Neutral country in western Europe. Which countries remained neutral during World War II

04.08.2021

Permanent neutrality is the international legal status of a state that has pledged not to participate in any wars that occur or may occur in the future, and to refrain from actions that could involve such a state in a war. In this regard, permanently neutral states do not take part in military-political alliances, refuse to deploy foreign military bases on their territory, oppose weapons of mass destruction, and actively support the efforts of the world community in the field of disarmament, confidence-building and cooperation between states. Thus, permanent neutrality is carried out not only during war, but also in peacetime. The status of permanent neutrality does not deprive the state of the right to self-defense in the event of an attack on it.

The legal confirmation of this status is the conclusion by the interested states of an appropriate international treaty with the participation in it of the state, endowed with the status of permanent neutrality. The validity of such an agreement is not subject to any term - it is concluded for the entire future. According to the obligations assumed, a permanently neutral state must comply with the rules of neutrality in the event of a military conflict between any states, that is, follow the norms of international law regarding neutrality in war, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1907 on neutrality in war on land (Fifth Convention ) and naval warfare (Thirteenth Convention). Equally, a permanently neutral state cannot allow the use of its territory, including airspace, for interference in the internal affairs of other states and hostile actions against them. Similar actions on the part of a permanently neutral state itself are unacceptable. At the same time, the latter has the right to participate in the activities of international organizations, to have

your army and military fortifications necessary for self-defense.

Often, the status of permanent neutrality is enshrined in both an international treaty and a national legal act of the state. Each state has the sovereign right to independently determine its foreign policy, taking into account the principles and norms of international law. This right is reflected in the choice by the state of the methods of establishing the status of its permanent neutrality. This assumes that this status can be determined by the state and on the basis of its adoption only of the relevant internal acts. It is only important that in this case this status is recognized by other states.

In the historical past, the status of permanent neutrality belonged to Belgium (from 1831 to 1919) and Luxembourg (from 1867 to 1944).

In the modern period, Switzerland, Austria, Laos, Cambodia, Malta, Turkmenistan have this status.

The agreement on the permanent neutrality of Switzerland was signed by Austria, Great Britain, France, Russia, Prussia and Portugal on November 8 (20), 1815 and was confirmed by the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919. The powers that signed the Agreement recognized the “permanent” neutrality of Switzerland. They guaranteed both the status of neutrality and the inviolability of the territory of Switzerland, which implies the obligation of these powers to defend the status of Switzerland in the event of its violation.

According to the Soviet-Austrian memorandum, adopted in April 1955, Austria pledged to announce a declaration that it would adopt a status similar to that of Switzerland's neutrality. On May 15, 1955, the State Treaty was signed on the restoration of an independent and democratic Austria, in which the great powers allied during the Second World War - the USSR, the USA, England, France - declared that they would respect the independence and territorial integrity of Austria in the form of it is established by the named Treaty. On December 26, 1955, the Austrian Parliament adopted the Federal Constitutional Act on the Neutrality of Austria. In Art. 1 of the Law, it was determined that in order to permanently and permanently assert its external independence and the inviolability of its territory, Austria voluntarily declares its

permanent neutrality. To ensure these goals, the Law contains a provision according to which Austria will not join any military alliances and will not allow the creation of military strongholds of foreign states on its territory. Austria's status was recognized by the Allied Powers and many other states, but unlike Switzerland's, it was not guaranteed.

At the international meeting in Geneva, 14 countries on the settlement of the Laotian question, on July 23, 1962, the Declaration of Neutrality of Laos was signed, in which the participants of the meeting took note of the statement of the Government of Laos on neutrality of July 9, 1962 and declared that they recognize, will respect and respect the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Laos.

The status of Cambodia was determined by the Final Act of the Paris Conference on Cambodia of October 23, 1991. An integral part of this document is the Agreement concerning the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and inviolability, neutrality and national unity of Cambodia, which fixes its obligation to consolidate permanent neutrality in its Constitution ... The other parties to the Agreement have pledged to recognize and respect this status of Cambodia. The duty of permanent neutrality was reflected in the Cambodian Neutrality Law, which entered into force on November 6, 1957.

The Government of the Republic of Malta approved on May 14, 1981 the Declaration on the Neutrality of Malta, in which it declared that the Republic of Malta is a neutral state and refuses to participate in any military alliances. No facility in Malta can be used in such a way as to result in the concentration of foreign military forces in Malta.

The permanent neutrality of Turkmenistan was proclaimed by the Law "On Amendments and Additions to the Constitution of Turkmenistan" and the Constitutional Law "On the Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan" adopted in 1995. It was also recognized and supported by the UN General Assembly resolution "Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan", adopted on December 12 1995 year

In Art. 1 of the Constitution of Turkmenistan summarizes the content of these documents and fixes the position, in accordance with

which "the community-recognized neutrality of Turkmenistan is the basis of its domestic and foreign policy."

Thus, only a full-fledged subject of international law - the state - can have the status of permanent neutrality. Obligations arising from the status of a permanently neutral state cannot serve as a limitation on its sovereignty. A number of lawyers in the past believed that a permanently neutral state cannot be sovereign, since by virtue of its status (duty not to participate in military conflicts) it is deprived of the "right to war" and is constrained in freedom of action.

