning of the 70s of the XX century. many orders of magnitude superior to other states. It was then that these two, as they were called, superpowers in the military sphere reached strategic parity. Neither could allow the other side to get ahead militarily. And this was a boon for the whole world, since the threat of a nuclear cataclysm did not allow the USSR and the USA to resort to weapons to settle disputes between them. This strategic parity allowed the two powers to begin a long-term process of limiting and reducing nuclear weapons and their means of delivery.

After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the United States emerged as a world leader, as it not only retained its former power, but also significantly increased it. Naturally, the United States had a desire to use its enormous economic, financial and military power to arrange the world in an American way. And immediately the existence of the principle of equal and equal security was threatened. This principle was subjected to especially harsh attacks at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, when the United States not only undertook military actions against a number of states, but also withdrew from such an international agreement as the basis for strategic stability as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972.

2. The role of international law in the prevention of war

In our time, international law solves the problems of threats to peace and develops an arsenal of specific means for this. This is a set of legal and other methods aimed at maintaining peace and preventing armed conflicts and applied by states individually or collectively.

These means include peaceful means of resolving disputes, disarmament, measures to prevent nuclear war and surprise attack, collective security, non-alignment and neutrality, measures to suppress acts of aggression, self-defense, neutralization and demilitarization of certain territories, liquidation of foreign military bases, etc. All these means are international legal, tk. they are regulated by treaties and implemented on the basis of the principles and norms of modern international law.

Among such agreements - signed on June 22, 1973. Agreement between the USSR and the USA on the prevention of nuclear war.

The policy objectives of both countries under this Agreement are elimination of the danger of nuclear war and the use of nuclear weapons ..., prevention of situations that could cause a dangerous aggravation of their relations, avoidance of military confrontation ... .

Speaking about the means of ensuring international security, it must be said that the creation of a system collective security on a universal and regional basis, and measures to achieve general disarmament. It is these means that to a greater extent ensure equal and universal security.

Collective Security

Collective security is a system of joint actions by states all over the world or a certain geographical region, undertaken to prevent and eliminate threats to peace and suppress acts of aggression or other violations of the peace.

There is nothing strange about the general interest of all states in collective action to ensure security. After all, any conflict within the country can spill over to the territory of another state, a local conflict - develop into world war. Therefore, there are certain systems for maintaining collective security. There are currently two of them.

The universal system of collective security 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 union of the states of the anti-Hitler coalition and the adoption of the United Nations Declaration of January 1, 1942 can be considered the beginning of this system. THOSE. States, completely different in their views, united on the basis of a common problem.

In the post-war period, a world system collective security in the form of the United Nations. Its main task is save future generations from disaster and war . The system of collective measures provided for by the UN Charter covers: measures to prohibit the threat or use of force (clause 4, article 2), measures for the peaceful settlement of international disputes (Chapter VI), disarmament measures (articles 11, 26, 47), measures for the use regional organizations security (ch. VIII) . temporary measures to stop violations of the peace (art. 40), compulsory security measures without the use of armed forces (art. 41), and with their use (art. 42). The function of maintaining international peace and security is entrusted to the General Assembly and the UN Security Council, their competence is clearly demarcated.

The UN also conducts peacekeeping operations. Their task:

1. Investigation of incidents and negotiation with conflicting parties in order to reconcile them
2. Verification of compliance with the ceasefire agreement
3. Promoting the maintenance of law and order
4. Providing humanitarian assistance
5. Monitoring the situation

In all cases, operations must strictly adhere to the principles:

1. The Security Council makes a decision to conduct an operation, determines its mandate and exercises general leadership with the consent of the parties to the conflict to conduct the operation
2. Voluntary Contribution of Troops by Member States Acceptable to the Parties
3. Funding from the international community
4. Command of the Secretary General with the granting of powers deriving from the mandate given by the SC
5. Impartiality of forces and minimizing the use of military force (for self-defence only)

Regional collective security systems - represented by organizations on individual continents and regions. The UN allows the activities of such organizations provided that ... their activities are consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations . To make sense of such activities, the participation of all the states of the region, regardless of their system, is necessary. The goals of the regional system are the same, there are only some restrictions - the activities of the organization should affect the interests of only regional states, and resolve issues on the territory of their region.

Their competence includes the settlement of disputes among themselves. (Clause 2, Article 52 of the UN Charter). You can name some documents from this area: 1949 - North Atlantic Treaty (NATO), Warsaw Treaty - 1955; CSCE - final act(1975)

If we talk about some continents separately, then we should note the regional organizations:

• on the European continent - NATO since 1949, OSCE - since 1955. From 1955 to 1991. - Warsaw Pact Organization
• on the Eurasian continent - the CIS - since 1992. (CIS Charter 1993, Collective Security Treaty 1992, etc.)

I consider it necessary to dwell separately on Collective Security within the framework of the CIS.

Participating States, in accordance with their obligations, must maintain international peace and security. In the event of a threat to peace, joint consultations are held to eliminate it.

The collective security of the CIS is built on the basis of the norms of the UN Charter and the Collective Security Treaty of May 15, 1992. This treaty is purely defensive in nature and is open to states interested in it and supporting it.

The Council of Heads of State of the CIS is obliged in accordance with the Agreement of March 20, 1992. immediately inform the CSCE and the OSCE of the decision to conduct peacekeeping activities.

Disarmament and arms limitation

The arms control and disarmament process is an effective tool for ensuring security and stability. In conditions when the process of arms control has acquired a global character, the task of effectively preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has become a priority. However, this is a long and gradual process.

I would like to review existing international treaties and agreements regarding disarmament. Nuclear test ban treaties. August 5, 1963 Representatives of the USSR, the USA and Great Britain signed an agreement on the prohibition of nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water. This treaty was universal. Another agreement was signed in June 1996. - Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Article 1 defines main obligations . I will briefly list them:

1. Prohibition of any explosions
2. Non-participation in explosions

To achieve the purpose and object of the Treaty, an Organization under the Treaty is established (Article II). Members are all members. Location - Vienna

Bodies of the Organization: Conference of the States Parties, Executive Council, Technical Secretariat

The Director General is appointed by the Conference on the recommendation of the Executive Council for a period of 4 years.

All personnel of the Organization enjoy privileges and immunities

The treaty provides for international control and on-site inspections, as well as confidence-building measures.

Treaties on the demilitarization of certain territorial spaces. (Prohibition of weapons in certain territories). These include: the Antarctic Treaty of 1956, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, and others. Strategic arms limitation treaties. The most important here are the Soviet-American bilateral treaties: the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Missile Defense Systems of May 26, 1972. and additional protocol to it of July 3, 1974, SALT-1, SALT-2, Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles of December 8, 1987, Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States on the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of January 3, 1993 . and etc.

Convention on the Prohibition of Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons. Geneva Protocol 1925 - this is the prohibition of the use in war of suffocating, poisonous or other similar gases and bacteriological agents. April 10, 1972 The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction was opened for signature. The Convention has a universal character and is open-ended.

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction - opened for signature in January 1993. Each participant undertakes never, under any circumstances, to develop, produce, acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons or transfer them directly or indirectly to anyone. All states have an obligation to destroy the weapons they already possess. The Russian Federation was among the first to sign this Convention, and the Federal Law of November 5, 1997 No. ratified it.

