Lecture
Purpose: to reveal the content of the concepts of «peaceful coexistence» and international cooperation. To examine the most important forms of international cooperation. To analyze the types of international relations. International communication and contacts. International interaction. Cooperation and interdependence.
1. The content of the concepts of «peaceful coexistence» and international cooperation. Values and basic features
of conservative ideology
2. The most important forms of international cooperation.
3. Types of international relations.
Despite the considerable frequency of international conflicts, one can, however,
maintain that they are episodic phenomena for any given state and its relations
in the international environment. The permanent state of international relations is peaceful
coexistence and cooperation between the states of the world.
Peaceful coexistence and international cooperation are closely interrelated,
since the former is the minimally necessary condition for the latter. Indeed, there can be no talk of international
cooperation if the parties use force or threaten one
another with it.
Traditionally, peaceful coexistence is defined as a state of relations between states in
which they do not resort to the use of military force. Let us note that peaceful coexistence
is possible in two cases:
1. The parties have no fundamental contradictions between them, since their interests are not
mutually exclusive. In that case, the non-use of force follows from the general state of relations and is
their logical consequence.
2. Serious contradictions exist between the parties, but for one reason or another they
refrain from using military force, not because it follows from the state of relations between them,
but as a result of the governments' desire to avoid an aggravation of relations and
a potential clash.
That is, in the first case the parties have no need to resort to force, and such a state
of relations between them is long-lasting and stable. In the second case, peaceful coexistence is,
to a certain degree, forced, and can be disrupted just as quickly as
their relations deteriorate.
It is quite obvious that peaceful coexistence rests on the parties' observance of
the basic principles of international law, which can also be called the principles of peaceful
coexistence; their content is set out in the Declaration on Principles of International Law
concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation in accordance with the UN Charter, adopted by the General
Assembly in 1970, and in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
of 1975, as well as in their interpretations offered in individual decisions of the International Court
of Justice.
The following principles, set out in the above-mentioned international legal
documents, are generally recognized in relations between states:
1. The principle of the sovereign equality of states consists in the recognition of the political
independence of governments, their exclusive jurisdiction over their own territory, and the equal rights of all states
of the world. That is, it concerns the application in international relations of the Roman principle par
in parem non habet potestatem (an equal has no power over an equal). According to this principle,
the sovereign authority of any state in the world is obliged to respect the sovereignty of the national
authority of any other state in the world, to regard it as equal to itself, and not to attempt to impose on it
this or that decision, action, or inaction.
2. The principle of non-use of force is a conscious renunciation by the authority of a sovereign state
of the use against another state of any forceful actions that might pose
a threat to its sovereignty, territorial integrity, or the lives of its citizens. In international
law, the concept of "force" is predominantly interpreted as armed violence, which is considered
a reprisal and is categorically prohibited, except for legitimate self-defense in the case of
aggression and pursuant to a corresponding resolution of the UN Security Council. Resort to economic,
political, or any other means of pressure is considered retorsion, which has no clear
definition or mechanism of application.
Reprisals, under international law, also include threats to use
armed force. It should be noted, however, that threats in such cases must
take on a veiled character in diplomatic documents and, for the most part, cannot
be interpreted directly.
According to the principle of non-use of force, states have no right to preventive
self-defense, that is, to preempt a potential aggressor by deploying armed
forces and using them against it. In the event of a real danger of armed attack, the state
that is the potential victim of aggression must appeal to the UN Security Council and apply preventive
measures only with its consent.
States' observance of the principle of non-use of force is a determining condition for
establishing and maintaining good-neighborly or at least neutral relations, and,
consequently, for peaceful coexistence. At the same time, the history of international relations clearly demonstrates
precedents of systematic violation of this principle, which in general gives grounds for considering
its observance to be derivative of the state of political relations between the states of the world.
The principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes is linked to the conscious choice by a state's ruling
political elite of a cooperative foreign policy strategy. This means that
the settlement of disputes between any states of the world is carried out without the use of
armed violence.
160
The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states is one of the fundamental
principles of peaceful coexistence, since its observance guarantees the free
choice by the society of any country of its own socio-political system, which substantially
reduces the risk of conflict. This principle traditionally consists in the exclusive right of the governments
of national states to maintain their own jurisdiction over their territory, given that
the internal competencies of their authorities are not subject to any interference on the part of the governments of other
states or international organizations.
