The system of international security law is part of the industry of modern relations between countries. They mean the norms and principles that govern the relationship between states. The goals are simple, understandable and very important for humanity - the prevention of local military and military conflicts and the repetition of the global world war.
Regulatory Relations
International security rights distinguish the following types of relationships:
- Interactions to prevent military and power conflicts. This also includes international mediation to “cool down” the opposing forces.
- Interactions associated with the creation of international collective security systems.
- Relations to limit various types of weapons.
Basic principles
The system of international relations as a separate legal system has its own rules:
- Principle of equality. By it is meant that the state as a subject of international law has the same rights with other countries. The famous speech of the President of Russia V.V. Putin at the international security conference in Munich in 2006 is indicative in this regard. It was then that the head of the Russian state publicly stated that this principle is often violated by the United States of America. This country does not unilaterally reckon with other independent states. It can break all existing agreements and, on the basis of power, begin military operations with weaker militarily states. Prior to this, everyone recognized a violation of the principle of equality, but no one openly stated this. By itself, the state as a subject of international law does not have equal rights with more economically and militarily developed countries. We need tools to implement this principle. Only an effective system of international relations will protect such countries and prevent a tense situation.
- The principle of inadmissibility of damage to another state. It boils down to the fact that national and international security is threatened by deliberate destructive actions of the subject of international law. No state can use military force against another without the consent and approval of the world community.
Sources of International Security Law
We list only the main ones, since there are many in the world. Any bilateral agreement between states in this area falls under the concept of “source of international security law”. But the following documents are distinguished from the main ones:
- UN Charter. The United Nations Organization was just created after the Second World War with the aim of preventing conflicts and resolving all contradictions diplomatically (peacefully). This also includes the UN General Assembly Resolutions. For example, “On the non-use of force in international relations and the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons” and others.
- International treaties, which are conditionally divided into several groups: holding the nuclear arms race and prohibiting their testing in any space; restricting the buildup of any weapons; prohibiting the creation and distribution of certain types of weapons; preventing accidental wars.
- Acts of international regional organizations and military-political blocs (OKB, NATO, OSCE, CIS).
Ineffective international security
The results of the failure of collective agreements are military operations. Legally, they have a definition.
War is the interaction of independent states in which forceful (destructive) actions occur between them. In this case, all diplomatic relations and early agreements are canceled.
Legal status of war
It can only happen between independent, that is, universally recognized countries. They must necessarily have the status of sovereignty: determine the direction of domestic and foreign policy. It follows that military operations against unrecognized, terrorist, as well as other organizations and groups that do not have the status of a separate subject of international law, are not considered a war.
Types of conflict in terms of international law
Legally divided into two categories:
- Sanctioned. That is legal. Such a status in the modern world gives only the UN Security Council, consisting of representatives of several states. Russia, as the successor of the USSR, is a permanent member and can impose a “veto power” on any decision.
- Wrongful. Not approved by the UN Security Council, and therefore illegal in terms of global norms from which the collective security system is formed
As a rule, the state that launched the unauthorized war is recognized as the aggressor. Such a country is automatically considered a threat to the entire world community. All diplomatic, economic and other ties are terminated with her. The aggressor state becomes an outcast in world politics. The remaining subjects of international law cease cooperation with him, so as not to fall under all kinds of sanctions. There have been many similar cases in history. For example, Iraq, having committed aggression against Kuwait. Or Iran, which refused by the decision of the UN Security Council to let international nuclear experts into its territory. Also, the DPRK, which since 1950 has legally been at war with South Korea, etc. But there have been cases when hostilities were unauthorized by the UN Security Council and aggressor countries had absolutely no negative consequences. On the contrary, they even economically benefited from such actions. These examples relate to the United States, which launched an attack on Iraq contrary to the UN resolution. Israel, inflicted a military strike on Libya. This just indicates that the collective security system is imperfect. There is a policy of double standards in the world, when different subjects of international law had completely opposite consequences for committing the same action. This is precisely what indicates a violation of the principle of equality in the collective security system, which leads to an escalation of conflicts and to conversations from a position of strength.
"Civilization" warfare
War is inherently terrible and unacceptable. She is beautiful for someone who has never seen her. But, despite all the cruelty of warfare, humanity has agreed to conduct it by "civilizational" methods, unless, of course, the authorized massacre can be called that. These methods were first adopted at the Hague Convention in 1907. Specialists already foreshadowed the massacres of world wars, which would violate all the principles of international law.
New rules of war
Under the Hague Convention, serious legal changes have occurred in the way war is waged:
- Mandatory open, diplomatic declaration of war and peace between countries.
- The conduct of hostilities only "authorized" types of weapons. With the development of technology, more and more new means fall under the ban. Today it is nuclear, hydrogen, bacteriological, chemical weapons, cluster bombs, explosive and with a shifted center of gravity bullets and other types of weapons that cause extreme suffering and mass destruction of civilians.
- The introduction of prisoner of war status.
- Protection of parliamentarians, doctors, translators, lawyers and other professionals who should not be exposed to the threat of destruction.