3. Measures to build confidence, narrow the material base and spatial scope of military conflicts

Confidence-building measures as an institution of international security law represent a set of rules governing the military activities of states by establishing information and control measures in order to achieve mutual understanding, prevent a surprise attack or unauthorized conflict, and ensure the disarmament process.

As a legal institution, this institution began to take shape in the 60-70s. the adoption of a number of agreements, the norms of which are intended to eliminate distrust and prevent the occurrence of random critical situations.

Particular attention should be paid to bilateral treaties and agreements in which confidence-building measures occupy the main place (Agreement between the USSR and the USA on notifications of launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles of submarines of 1988, etc.)

Confidence-building measures are also being developed and improved at the regional level.

In the Final Act of the CSCE 1975. a Paper on Confidence-Building Measures and Certain Aspects of Security and Disarmament was included.

To maintain security, participants need to be in constant contact with each other (visits to air bases, exchanges and contacts of scientists, military).

The Institute of Confidence Building Measures has an inextricable link with the Institute of International Control. (i.e. the creation of common control bodies). As a method of control, the inspection provided for by an international agreement is widely used.

Along with this, non-alignment plays a certain role. This, on the one hand, is the foreign policy course of a state that does not participate in any military blocs, and on the other hand, it is a set of norms that determine the specific obligations of states in the field: pursuing an independent political course, supporting the anti-colonial struggle, all kinds of assistance to international peace.

Conclusion

This was always clear, and therefore systems and means of maintaining security began to be developed a long time ago. And they changed all the time. But the realities of modern life have not led to the rejection of those norms, procedures and institutions that underlie international relations. A lot is changing. Therefore, security systems must be adapted to the current situation.

The student believes that only the cooperation of all states and strict observance of the Law can ensure security in general and international security in particular.

Bibliography

1.<#"justify">1.

.International Law, ed. Tunkina G.I. M., 1982

.

.International security and disarmament. SIPRI Yearbook 1994, M., 1994,

.International Law, ed. Ignatenko G.V., Tiunova O.I. M., 1999,

.International public law under. ed. Bekyasheva K.A. M., 1999,

.International law in documents, M., 1982,

.International Law, ed. Ignatenko G.V., Tiunova O.I., M., 1999

.International Law, ed. Tunkina G.I., M., 1982

.International law, edited by Ignatenko G.V. , M., 1995,

.International law under the editorship of Ignatenko G.V., Tiunova O.I. M., 1999,

.International Public Law, ed. Bekyasheva K.A., M., 1999,

.International security and disarmament. SIPRI Yearbook 1994 M., 1994,

.International Law, ed. Ignatenko G.V. M., 1995

.International Public Law, ed. Bekyasheva K.A. M., 1999

Starting to consider the psychology of the dispute, we note that everything stated below will also apply to polemics, discussions, disputes, debates. In other words, we will talk about the psychology of interaction between interlocutors in resolving contradictions in the process of thinking. The mechanism of this interaction is the same, only the intensity of passions and clashes of souls are different. Participants in the discussion (or research) of a problem can move from one state of interaction to another, depending on the intensity of passions and changes in approaches. A constructive approach is manifested in the desire to exchange views, to talk, to find an acceptable solution. A destructive approach often results in acute forms of communication: dispute, polemic. The psychological behavior of partners depends on many factors: knowledge of the principles of the dispute, the motives of the interlocutors, personal characteristics, characters and ethical rules.

Since the interlocutors in an explicit or implicit form may show signs of different approaches, the participants must be guided by the psychological principles of the dispute. The latter determine the norms of interaction between the parties, ethical rules and regulate the activities of the participants in the dispute, regardless of their goals. What are the psychological principles of the dispute? the principle of equal security; the principle of decentral orientation and the principle of adequacy (correspondence) what is perceived, what is said. How are they characterized? The principle of equal security states: do not cause psychological or other harm to any of the participants in the dispute; in a dispute, do not do what you yourself do not rejoice at. The principle applies to many psychological factors of personality, but first of all - to self-esteem. It prohibits insulting, humiliating attacks against the person of the interlocutor, no matter what thoughts and ideas he defends. If someone violates this principle, then there is a substitution of the goal (achievement of the truth), the dispute goes off the rails of the logic of the development of thought, and the confrontation of ambitions begins. Being the object of ridicule, a person often blindly and mercilessly avenges the humiliation. The principle of equal security, if both sides are guided by it, implies a constructive approach to resolving the issue of the dispute. Another principle is principle of decentralization- prescribes: be able to analyze a situation or a problem from the point of view of another person, look at yourself, others based on the interests of the case, and not from personal goals. In short, the credo is: do not harm the cause. The principle involves helping each other and solving the problem with joint efforts, finding an option that suits everyone. If such a direction is achieved in a dispute, then the interlocutors can not only rise above personal interests, but also make a breakthrough through external and internal restrictions, in particular through psychological barriers that prevent them from seeing the truth or a solution that is optimal. Decentric orientation develops in conditions of alternatives , i.e., when considering several points of view. Such thinking is improved in frequent communication with people who are able to defend their views with a constructive approach to solving a problem. However, orientation as a set of relatively independent of the situation, stable motives of activity can also be egocentric. At the same time, a person is guided by the motives of his own well-being, the desire for prestige, victory in an argument, selfish goals. Interlocutors with an egocentric orientation are usually preoccupied most of all with their own problems and are not interested in the problems of others; rush to conclusions and assumptions; trying to impose their opinions on others; deprive other participants in the dispute of a sense of freedom; they are not guided in the situation when they need to speak, and when - to be silent and listen; their behavior is not friendly. The creed of the egocentrist: "The focus is on my point of view, my theory, but not the point of view of the enemy." In a dispute, he divides people into useful people who help him defend his opinion, and harmful people who hinder his success. Such a person is able to “put in place”, scold, pull up, scold, humiliate, insult an opponent. When nothing else succeeds, the egocentrist portrays incomprehension, bitter resentment. The sincerity of his indignation can lead the interlocutor into confusion. A person with an egocentric orientation is more likely than others to a destructive approach in a dispute. The third principle is also important - principle of adequacy what is perceived, what is said. It says: do not cause damage to thought by intentional or unintentional distortion of what was said (heard). In order for this principle to serve the disputants, the most accurate perception of the meaning of what was heard is necessary. We must strive for simplicity and accuracy of statements. If the phrases are incomprehensible, then attention fades, interest in the speech of the interlocutor is lost. And when interest persists, a sense of tact restrains the listener's desire to clarify the meaning of what was said, and one has to complete the understanding according to one's ideas. This always conceals the possibility of reflecting in the mind not quite what the opponent had in mind. As a result, a semantic barrier arises - a discrepancy between what was perceived and what was heard. There may be psychological barriers on the way to an accurate perception of the speaker's speech. They are associated with the characteristics of the individual, her mental states or reactions that prevent understanding or accepting the adequate meaning of the statement, the opponent’s point of view. These may be manifestations of the speaker's excessive confidence, aplomb, ambition, disregard for other opinions, narcissism, envy, enmity, etc. damage to the depth of thoughts. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the inertia of thinking inherent in many of us, outdated ideas and views of past times, turning into dogmas, clichés. New scientific truths are always paradoxical, if judged on the basis of everyday consciousness, but a person is reluctant to throw off the blinkers of habitual, proven experience. Not all of us have systems thinking, that is, we are not able to consider an object as a system included in many connections with other subsystems. For one, the subject of speech seems to be illuminated by many searchlights, while for the other, due to the narrowness of their own knowledge, only a spot is seen on the object of knowledge. Partial, unsystematic knowledge causes doubts where everything is clear to the smallest detail to another. This creates semantic barriers. People trample on such a fence or endlessly fall into one hole or another, visible to one and invisible to another. As a result, a pleasant delusion: “What I saw and heard is everything that can be seen and heard in this statement.” Conviction in the infallibility of one’s own opinion in a dispute leads to a useless skirmish, as a result of which the subject of disagreement remains on the sidelines, and the arguing they defend their positions even more firmly, considering the enemy wrong. To implement the third principle, one should learn to listen to each other. What is the inability to listen to the interlocutor and, as a result, inadequate understanding of him?