Modern international law, which has eliminated the "right to war" and consolidated the principle of conscientious observance of international obligations, thus creates additional guarantees for states that have the status of permanent neutrality.

States that do not participate in wars and do not provide assistance to the belligerent parties have a special legal status. Such states are subdivided into permanently neutral and neutral in a particular war.

Permanent neutrality- this is the international legal status of a state that has pledged not to participate in any wars that occur or may occur in the future, and to refrain from actions that could involve such a state in a war.

In this regard, permanently neutral states do not take part in military-political alliances, they refuse to deploy foreign military bases on their territory. They oppose weapons of mass destruction, actively support the efforts of the world community in the field of disarmament, confidence-building and cooperation between states. Thus, permanent neutrality is exercised not only during war, but also in peacetime.

The status of permanent neutrality does not deprive the state of the right to self-defense in the event of an attack on it.

Legal consolidation of this status is carried out in several ways:

1)The status of permanent neutrality is enshrined in the national legal act of the state. Each state has the sovereign right to independently determine its foreign policy, taking into account the principles and norms of international law. A reflection of this right is the choice by the state of the methods of establishing the status of its permanent neutrality. This assumes that this status can be determined by the state and on the basis of its adoption only of the relevant internal acts. It is only important that in this case this status is recognized by other states (recognized neutrality). In Art. 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus states that the Republic of Belarus aims to make its territory a nuclear-free zone, and the state - neutral.

2) The conclusion by the interested states of an appropriate international treaty with the participation in it of a state endowed with the status of permanent neutrality. The validity of such an agreement is not subject to any term - it is concluded for the entire future time. According to the obligations assumed, a permanently neutral state must comply with the rules of neutrality in the event of a military conflict between any states, that is, follow the norms of international law regarding neutrality during war, in particular. Equally, a permanently neutral state cannot allow the use of its territory, including airspace, for interference in the internal affairs of other states and hostile actions against them. Similar actions on the part of a permanently neutral state itself are unacceptable. At the same time, the latter has the right to participate in the activities of international organizations, to have its own army and military fortifications necessary for self-defense.

In the historical past, the status of permanent neutrality belonged to Belgium (from 1831 to 1919) and Luxembourg (from 1867 to 1944).

In the modern period, Switzerland, Austria, Laos, Cambodia, Malta, Turkmenistan have this status. The agreement on the permanent neutrality of Switzerland was signed by Austria, Great Britain. France, Russia, Prussia and Portugal on November 8 (20), 1815 and was confirmed by the Treaty of Versailles of 1919. The powers that signed the agreement recognized Switzerland's "permanent" neutrality. They are guaranteed both the status of neutrality and the inviolability of the territory of Switzerland, which implies the obligation of these powers to defend the status of Switzerland in the event of its violation.

At the international meeting in Geneva, 14 countries on the settlement of the Laotian question, on July 23, 1962, the Declaration of Neutrality of Laos was signed, in which the participants of the meeting took note of the statement of the Government of Laos on neutrality of July 9, 1962 and declared that they recognize, will respect and observe sovereignty. independence, unity and territorial integrity of Laos.

The status of Cambodia was determined by the Final Act of the Paris Conference on Cambodia of October 23, 1991. An integral part of this document is the Agreement concerning the sovereignty of independence, territorial integrity and inviolability, neutrality and national unity of Cambodia, which enshrines its obligation to consolidate permanent neutrality in its Constitution. The other parties to the Agreement have pledged to recognize and respect this status of Cambodia. The duty of permanent neutrality was reflected in the Cambodian Neutrality Law, which entered into force on November 6, 1957.

The Government of the Republic of Malta approved on May 14, 1981 the Declaration on the Neutrality of Malta, in which it declared that the Republic of Malta is a neutral state and refuses to participate in any military alliances. No facility in Malta can be used in a way that would lead to the concentration of foreign military forces in Malta.

3) Adoption by the UN General Assembly of the Resolution on State Neutrality. The permanent neutrality of Turkmenistan was proclaimed by the Law "On Amendments and Additions to the Constitution of Turkmenistan" and the Constitutional Law "On the Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan" of December 12, 1995. It was recognized and supported by the UN General Assembly Resolution "Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan", adopted on December 12, 1995 d. In Art. 1 of the Constitution of Turkmenistan summarizes the content of these documents and establishes the provision according to which the neutrality of Turkmenistan recognized by the community is the basis of its domestic and foreign policy.

State neutrality in war - it is the international legal status of a state that has pledged not to participate in the ongoing war and not to provide assistance and assistance to the belligerent parties.

The rights and obligations of a neutral state are enshrined in the two Hague conventions of 1907 on neutrality in war on land (the fifth convention) and on neutrality in naval warfare (thirteenth convention).

The territory of a neutral state cannot be used for sending troops and transport by belligerent countries; no military action can be carried out from this territory; the radio transmitting devices of the belligerent countries must not be placed. A neutral state is obliged not to provide its territory for the formation of military units and the creation of military bases of the belligerent parties, not to transfer them ammunition, military equipment and any types of weapons; to detain and intern the ships and military aircraft of the belligerents, if they have not left their port after the grace period has expired; prevent and not allow belligerents to detain ships of third countries in their territorial sea; prevent the wounded from recovering from being able to participate in hostilities again, etc. Neutral state has the right to reflect by military force any attempts by the belligerents to violate this status; provide its territory for the transportation and maintenance of war victims; mediate the negotiations between the belligerents; provide shelter to the troops, ships and aircraft of the belligerents with their subsequent internment, etc.

