Economic sanctions

UNIVERSITY of WORLD (GLOBAL) ECONOMY And ДИПЛОМАТИИ

FACULTY of the international LAW And COMPARATIVE LEGISLATION

RESEARCH

WORK

ON THE SUBJECT OF: ECONOMIC SANCTIONS In МП

Work has executed: the student of group 1−3а-94. Хасанов Д

The scientific chief: Саидов

Р.Т кан. Юрид. Sciences.

The adviser for foreign language: Cафарова К.А.

Ташкент-98

The plan:

Introduction 3−5

Глава-I. The международно-legal responsibility

1.1. General (common) concept of the международно-legal responsibility 6−14

1.2. Basis of the международно-legal responsibility 15−21

1.3. Classification of international

Offences 22−39

Глава-II. Economic sanctions as a measure of the responsibility for offences

2.1. Export embargo 40−49

2.2. Embargo on import 50−63

2.3. Additional kind of economic

The sanctions 64−69

The conclusion 70−72

The bibliography 73−75

Introduction

A question on the sanctions, which should be applied to агрессору, until recently did not involve (attract) to itself of attention of wide sections and served a subject of study only of small group of the lawyers, experts on application of the sanctions a UN, and separate political figures. The question this seem especially academic, that is torn off from life. But since the end of a 1935 in connection with итало-абиссинским by the conflict, and then by beginning of the second world (global) war and present regional conflicts this question has become most urgent. This problem appears and in внешнеполитической of activity of a Republic of Uzbekistan. The president of a Republic of Uzbekistan И. А. Каримов in the performance (statement) as one of methods of the sanction of the regional conflicts offered messages of embargo on importation of arms and raw material for management of military actions in territory struggling государств1.

The question on the sanctions acquires a urgency in connection with all international conditions involved in new wars for передел of the world.

In these conditions the consolidation of forces of countries interested in preservation of the world, is the important problem. It can be made by strenghtening system of collective safety, which part are the sanctions.

As the sanctions hinder a rule (situation) агрессора, a Republic of Uzbekistan, being guided by the policy (politics) of the world, has supported system of the sanctions used by the United Nations Organization.

Some lawyers by a name of the sanctions designate usually measures directed to maintenance of observance of the law. The sanctions, as a rule, take the form of punishment for defiance of the law. A problem of the sanctions, partly превентивная, as the threat of application of the sanctions in the certain cases should keep the infringer of the law, or агрессора, from his (its) agressive actions, and partly positive, as the sanctions already after defiance of the law, or the aggressions, are false to help to restore the infringed balance. In the field of the международно-legal attitudes (relations) the question on the sanctions acquires a urgency there, where the speech goes about struggle for preservation of the world. From different promptings come to a problem of the sanctions of the states which have organized a UN, and Republic of Uzbekistan have in sphere of the international attitudes (relations) by the main problem and the purpose struggle for preservation of the world.

In the present research work I put to myself by a problem to analyse system of the sanctions stipulated by the Charter a UN, and to understand its (her) economic efficiency as on the basis of the general (common) analysis of conditions of world (global) facilities (economy), and on the basis of study of experience of application of the sanctions to some агрессорам.

With this purpose the work will be conducted in two directions which have received the reflection in two chapters of work. Each chapter will consist of three sections. In the first chapter will be происследованы questions of the международно-legal responsibility, general (common) concept, basis of the responsibility and classification of international offences. In the second chapter all kinds of economic sanctions (export embargo, embargo on import, reparation, restitution, репрессалии, субституции etc.) used to the states to the offenders will be directly considered.

Глава-I. The международно-legal responsibility

1.1. General (common) concept of the международно-legal responsibility

The международно-legal responsibility is a set of the legal attitudes (relations), which arise in the modern international law in connection with an offence, соверш ё нным by any state or other subject of the international law, or in connection with damage, reasons ё нным by the state to other states as a result of lawful activity. In one cases these правоотношения can concern directly only states — offender and suffering state, in other — can mention the rights and interests of all international community. Point of view;!from the point of view of consequences these правоотношения can be expressed for want of offences in restoration of the infringed right, in reimbursement of a material loss, in acceptance of the various sanctions and other measures of collective or individual character to the state which has infringed the international responsibility, and in case of harmful consequences for want of of lawful activity — in the responsibility to make appropriate indemnification.