• We do not know how to restrain our desire to express a hasty opinion;
• we hasten to refute the enemy, without delving into his reasoning properly;
• we interrupt him, although he did not finish the argument, and then we find ourselves in a stupid position;
• we cling to the unimportant and eventually get tired before we get to the main thing;
• we are distracted by something in the appearance of the speaker, by the shortcomings of his speech and lose sight of the essence of his thoughts;
• without listening to the end, we are preparing to fend off hints of our ignorance;
• we do not take into account the motives of the enemy, prompting him to resist our view of the problem;
• we are confident that our knowledge is sufficient to defend our position;
• believing that the truth is on our side, we tune in advance to disagree with the statements of the enemy.
• All this interferes with mutual understanding and adequate perception of what was said.

Dispute types

Disputes are different. Experts distinguish three types: apodictic, eristic and sophistical. The type of dispute depends on the goal, which, like the law, determines the method and means of achieving it and which he must achieve. thinking and rules of inference) dispute. If the goal of the opponent is to convince, to persuade him to his opinion, then he is eristic (or, as it is also called, dialectical, based on all the laws of dialectics) dispute. If the goal of the opponent is to win by any means, then this dispute is called sophistical (based on misleading verbal tricks). At least two (or two parties) participate in the dispute, and the combination of their behaviors may be different. Here are just a few options.

• The second - too (apodictic dispute).
• The first strives for truth (apodictic dispute).
• The second is to convince (eristic dispute).
• The first strives for truth (apodictic dispute).
• The second - to victory (sophistical dispute).
• The first seeks to convince (eristic dispute).
• The second is to win (sophistical dispute).
• Both seek to convince each other (eristic dispute).
• Both strive to defeat each other (sophistical argument).

In order not to get lost in the description of the options for the interaction of the disputants, we will give a one-sided characterization of the types of dispute. Why one-sided? The palette of any option includes various means inherent in the respective types of dispute, and combinations of constructive and destructive approaches. It is difficult to give a name to a dispute in which one strives for the truth, another tries to persuade rivals to his opinion, and the third tries to defeat them in any way. Everyone has different goals and means to achieve them. What we assume is, as it were, a characteristic of the movements of the pieces on the chessboard. The knight moves in its own way, the queen - in its own way, the bishop - too. In a chess game, there are already precisely calculated games with names and possible outcomes. There are thousands of them. But if we imagine that chess pieces are alive, possessing a psyche (soul), all human passions, then any game would turn out to be unpredictable. If chess pieces have strict limitations, people do not. Thus, in an argument, you must immediately set yourself up in a dispute for the most unforeseen manifestations of the mind and feelings of the interlocutors. A person prepared for an argument should be able to play his part, improvising in the conditions of improvisation of others, not knocking down the idea, but picking it up, merging into the melody of another opponent, feeling the beat of the rhythm and sticking to the general theme. In other words, in a dispute, as in Dixieland, the performers are virtuosos of thinking: the dialectician leads the party to the truth, the orator inclines everyone to unanimity, the sophist sees his goal only in victory, but the theme sounds. However, a good musician may be unable to play in Dixieland, and an intelligent, educated person may feel completely unfit to argue. As you read the descriptions of the three types of dispute below, you will understand why this happens. Apodictic dispute. It involves the exact formulation of the thesis, the presence of the main argument (a reliable statement - a large premise from which the chain of conclusions begins), the absence of contradictions in reasoning, the reliability and sufficiency of arguments. In this case, the conclusions will be built according to the figures of the syllogism - a form of thinking in which the components are a major premise, a minor premise, a logical connective (following) and a conclusion. Analyze the reasoning: an apodictic dispute arises when a problem is discovered. Thinking people are always faced with different approaches to solving problems. It follows from this that an apodictic dispute arises among thinking people. In this reasoning, the first phrase is a larger premise, an undoubted statement. The second phrase is the minor premise. How does our brain work? In the major and minor premises, he looks for a common term for general phrases (in the example, this is the word "problem"). If the extreme members of sentences are equal, the brain equates (links) the remaining semantic parts (“apodictic dispute” and “thinking people”) and forms a new phrase (statement) from them. It is a conclusion and is called a conclusion. If the premises are recognized as true and the rules of inference relating to them are observed, then the conclusion must necessarily be true (reliable). This speech construction scheme, which is called the syllogism figure, contains the process of comprehending the truth in verbal reasoning. If you add a new one following the previous reasoning: “Andreev is considered the thinking and critically thinking head of our institute,” then the brain will deduce the following judgment: “Andreev prefers to lead apodictic controversy. And so the chain of reasoning can be pulled up to the phrase that we justify as a true statement. With formal observance of the laws of thinking and the rules of inference, reason will lead us to the truth through inferences that are called apodictic. The credo of a participant in such a dispute: “Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer “This kind of dispute requires precise (scientific) definitions of concepts, proven scientific statements as big premises, established facts, clearly articulated problems, reliable arguments, and understanding of the essence of the disagreement ( controversial issue). In syllogisms, as K. L. Zelinsky noted, “in the movement of thought along the rails of logic, there is that forced conclusion that captivates every scientist and paralyzes the imagination ... All this is a rail transport of thought that will take you to the truth as the final destination station” ( cited from the book: Pavlov K. G. The Psychology of the Dispute, Vladivostok, 1988, pp. 139, 140. psychological aspect apodictic dispute, when it is conducted by both participants and they have one goal - to find the truth, or at least get closer to it? Opponents manifest themselves psychologically symmetrically, i.e., they carry out mutual verification of the reliability of the thesis (proponent) and antithesis (opponent). At the same time, deeply respecting each other, they give admiring assessments to the judgments of the interlocutor, encourage each other to clarify and correct wordings, interpretations, definitions, show patience, seek to clarify the views of the opponent, look for and notice what the opponent is right about. All their activities are aimed at mutual correction of points of view. They argue like two firefighters at a hand pump - counteracting each other, they get a stream of water. Even clearer is the analogy with people sawing a tree trunk with a two-handed saw. Is it possible to exacerbate the apodictic dispute? Yes, when the disputants put different meanings into the same thesis; they perceive the concepts that they operate in reasoning in different ways, or argue not on the merits of the subject of disagreement. To conduct an apodictic dispute, it is necessary to develop the following qualities in oneself:

• competence (knowledge of general provisions, details of the discussion);
• interest;
• optimism (including a sense of humor);
• sense of responsibility;
• constructiveness of the approach (readiness to defend a position, opinion in the interests of building and continuing a dialogue);
• ideology (depth of judgments, high philosophical level of thinking);
• argumentation of conclusions (strength of facts, ability to use arguments options);
• focus on the problem (highlighting the most significant, a clear statement of the controversial point, a short and clear statement of the theses);
• compromise (willingness to give in, take risks, change one's position);
• sociability (the ability to restore psychological contact);
• intelligence (intellectual tolerance, sincerity in showing joy, restraint in anger).

