Economic sanctions

 The responsibility of the state arises because of inactivity of government bodies in cases, when the duly interference of authorities could prevent wrongful actions. USSR in USA for want of connivance of the American official persons is known, for example, numerous cases of violence and even the armed attacks on diplomatic representations. In such cases the state was born by(with) ё ò the responsibility for criminal actions of the persons from among the citizens both foreigners and their organizations both for the foreigners and for actions (and inactivity) bodies, which have not prevented illegal actions, though could and should it make.

 The responsibility of the state «Х» can arise and as a result undertaken on it(him) (or from it(him)) territory of illegal actions of the foreign state or his(its) bodies against the third state or group of the states. For want of it if these actions of the foreign state are made with is driven also of consent of the state «Х», it is the accomplice of illegal actions of the foreign state. However, if such actions are made without the knowledge of the state «Х», it bore ё ò the responsibility only in case his(its) bodies have not displayed « necessary vigilance » and these illegal actions of the foreign state did not stop. Is differently solved the problem concerning the states granting the territory for creation of foreign military bases or accommodation of the weapon: their ìåæäóíàðîäíî-legal responsibility for all possible(probable) dangerous consequences comes(steps) by virtue of the most legal fact - sanction to creation of military base or accommodations of the weapon.

 The ìåæäóíàðîäíî-legal responsibility of the state can arise and for want of increase of authorities by state bodies or officials of the state, therefore can be has put ё í damage to the foreign state or his(its) natural or legal persons. In particular(personally), the state should compensate damage for want of interference in the high sea in case of failure of an oil tanker under condition of, if the measures undertaken by him(it), will exceed those, which were reasonably necessary for prevention, reduction or removal(elimination) ñåðü ё heat and real danger of pollution of coast нефтью1.

 For actions of state bodies, military parts and divisions during war, when as a result of these actions the norms of the Geneva conventions about protection of victims of war of a 1949 and other international conventions, ðåãëàìåíòèðóþùèõ of a means and methods of management of struggle are infringed, the responsibility was born by(with) ё ò the state, which posesses these bodies, military parts and divisions. The state should accept legislative, administrative and other measures by, that the laws and customs of war, çàêðåïë ё ííûå in the acting conventions and agreements, were punctually executed by all state bodies, military connections and military men.

 The ìåæäóíàðîäíî-legal responsibility of the subjects of the international law can come(step) not only by virtue of infringement of norms of the international law or obligations by agreement, but also for harmful consequences of lawful activity. She(it) can come(step) for want of drawing of a material loss by a source of increased danger, use or which application is forbidden by the international law (so-called responsibility for risk).

 Sources of increased danger are, for example, court with nuclear power installations(aims) (ßÝÓ) and space objects started in space space. Court with ßÝÓ carry out the activity within the framework of freedom of navigation being a main part of freedom of the high sea, and the space objects can be started according to the Agreement for principles of activity of the states on research and use of space space, including the Moon and other heavenly bodies, 1967.

 As in first and in the second cases speech èä ё ò about use of sources of increased danger, the states in the contractual order have agreed to recognize compulsion of reimbursement of the material loss which has arisen not in connection with any international offence, and it is exclusively(extreme) by virtue of the  fact of causing of such damage (responsibility without fault).

 In the Convention about the international responsibility for damage, reasons ё ííûé by space objects of a 1972 is spoken, that the starting state « was born by(with) ё ò the absolute responsibility for payment of indemnification for damage, reasons ё ííûé by his(its) space object on a surface of the Earth or air vessel in a floor ё those » 1.

1.3. Classification of international offences

 In the international Law all international offences it is possible will divide into three large groups depending on a degree of their danger, scales and consequences:

а) International crimes;

б) Criminal offences of international character;

в) Other international offences (international äåëèêòû).

 International crime - especially dangerous international offence encroaching on the vital interests the states and nations, undermining bases of the international law representing threat to the international world and safety.

 In the project of the articles about the responsibility of the states prepared by a Commission of the international law a UN, ïîä÷ ё ðêèâàåòñÿ, that ìåæäóíàðîäíî-legal äåÿíèå, arising as a result of infringement by the state of the international obligation, so basic for maintenance of the vital interests of community, that his(its) infringement is considered as a crime before international community as a whole, makes international преступление1. To number of such international crimes concern: aggression, ãåíîöèä, àïàðòåèä, êîëîíèàëèçì, military crimes, crime against humanity etc. As such crimes mention practically âñ ё international community, the states according to the Charter a UN have the right to accept collective measures on their suppression.