Правоотношения of the responsibility in the international law result from wrongful actions or inactivity of the state infringing his (its) international responsibility. With уч ё volume that, that the norms of the rights regulating questions of the responsibility, come in actions only for want of infringement of primary (material) norms, some authors name правоотношения of the responsibility as derivative, or вторичными1.

The norms regulating the responsibility of the subjects of the international law, differ from «main», or «primary», norms. The representative (representative) of the Netherlands to a Commission of the international law a UN А. Таммес fairly has noticed, that «the main norms are those, which directly influence actions of the states. Derivative norms are those, which concern to the responsibility of the states, intend for assistance to practical realization in life of an essence of the international law contained in main norms » .2 is very important to not miss from a kind, that an establishment of «primary» norm and contents of the obligation based on it (her), — one party of business, and establishment that, whether that the obligation was infringed, and if yes, what should be consequences of this infringement, — other party. Only last also is sphere of the responsibility as such. The establishment of norms of the international law named «primary» frequently requires (demands) development (manufacture) of the vast and numerous articles, whereas the question on the responsibility is connected to development (manufacture) rather of few norms sometimes carrying general (common) character. However it is necessary to agree with remark contained in one of the reports of a commission of the international law a UN that possible (probable) in this case «лаконичность of the formulation the speech ид ё т about a simple problem does not mean at all, that. Opposite (on the contrary), in connection with each moment вста ё т set of complex (difficult) questions, each of which should be considered, for all of them influence choice of the proper formulation «1. The application of norms международно — legal responsibility results in occurrence of the new international legal attitude (relation), which derivates, on the one hand, responsibility of the state — offender to stop wrongful actions to restore the infringed right of the suffering state to reimburse of the reasons ё нный damage or to undergo to the sanctions, and on the other hand, right of the affected party to require (demand) of the state — offender of fulfilment of these responsibilities and to receive appropriate reimbursement and satisfaction.

The commission of the international law a UN, attending preparation of the project of the articles about the responsibility of the state for offences, has come to a conclusion about necessity to concentrate the efforts to researches of norms, which adjust the responsibility, and to conduct for want of it ч ё ткое differentiation between this problem and problem which consists in an establishment of «primary» norms assigning on the state the obligation, which infringement can cause ответственность.1

The contents of the obligations, закрепл ё нных in «primary» norms, can be considered for want of definition (determination) of the contents and consequences of an offence. «Primary», or main norms of the international law, and «secondary» norms of the международно-legal responsibility, it is necessary to consider in their interdependence and взаимообусловленности. Or else, without уяснения the contents of main norms and rights, following from them, and responsibilities of the subjects of the international law cannot be defined (determined) point consequences of their infringement and to differentiate categories of offences.

The consequences of infringement of the international obligation should be in dependence as from the contents of «primary» norms, to which the given international obligation is based, and from their value for all international community. It concerns first of all infringement of the obligations connected to maintenance of the international world and safety, with the right on self-determination, protection of the rights of the person, protection of an environment, which should be considered as international crimes, that is as the special category of an offence.

In the report of a Commission of the international law about work е ё to the twenty fifth session is spoken, that, when the problems concerning definition (determination) of separate categories of offences will be considered, «then there will be first of all main question on, whether it is necessary now to admit (allow) existence of the distinction based on significance of the infringed obligation for international community, whether and it is necessary, thus, to reveal within the framework of the modern international law a separate category more серь ё зных международно-illegal деяний, which, maybe, can be qualified by international crimes «1.