Taking into account what has been said about the apodictic dispute, the statement that "truth is born in a dispute" may indeed be close to such a result. Eristic controversy. As already mentioned, an eristic dispute is conducted when it is necessary to convince a partner of something, to win him over to his side, to make him a like-minded person. Bringing the new to life and abandoning the old begins with this argument. Anyone who cannot calmly look at shortcomings, at how interesting undertakings are hampered by obsolete dogmas, involuntarily gets involved in an eristic dispute. This type of dispute is led by its initiator and a partner who resists it. In groups, these are supporters of the position and opposition. Therefore, such a dispute is also called parliamentary. Its theoretical basis is the concepts: reasoning, argumentation, persuasiveness. Reasoning - a chain of inferences (not necessarily apodictic), set out in a logical sequence. Argumentation - the logical coercion of the conclusion of the thesis (reasoning may seem conclusive). Persuasiveness is a psychological concept based on belief in the veracity of what is stated, associated with certain emotions of the listener. Argumentation ensures the concurrence of opinions. Persuasiveness - coincidence of feelings. In a dispute between non-specialists, it is passions and emotions that often prevail. Without worrying, without affecting nervous system people, you can not even just agitate. Even gather a crowd and direct it to put out the fire. Moreover, it is impossible to “incline” without this! Argumentation is understood as the validity of statements, the support of the thesis by sources, facts, observations, etc. It is worth giving the arguments a psychological coloring, as their persuasiveness immediately increases and they begin to hit the target. The arguments of the debaters can be evaluated thus: a) reasoned, but not convincing, b) convincing, but not quite reasoned, c) reasoned and convincing. Perfectly reasoned reasoning is called evidentiary. Its features are: certainty of concepts; consistency of judgments; versatility of views on the subject; sufficiency of grounds for the statement of the thesis. Then the dispute becomes apodictic. not affecting emotional condition person. Naked abstractions will not touch the soul of a partner, and he simply will not agree with us. A rational impact (on the mind and reason) must be supported by an irrational one (on feelings), then the reasoning will look reasoned and convincing. Analyze two examples and compare the impact of two arguments about the same thought made by famous Russian historians, professors S. F. Platonov and V. O. Klyuchevsky.

S. F. Platonov: “...Anna surrounded herself with her German friends from Courland. The first place among them was occupied by her Courland chamberlain von Biron, and then by the Levenveld brothers. They put at the head of the administration those Germans whom they had already found in Russia ... The burden of Biron's power seemed terrible to the Russian people.

V. O. Klyuchevsky: “Not trusting the Russians, Anna placed a bunch of foreigners brought in from Mitava and from different German corners to guard her security. The Germans poured into Russia, like rubbish from a leaky bag, stuck around the courtyard, settled on the throne, climbed into all the profitable places in government.

Surprisingly, it is a fact: very often, non-deductive reasoning has more persuasive power, especially for those who are used to relying on the opinion of the majority, authorities, leaders, respected persons, or their own experience. without syllogisms, but plausible conclusions include analogy, hypothesis, induction. Analogy, as already noted, allows the speaker to persuade the audience to his opinion, using the similarity of properties, signs, actions of a new subject of speech and a well-known interlocutor. Hypothesis - an assumption submitted at a rapid pace, "flavored" with emotions, appeals to fashion, faith, ignorance, prestige, traditions. For induction, it is enough to submit a few facts with a growing emotional impact - and the partner himself will draw the conclusion to which the initiator inclined him. Induction suggests. In order to present the psychological characteristics of an eristic dispute, let us compare the motives of a person who inclines the audience to his opinion, and the motives of an interlocutor who resists this influence. Why argue the initiator?

• To achieve your goal;
• warn against ill-conceived decisions;
• cause readiness to participate in the work;
• bend to one's side;
• get consent;
• make a partner a like-minded person;
• find the truth or optimal solution

What is the reason for his resistance?

• The desire not to fall under the influence of another person;
• awareness of the fundamental incompatibility of one's own and someone else's points of view;
• misunderstood statement of the initiator;
• prejudice to his personality;
• attitude to the dispute as a sport (“who wins?”)

As you can see, the range of motives for the eristic dispute is very wide. All this makes the debaters experience a great burden in communication. Plus, personal characteristics affect everything, which predetermine the approach of the interlocutor in the dispute: constructive (creative) and destructive (destructive). Both can show a defensive reaction. Suppose the initiator puts forward a proposal and argues it, but the partner, under the influence of his own motives, personal adversity, failures at work, or because of fear of being drawn into a situation that does not promise him benefits and a quiet life (or the results of consent are unpredictable), defends himself by putting forward an alternative The resulting clash of alternatives also gives rise to a defensive reaction, which can be a counterargument (counter - against) or an obstruction (barrier, obstacle) for the interlocutor. In this case, each disputant has an increased sensitivity to the slightest attempts of rivals to influence each other. Doubting the sincerity and benevolence of the first position of the initiator, the partner objects, either by putting an alternative, or erecting a psychological defense; shows alertness, doubts; bombards the interlocutor with questions, comments; strictly controls his statements; clings to inaccuracies. If the protagonist in such a situation is still trying to continue the conversation and “takes the opponent by the breasts”, then the opponent may generally withdraw from the dispute: they say, leave me alone. In the worst case, he starts a counterattack with obstruction, murderous criticism, discrediting and exposing the attacker, using any arguments. Two or three words - and a skirmish begins. The dispute ends with a direct or indirectly expressed disagreement of the parties. Direct disagreement is expressed by phrases like: “I disagree with you”, “It is impossible to agree with you”, “I remain of my opinion” - etc. Indirect signs of disagreement are that the interlocutor loses interest in our reasoning; casually and not to the point answers questions; tries to move away, starts to rush somewhere; looks at his watch, showing that he is wasting time; yawns and with all his appearance shows that there is no point in counting on his approval and support. What can you advise the initiator for success?

• Try to guess the motive (driving force) of the partner, start with his hope, and not with your own.
• Find out everything about the interlocutor, his interests, personal characteristics, hobbies.
• Formulate your point of view accurately and consistently so that your partner understands it unambiguously, regardless of the nature of the disagreement.
• Clarify the other person's point of view. Without this, it is impossible to find out where opinions differ, whether there is an opportunity for their rapprochement.
• Don't hurt your opponent's pride, respect your personality, acknowledge your opponent's successes, don't destroy his hopes, don't celebrate victory.

What mistakes are often made in an eristic dispute?