 The kinds of the armed violence used in international practice of many states are extremely diverse. Proceeding from definition(determination) of aggression from the facts of a history of the international attitudes(relations) after the second world(global) war, we can allocate the following most important kinds:

- agressive war;

-вооруж ё ííóþ intervention;

-âîîðóæ ё ííûå the agressive shares, that is separate âîîðóæ ё ííûå attacks which are not carrying of character wars or intervention;

- the input âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of forces on territory of the foreign state or îñòàâëåíèå them on the given territory contrary to his(its) will and for interference in his(its) internal businesses (here is possible to include preservation on territory of the foreign state contrary to his(its) will of military bases);

- marine blockade in peace time of coast or ports of the foreign state (so-called « peace blockade »);

- support of the armed groups or groups of mercenaries for intrusion on territory of other state with the purpose of interference in his(its) internal businesses.

Agressive war. The most dangerous kind of the forbidden application of the armed force is the agressive war. In the international sertificates(acts) ïîñëåâîåííîãî of period this term meets extremely ðåäêî. In them such terms, as « application of force », «aggression», « the armed attack » are more often used. If the term «war» appears in the Status of League of Nations and in the Paris pact of a 1928, in the Charter a UN this term is present only in item 1 of a Preamble (short of a word in ст.107 concerning the second world(global) war), and in his(its) articles is spoken about application of force (item 4 ст.2), about âîîðóæ ё ííîì an attack (51).

 In the sentence of the International military tribunal in Nuremberg agressive actions ãèòëåðîâñêîé of Germany concerning Austria and Czechoslovakia is designated as «grab», concerning Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands of Luxembourg - as «intrusion», concerning Poland, Yugoslavia and Greece - as «aggression» and in the attitude(relation) ÑÑÐ and USA - « agressive war » 1.

 In the Geneva conventions on protection of victims of war alongside with the terms of «war», « condition of war » the term « âîîðóæ ё ííûé the conflict » is widely applied.

 In the agreements for the mutual help, çàêëþ÷ ё ííûõ after the second world(global) war, term « the agressive war » does not meet, and the term «aggression» and « âîîðóæ ё ííîå an attack » is applied.

Whether  Means âñ ё it, what concept « the agressive war » can be replaced by concepts « application of force », «aggression», « âîîðóæ ё ííîå an attack » and should not be allocated in the responsibility of a separate kind âîîðóæ ё ííîé of aggression? By no means is not present. The agressive war is and continues to remain the kind, most dangerous and attracting the widest international responsibility, âîîðóæ ё ííîé of aggression. In spite of the fact that now from life of company, the danger of agressive wars, both in world(global), and in local frameworks has not disappeared. As to the responsibility for agressive war, that, as is known, before the second world(global) war the agressive war was announced by an international crime, and in the Charter and sentences of the International military tribunal in Nuremberg, in which the principles becoming then principles of the international law are formulated, they are qualified as « crimes against the world ».

 The concept of agressive war develops of two components: concept of war and concept àãðåññèâíîñòè or aggression. However neither that, nor other concept has not the conventional definition(determination) in the international law. The majority of the lawyers - международников for want of definition(determination) of concept of war the recognitions by them of a condition of war are guided by by formal criterion of the announcement of war, availability at the struggling parties animus belligerenti. For example, Л. Îïïåíãåéì writes: « the Unilateral violent actions, one state against other without the preliminary announcement of war, can be the reason of occurrence of war, but in themselves are not war, as the opposite party does not answer them by similar hostile actions, or, at least, declaration, that they consider these actions as the sertificates(acts) of war » 1. The australian lawyer - международник Äæ. Ñòðàðê states the same point of view;!from the point of view of åù ё sharply. As he said, « a Nature of war in itself becomes more exact îïðåäåë ё ííîé as the formal status âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of hostile actions, in which the intention of the parties should be a determinative. Thus, the condition of war can be established(installed) between two and more by states ïóò ё ì of the formal announcement of war, even between them active military actions » 1 never took place.

 It is a point of view;!from the point of view of of the majority of the lawyers - международников does not correspond(meet) to the validity, as the state quite often begins military actions without any announcement of war and, nevertheless, both âðàæäóþùèå of country appear in a condition of war.

 In soviet « the Diplomatic dictionary » yes ё òñÿ the following definition(determination) of war: « War - struggle between the states and classes by means âîîðóæ ё ííîãî of violence representing continuation of that policy(politics), which these states or the classes conducted before war ».

 The agressive war it is indispensable çàõâàòíè÷åñêàÿ war, which âåä ё òñÿ àãðåññîðîì to seize a part of territory of the state - victim of aggression or completely to deprive of his(its) independent state existence. The agressive war is accompanied by claims of the state - àãðåññîðà on annexation of a part or whole territory of the state being a victim of aggression. This attribute is inherent just in agressive war, instead of all kinds of aggression. From a formal point of view;!from the point of view of the war as against other âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of the conflicts, as a rule, is connected to break of diplomatic, consular, trade and other normal attitudes(relations) between the struggling states.