Уч ё т of all changes, thus, acquires major significance for achievement of positive result in кодификации of norms and principles of the responsibility in the international law. Correct their reflection is one of laws of development of the modern international law. Кодифицированные of norm and the principles of the международно-legal responsibility should fill in formed in this area of the international law a blank. In it one of problems кодификации consists, in my opinion in the field of the международно-legal responsibility. In this work regarding necessary to touch questions of a terminology and to define (determine) a place of the международно-legal responsibility — in general (common) system of the international law. On the XXV sessions of a Commission of the international law has found expedient for a designation of an offence to use expressions «международно-illegal деяние «, instead of expression «деликт» or other similar expressions, which sometimes can accept the special shade point of view;!from the point of view of some systems of the internal right. For example, the expression «международно-illegal деяние «point of view;!from the point of view of French language is, probably, more correct, than the expression «the международно-illegal sertificate (act) «, by virtue of that reason, that противоправность frequently is displayed in inactivity, and the latter precisely designate by the term «sertificate"("act»), which on сути induces on an idea on actions under it and some other reasons the commission has decided and for spanish language to use the accordingly term «hecho internacionalemente illicito», and for English language to keep the term «internationally wrongfull act», as the English term «act» does not cause such associations what this term causes in French and spanish languages.

Former soviet международно-legal literature strongly included the term «an international offence «. The replacement by his (its) new term «международно-illegal деяние «, on my sight, is not caused by any necessity. All those reasonable reasons, which were resulted for change of the given term on French and spanish languages, for Russian the significances have not, as the term «an international offence «in Russian is supposed both action, and inactivity and we shall use in any case of illegal behaviour. Term «international offence «in Russian will be used for designation of action or inactivity, which can, according to the international law to be appropriated (given) to the subject of the international law and which the infringement of the international obligation have basic significance for all international community represents, the term «an international crime «will be used.

Д.Б Левин writes, that development of the international law in present period вед ё т to allocation in separate branch of the right of the international responsibility. This branch, in his (its) opinion, should be entered by (with) three main categories of norms and institutes: first, norms and institutes concerning the responsibility of the state for an international offence and determining the basis and the form of this responsibility; secondly, norms concerning the criminal liability of the natural persons for international преступления.1 In the same branch, in my opinion, the responsibility of the state for damage, reasons ё нный should enter in connection with lawful activity, which follows from other basis, than international law.

The development of the international law requires (demands) in conditions of deep changes, occurring in the world, of overcoming of considerable difficulties in searches общеприемлемого of the agreement on that, as in what area of the international attitudes (relations) it is necessary to consider (count) as the right.

With the purposes of maintenance of the general world and safety a UN is called to promote observance of such attitudes (relations) between the states and peoples, which for want of can be observed respect for the obligations following from the agreements and other sources of the international law.

1.2. Basis of the международно-legal responsibility

The basis of occurrence of the международно-legal responsibility of the subject of the international law is the fulfilment by him (it) of an international offence.

The international offence is an action or inactivity of the subject of the international law infringing norms of the international law and the international obligations, наносящие to other subject either group of the subjects of the international law or all international community as a whole damage of material or non-material character (for example, sertificates (acts) of aggression, illegal restriction of the sovereignty, encroachment on territorial integrity and political independence, infringement of the obligations under the agreements and other.) 1. For want of it the responsibility arises, as a rule, only for want of availability причинной of communication (connection) between illegal behaviour of the subject and caused damage.

Thus, components of an international offence attracting behind self the международно-legal responsibility, are: action or inactivity of the subjects infringing norms of the international law; вменяемость of an offence of the subject of the international law; causing of damage or вреда to other subject or group of the subjects of the international law.

Any references of the state to the national laws and rules in the justification of the behaviour which has resulted (brought) in infringement of norms the international laws and drawing of damage or вреда, are inadmissible. The references to ignorance of norms of the international law or on wrong their interpretation and application also are inadmissible. Practically all international offences are made consciously, purposely, is guilty. It is impossible to justify aggression of USA against Гренады (October, 1983) and Libya (March, 1986), налеты of aircraft ЮАР on cities Замбии and Зимбабве (May, 1986), destruction by Israeli aircraft of iraq centre of nuclear researches (June, 1981), exhibiting by American mercenaries of mines in waters and ports of Nicaragua and other similar actions by the references to necessity «protection of life «or «interests». Especially, they cannot be issued for the sertificates (acts) of «self-defense» 1.