1. The first mistake: overestimation of the interlocutor's awareness. When the principle of decentral orientation is violated, the following happens: what is known and understood by the initiator is considered known and understood by the partner. Consequence - the argumentation of the arguments is not provided.
2. The second mistake: our opinion should evoke in another the same emotions that arose in us. This is a common misconception. Emotions and feelings are connected and depend primarily on motives that are not easy to identify and understand.
3. The third mistake is from neglecting the principle of adequacy, when the assessment of one's own capabilities and abilities is overestimated and the opponent is underestimated.
4. The fourth mistake: a non-existent motive of his behavior is attributed to the interlocutor, and the initiator wastes time and effort in the wrong direction.
5. Fifth mistake: excessive appeal to the mind of a partner to the detriment of the credibility of the emotional impact. Cicero concluded: “The speaker must possess two main virtues: firstly, the ability to convince with accurate arguments, and secondly, to excite the souls of listeners with an impressive and effective speech” (Cicero M.T. Three treatises on oratory. M., 1972, p. 172).

But following good advice and knowing the mistakes does not guarantee a positive outcome of the dispute. In communication that is not devoid of emotional intensity, as already mentioned, psychological barriers arise associated with personality traits, psychological states, situational relationships that prevent mutual understanding or the perception of an adequate meaning of the statement. Psychological barriers are divided into semantic and communication barriers (communicative). Semantic ones arise due to violation of the laws of logic. Communicative - due to a misunderstanding of the nature and psychology of people's communication, the essence of the processes of their perception and interaction, and, finally, because of the rejection of reality. To eliminate the barriers of the first type, it is necessary to study logic. Regarding barriers of the second type, there are a lot of rules, tips, recommendations. There is no need to graduate from the Faculty of Psychology. Having mastered the rules developed by mankind, we will be able to protect ourselves from obstacles and situations of destructive development of the dispute. Below are some of these recommendations.

Prevention and liquidation of emergency situations, as well as ensuring security in emergency situations at the international level, is an integral element of the international security system.

The system of international security must be based on international norms and principles, subject to their observance by all subjects international cooperation. However, international security is currently under threat, so the situation in the world can be assessed as unstable. International conflicts adversely affect global security, and cause or may cause emergencies, which, at times, reach catastrophic proportions.

The UN report notes that in 2014 the total number of displaced persons in Syria will reach 6.5 million (at the end of 2013 their number is estimated at 4.25 million). According to the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia, as of July 2014, the number of refugees from Ukraine to the territory of Russia amounted to more than 21 thousand people.

In the conditions of international security, each state has the best conditions for raising the material standard of living of people, free development of the individual, ensuring the rights and freedoms of man and citizen.

International norms governing the provision of international security form a relevant industry - international security law, which is a branch of international law, including a set of principles and norms governing the relations of states to ensure international security.

The basis of the law of international security are generally recognized international principles, including: non-use of force or threat of force, territorial integrity of states, inviolability of state borders, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, peaceful resolution of disputes, cooperation between states. See, for example, the UN Charter, Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the 1970 UN Charter.

There are also special principles:

The principle of indivisibility of international security. Indeed, the modern development of society, infrastructure, and the economy implies a close interconnection of all states in the world. Experience shows that any emergency situation in one part of the world can have negative consequences in another part of it. Armed conflicts, accidents and catastrophes cause crises not only in the countries where they occur. The interests of other states, sometimes tens and even hundreds of countries, are often affected. Therefore, all states should set themselves the task of improving and developing the system of ensuring international security, and not just the security of their region.

The principle of unimpaired safety other states implies the conduct by each state of such a foreign policy that takes into account the security of not only its own state, but also the entire world community to the maximum extent.

The principle of equal and equal security means that the state must ensure its own security, commensurate with the possibilities of ensuring the security of other states.

There are two types of international security: universal and regional. Both types of international security are collective security, that is, they can only be ensured by the collective efforts of all or most states of the world or region.

Universal Security created in general for our planet. It is based on a system of international agreements (treaties) aimed at ensuring international security for all states.

The universal system for ensuring international security has been formed within the framework of the United Nations (UN). Its main body for ensuring international security is the UN Security Council (UN Security Council). In accordance with the UN Charter, the UN Security Council has the right to determine whether there is a threat of aggression in the world, whether it is actually carried out, what measures must be taken in order to maintain peace and ensure international security in full.

The UN Security Council is a permanent body and has the right to apply a set of measures to the aggressor, including the use of armed force, in order not only to stop aggression, but also to create conditions for preventing it in the future. However, these measures can be applied only with the unity of all states - permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Regional international security- this is security in a separate region. For example, the system of collective security in Europe is based on the mechanism of functioning of a number of systems, including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Collective European security within the OSCE began to take shape in 1975, when 33 European states, as well as the United States and Canada, signed the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) at the highest level. The OSCE currently includes 57 states from Europe, Central Asia and North America. Russia is a member of the OSCE.and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)http://www.nato.int.

Within the framework of the OSCE, high-level meetings and meetings at the level of foreign ministers were held. Their result was the adoption of a large number of documents, including in the field of ensuring collective security. For example, in 1999 OSCE member states adopted the Charter for European Security. It reflects the concept of security of the world community, focused on the 21st century. It is based on two principles: collectivity, in which the security of each participating state is inextricably linked with the security of all others, and the principle of the UN Security Council's primary responsibility for maintaining international peace.

The OSCE has been identified as one of the main organizations for the peaceful settlement of disputes in its region and one of the main instruments in the field of early warning and conflict prevention.

OSCE in 2014 actively participates in the settlement of the crisis in Ukraine.

Collective European security is also ensured within the framework of NATO, which has a powerful military force. These forces can be called into action in the event of a threat to the security of NATO member states. NATO currently has 28 member states. However, NATO is trying to expand its borders. or, as practice shows, the emergence of unstable regions in Europe.

Russia does not welcome NATO expansion. However, Russia cooperates with NATO on the most important security issues. To this end, in May 2002, a corresponding agreement was signed between Russia and NATO, after which the first meeting of the new Russia-NATO interaction and cooperation body was held in Rome. Since the creation of the Russia-NATO Council, these actors of international relations have worked together on various issues, from the fight against drug trafficking and the fight against terrorism, to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning. At present, relations between Russia and NATO have become tense. On April 1, 2014, NATO Foreign Ministers condemned Russia's illegal military intervention in Ukraine and Russia's violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ministers stressed that NATO does not recognize Russia's illegal and illegal attempt to annex Crimea

essential to ensure European security is Treaty on the Limitation of Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) of 1990. This Treaty should operate in an adapted form, as agreed by its participants by signing in November 1999 in Istanbul the relevant Agreement on Adaptation of the CFE Treaty. In accordance with the provisions of the adapted CFE Treaty, the states located in Central Europe should not exceed the corresponding armament parameters stipulated by the Treaty.

One example of creating the foundations of regional collective security is the signing on April 25, 2002 Document on Confidence and Security Building Measures in the Black Sea. In conjunction with the Agreement on the Establishment of the Black Sea Naval Operational Cooperation Group Blackseafor The main tasks of Blackseafor are to conduct joint search and rescue exercises, mine action, humanitarian operations, environmental protection operations, and conduct goodwill visits., Document on confidence-building measures forms an integral mechanism of naval cooperation in the region. In particular, it provides for the exchange of various information, including annual plans for naval activities and advance notices of ongoing activities. A number of sections of the Document are devoted to the development of naval cooperation between the Black Sea states. The participants of the Document were six Black Sea states: Russia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Turkey and Ukraine.