The European neutrals of the Cold War have recently taken more and more steps that put their special status into question. This is, first of all, about Austria, Sweden and, especially,. If the first and second of the listed countries became neutral only after the Second World War, Sweden has not participated in any military blocs for more than 200 years, and Switzerland has generally considered neutrality as the basis of its foreign policy since the end of the 17th century. In the last decade, everything has changed radically.

How neutral were these countries previously?

1.It has already been said about Austria and Finland above. They took part in the Second World War on the side of the German fascist, and Austria became fully part of the Third Reich and, accordingly, lost its independence, and Finland, led by K-G. Mannerheim, was a full ally of Hitler.
2.To refrain from participating in the created military blocs, these countries were invited, who defeated Finland, taking her out of the war, and completely seized the territory of Austria. This was the price for non-occupation (in the first case) and for the end of the occupation (in the second).
3.Sweden, like Switzerland, was a real paradise for intelligence of all belligerent countries during both world wars. Neutral Sweden, as you know, let the Wehrmacht troops through its territory, and even more neutral Switzerland kept gold and other valuables looted by the Nazis in the conquered European countries in its banks.
4. The neutrality of Austria is determined at the legislative level, this is not the case in Sweden and Finland.
5.In principle, neither in Austria, nor in Sweden, nor in Finland the term "neutrality" was used. in the official political lexicon. They talked about "non-alignment", which left the right not to participate in military alliances, but, at the same time, did not exclude the possibility of participation in military conflicts.
6.However, not so long ago, even such a streamlined formulation lost its meaning. This happened after Austria, Sweden and Finland became members of the European Union in 1995. As part of deepening cooperation on security issues within the EU, all member states should provide each other with assistance in the event of an attack or other danger.
7.How are these "special" countries to be called now? who are on a par with others, but want to be different from them? Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb proposed to speak of them as not neutral states, but not members of the alliance.
8.Austria, Sweden and Finland have been cooperating very actively and for a long time with NATO, participating with him in many joint programs and conducting joint exercises. But so far there can be no talk of any entry into the Alliance, since the overwhelming majority of the citizens of these countries are against such a step.
So they lived for a long time "between heaven and earth", on the one hand, they seem to be equal among equals, and on the other, they have their own specifics.

How was Switzerland different?

Switzerland, unlike its "non-aligned" sisters, has always called itself an exclusively neutral country and has always insisted on this status.
Moreover, until recently it tried in principle not to enter into any international unions or organizations. Even the mountain republic joined the UN only in 2002. Needless to say about the European Union or, moreover, about NATO, from which Switzerland has always preferred to stay away.
It is thanks to Switzerland's neutral status that the most representative international forums, for example Davos, are traditionally held on its territory, and the most difficult diplomatic negotiations take place. It was Switzerland that acted as an intermediary between and, the United States and, and. One of the most recent examples: the establishment of diplomatic relations between and Turkey in 2009.

Where are the “non-aligned” going?

1.At the end of 2006, the political leadership of Sweden and Finland made a decision join the NATO Rapid Reaction Force. However, this was kept secret from voters for more than six months and became public only after the elections. Politicians feared a predictable backlash from their constituents.
2.This step was later justified by geographic proximity northern countries to "unpredictable" Russia.
3.The immediate reason for this was commencement of work on the construction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea. Finland and especially Sweden feared that the completion of this project would lead to significant changes in the balance of power in the region.
4.Fears increased significantly after the Georgian-South Ossetian war in the summer of 2008, when in Finland and Sweden there was a noticeable increase in the number of supporters of these countries joining NATO.
5.All non-aligned states in Europe, including Ireland, are participants of the Partnership for Peace program, their representatives are among the NATO forces deployed in the Balkans and in.
6.Finally, Sweden recently sent eight of its warplanes to participate in the military campaign in Libya. She is the first of the Non-Aligned to go this far. We will remind, more than 500 Swedish soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan. Its special status implies that RAF fighters will only open fire in response and will not attack ground targets. That is, Sweden still wants to "eat honey without killing the bees." NATO has no objection yet, but how long this will continue is unknown.

How long will Switzerland "hold out"?