Under international law, the right to intervention is granted only to the UN Security Council,
in the case of a threat to peace, a breach of peace, or individual acts of aggression (Chapter VII, Article 42).
Intervention is possible only when it is carried out at the request of a legitimate government
of a state, in the case of an attempt to overthrow it by force. The practice of actual interstate
relations clearly demonstrates the systematic abuse of this possibility by powerful states.
The interventions of the USSR in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, and of the USA in Vietnam,
took place at the request of puppet or fully politically dependent governments.
The principle of the territorial integrity of states consists in the conscious renunciation by states of
attempts to incorporate into their own borders part of the territory, or even the entire territory, of another
state by force.
This principle is formulated in the Covenant of the League of Nations (Article 10) and enshrined in the UN
Charter (Chapter I, Article 2, § 4), and the importance of its observance has traditionally been explained by the fact
that an attempt to violate the territorial integrity of states has always led to war between
them. Given this, within the framework of the activities of the League of Nations and the UN, a number of attempts have been made
to create an international legal mechanism for the transfer of territories from one country to another.
The territory of a state can be transferred to the jurisdiction of another state only through cession.
Cession can take place on the basis of an international agreement, in accordance with a decision of an international
organization (on the basis of arbitration or a plebiscite), a purchase-and-sale act, or in the form of an exchange
of territories, but in any case — with the voluntary consent of both states.
For its implementation, two important acts are performed:
1) the renunciation of sovereignty over the territory by its previous owner; the principle
of the inviolability of borders is a logical continuation of the principle of the territorial integrity
of states, since it consists in the respect by the governments of states for the borders existing between them.
The traditional understanding of this principle, set out in the Declaration on Principles of
International Law in 1970, was similar to the principle of the territorial integrity
of states. This concerns the prohibition established in the UN Charter on changing state borders by
means of weapons. However, its interpretation by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
was stricter. The CSCE participating states agreed that in Europe, borders
established after the Second World War could not be revised at all.
The principle of respect for human rights, among all the others, is relatively new, defined
only in the CSCE Final Act (1975). At the same time, already by the end of the Second
World War, the issue of human rights had been the subject of lengthy negotiations, which
were reflected in numerous international legal documents. In particular, in 1948 the General
Assembly of the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which the basic rights of
the individual were recognized as: the right to freedom and personal security (Articles 3, 4),
legal personality (Article 6), equality before the law and the presumption of innocence (Articles 7, 8,
9, 10), freedom of movement (Article 13), asylum in case of persecution in one's home country (Article
14), freedom of belief, expression, thought, and conscience (Article 19), and others. Two
covenants were also adopted: on civil and political rights and on economic, social, and cultural
human rights (1966).
For the legal regulation of individual aspects related to human rights, under
the auspices of the UN, a number of conventions have been concluded: on the prevention of the crime of genocide and the punishment
of it (1948), on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (1966), on the elimination of all
forms of discrimination against women (1979); on the rights of the child (1989).
The principle of the equal rights and self-determination of peoples consists in the prevention of any discrimination on national grounds and the recognition of the equal right of peoples to
free development and choice of their future. This means that every people has the inalienable
right to independently determine its own destiny, in particular, to create its own independent state.
This principle is reflected in the UN Charter (Article 1, § 2), where it is regarded as a
necessary precondition for the development of good-neighborly relations between peoples and the strengthening of
peace. The principle of the equal rights and self-determination of peoples is outlined more clearly in the Final
Act of the CSCE. According to the provisions of the Act, every people has the right, under conditions of complete freedom,
to determine its own internal and external status, and to pursue, at its own discretion, its political,
economic, social, and cultural development.
The principle of the good-faith fulfillment of obligations under international law
derives from the customary norm pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept), which has
been generally accepted in relations between states since the most ancient times.
The conclusion of a treaty between states has always presupposed that the norms laid down in
it become binding on both parties to that treaty. That is, one party has
grounds to expect that the other will adhere to the obligations voluntarily undertaken and set out
in the treaty. This norm is a generally accepted rule for normal
relations between the states of the world, since without its observance a treaty-based regime of
relations could not exist at all. The history of international relations, however, shows
that its effect depends entirely on the motives that guide states when they begin
the negotiation process
Governments usually use the mechanism of denunciation for this purpose, and it is
legitimized by two circumstances:
1) a change in the situation in relations between states and the discrepancy between the provisions
of the treaty and new realities;
2) gross violations of the provisions of the treaty committed by the opposing party.