Another example of the formation of a regional system of collective security is within the Shanghai Organization cooperation (SCO). Six states are members of the SCO: Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. vigorous activity in the field of security in the region where the participating States are located.

International security at the regional level is also ensured within the framework of the CIS. Currently, eleven states are members of the CIS: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine. is an organization of general competence. The organization of special competence to ensure collective security is Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Currently, six states are members of the CSTO: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan. .The purpose of the CSTO is to ensure security in the region where the participating states are located. See, for example, the 1992 Collective Security Treaty, the CSTO Charter of October 7, 2002.

In accordance with the Declaration of the CSTO member states, adopted at the June 2006 session of the Council of the Collective CSTO security, it is noted that one of the main directions for the development of integration processes within the framework of the CSTO is the activity in the field of prevention and elimination of the consequences of emergency situations.

In 2007, in order to coordinate the interaction of ministries and departments of the CSTO member states in the field of prevention and liquidation of the consequences of emergency situations, the Organization established the Coordinating Council for Emergency Situations of the Member States of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (KSChS), which included the heads of authorized bodies for emergency situations. A member of the Coordination Council for Emergency Situations of the Collective Security Treaty Organization from Russia is the Minister Russian Federation on business civil defense, emergencies and disaster relief.

The KSChS is responsible for solving problems on:

Organization of interaction between authorized bodies in order to prevent and eliminate the consequences of emergency situations;

Development of proposals for the implementation of joint organizational and practical measures aimed at preventing emergency situations and increasing the effectiveness of measures to eliminate their consequences;

Development of the international legal framework for cooperation in the field of prevention and elimination of the consequences of emergency situations;

Preparation of proposals for improving and harmonizing the national legislations of the CSTO member states;

Coordinating the preparation and conduct of joint activities to prevent and eliminate the consequences of emergency situations;

Preparation of proposals for the development of draft interstate programs and plans for the prevention and elimination of consequences of emergency situations;

Organizations for the exchange of experience and information, assistance in the training and advanced training of personnel;

Participation in the methodological and informational and analytical support of the authorized bodies of the Member States of the Organization in the field of prevention and elimination of the consequences of emergency situations.

On the basis of the Decision of the Collective Security Council, which adopted amendments to the Regulations on the KSChS CSTO, the Chairman of the Coordinating Council is appointed starting from 2010 for a period of three years. Since December 2010, the Republic of Belarus has chaired the Coordinating Council. In 2013, the chairmanship passed to Kazakhstan for three years. Vladimir Bozhko, Minister for Emergency Situations of the Republic of Kazakhstan, headed the KSChS CSTO.

Of great importance in ensuring international, regional and national security are bilateral agreements between states, for example, between Russia and France. In order to deepen interaction between the two states on international security issues and in the field of bilateral relations, in accordance with the decision of the presidents of the two countries, the Russian-French Council for Security Cooperation was established. The main topics on the agenda of the Council are the problems of global and regional security, the fight against terrorism, countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Within the framework of the Council, joint working groups have been formed on the nonproliferation of WMD and on combating new threats and challenges.

Thus, international security occupies the most important place in the system of international relations, since the development and fruitful cooperation of states in all spheres of relations, including in the field of prevention and elimination of emergency situations, is possible on the principles of international security.

International security in the field of prevention and liquidation of emergency situations- the state of protection of states, their citizens, material and cultural values ​​from the threats of emergency situations that have arisen and may arise.

International security in emergency situations involves:

Ensuring the security of states and their citizens in emergency situations;

Emergency warning;

Elimination of emergency situations;

Protection of people and material objects from emergency situations;

Restoration of territories;

Normative legal regulation of this area;

Creation of forces and means of prevention and liquidation of emergency situations.

Ensuring international security in the field of prevention and liquidation of emergency situations is possible only with the cooperation of states and (or) international organizations.

Such international cooperation is carried out on international norms and principles. Among these principles are the following, which, in particular, regulate relations to ensure safety in emergency situations:

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 (inviolability) of states;

The principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes;

The principle of non-interference in internal affairs;

The principle of indivisibility of international security;

The principle of non-damage to the security of other states;

The principle of equal and equal security, as well as:

The environment is the common concern of mankind;

Freedom to explore and use the environment;

Rational use environment;

Interdependence of environmental protection and human rights. People have the right to live in good health and to work productively in harmony with nature;

Prevention of environmental pollution;

State responsibility;

The one who pollutes pays;

The principle of access to information relating to the environment, etc.

Prevention and liquidation of emergency situations can be carried out both within the framework of one state, and within a certain region or the whole world.

The main way to ensure international security in the field of prevention and liquidation of emergency situations is international cooperation in this area, which is determined by the peculiarity of the main participants in international relations - states. States have sovereignty, which determines the nature of their relationship - mutual cooperation.

Indeed, international cooperation is an essential element of ensuring security for Russia as well. The National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation notes that the development of the world follows the path of globalization of all spheres international life, which is characterized by high dynamism and interdependence of events. Contradictions escalated between the states. The vulnerability of all members of the international community in the face of new challenges and threats has increased. As a result of the strengthening of new centers of economic growth and political influence, a qualitatively new geopolitical situation is emerging. The failure of the existing global and regional architecture, oriented, especially in the Euro-Atlantic region, only to NATO, as well as the imperfection of legal instruments and mechanisms, increasingly pose a threat to international security, including in emergency situations. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 12, 2009 No. 537 “On the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020” // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation of May 18, 2009 No. 20, Art. 2444

The attention of international politics in the long term will be focused on the possession of sources of energy resources, including in the Middle East, on the shelf of the Barents Sea and other areas of the Arctic, in the Caspian Sea basin and in Central Asia. Negative impact the international situation in the medium term will continue to be influenced by the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, conflicts in the Middle East, in a number of countries in South Asia and Africa, and on the Korean Peninsula.

It is noted that in the long term, the Russian Federation will strive to build international relations on the basis of international principles, ensuring reliable and equal security of states. To protect its national interests, Russia, remaining within the framework of international norms, will pursue a rational and pragmatic foreign policy. Russia views the UN and the UN Security Council as a central element of a stable system of international relations based on respect, equality and mutually beneficial cooperation between states based on civilized political instruments for resolving global and regional crises. Russia will increase interaction in such multilateral formats as the G20, RIC (Russia, India and China), BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China), as well as use the opportunities of other informal international institutions.

The development of relations of bilateral and multilateral cooperation with the CIS member states is a priority direction of Russia's foreign policy. Russia will strive to develop the potential for regional and sub-regional integration and coordination in the space of the CIS member states within the framework of, first of all, the Commonwealth of Independent States itself, as well as the CSTO and the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC), which have a stabilizing effect on the general situation in the regions bordering the states - members of the CIS. See ibid. P.13

The Russian Federation stands for the comprehensive strengthening of the mechanisms of interaction With European Union, including the consistent formation of common spaces in the spheres of the economy, external and internal security, education, science, and culture. Long term national interest Russia is responsible for the formation of an open system of collective security in the Euro-Atlantic region on a certain contractual and legal basis.

In order to maintain strategic stability and equal strategic partnership, the Russian Federation will participate in the activities carried out under the auspices of the UN and other international organizations to eliminate natural and man-made disasters and emergencies, as well as in the provision of humanitarian assistance to affected countries.