.The most neutral country in the world is also losing its unshakable position, which she successfully managed to hold for hundreds of years. Bern's ability to rise above the fray has been increasingly called into question.
.After joining the UN in 2002, Switzerland was forced to send 200 of their peacekeepers to Kosovo.
.However, in the late 2000s, a small European country began to fall into one scandal after another, from which she hardly got out, while losing part of her impeccable reputation. In addition, Switzerland has come under unprecedented pressure from Washington.
.In August 2009, she agreed to divulge information. about thousands of accounts in a large Swiss bank UBS AG. It was about contributions made by US citizens who are suspected of tax evasion at home. The White House put pressure on the Swiss in this matter, and they were forced to violate the key principle - keeping the secrecy of deposits.
.Then high-ranking officials of the Swiss government were accused in the destruction of documents from the case "about Swiss engineers", which the national justice accused of collaborating with the CIA.
.The next scandal was the arrest in Zurich of the famous filmmaker Roman Polanski , which was produced on a warrant issued in the United States already in 1978. This fact angered not only the Swiss, but also many Europeans, who accused the Alpine Republic of groveling in front of Washington.
.The most real slap in the face for Switzerland was the "long-running" scandal with Libya. It erupted in 2008 after the arrest by the Geneva police of the son of the Libyan dictator Muammore Gaddafi Hannibal. He was accused of beating up the servants. In response, Colonel Gaddafi detained two Swiss businessmen in his country. No special status helped the "neutrals": Hannibal had to be released, and the president of a European country personally went to Tripoli with an apology. When even such humiliation did not immediately help out compatriots, the Swiss seriously thought about their real place in this world, as well as the prospect of being left without powerful friends. And, apparently, little by little they began to draw conclusions.

What is the reason for the change in trend in foreign policy?

According to the experts of the Masterforex-V Academy, the reason for this was several factors:
1. Ending major wars in Europe.
2. Displacement of the line of global confrontation far to the south and east. Now that Europe is actually not divided into Western and Eastern, there is little reason to balance between them.
3. New opponents in North Africa and Asia will not seriously understand who is neutral in Europe and who is not.
4. International terrorist organizations will also not bypass quiet neutral countries. They do not recognize international law and treat the “special” status of individual countries without any respect.
5. Many neutrals may well not be pleased with the building of a bipolar system in the world, despite the fact that China is becoming the second pole. Perhaps they understand that the time has come to make their civilizational choice.

Analysts of the Birzhevoy Leader magazine, together with experts from the Masterforex-V Academy, are conducting a survey at the traders forum: what do you think, the retraction of former "neutrals" into Washington's orbit rather speaks of:
. the strength and ambition of the United States;
.weaknesses of the EU;
.consolidated position of the US and EU in critical situations;
. strengthening of Russia, China, Iran.

Permanent neutrality is the international legal status of a state that has pledged not to participate in any wars that occur or may occur in the future, and to refrain from actions that could involve such a state in a war. In this regard, permanently neutral states do not take part in military-political alliances, refuse to deploy foreign military bases on their territory, oppose weapons of mass destruction, and actively support the efforts of the world community in the field of disarmament, confidence-building and cooperation between states. Thus, permanent neutrality is exercised not only during war, but also in peacetime. The status of permanent neutrality does not deprive the state of the right to self-defense in the event of an attack on it.

your army and military fortifications necessary for self-defense.

In the historical past, the status of permanent neutrality belonged to Belgium (from 1831 to 1919) and Luxembourg (from 1867 to 1944).

In the modern period, Switzerland, Austria, Laos, Cambodia, Malta, Turkmenistan have this status.

According to the Soviet-Austrian memorandum, adopted in April 1955, Austria pledged to announce a declaration that it would adopt a status similar to that of Switzerland's neutrality. On May 15, 1955, the State Treaty was signed on the restoration of an independent and democratic Austria, in which the great powers allied during the Second World War - the USSR, the USA, England, France - declared that they would respect the independence and territorial integrity of Austria in the form of it is established by the named Treaty. The Austrian Parliament on December 26, 1955 adopted the Federal Constitutional Act on the neutrality of Austria. In Art. 1 of the Law, it was determined that in order to permanently and permanently assert its external independence and the inviolability of its territory, Austria voluntarily declares its

permanent neutrality. To ensure these goals, the Law contains a provision according to which Austria will not enter into any military alliances and will not allow the creation of military strongholds of foreign states on its territory. Austria's status was recognized by the Allied Powers and many other states, but unlike Switzerland's, it was not guaranteed.

In Art. 1 of the Constitution of Turkmenistan summarizes the content of these documents and fixes the position, in accordance with

§ 5. Recognition of states

which "the community-recognized neutrality of Turkmenistan is the basis of its domestic and foreign policy."

Modern international law, which has eliminated the "right to war" and consolidated the principle of conscientious observance of international obligations, thereby creates additional guarantees for its provision for states with the status of permanent neutrality.

Recognition of states

The recognition of a state is directly related to its international legal personality.

Recognition as a legal institution mainly includes customary legal norms; certain aspects of recognition are regulated by international treaties of interested states and resolutions of international organizations. The institution of recognition has not yet been codified, although some steps have been taken in this direction. In 1949, the UN International Law Commission included the issue of recognition of states and governments in the list of topics subject to priority codification, but this problem was not resolved.

In science, certain judgments have been formed about the meaning of recognition for a new state, and in international practice, there are various legal decisions reflecting one or another doctrine of recognition.

Historically, two theories of recognition have developed - declarative and constitutive.

Declarative theory proceeded from the fact that the state is a subject of international law since its inception. Recognition does not endow the state with international legal personality, but only states such a legal

Chapter 3. Subjects of international law

subjectivity and contributes to the entry of the new state into the system of interstate relations.

Constitutive theory was based on the opposite postulate, according to which the emergence of a state is not tantamount to the emergence of a subject of international law; it becomes such only after receiving recognition from other states. This theory made the international legal personality of a state dependent on its recognition by other states. The unrecognized state was, as it were, outside of international communication due to the impossibility of realizing its basic rights and obligations, and establishing stable interstate relations. The recognition, thus, "constituted" the state as a subject of international law. This theory justified arbitrariness and interference in the internal affairs of the newly emerging states.