The most important forms of international cooperation.
The forms of international cooperation, like international relations in general, depend directly
on the number of participants. The more parties take part in cooperation, the
more complex the mechanisms, that is, the ways and institutions that ensure it.
Bilateral cooperation is carried out through ministries of foreign
affairs, joint chambers of commerce, and, especially widespread since the postwar period,
friendship societies, which in turn develop cooperation at the public level. At
lower levels, cooperation is carried out by enterprises, and by state and private
organizations, institutes, and so on.
Multilateral cooperation is more complex, since ensuring cooperation among three or
more parties requires coordination and the alignment of actions. For this purpose, special
institutions and secretariats, coordination groups, commissions, and so on have been created. The scope of their functions covers
issues of the technical support of the activities of international associations operating on a
multilateral basis. These also include a number of international organizations: the Commonwealth
of Independent States (CIS), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the League
of Arab States, the Organization of American States (OAS), and so on. A common feature of all
the above-mentioned international organizations is that each state, while coordinating its
foreign policy or economic (and, ultimately, any other) activity with other
members of the organization, simultaneously acts on the international stage completely independently.
In the process of multilateral cooperation, states only coordinate their activities in the sphere of
politics, economics, culture, information, and so on. They also enter into specific
relations, formed on the basis of the states' shared interest, regardless of the state of
political relations between them. We distinguish the following types of relations:
— charitable relations, a special type of relations that participants in international
relations enter into in order to provide assistance to underdeveloped countries, as well as in cases of
natural disasters, catastrophes, epidemics, and the like;
— international cooperation in the fight against crime, manifested in the exchange of
information about criminal groups and their activities and, in some cases, in joint
actions by the law-enforcement agencies of the interested countries. In addition, one manifestation of such
cooperation is the extradition of persons under investigation in other countries.
Collective cooperation is characterized by a significantly higher degree of integration.
To ensure it, special supranational institutions are created, in whose favor
member states transfer (delegate) authority to make decisions that are binding
on all members of the integration grouping in those areas of competence assigned to them.
The integration of participants in international relations on a collective basis presupposes, at the first
stage, close coordination of their actions in those spheres of cooperation defined as fundamental, and,
at the second stage, merging into a single national, political, economic, military, and legal
space. The sphere of managing them is transferred to supranational institutions, while
internal (national) authorities retain only operational management.
On October 1, 1993, when the Maastricht agreements came into force, the European Union
began the second stage of integration, which envisaged the creation of a single economic and
political space, to include: Belgium, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Greece,
Denmark, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, France, and the FRG. If one also takes into account
that the FRG, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Greece, Spain, Italy, and Portugal
concluded an agreement on a common civil space (the Schengen Agreement), which will probably
be joined by all the remaining members of the European Union, and the work on drafting a
constitution for Europe, then one can agree with the view that "the process of integration (of the European
Union — Ed. note) has followed the path of developing a functional model, one that makes it possible to go
beyond simple cooperation and prepare the conditions for a possible federation."
An example of military collective cooperation, embodied in the formation of a
unified military-strategic space of the North Atlantic, beginning in the late 1940s
of the 20th century, is NATO. Collective cooperation within this organization is ensured
by the activities of institutions such as the North Atlantic Council, the Defence Planning Committee,
the Nuclear Planning Group, NATO Command in the North Atlantic and Europe,
and the Secretariat headed by the Secretary General, which deal with
strategic planning, information and infrastructure support,
logistical supply (in particular, the standardization of weapons), security
(counterintelligence), civil defense, and so on.
Since the beginning of the 1960s, a specific form of international
cooperation has been forming in Europe — Euroregions. A Euroregion is a geographically defined space encompassing
the border territories of two or more states, whose local authorities seek
to cooperate with one another and coordinate activities in various spheres of interest
to them.
Starting from the second half of the 20th century, a systems approach has become established in the theory
of international relations, consisting in the understanding of its phenomena and processes as an interconnected
set of constituent parts (participants in international relations). The participants in international
relations, the interactions between them, and the structure within which they exist constitute the subject
of study of contemporary theory.
The international system is predominantly understood as a hierarchically structured, integral
set of participants in international relations, connected by permanent relationships.
Hierarchy is present in any system, since without it a multitude of elements becomes
an amorphous aggregate. It is understood as the arrangement of the parts or elements of a whole in
a certain order, from higher to lower. An inherent feature of hierarchy is subordination
— that is, the subordination of the lower elements of the system to the higher ones.