Thus, the National Security Strategy of Russia describes the international economic, political, social and other situation that is currently or may be a threat of large-scale emergencies requiring the participation of the entire world community.

The Strategy of the State Ethnic Policy determines that the development of national, interethnic relations such a negative factor of a global or transboundary nature as the unifying influence of globalization on local cultures, the unresolved problems of refugees and internally displaced persons, illegal migration, the expansion of international terrorism and religious extremism, and international organized crime. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 19, 2012 No. 1666 "On the Strategy of the State National Policy of the Russian Federation for the period until 2025"

The tasks in the field of international cooperation in the implementation of the state national policy of the Russian Federation are:

Promoting the formation of a positive image of the Russian Federation abroad as a democratic state that guarantees the satisfaction of the ethno-cultural needs of citizens on the basis of centuries-old Russian traditions of harmonizing interethnic relations;

Carrying out monitoring of international events and activities of international organizations that can affect the state of interethnic relations in the Russian Federation;

Ensuring the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of Russian citizens and compatriots living abroad, based on the generally recognized principles and norms of international law, international treaties Russian Federation;

Using the mechanisms of cross-border cooperation for the purposes of ethno-cultural development, socio-economic cooperation, creating conditions for free communication between families of divided peoples;

Creation, within the framework of interstate contacts and agreements, of conditions for Russian citizens and compatriots living abroad to guarantee their humanitarian contacts and freedom of movement;

Using the resource of public diplomacy through the involvement of civil society institutions in solving the problems of international cultural and humanitarian cooperation as a means of establishing an intercivilizational dialogue, ensuring mutual understanding between peoples;

Strengthening international cooperation in the field of regulation of migration processes, ensuring the rights of labor migrants;

Establishment partnerships within the UN, UNESCO, OSCE, Council of Europe, SCO, CIS and other international organizations. See ibid. P.21

These tasks should be implemented in any area of ​​international cooperation, including in the field of prevention and liquidation of emergency situations.

main organ state power in the field of international cooperation in Russia - Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) of the Russian Federation.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation is the main body in the system of federal executive bodies in the field of relations with foreign states and international organizations and coordinates:

Activities of federal executive authorities, including the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia, in the field of international relations and international cooperation;

International relations subjects of the Russian Federation;

International activities organizations authorized in accordance with the Federal Law Federal Law of the Russian Federation of July 15, 1995 No. 101-FZ “On International Treaties of the Russian Federation” to submit proposals to the President of the Russian Federation or to the Government of the Russian Federation on the conclusion, implementation and termination of international treaties of Russia. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 8, 2011 No. 1478 “On the coordinating role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation in pursuing a unified foreign policy line of the Russian Federation” // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation of November 14, 2011 No. 46, Art. 6477

Ambassadors Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation in foreign states must ensure the implementation of a unified foreign policy line of the Russian Federation in the host states and, for this purpose, coordinate the activities and control over the work of other representative offices of the Russian Federation located in the host states, representative offices of federal executive bodies, Russian state institutions, organizations, corporations and enterprises, their delegations and groups of specialists, as well as representative offices of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

On the territory of the Russian Federation, the main body responsible for the prevention and liquidation of emergency situations is the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia.

Russian

English

Arabic German English Spanish French Hebrew Italian Japanese Dutch Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Turkish

These examples may contain rude words based on your search.

These examples may contain colloquial words based on your search.

Translation of "principle of equal security" in English

See examples translated by principle of equal security
(9 examples with alignment)

"> principle of equal security

Other translations

With the establishment of a new world order, its negative consequences also appeared, including the concept of military intervention, which ignores not only the interests of individual states in the field of security, but also principle of equal security for all, as confirmed by the special sessions of the General Assembly on disarmament.

The new world order has negative effects, including the concept of military intervention that does not take into account the security interests of individual States and the principle of equal security for all, as reaffirmed at the special sessions of the General Assembly on disarmament.

Principle of equal security for all, as reaffirmed at the special sessions of the General Assembly on disarmament.">

In our struggle for security, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, the most important principle must remain principle of equal security for all states, enshrined in the Charter and approved during the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament.

The principle of equal security for all States, established by the Charter and upheld at the General Assembly"s first special session on disarmament, should remain paramount in our quest for security, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

Principle of equal security for all States, established by the Charter and upheld at the General Assembly"s first special session on disarmament, should remain paramount in our quest for security, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.">

The Declaration adopted at the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament proclaimed principle of equal security for all states - both in the field of weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons, both at the regional and international levels.

The Declaration adopted at the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament adopted the principle of equal security for all States, both in the non-conventional and conventional fields and at both the regional and the international levels.

Principle of equal security for all States, both in the non-conventional and conventional fields and at both the regional and the international levels.">

Conventional arms control measures should be based on principle of equal security for all.

The principle of equal security for all must be the basis on which conventional arms control measures are taken.">

The proposals submitted to the Conference on Disarmament in 2007 and 2008 deny principle of equal security for all, serve the interests of several states and undermine the agreed basis for negotiating a verifiable fissile material cut-off treaty.

The proposals presented in the Conference on Disarmament in 2007 and 2008 negated for all, served the interests of a few States and undermined the agreed basis of negotiations on a verifiable fissile material treaty.

The principle of equal security for all, served the interests of a few States and undermined the agreed basis of negotiations on a verifiable fissile material treaty.">

The Conference recognizes principle of equal security and without prejudice to the security of all States and the overriding importance of the national security interests and security imperatives of all Member States.

The Conference recognizes the principle of equal and undiminished security for all states and the overriding importance of national security interests and security compulsions of all Member States.

The principle of equal and undiminished security for all states and the overriding importance of national security interests and security compulsions of all Member States.">

Thus, for example, in many negotiations on disarmament issues it is essential importance It has principle of equal security and unimpaired security at the lowest level of armaments.

Thus, for example, in many disarmament negotiations the principle of equal and undiminished security at the lowest level of armaments is essential.

The principle of equal and undiminished security at the lowest level of armaments is essential.">

In arms reduction negotiations, the great powers must take into account principle of equal security for everyone, regardless of size, military power, socio-political system or political and economic significance of the state.

In negotiations on the reduction of armaments, the great Powers should take into account the principle of equal security for all, irrespective of size, military strength, socio-political systems or political and economic importance.

The principle of equal security for all, irrespective of size, military strength, socio-political systems or political and economic importance.">

To achieve progress towards global and regional peace and security, it is essential to respect principle of equal security and without prejudice to the security of all States.

To further the cause of global and regional peace and security, it will be essential to uphold the principle of equal and undiminished security for all States.

The principle of equal and undiminished security for all States.">

Fourth, the growing tendency to secure the security of some States at the expense of others by taking action by a select group of States outside of recognized multilateral negotiating forums undermines principle of equal security and without prejudice to the security of all states.

Fourthly, the growing trend of promoting the security of some States at the cost of others through measures adopted by a select group of States outside recognized multilateral negotiating forums undermines

The fundamental principles of international security are the principle of equal security and the principle of non-damage to the security of states.

These principles are reflected in the Charter of the PLO, Resolution of the General Assembly of the PLO 2734 (XXV), Declaration on the strengthening of international security of December 16, 1970, Declaration on strengthening the effectiveness of the principle of renunciation of the threat or use of force in international relations (November 18, 1987 .), Resolutions of the UN General Assembly 50/6, Declaration on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations of October 24, 1995, Declaration on the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter of October 24, 1970. , and other international legal documents.