The Paris Congress of 1856 proceeded from this concept, affirming the dependence of the state's entry into the international arena on the consent of the leading powers. It was in this way that Turkey was "allowed" to cooperate with European countries at this congress. The complicated history of recognition of the RSFSR and then the USSR, which dragged on for many years, is well known. After the formation of the PRC in 1949, Western states, primarily the United States, refused to recognize it for many years.

The views of domestic international lawyers in the modern period are based on the idea that the recognition of a new state is an act of great political importance. It enables the new state to effectively exercise its international legal personality. And the unrecognized state has the opportunity to exercise its legal personality, to participate in multilateral conferences, treaties, international organizations. Thus, establishing the norm that only a state can be a member of the UN, the UN Charter does not require recognition to precede this. At the same time, the admission of an unrecognized state to an international organization also does not mean its recognition by those states that voted for its adoption, but only confirms that it has been a subject of international law since its inception.

Without creating a state as a subject of international law, recognition establishes the presence of a legal fact connected

§ 5. Recognition of states

with the emergence of a new state. Recognition allows the state to fully enjoy its fundamental rights and bear basic responsibilities, to participate in the creation and enforcement of international legal norms. Recognition is carried out within the framework of the principles of international law. In particular, the principle of cooperation requires the newly emerged and already existing states to develop stable relations, which is impossible without recognition.

State practice has developed varying levels of recognition. In this regard, there are two forms of recognition: legal and factual. Legal recognition in turn is subdivided into de jure recognition and de facto recognition. De jure, it is full recognition, which means the exchange of diplomatic missions between the recognizing and recognized states, that is, the establishment of stable political relations. The practice of states has developed certain ways of obtaining full legal recognition. It, as a rule, is pronounced, which means the fixation of recognition and the desire to establish diplomatic and other ties directly in an official document. Implicit recognition is also possible. De facto, as a special legal form of recognition, it is incomplete, since the emerging relations between the recognizing and recognized states are not brought to the level of diplomatic relations.

Actual, unofficial recognition should be distinguished from legal, official recognition. It is carried out in the form of permanent or episodic contacts at both the governmental and non-governmental levels. The option of actual recognition is considered to be ad hoc(one-time, in this case).

Recognition is formalized by an act of the recognizing state. An example is the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 12, 1993 “On the Recognition of Eritrea”. It says: "Proceeding from the fact that in accordance with the results of the referendum on independence a new state is proclaimed - Eritrea, recognize Eritrea as an independent and independent state."

The recognition of the state as a subject of international law at the same time means the recognition of its government. If the act formalizing the recognition refers to the recognition of the

Chapter 3. Subjects of international law

state, this also means the recognition of the state. At the same time, in international practice, the question of recognizing a new government in an already existing state may arise. This is usually due to the coming to power of the government in an unconstitutional way. This situation has given rise to a number of legal doctrines. Thus, in 1907, Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Tobar put forward a doctrine of non-recognition of governments that came to power by revolutionary means. The doctrine of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mexico Estrada, proclaimed in 1930 and establishing that in such situations, foreign states should not apply a special act of recognition, it was enough to accredit diplomatic representatives of states with the government that came to power was of a fundamentally different nature.

In modern conditions, the recognition of governments that came to power by unconstitutional means is quite possible. But the following circumstances are taken into account: the activity of the new government is supported by the people, corresponds to their will; the government exercises effective power in the territory of the state; a democratic political regime has been established that guarantees the observance of fundamental human rights and freedoms; there is no interference in the internal affairs of the state when the government comes to power.

The problem of recognition can arise in relation to the national liberation movement in the person of its organs, as well as in relation to the belligerent party.

The national liberation movement is based on the realization of the right of the people (nation) to self-determination. A people fighting for their statehood is a subject of international law. In the course of this struggle, he creates organs acting on his behalf. Recognition of the organ of a struggling nation is a statement of its international legal personality. This facilitates the exercise of the right to receive assistance from both states and international organizations and to exercise other fundamental rights. Examples of this were the recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and the South West Africa People's Organization as the representative of the people of Namibia (before independence).

Recognition of the resistance organs became widespread on the part of the states of the anti-Hitler coalition during the Second World War. The recognition of the resistance bodies that were created on the territory of the states temporarily seized by Germany and its allies meant the recognition of the authorities fighting against the occupiers. Some of the authorities that organized this struggle were in exile (the French Committee for National Liberation, the Czechoslovak National Committee, etc.), while others were in the occupied territory. Along with the recognition, the organs of popular resistance received the international legal status of the fighters, which meant the spread of the rules of warfare to them, and provided a legal basis for the assistance.

Succession of states

Succession of states it is customary to call the transition, taking into account the basic principles of international law and the rules on the succession of certain rights and obligations from one state - the subject of international law to another. In addition to states, the subjects of legal succession in international law are international organizations.