In the international system, hierarchy is expressed in the fact that each participant
in international relations, depending on the systemic parameters that characterize it,
occupies a particular place.
The international system is not a fixed structure; it is constantly changing, which
is expressed in the shifting configuration of forces, spheres of influence, and so on. As it evolves, the international
system consistently passes from one state to another, that is, in each specific interval of time
it is characterized by one or another order of relations among states,
by definite or indefinite orientations and spheres of influence, and so on. Among the states,
inherent in the international system, one can distinguish: the static, the transformational, and the
turbulent.
International conflicts and cooperation and the peaceful coexistence of the states of the world stem
from the current state of the international system, since the structural constraints on states' actions
imposed by the system's hierarchy are more stable than their level of power. A mismatch between a
state's status within the system and its potential capabilities is the most likely explanation for its
conflictual behavior.
Virtually from the very origins of the theory of international relations, the problem of conflict and
international security, or, as it was already formulated — of war and peace, has been the cornerstone
of all research. Given the widely shared understanding that
an international conflict is always a clash between parties who are participants in international
relations, the substance of the disagreements largely comes down to the problem of distinguishing between the concepts
of conflict and confrontation. This concerns the question of what should be considered a conflict — either
the opposition of the parties with the consequences stemming from it, or actually their direct
clash.
Peaceful coexistence and international cooperation are closely connected to one another, since
the former is the minimally necessary condition for the latter. International cooperation cannot
be achieved under conditions of the mutual use of force or the threat of it. Conflict and
cooperation are the most important manifestations of the state of international relations and follow logically
from the structural features of the current international system.
The content of the concepts "peaceful coexistence" and "international cooperation"
Despite the considerable frequency of international conflicts, one can, however,
maintain that they are episodic phenomena for any given state and its relations
in the international environment. The permanent state of international relations is peaceful
coexistence and cooperation between the states of the world.
Peaceful coexistence and international cooperation are closely interrelated,
since the former is the minimally necessary condition for the latter. Indeed, there can be no talk of international
cooperation if the parties use force or threaten one
another with it.
Traditionally, peaceful coexistence is defined as a state of relations between states in
which they do not resort to the use of military force. Let us note that peaceful coexistence
is possible in two cases:
1. The parties have no fundamental contradictions between them, since their interests are not
mutually exclusive. In that case, the non-use of force follows from the general state of relations and is
their logical consequence.
2. Serious contradictions exist between the parties, but for one reason or another they
refrain from using military force, not because it follows from the state of relations between them,
but as a result of the governments' desire to avoid an aggravation of relations and
a potential clash.
That is, in the first case the parties have no need to resort to force, and such a state
of relations between them is long-lasting and stable. In the second case, peaceful coexistence is,
to a certain degree, forced, and can be disrupted just as quickly as
their relations deteriorate.
It is quite obvious that peaceful coexistence rests on the parties' observance of
the basic principles of international law, which can also be called the principles of peaceful
coexistence; their content is set out in the Declaration on Principles of International Law
concerning friendly relations and cooperation in accordance with the UN Charter, adopted by the General
Assembly in 1970, and in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
of 1975, as well as in their interpretations offered in individual decisions of the International Court
of the UN.
The following principles, set out in the above-mentioned international legal
documents, are generally recognized in relations between states:
1. The principle of the sovereign equality of states consists in the recognition of the political
independence of governments, their exclusive jurisdiction over their own territory, and the equal rights of all states
of the world. That is, it concerns the application in international relations of the Roman principle par
in parem non habet potestatem (an equal has no power over an equal). According to this principle,
the sovereign authority of any state in the world is obliged to respect the sovereignty of the national
authority of any other state in the world, to regard it as equal to itself, and not to attempt to impose on it
this or that decision, action, or inaction.
2. The principle of non-use of force is a conscious renunciation by the authority of a sovereign state
of the use against another state of any forceful actions that might pose
a threat to its sovereignty, territorial integrity, or the lives of its citizens. In international
law, the concept of "force" is predominantly interpreted as armed violence, which is considered
a reprisal and is categorically prohibited, except for legitimate self-defense in the case of
aggression and pursuant to a corresponding resolution of the UN Security Council. Resort to economic,
political, or any other means of pressure is considered retorsion, which has no clear
definition or mechanism of application. On this point, I. Lukashuk notes that "an analysis
of international norms and practice gives grounds to assert that under
the concept of "force" is understood, above all, armed force. The use of other means —
economic, political — may be classified as the use of force under this
principle if, in their impact and results, they are similar to military means"
(Termination of a treaty and the corresponding declaration by the government that initiates this action).