 Hence, the agressive war is âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ struggle begun by one state against other with the purpose of grab of a part of his(its) territory or deprivation of his(its) independent state existence and accompanying with break of diplomatic, consular, trade and other normal attitudes(relations) between these states.

 The agressive war is those irrespective of, has a place the announcement of war whether or not. From it by no means does not follow, that the ìåæäóíàðîäíî-rules of law concerning war have lost force. « For the state beginning war first, the sertificate(act) of the announcement of war does not mean clearing it(him) from the responsibility for ðàçâÿçûâàíèå of aggression » 1. However íà÷àòèå of war without the announcement aggravates this responsibility, as means infringement not only norms about prohibition of agressive war, but also norms concerning management of war.

 The largest and typical example of agressive war is the war ãèòëåðîâñêîé of Germany against ÑÑÐ and his(its) allies in the second world(global) war. After the second world(global) war some agressive wars took place which infortunately, have not received such qualification and appropriate condemnation from the party a UN.

 Âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ intervention. Other rather dangerous kind of illegal application âîîðóæ ё ííîé of force is frequently meeting in international practice of some states âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ the intervention, that is intrusion âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of forces of one state on territory of other state with the purpose of interference in his(its) internal businesses. Such intrusion frequently is undertaken to interfere in occurring in the foreign state with internal struggle for the benefit of one of the struggling parties, or to force government of the foreign state to undertake îïðåäåë ё ííûå of action on a question which are included in his(its) internal competence. Can be and other purposes âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention, but all of them are usually connected by interference in internal businesses èíòåðâåíèðóåìîãî of the state, instead of with àííåêñèðîâàíèåì by all or part of his(its) territory.

 Âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ the intervention can accept rather wide scales, not less, than agressive war.

 In the soviet literature the opinions expressed, that between agressive war and âîîðóæ ё ííîé by intervention « there is no difference » 1. It is impossible to agree with this opinion. Undoubtedly, as agressive war, and âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ intervention represent rather dangerous âîîðóæ ё ííóþ aggression. But âñ ё they various kinds âîîðóæ ё ííîé of aggression. Distinctions between them is, that while the agressive war is undertaken to seize a part of territory of other state or at all to deprive of his(its) independent state existence, âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ the intervention usually does not put such purposes. She(it) is undertaken to spread in èíòåðâåíèðóåìîì the state óãîäíûé èíòåðâåíòó a political mode and government, or to impose to government èíòåðâåíèðóåìîãî of the state will èíòåðâåíòà in sphere relating the sovereignty èíòåðâåíèðóåìîãî the states.

 The agressive war too can put the purposes of change public and political building other struggling party in a favour àãðåññîðà (such purposes, for example, put Israel in war against the Arabian states in 1967г.), but indispensable attribute of agressive war is the aspiration to grab of territory of other struggling party or termination(discontinuance) of his(its) independent existence, between that âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ the intervention puts before itself the purposes connected extremely in internal businesses èíòåðâåíèðóåìîãî of the state. Besides âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ the intervention can occur and without break of the diplomatic, consular and trade attitudes(relations) between the state èíòåðâåíòîì and èíòåðâåíèðóåìûì by the state, while such break comes(steps) always for want of availability of a condition of war, that is and when has a place agressive war.

 After the second world(global) war the interdiction âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention was ïîäòâåðæä ё í widely and in åù ё to the more categorical form. First of all, it(he) directly follows from a number of the articles of the Charter a UN: as from item 4 ст.2 forbidding threat by force or his(its) application against territorial inviolability or political independence of any state, and ст.39, providing application of the international sanctions in case of threat to the world, infringement of the world and sertificates(acts) of aggression, and from ст.51, admitting application âîîðóæ ё ííîé of force by the separate states only in a case âîîðóæ ё ííîãî of an attack and, hence, not admitting it(him) in other cases.

 The principle of non-interference in internal businesses of the state, including the interdiction âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention, was formulated in the special article (ст.15) of the Charter of Organization of the American states, in which is spoken: « Any state or group of the states under any by a pretext the rights on direct or indirect interference in internal or external businesses of any other state » have not. The speech èä ё ò both about âîîðóæ ё ííîì interference, and about any other form of interference is further spoken, that. In a 1949 the interdiction by the international law âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention was ïîäòâåðæä ё í INTERNATIONAL court a UN in the decision on business about a strait Êîðôó.

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5