The illegal actions or inactivity presenting (causing) to occurrence of the международно-legal responsibility the subjects of the international law can be made by state bodies (without dependence from their rule (situation) in system of public authorities and management), officials of the state acting on his (its) assignment (order) or from his (its) name, and also special bodies of the states allocated imperous authorities and acting from his (its) name. For example, responsibility for grab by the Israeli military ships of a greek vessel (the summer 1984) should bear government of Israel. The responsibility of the state can come (step) behind acceptance of the law or other normative sertificate (act) contradicting to norms of the international agreement, which participant it is by, or, on the contrary, for неприятие of the law, which it was obliged to accept according to the international obligations and which would prevent происшедшее illegal event or action.

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 т 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 т 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 международно-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 международно-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 н 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) серь 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, регламентирующих of a means and methods of management of struggle are infringed, the responsibility was born by (with) ё т 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, закрепл ё нные in the acting conventions and agreements, were punctually executed by all state bodies, military connections and military men.

The международно-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) (ЯЭУ) and space objects started in space space. Court with ЯЭУ 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 ид ё т 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 нный by space objects of a 1972 is spoken, that the starting state «was born by (with) ё т the absolute responsibility for payment of indemnification for damage, reasons ё нный 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 деликты).

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, подч ё ркивается, that международно-legal деяние, 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, геноцид, апартеид, колониализм, military crimes, crime against humanity etc. As such crimes mention practically вс 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 нную intervention;

— вооруж ё нные the agressive shares, that is separate вооруж ё нные attacks which are not carrying of character wars or intervention;

— the input вооруж ё нных of forces on territory of the foreign state or оставление 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) послевоенного of period this term meets extremely редко. 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 вооруж ё нном an attack (51).

In the sentence of the International military tribunal in Nuremberg agressive actions гитлеровской 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) ССР 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 «вооруж ё нный the conflict «is widely applied.

In the agreements for the mutual help, заключ ё нных after the second world (global) war, term «the agressive war «does not meet, and the term «aggression» and «вооруж ё нное an attack «is applied.

Whether Means вс ё it, what concept «the agressive war «can be replaced by concepts «application of force «, «aggression», «вооруж ё нное an attack «and should not be allocated in the responsibility of a separate kind вооруж ё нной 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, вооруж ё нной 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 агрессивности 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. Оппенгейм 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 Дж. Страрк states the same point of view;!from the point of view of ещ ё sharply. As he said, «a Nature of war in itself becomes more exact определ ё нной as the formal status вооруж ё нных 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 пут ё м 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 враждующие of country appear in a condition of war.

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

The agressive war it is indispensable захватническая war, which вед ё тся агрессором 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 — агрессора 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 вооруж ё нных 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 вооруж ё нная 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 международно-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 развязывание of aggression «1. However начатие 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 гитлеровской of Germany against ССР 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.

Вооруж ё нная intervention. Other rather dangerous kind of illegal application вооруж ё нной of force is frequently meeting in international practice of some states вооруж ё нная the intervention, that is intrusion вооруж ё нных 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 определ ё нные of action on a question which are included in his (its) internal competence. Can be and other purposes вооруж ё нной of intervention, but all of them are usually connected by interference in internal businesses интервенируемого of the state, instead of with аннексированием by all or part of his (its) territory.

Вооруж ё нная the intervention can accept rather wide scales, not less, than agressive war.

In the soviet literature the opinions expressed, that between agressive war and вооруж ё нной by intervention «there is no difference «1. It is impossible to agree with this opinion. Undoubtedly, as agressive war, and вооруж ё нная intervention represent rather dangerous вооруж ё нную aggression. But вс ё they various kinds вооруж ё нной 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, вооруж ё нная the intervention usually does not put such purposes. She (it) is undertaken to spread in интервенируемом the state угодный интервенту a political mode and government, or to impose to government интервенируемого of the state will интервента in sphere relating the sovereignty интервенируемого the states.