Reprisals, according to international law, also include threats to use
armed force. It should be noted, however, that threats in such cases must
take on a veiled character in diplomatic documents and, for the most part, cannot
be interpreted directly.
According to the principle of non-use of force, states have no right to preventive
self-defense, that is, to preempt a potential aggressor by deploying armed
forces and using them against it. In the event of a real danger of armed attack, the state
that is the potential victim of aggression must appeal to the UN Security Council and apply preventive
measures only with its consent.
States' observance of the principle of non-use of force is a determining condition for
establishing and maintaining good-neighborly or at least neutral relations, and,
consequently, for peaceful coexistence. At the same time, the history of international relations clearly demonstrates
precedents of systematic violation of this principle, which in general gives grounds for considering
its observance to be derivative of the state of political relations between the states of the world.
3. The principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes is linked to the conscious choice by a country's ruling
political elite of a cooperative foreign policy strategy. This means that
the settlement of disputes between any states of the world is carried out without the use of
armed violence.
This principle was first set out in the Covenant of the League of Nations, and later — in
the Paris Pact of 1928. It was also fully enshrined in the UN Charter, where Chapter
VI, Article 33, § 1 states: "The parties to any dispute, the continuance
of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all,
seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation,
arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other
peaceful means of their own choice" (Termination of a treaty and the corresponding declaration by the government
that initiates this action).
4. The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states is one of the fundamental
principles of peaceful coexistence, since its observance guarantees the free
choice by the society of any country of its own socio-political system, which substantially
reduces the risk of conflict. This principle traditionally consists in the exclusive right of the governments
of national states to maintain their own jurisdiction over their territory, given that
the internal competencies of their authorities are not subject to any interference on the part of the governments of other
states or international organizations.
In accordance with international law, the right to intervention is granted only to the UN Security Council,
in the case of a threat to peace, a breach of peace, or individual acts of aggression (Chapter VII, Article 42).
Intervention is possible only when it is carried out at the request of a legitimate government
of a state, in the case of an attempt to overthrow it by force. The practice of actual interstate
relations clearly demonstrates the systematic abuse of this possibility by powerful states.
The interventions of the USSR in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, and of the USA in Vietnam,
took place at the request of puppet or fully politically dependent governments.
Another concept that poses a danger to the observance of this principle has become the idea
of the possibility of intervention to prevent humanitarian catastrophes. This concerns the possibility
of intervention in the internal affairs of a state in a situation critical for it, involving internal ethnic,
political, religious, or racial conflicts. Humanitarian intervention pursues the goal of
preventing mass violations of human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, and of promoting
the return of society to a state of internal stability. At the same time, this concept
is characterized by serious moral ambiguity and directly contradicts a whole series of
principles of international law, as well as established customs and rules of interstate
relations.
The problem also lies in the fact that, ignoring the order and procedure for decision-making
in the UN, some states and international organizations independently determine the criteria
for a humanitarian catastrophe and reserve for themselves the right to intervene.
5. The principle of the territorial integrity of states consists in the conscious renunciation by states
of attempts to incorporate into their own borders part of the territory, or even the entire territory, of another
state by force.
This principle is formulated in the Covenant of the League of Nations (Article 10) and enshrined in the UN
Charter (Chapter I, Article 2, § 4), and the importance of its observance has traditionally been explained by the fact
that an attempt to violate the territorial integrity of states has always led to war between
them. Given this, within the framework of the activities of the League of Nations and the UN, a number of attempts have been made
to create an international legal mechanism for the transfer of territories from one country to another.
The territory of a state can be transferred to the jurisdiction of another state only through cession.
Cession can take place on the basis of an international agreement, in accordance with a decision of an international
organization (on the basis of arbitration or a plebiscite), a purchase-and-sale act, or in the form of an exchange
of territories, but in any case — with the voluntary consent of both states. For its
implementation, two important acts are performed:
1) the renunciation of sovereignty over the territory by its previous owner;
2) the acquisition of sovereignty by the new owner.