Succession is a complex international legal institution, the norms of which for a long time had a customary legal character. In the modern period, the rules of succession have undergone codification. In 1978, the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in Respect to Treaties was adopted, in 1983 - the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in Respect to State Property, State Archives and Public Debts. These conventions define what can only be applied to consequences succession, which means, in particular, that the corresponding territorial changes in themselves are not considered as succession, but are only its grounds. At the same time, it can be concluded from the provisions on the applicability of the conventions that the literal meaning of the term "succession" means the direct and lawful transfer of international rights and obligations from one state-subject to another state-subject of international

Chapter 3. Subjects of international law

th right. A positive feature of these conventions is the indication in their texts that succession is carried out in accordance with international law, including those international legal principles that are embodied in the UN Charter.

In both conventions, in the articles "Use of terms", succession is characterized as the replacement of one state by another "in bearing responsibility for the international relations of a territory." There is a noticeable gap in this definition, since legal succession is associated not only with international relations, but also with the internal legal order. The very expression “bearing responsibility for the international relations of any territory” is very vague and does not express the essence of the successor state as a sovereign entity possessing a territory inalienable from it. The territory is a characteristic feature of the state. The latter extends its public authority over the entire territory under its sovereignty or lawfully passed under its sovereignty. The public power of the state, as exercised throughout its entire territory, determines and implements its international relations, which is not consistent with a certain "responsibility" for the international relations of the territory. In principle, the territory itself does not carry out any international relations. They are carried out by the state and, in certain cases, its constituent public-power formations, for example, the subjects that are part of the federal state. Since these conventions have not yet entered into force, the succession of states is governed by customary legal norms.

The transfer of rights and obligations from one state to another occurs in cases of the emergence of a new state - a subject of international law; the emergence of a new state on the site of the colonial possession of the metropolitan state; division of one state into several new states; unification of several states into one state; separation from the state of a part of the territory and the formation of an independent state on it, etc.

However, there are no clear rules governing the question of the criteria for the termination of the existence of states and the emergence of new ones. Therefore, in practice, the question of the emergence of new states is decided taking into account specific circumstances.

§ 6. Succession of states

If there is ambiguity regarding the issue of whether a new subject of international law has arisen, then it is best to resolve it by means of an agreement between the states concerned, the adoption of an appropriate act by an international organization, or a decision by an international judicial body. So, after the collapse of Austria-Hungary, the Saint-Germain (1919) and Trianon (1920) treaties determined the further fate of Austria and Hungary; after World War II, the UN dealt with the question of the international identity of Israel and India. In the early 90s. In connection with the collapse of the Yugoslav Federation, problems arose in determining the status of the newly formed states.

There are several objects of succession, the circle of which primarily includes the rights and obligations arising from international treaties of the predecessor state, state property, state archives, debts.

Central to the succession is the question of the scope of rights and obligations transferred from the predecessor state to the successor state. In this regard, various theories have developed in the science of international law.

According to theory of universal succession, developed in the XVII-XIX centuries. and clearly manifested in the writings of G. Grotius, the successor state fully inherits the international personality of the predecessor state. This theory was rooted in Roman inheritance law. Its variation was the doctrine of continuity (identity), whose representatives (Puffendorf, Wattel, Bluntsch-lee, etc.) believed that all international rights and obligations of the old state, including all existing treaties, are transferred to the heir, since the identity of the state remains the same. The legal relations that the new state inherited remained the same as that of the predecessor state; the successor state continued to be the same legal entity, personifying the unity of the territory, population, political power, rights and obligations of the previous state. In essence, the doctrine of continuity, substantiating the identity of the state's legal personality, was a denial of any legal succession.

Chapter 3. Subjects of international law

Negative theory was put forward at the beginning of the XX century. and received the greatest justification in the works of the English lawyer A. Cates. Its supporters believed that the continuity of the international legal personality of the state was absent. In this regard, when the power of one state is replaced by the power of another state, the international treaties of the predecessor are discarded. A kind of negative theory is the concept tabula rasa, in accordance with which the new state begins its contractual relations "from scratch".

These theories have not received confirmation in the practice of succession. According to modern views, the specific scope of rights and obligations that pass from the predecessor state to the successor state depends on many factors that should be taken into account. The sovereign will of the successor state, which determines the scope of succession in accordance with its interests, is essential. However, this should not contradict the basic principles of international law, harm other states and peoples. In particular, annexation cannot be subject to succession.

Succession in relation to international treaties. IN period of the great French revolution Xviii in. after the overthrow of the monarchy, the national convention of France abandoned the dynastic treaties, which had lost their meaning. In 1793, he annulled all union or trade agreements that existed between the former French government and the states with which the republic was at war. At the same time, the importance of the principle of compliance with international treaties was declared.

In 1917-1918. Russia announced the rejection of a number of treaties due to their contradiction with democratic legal consciousness and the "internal structure of Russia." All treaties concerning the partitions of Poland were canceled "in view of their contradiction to the principle of self-determination of nations." But many treaties of tsarist Russia remained in effect, for example, agreements on the protection of victims of war, health care, the Universal Postal Convention, the Convention on Cooperation at Sea, etc.

The Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in respect of Treaties of 1978 established a general rule according to which a newly independent State is not obliged to maintain any treaty in force or become a party to it in the future.

§ 6. Succession of states

lu only the fact that at the time of succession this agreement was in force in relation to the territory that is the object of succession (Art. 16). However, a newly independent state can, by notification of succession, establish its status as a party to any multilateral treaty that, at the time of the succession of states, was in force in relation to the territory that was the object of succession (Article 17).