The agressive war too can put the purposes of change public and political building other struggling party in a favour агрессора (such purposes, for example, put Israel in war against the Arabian states in 1967 г.), 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 вооруж ё нная the intervention puts before itself the purposes connected extremely in internal businesses интервенируемого of the state. Besides вооруж ё нная the intervention can occur and without break of the diplomatic, consular and trade attitudes (relations) between the state интервентом and интервенируемым 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 вооруж ё нной of intervention was подтвержд ё н widely and in ещ 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 вооруж ё нной of force by the separate states only in a case вооруж ё нного 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 вооруж ё нной 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 ид ё т both about вооруж ё нном interference, and about any other form of interference is further spoken, that. In a 1949 the interdiction by the international law вооруж ё нной of intervention was подтвержд ё н INTERNATIONAL court a UN in the decision on business about a strait Корфу.

At last, the interdiction of the armed intervention was categorically подтвержд ё н GENERAL Assembly a UN on е ё XX sessions in the declaration on inadmissibility of interference in internal businesses of the states, about a protection of their independence and sovereignty, according to which «is condemned not only вооруж ё нное interference, but also all other forms of interference «. In the Resolution ХХI sessions № 2225 from December 19, 1996 by General Assembly about a course of fulfilment of this declaration the Assembly again has found by the responsibility urgently to offer to all states to abstain from вооруж ё нного of interference, no less than from the various forms of indirect interference.

Вооруж ё нные the agressive shares. Alongside with agressive war and вооруж ё нной by intervention, these most dangerous kinds вооруж ё нной of aggression, it is necessary to stay and on other е ё kinds, sometimes is rather close them contiguous. It, first of all вооруж ё нные the agressive shares, that is вооруж ё нные of an attack which are not having attributes inherent agressive war or вооруж ё нной of intervention, inherent in agressive war вооруж ё нных of forces of one state on territory of other state, attack вооруж ё нных of forces of one state on separate items of territory of other state or on marine and air court outside of his (its) territory. They can carry both individual, and systematic character. Distinctive feature of this kind вооруж ё нной of aggression in comparison with agressive war and вооруж ё нной by intervention is that such attacks are usually undertaken not for grab of territory of the state or interference in his (its) internal businesses, and for other purposes. More often they are undertaken that пут ё м вооруж ё нного of pressure to force the state to execute that or other his (its) requests агрессора.

The most significant examples of agressive such sertificates (acts) are the systematic bombardments from air and artillery bombardment from the military ships вооруж ё нными by forces of USA against cities and насел ё нных of items of Democratic Republic Vietnam.

By other not less significant example вооруж ё нных of the agressive shares of large scale was the intrusion вооруж ё нных of forces of USA on territory of neutral Cambodia in May, 1970.

In a number of cases вооруж ё нные the agressive shares are undertaken by some states under a pretext возмездия for the valid or seeming offences, that is under a pretext репрессалий1.

Input вооруж ё нных of forces on territory of the foreign state and preservation them on it (her) for interference in his (its) internal businesses. One of kinds of illegal application вооруж ё нной of force close contiguous to вооруж ё нной of intervention, is the input вооруж ё нных of forces on territory of the foreign state contrary to his (its) will and for interference in his (its) internal businesses. As the practice of some states, in particular (personally) facts of landing American войск in Lebanon and British войск in Jordan in July, 1958 serving with a subject of consideration III extreme sessions of General Assembly a UN shows, such input войск sometimes masks by the request of dependent government. However and in these cases it (he) is rough infringement of the international law, what the intervention «by agreement» or «at the request «интервенируемого of the state is, mentioned above, вооруж ё нная.

To вооруж ё нной of intervention the contents вооруж ё нных of forces on territory of other states, contrary to will of this state rather closely adjoins. Quite often states keeping вооруж ё нные the forces on territory of other states, ignore requests of governments of these states, and sometimes and resolution of bodies a UN concerning a conclusion войск. So, for example, Great Britain and France entering during the second world (global) war войска in Syria and Lebanon, continued to keep them and on termination (ending) war (down to April, 1946) contrary to a request of governments of Syria and Lebanon. Great Britain, France and Israel, предпринявшие in a 1956 agressive war against Egypt, continued to keep войска on territory of Egypt and upon termination of military actions (Great Britain and France till December 22, 1956, Israel — till March 7, 1957.), despite of a number of the resolutions about an immediate conclusion войск, I of Extreme special session of General Assembly a UN and XI General Assemblies a UN.