At the same time, the numerous cessions of the 1920s-1930s testified not to the achievement
by the states of Europe of a consensus on the question of the redistribution of state territory, but rather to
the inability of states to defend their territorial integrity by armed force. All this
led to an increase in tension in international relations and a new war.
6. The principle of the inviolability of borders is a logical continuation of the principle
of the territorial integrity of states, since it consists in the respect by the governments of states for the borders
existing between them.
The traditional understanding of this principle, set out in the Declaration on Principles of
International Law in 1970, was similar to the principle of the territorial integrity
of states. This concerns the prohibition established in the UN Charter on changing state borders by
means of weapons. However, its interpretation by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
was stricter. The CSCE participating states agreed that in Europe, borders
established after the Second World War could not be revised at all. A precedent
of revising borders could lead to a "domino effect,", when it would be followed by
a wave of territorial claims and international conflicts. However, this interpretation
of the principle of the inviolability of borders applies only in Europe, where it rests on
the ruling elites of most states recognizing the undesirability of territorial conflicts.
7. The principle of respect for human rights, among all the others, is relatively new, defined
only in the CSCE Final Act (1975). At the same time, already by the end of the Second
World War, the issue of human rights had been the subject of lengthy negotiations, which
were reflected in numerous international legal documents. In particular, in 1948
the UN Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which the basic rights of
the individual were recognized as: the right to freedom and personal security (Articles 3, 4),
legal personality (Article 6), equality before the law and the presumption of innocence (Articles 7, 8,
9, 10), freedom of movement (Article 13), asylum in case of persecution in one's home country (Article
14), freedom of belief, expression, thought, and conscience (Article 19), and others. Two
covenants were also adopted: on civil and political rights and on economic, social, and cultural
human rights (1966).
For the legal regulation of individual aspects related to human rights, under
the auspices of the UN, a number of conventions have been concluded: on the prevention of the crime of genocide and the punishment
of it (1948), on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (1966), on the elimination of all
forms of discrimination against women (1979), on the rights of the child (1989).
Observance of the principle of respect for human rights consists in the fact that the states of the world
are obliged to guarantee to all persons under their jurisdiction
the basic rights set out in the Universal Declaration, regardless of nationality,
citizenship, race, religious, or political convictions. This concerns not only the legal
status of foreigners, but also states' observance of basic human rights with respect to their own
citizens. This principle operates not only on the international level, but also
at the domestic level, theoretically laying the groundwork for the possibility of limiting a state's
sovereignty in this sphere.
In real international politics, the slogan of respect for human
rights is widely used, which is often regarded as a pretext for interference in the internal affairs of other
states of the world, which negates a whole range of fundamental principles of peaceful
coexistence. That is, recognizing this principle as prevailing and determinative in
relations among the states of the world contradicts the principles of sovereign equality and non-interference
in the internal affairs of a national state.
The concept of "humanitarian intervention" and the determination of policy toward a given
state based on the state of human rights observance within it in practice leads to a sharp deterioration in
relations and substantially increases the risk of international conflict.
8. The principle of the equal rights and self-determination of peoples consists in the prevention of any discrimination on national grounds and the recognition of the equal right of peoples to
free development and choice of their future. This means that every people has the inalienable
right to independently determine its own destiny, in particular, to create its own independent state.
This principle is reflected in the UN Charter (Article 1, § 2), where it is regarded as a
necessary precondition for the development of good-neighborly relations between peoples and the strengthening of
peace. The principle of the equal rights and self-determination of peoples is outlined more clearly in the Final
Act of the CSCE. According to the provisions of the Act, every people has the right, under conditions of complete freedom,
to determine its own internal and external status, and to pursue, at its own discretion, its political,
economic, social, and cultural development.
The practical implementation of this principle has led to significant conflicts related to
the activities of national-liberation movements in multinational countries. The efforts
of these movements to realize the right to self-determination have met with fierce resistance from the authorities of these
states, and the movements are regarded as separatist.
The problem is that the application of the principle of the equal rights and self-determination
of peoples has traditionally been linked to the struggle for the liberation of the peoples of colonial
empires, but has never applied to peoples who did not possess statehood, which can hardly
be called a fair application of it.
At the same time, this principle (especially in the part concerning self-determination)
clearly contradicts the principles of the territorial integrity of states and the inviolability of
borders. Nations cannot be denied the right to create their own states, but it is a question
best resolved at the domestic level, since international intervention
can only complicate matters and provoke acute conflicts.