Moreover, a newly independent state, by means of a notification of succession, can participate in a multilateral treaty that has not entered into force at the time of succession, if at the time of its succession the predecessor state was a contracting state in relation to the territory that became the object of succession. According to paragraph 1 of Art. 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in relation to treaties, “if, prior to the time of succession of States, the predecessor State signed a multilateral treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval and at the same time expressed its intention to extend this treaty to the territory subject to the succession of States, then the new independent state may ratify, accept or approve this treaty as if it signed it itself, and thus it can become a contracting state or a party to this treaty. " The signing by a successor state of a treaty, unless a different intention follows from the provisions of the treaty or is otherwise established, is considered an expression of its intention to extend this treaty to the entire territory for whose international relations the predecessor state was responsible. When it is clear from the treaty or otherwise established that its application in relation to the newly independent state would be incompatible with the object and purposes of the treaty or would radically change the conditions of its operation, then this state cannot participate in such a multilateral treaty. In addition, if it follows from the provisions of a treaty or from a limited number of negotiating states and from the object and purpose of the treaty that the participation in such a treaty of any other state requires the consent of all its participants or all contracting states, “the newly independent state may become a contracting state or a party to this agreement only

Chapter 3. Subjects of international law

with such consent ”(clause 4 of article 19). It should also be borne in mind that when a treaty is not considered to be in force in relation to any state on the basis of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States of 1978, this circumstance does not in any way affect the obligation of that state to fulfill any obligation recorded in the treaty, which is valid for him in accordance with international law, regardless of the treaty.

The states that emerged as a result of the liberation of their peoples from colonial dependence, as a rule, confirmed their participation in multilateral treaties that were associated with the strengthening of peace, the maintenance of good-neighborly relations, and had a humanitarian character. Thus, Malta announced that it continues to bear the obligations arising from the Moscow Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water of August 5, 1963, which was ratified by Britain, which was responsible for the territory of Malta. Algeria acceded to the four Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims of August 12, 1949 in 1960. Several newly independent states announced that they would continue to fulfill their obligations under all multilateral treaties requested by the UN Secretariat.

The Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in Treaties also sets out the conditions for the succession of obligations under bilateral agreements. A bilateral treaty in force with respect to a territory that was the object of succession is considered to be in force between the newly independent state and another state party if: “a) they have clearly agreed to do so; B) by virtue of their behavior, they should be considered to have expressed such an agreement ”(Art. 24).

An example of the consolidation of legal succession on the basis of a "clear agreement" of the new states in relation to certain international treaties of a ceased to exist subject - the USSR - is the content of the Protocol on the Application of the Agreement signed on February 3, 1994 between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Georgia on international road traffic. According to Art. 4 of the Protocol, signed simultaneously with the said Agreement, “Contracting

§ 6. Succession of states

The parties agreed to maintain the current procedure for the implementation of international transport, established by the previously concluded intergovernmental agreements between the USSR and other countries, as well as the effect of conventions and other agreements in the field of road transport, to which the USSR was a party. "

In the event of the unification of two or more states into one state, any treaty in force with respect to any of them continues to be in force with respect to that successor state. An exception is made in cases where the successor State and another State party or other States parties have agreed otherwise, or it appears from the treaty or is otherwise established that the application of this treaty to the successor State would be incompatible with the object and purpose of this treaty or the indigenous would change the conditions of its action (Art. 31).

When part or parts of the territory of a state separate and form one or several states, regardless of whether the predecessor state continues to exist, the following decision is presumed: “a) any treaty in force with respect to the entire territory of the predecessor state continues to force against each successor state thus constituted; B) any treaty that was in force with respect to only that part of the territory of the predecessor state that became the successor state continues to be in force with respect to only that successor state "(Art. 34).

Succession in relation to state property. According to the 1983 Vienna Convention on the succession of states in relation to state property, state archives and state debts, the state property of the predecessor state means the property, rights and interests that at the time of the succession of states belonged, according to the internal law of the predecessor state, to this state. The transfer of state ownership of the predecessor state to the successor state occurs without compensation, unless otherwise stipulated by the interested parties or decided by the relevant international bodies. The predecessor State takes all measures to prevent damage or

Chapter 3. Subjects of international law

destruction of state property, which passes to the successor state. When the successor state is a newly independent state, the immovable state property of the predecessor state located in the territory that is the object of succession passes to the successor state. Movable state property of the predecessor state associated with its activities in relation to the territory that is the object of succession also passes to the successor state (Article 15). In the event of the unification of two or more states into one, the state property of the predecessor states passes to the successor state. When a state is divided and ceases to exist, and two or more successor states are formed on the divided parts of the territory, then, unless the latter have agreed otherwise: “a) the immovable state property of the predecessor state is transferred to the successor state on whose territory it is located; B) the immovable state property of the predecessor state located outside its territory shall pass to the successor states in equitable shares; c) the movable state property of the predecessor state associated with its activities in relation to the territories that are the object of legal succession is transferred to the respective successor state; d) other movable state property of the predecessor state is transferred to the successor states in fair shares ”(Article 18).