The experience shows, that presence вооруж ё нных of forces on territory of other states contrary to will last, as we saw, in a number of cases was direct continuation of agressive war (stay Israeli войск in ОАР, Syria and Jordan) or вооруж ё нной of intervention (stay belgium войск in Конго, American войск in Доминиканской to Republic), is directed against territorial integrity and political independence of these states. Therefore it, undoubtedly, is illegal application of force infringing by item 4 ст. 2 of the Charter a UN.

Marine blockade in peace time. A kind of illegal application вооруж ё нной of force is so-called «the peace blockade «, that is blockade by naval forces one or several states in peace time. Е ё as difference from blockade made during war, it is accepted to consider (count) that she (it) is accompanied not by confiscation, and only by temporary detention on period of blockade of courts of the third states trying е ё to tear. As the history of the international attitudes (relations) testifies, «the peace blockade «is usually applied large державами as the instrument вооруж ё нного of pressure on weaker государства1. Some lawyersмеждународники try to prove «legitimacy of peace blockade «as to a version вооруж ё нных репрессалий, ostensibly admitted international правом2. Actually so-called «the peace blockade «is the sertificate (act) вооруж ё нной of aggression — in such quality she (it) and appears in the London conventions of a 1933 — and certainly is forbidden under the Charter a UN both by virtue of item 4 ст. 2, and by virtue of ст. 39.

In period after the second world (global) war the largest case of application «of peace blockade «was so-called «quarantine» announced by government of USA concerning Cuba in October, 1962.

Support вооруж ё нных of groups and groups on ё мников for intrusion on territory of other state. At last, among kinds of illegal application вооруж ё нной of force the support вооруж ё нных of gangs and groups on ё мников for intrusion on territory of other state should be mentioned with the purpose of interference in his (its) internal businesses, in particular (personally) with the purpose of suppression occurring in н ё м национально-освободительного of movement (traffic). Ещ ё in the agreements about ненападении, заключ ё нных the Soviet Union with other states in 20-th and 30-th years, provided the obligations of each party to not admit and to interfere with organization and activity on the territory вооруж ё нных of groups putting by the purpose struggle on territory of other party against е ё of government, for an overthrow state building, against integrity е ё of territory or appropriating (giving) to themselves a role of government by all or part е ё of territory. In the London conventions on definition (determination) of aggression of a 1933 of the party consider as one of kinds вооруж ё нной of aggression support by the state, «rendered вооруж ё нным to gangs, which being are formed (educated) on his (its) territory, have intruded on territory of other state, or failure (refusal), despite of requests of the state which has undergone to intrusion to accept on own territory all measures, dependent on him,(it,) for deprivation of named gangs of the help or protection «(item 5 of an item. II). In the project of the code of crimes against the world and safety of mankind accepted the Commission of the international law a UN on е ё of 6-th session in a 1954, as one of such crimes specified «organization by authorities of any state or encouragement by them of organization вооруж ё нных шаек within the limits of his (its) territory for intrusion territory of other state, or assumption of use by such вооруж ё нными шайками of his (its) territory as operative base or basic point for intrusion on territory of other state, no less than direct sharing (participation) in such intrusion or support those «1.

Глава-II. Economic sanctions as a measure of the responsibility for offences

1.1. EXPORT EMBARGO.

The legal problems of the sanctions, as we saw above, have involved (attracted) from the very beginning of formation (training) a UN most serious attention of its (her) bodies both various international conferences and commissions. The commission of blockade recommended to prepare, and from time to time to revise the list of the goods of military significance, defining (determining) thus эвентуальную area of application of economic sanctions.

The economic sanctions can accept the double form: the form of prohibition of export in country — агрессора of the raw goods have mainly military significance, and form of prohibition of import from this country. The most effective form of economic sanctions is the complete blockade of this country both on import, and on экспорту1. Before that how to disassemble a question on efficiency of application of the sanctions, it is necessary even in brief features to stay on a general (common) problem of significance of economic sanctions.