9. The principle of cooperation obliges the states of the world to maintain
stable cooperation with one another, regardless of differences in their political, economic, and social
systems. Enshrined in the UN Charter (Article 1, § 3) and in the Declaration on Principles of
International Law of 1970, it appears to be, in a sense, the culmination of all the above-mentioned
principles, since without its implementation their observance is impossible at all. Despite this, its
implementation runs up against the impossibility of achieving universal consensus in relations between
the states of the world. Regarding the legal force of the principle of cooperation, I. Lukashuk notes:
"It is just as difficult to legally oblige a state to specific cooperation as
it is to oblige it to friendship with this or that state" (Termination of a treaty and
the corresponding declaration by the government that initiates this action).
10. The principle of the good-faith fulfillment of obligations under international
law derives from the customary norm pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept),
which has been generally accepted in relations between states since the most ancient times.
The conclusion of a treaty between states has always presupposed that the norms laid down in
it become binding on both parties to that treaty. That is, one party has
grounds to expect that the other will adhere to the obligations voluntarily undertaken and set out
in the treaty. This norm is a generally accepted rule for normal
relations between the states of the world, since without its observance a treaty-based regime of
relations could not exist at all. The history of international relations, however, shows
that its effect depends entirely on the motives that guide states when they begin
the negotiation process. If these motives stem from a desire for compromise, then states
predominantly adhere to their obligations under the treaties they have concluded, the charters
of the international organizations of which they are members, and the conventions in which they participate.
If a treaty is concluded as a forced act, fixing the status quo existing at a given
time, or is imposed by one party on another, there are every grounds for governments of
states to evade fulfilling its provisions. Governments usually use the mechanism
of denunciation for this purpose (Termination of a treaty and the corresponding declaration by the government that initiates this action), and it is
legitimized by two circumstances:
1) a change in the situation in relations between states and the discrepancy between the provisions
of the treaty and new realities;
2) gross violations of the provisions of the treaty committed by the opposing party.
The practice of interstate relations also testifies to a rather loose interpretation of
individual treaty provisions, as well as to outright sabotage by the parties of their fulfillment.
The good faith with which states fulfill their obligations stems from the general
political situation and the state of relations between the specific states involved.
It is evident that states' observance of the principles of peaceful coexistence is the foundation
for the development of equal and mutually beneficial cooperation between them. International
cooperation can only develop on the basis of a lasting and stable, crisis-free
coexistence of states, since only in such a case can close, or even common,
interests arise, the need to realize which determines this state of international relations.
However, the effectiveness of the principles of peaceful coexistence depends directly on the state of relations
between states, which gives no grounds to regard them a priori as the foundation of their relations. It is difficult, in
real politics, to find examples of any principles being regarded by a state's sovereign authority
as fundamental foundations of its foreign policy. All the principles of peaceful
coexistence have always been viewed through the lens of raison d'etat (state interest) and could
be considered determinative only when they served it.
A definition of the concept of "international cooperation" is encountered rather rarely because,
as P. Tsygankov notes, it is illusorily "transparent." Only at first glance does this concept
seem clear and not requiring any rigorous scholarly proof. P. Tsygankov defines it as
"...a process of interaction between two or more actors, in which there is no place for the use of armed
force and in which the search for common interests predominates." The first part of the definition concerns
a necessary condition for international cooperation, that is, the non-use of force, while the second
part asserts that cooperation between participants in international relations consists in the fact that
through their actions they pursue certain interests that are realized jointly. In other
words, cooperation in a given area arises because both parties strive
to cooperate.
In our view, the main reason for cooperation is objective problems that the parties
cannot solve on their own, or whose independent resolution would yield only a partial
result.
J. Deriennic defines international cooperation as a certain action of participants and its result,
as an impetus to the continuation of such action. In his interpretation, cooperation is treated as a state
in which one party can satisfy its interests only on the condition that the other
realizes theirs as well. The result of an act of cooperation is a situation in which the participants either successfully realize their
interests simultaneously, or fail to do so.
Traditionally, cooperative relations presuppose the joint participation and coordination
of the parties' efforts in solving problems of security, trade, the functioning and development of
transport systems, ecology, the extraction of mineral resources, the fight against crime,
space exploration, and so on.
Any participant in international relations cooperates with another, taking into account the direct or
indirect benefits. That is, the benefit derived from cooperation is, on the one hand, a measure of the correctness of actions, and, on
the other — a motivating reason for its continuation and development
Comments