When part of the territory of a state is transferred to another state, the transfer of state ownership from the predecessor state to the successor state is regulated by an agreement between them. If there is no agreement, then the immovable property of the predecessor state located in the territory that is the object of legal succession is transferred to the successor state. Movable property also passes to the successor state if it was associated with the activities of the predecessor state in relation to the territory that became the object of succession (Art. 14).

Succession in relation to state archives. State archives are part of state property. In this regard, the rules of succession in relation to

§ 6. Succession of states

state archives are in many ways close to the rules established for the succession of state property as such. For example, when the successor state is a newly independent state, the archives that belonged to the territory that is the object of legal succession and became state archives of the predecessor state during the period of dependence are transferred to the new independent state. That part of the state archives of the predecessor state, which for the purpose of normal administration of the territory - the object of legal succession - should be located on this territory, goes to the new independent state (Art. 28).

When a state is divided and ceases to exist and two or more successor states are formed on its former territory, unless the latter have agreed otherwise, part of the state archives of the predecessor state, which must be located on the territory of the successor state in order to properly manage its territory, goes to to this successor state (Art. 31).

In recent years, the situation in the world has become very tense. Every now and then in different parts of the world new local conflicts flare up, to which more and more countries are joining. In these difficult conditions, the term "policy of armed neutrality" is heard from time to time on TV screens and on the pages of print media. However, not all people fully understand its meaning, as well as the obligations that states that have declared this status undertake.

Definition of the term

The word "neutrality" has Latin roots. In translation, it means "neither one nor the other." This term has become widespread in international law. It is used when they talk about the state's refusal to participate in a war in times of troubles and from joining one of the military blocs in times of peace. In other words, neutrality is when the state takes a loyal position in relation to the opinions of other countries that are parties to the conflict.

Types of neutrality

The neutrality of states has several types and can be consolidated in various ways. This term can be used in four meanings:

1. States such as Switzerland and Austria comply with permanent neutrality... enshrined in internal regulations and recognized throughout the world. States that have declared themselves as supporters of permanent neutrality cannot participate in wars, be members of military alliances and permit the construction of foreign military facilities on their territory.

2. Some countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America adhere to positive neutrality... They declare the observance of international security, assistance in relieving international tension, and renunciation. Once every three years, a Conference is held, during which countries re-declare their status.

3. Sweden is one of the countries reporting traditional neutrality... Its main feature is that the state does not consolidate its status anywhere and adheres to a policy of neutrality on a voluntary basis. At the same time, it can at any time stop observing its obligations, since it has not declared its status anywhere.

4. Often, states sign international documents in which they declare their obligations. Treaty neutrality- this is the name of this species. An example would be the agreement reached between the Russian Federation and Canada in Ottawa in 1992. We are talking about the Agreement on Consent and Cooperation between countries.

Many international authoritative jurists call permanent neutrality the highest form, which affects all armed conflicts without exception. The state that has embarked on this path takes on significant obligations not only in wartime, but also in peacetime. In addition to the impossibility of participating in conflicts, being part of blocs and allowing the construction of foreign military infrastructure facilities, it cannot use an armed conflict as a method for solving acute geopolitical problems.

Wartime restrictions

According to international law, if a state has declared its neutrality during a war, it is obliged to comply with three rules:

1. Under no circumstances provide military assistance to conflicting countries.

2. Prevent the conflicting countries from using their territory for military purposes.

3. Introduce the same restrictions on the supply of weapons and military goods with respect to the conflicting parties. This is necessary in order not to single out one of the parties involved and thus not to support it.

The history of the formation of the concept

If we consider neutrality in a historical perspective, then for the inhabitants of states that existed in the era of the Ancient World, it was alien. In the Middle Ages, this phenomenon began to acquire its modern meaning. Medieval countries declared the commonality of their religious and cultural views and tried to adhere to neutrality, but in some cases they did not respect it. We are talking, first of all, about wars in the open spaces of the sea. Only from the 16th century did states begin to understand that neutrality is a status that must be observed.

Here are some examples

The first case in history when countries declared armed neutrality dates back to the end of the 18th century. The alliance of the major world powers has left a noticeable mark in world history, which committed itself to defending the principles set forth in the Declaration of Catherine II, adopted in February 1780. It includes the Russian Empire, France, Spain, the American States, Denmark, Sweden, Prussia, Austria, Portugal, Sicily. This union functioned while the war for the independence of the American colonies from England was going on. After the end of the war in 1783, it actually disintegrated.

In 1800, the so-called second armed neutrality was concluded between the Russian Empire, Denmark, Sweden and Prussia. It was based on the principles of Catherine's Declaration with minor changes. However, after the death of Paul I and the accession to the throne of Alexander I, it ceased to exist.

Let's sum up

Neutrality is a legal status that has come a long way until it finally acquired its modern meaning. A great contribution to its formation was made by the Russian Empress Catherine II, who outlined many of its principles in the Declaration of 1780. If the state declares its neutrality, it takes on significant obligations. This is equally true for peacetime and wartime. Therefore, this phenomenon is not as widespread in the world as we would like.

Neutral country in western Europe. Which countries remained neutral during World War II

Definition of the term

Types of neutrality

Wartime restrictions

The history of the formation of the concept

Here are some examples

Let's sum up

Report a typo

Text to be sent to our editors:

Your comment (optional):