We shall begin our analysis from a question on embargo on the raw goods have military significance. First of all it is necessary to tell, that concept «military significance «for the raw goods rather rather. If to take only such raw material, which goes directly on manufacturing of a means of war, and in this case, considering extreme development of military industry, the list will be rather wide. It is necessary to consider (count) as such raw material not only products serving directly for manufacturing бомб, гранат, bullets, guns and т. д, such goods here concern also which are necessary for production of military planes, military courts for carriage войск, let alone raw material for production of chemical means of war; at last it is necessary to consider (count) as military raw material products necessary for production of regimentals for army. All this shows, that the list of raw material have military significance, is in modern conditions rather wide. The British royal institute on international businesses in interesting work under heading of «Sanction» schedules the following list of the most important goods have military significance:

— coal and the coke — for production of steel, for power facilities (economy) and transport, and is equal indirectly for production of explosive substances and хикалий;

— petroleum — for all types of transport;

— clap (cotton) — for production of explosive substances;

— wool — necessary material for various productions have and military significance;

— rubber — for various productions, mainly for electrical mechanical engineering and transport;

— глицерин — for production бездымных of gunpowders;

— iron ore and pig-iron — for production of arms, military equipment, railway equipment and any sort of construction;

— lead — for production of arms, and also for production of acids necessary for explosive substances;

— медь, coal, tin, кадмий — for production of the weapon, military equipment and electroindustry;

— никель — for a different sort of arms;

— aluminium (бокситы) — for construction of planes;

— the tin — is widely used for production of explosive substances;

— platinum — for chemical preparations, in particular (personally) for want of production нитратов;

— антимоний, фосфаты, магнизит, марганцовые of ore, молибден, вольфрам, хром — for metallurgy;

— асбест — for mechanical engineering, for production of the weapon;

— graphite — for production and плавки of metals;

— силитра — important element for production of explosive substances;

— sulfur — for production of explosive substances;

— мышьяк, бромин, хлорин, phosphorus — for chemical industry and for production poisonous газов1.

It is impossible to recognize the list this comprehensive. From the indicated transfer явствует, that эвентуальное the embargo on exportation of raw products imposed by way of economic sanctions, inevitably mentions not only specially military production, but also production of countries working for civilians. It is very difficult to conduct a side between military and civil production. It is well-known, that during the second world (global) war a lot especially of peace productions fast was adapted to production of means of destruction. It is enough to result even simple example of canning factories fast adapted to production of shells. It is well-known, that the tractor factories can be used for production of tanks. The military significance of factories of artificial silk (i.e. product widely used for the so peace purposes, as for example ladies' linen) also widely is known. Attempt to conduct a side between military and civil production and to limit embargo only to raw material necessary for needs (requirements) of war, it is necessary to consider (count) completely hopeless. From here follows, that the economic sanctions on a line of raw embargo can be effective only in the event that the importation of raw material in country — агрессора completely or very considerably is reduced.

The important significance has and borrowing (occupying) UN a question on change товаропотоков. Uneasy to itself to present, чтье) also widely it is known. Attempt to conduct a side between military and civil production and to limit embargo only to raw material necessary for needs (requirements) of war, it is necessary to consider (count) completely hopeless. From here follows, that the economic sanctions on a line of raw embargo can be effective only in the event that the importation of raw material in country — агрессора completely or very considerably is reduced.

The important significance has and borrowing (occupying) UN a question on change товаропотоков. Uneasy to itself to present, чтия, and first of all Scandinavian countries considerably have expanded the import from «allied» countries on all not хватавшим of Germany to the raw goods, and then with large profit for themselves перепродавали these goods of Germany. The rough growth of import of Scandinavian countries per military years was directly caused by importation for resale in Germany. Not casually Scandinavian countries have published the foreign trade statistics only after termination (ending) war. In practice now агрессор, on which are applied sanctions, for example Italy, receives the scarce goods via such countries, as Germany, which is inclined to support агрессора. For struggle with this phenomenon there is only one method. This method was discussed by committee of coordination on the initiative of a French delegation maintained by a delegation USSR, but it (he) was not accepted owing to resistance rendered to it (him) by a English delegation, which did not want to limit English export and Germany. The method, offered by the French, was reduced to restriction of export of goods, on which is imposed by embargo, in countries which are not accepting sharing (participations) in the sanctions, so-called normal quantities (amounts) of average export during several last «of peace years «. While such decision not принято1.