Thus, in accordance with the UN Charter, all members of the UN shall resolve their international disputes by peaceful means in such a way as not to endanger international peace and security and justice, refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force as against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

The principles of international security are also reflected in the Declaration on Strengthening the Efficiency of the Principle of Renunciation of the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations (November 18, 1987). In accordance with the Declaration, every state is obliged to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, as well as from any other action inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such threat or use of force is a violation of international law and the UN Charter and entails international responsibility. The principle of renunciation of the threat or use of force in international relations is universal in nature and binding, regardless of the political, economic, social or cultural system or allied relations of each state. No considerations can be used to justify the threat of force or its use in violation of the Charter.

States have an obligation not to induce, encourage or assist other states to use force or the threat of force in violation of the Charter.

By virtue of the principle of equality and self-determination embodied in the Charter, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without outside interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State is bound to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. States must comply with their obligations under international law to refrain from organizing, inciting, aiding or participating in paramilitary, terrorist or subversive activities, including those of mercenaries, in other States and from condoning organized activities aimed at the commission of such activities, within the limits its territory.

States have an obligation to refrain from armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats directed against the legal personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural foundations.

No state shall use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other measures with a view to subordinating another state to itself in the exercise of its sovereign rights and obtaining any advantages from this. In accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN, states are obliged to refrain from propaganda of aggressive wars.

Neither the acquisition of territory resulting from the threat or use of force, nor any occupation of territory resulting from the threat or use of force in contravention of international law, shall be recognized as a legitimate acquisition or occupation.

All member states of the world community are called upon to make efforts to build their international relations on the basis of mutual understanding, trust, respect and cooperation. In the parameters of the foregoing, the goal is to develop bilateral and regional cooperation as one of the important means of strengthening the effectiveness of the principle of renunciation of the threat or use of force in international relations.

Within the established criteria of due conduct, States are guided by their adherence to the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes, which is inextricably linked to the principle of renunciation of the threat or use of force in international relations. States that are parties to international disputes must resolve their disputes exclusively by peaceful means in a manner that does not endanger international peace, security and justice. To this end, they use such means as negotiation, investigation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, litigation, recourse to regional bodies or agreements, or other peaceful means of their choice, including good offices.

In furtherance of their obligations under the UN Charter, States shall take effective measures to avert the threat of any armed conflict, including conflicts in which nuclear weapon, prevent an arms race in outer space and stop and reverse the arms race on Earth, reduce the level of military confrontation and strengthen global stability.

Building on their stated commitment to strengthening the rule of law and order, States are cooperating at the bilateral, regional and international levels to:

• - prevention of international terrorism and fight against it;
• - Actively contributing to the elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism.

In order to ensure a high level of trust and mutual understanding, states seek to take concrete measures and create favorable conditions in the field of international economic relations in order to achieve international peace, security and justice. At the same time, the interest of all countries in reducing the gap in the levels economic development and in particular the interests of developing countries around the world.

The principles of international security were also enshrined in the Declaration on the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation between states in accordance with the UN Charter. Thus, in accordance with the Declaration, each state in its international relations is obliged to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other way inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. Such threat or use of force is a violation of international law and the UN Charter and should never be used as a means of settling international issues.

Aggressive war is a crime against peace, which entails responsibility under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN, states are obliged to refrain from propaganda of aggressive wars. Every state has an obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international frontiers of another state or as a means of settling international disputes, including territorial disputes and matters relating to state frontiers. Likewise, every state has an obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or consistent with an international agreement to which that state is a party or to which that state is otherwise bound to comply. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicial to the positions of the parties concerned with respect to the status and consequences of the establishment of such lines under their special regimes, or as violating their temporary nature.

States have an obligation to refrain from acts of reprisal involving the use of force. Each state is obliged to refrain from any violent actions that deprive the peoples, which are referred to in the specification of the principles of equality and self-determination, of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. Each state has an obligation to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands, including mercenaries, to invade the territory of another state.

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, inciting, assisting or participating in acts civil war or terrorist acts in another state or from condoning organizational activities within its own territory aimed at the commission of such acts, in the event that the acts involve the threat or use of force.

The territory of a State must not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in violation of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a state must not be the object of acquisition by another state as a result of the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force should be recognized as legal. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as violating:

• a) the provisions of the Charter or any international agreement concluded prior to the adoption of the Charter and having legal force in accordance with international law; or
• b) the powers of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter.

All States should negotiate in good faith with a view to the speedy conclusion of a universal treaty on universal and complete disarmament under effective international control and strive to take appropriate measures to ease international tension and strengthen confidence between states.

All States must, on the basis of the universally recognized principles and norms of international law, fulfill in good faith their obligations in relation to the maintenance of international peace and security and strive to improve the efficiency based on the Charter of the United Nations security system.

Nothing within the parameters of the foregoing shall be construed as extending or limiting in any way the scope of the provisions of the Charter relating to cases in which the use of force is lawful.

States shall resolve their international disputes by peaceful means in such a way as not to endanger international peace and security and justice. Each State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner as not to endanger international peace and security and justice.

States should therefore strive for the speedy and just settlement of their international disputes through negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial trial, recourse to regional bodies or agreements, or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement, the parties must agree on such peaceful means as are appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to the dispute are obliged, in case they fail to reach a settlement of the dispute by one of the aforementioned peaceful means, to continue to seek the settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed between them.

States that are parties to an international dispute, as well as other States, must refrain from any action that may worsen the situation so as to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, and must act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the PLO.

International disputes are resolved on the basis of the sovereign equality of states and in accordance with the principle of the free choice of means for the peaceful settlement of disputes. The application of, or acceptance of, a dispute settlement procedure freely agreed between States in relation to existing or future disputes to which they are parties shall not be considered inconsistent with the principle of sovereign equality.

States have an obligation not to interfere in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. No state or group of states has the right to interfere, directly or indirectly, for whatever reason, in the internal and external affairs of another state. As a consequence, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or any threat directed against the legal personality of a State or against its political, economic and cultural foundations are a violation of international law.

No State may apply or encourage the use of economic, political measures or measures of any other nature for the purpose of subordinating another State to itself in the exercise of its sovereign rights and obtaining from it any advantages whatsoever. No state shall also organize, assist, incite, finance, encourage or permit armed, subversive or terrorist activities aimed at changing the order of another state through violence, or intervene in the internal struggle in another state.

The use of force to deprive peoples of the form of their national existence is a violation of their inalienable rights and the principle of non-intervention.

Every State has the inalienable right to choose its own political, economic, social and cultural system without any form of interference from any other State.

The principle of the sovereign equality of states, including in the sphere of security, enshrined in this Declaration, is also important. All states enjoy sovereign equality. They have the same rights and obligations and are equal members of the international community, regardless of economic, social, political or other differences.

In particular, the concept of sovereign equality includes the following elements:

• - states are legally equal;
• - each state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty;
• - each state is obliged to respect the legal personality of other states;
• - the territorial integrity and political independence of the state are inviolable;
• - every state has the right to freely choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems;
• - Each state is obliged to fulfill fully and in good faith its international obligations and to live in peace with other states.