Country-aggressor: definition. Country-aggressor in international law

The notion of an "aggressor country" appeared in the international legal field after the end of the Second World War. When it became obvious that the war was nearing its end, representatives of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition joined in the work of creating an association and legal support in order to prevent the appearance of such an aggressor anywhere in the world. However, despite the conventions and international law, armed clashes continue in the world, including with the participation of major powers such as the United States.

Security basics

The Second World War ended in September with the surrender of Japan, and already on October 24, 1945 at the San Francisco conference the charter of the United Nations was approved , which was signed by representatives of fifty states. The document, in particular, spelled out the authority of the Security Council. The Security Council, upon detection of a threat, makes recommendations or independently makes decisions on its elimination and restoration of security. It is in the UN Charter documents that the full definition of the term "aggressor country" first appeared: what is it, what are its main features.

The Main Charter

In the document, when defining aggression, the main emphasis is on armed encroachment on sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence. At the same time, the UN response does not depend on whether the attacked state is a member of the organization or not. The Charter also details the actions of states that can be regarded as aggressive. Acts of aggression include any violent incursions, attacks, and the consequences of these actions in the form of occupation or annexation. In addition, in the list of such acts, the use of any weapons, blockade with weapons, as well as the sending of mercenary units on the territory, the presence of which can be regarded as acts of aggression.

Legal grounds

The UN Charter also stipulates that aggression in no way can be justified. In particular, it is pointed out that political, economic, military and other considerations can not justify the aggressive actions of one country in relation to another. Since such behavior is regarded as criminal, the aggressor country in international law is regarded as a criminal. Accordingly, the commission of such a crime entails responsibility. It is also clarified that any acquisition received as a result of aggression can not be recognized by the world community and get a legal status.

Peace Bloc

According to many world political scientists, decisions on the arrangement of the international world order were made with the participation of America. This can hardly be an absolute statement, but the fact that the UN Charter was written and adopted in one of the American cities makes us look at this issue more closely. For the military confrontation of any aggression in 1949, the Military-Political Alliance of the North Atlantic Alliance, known more as NATO, was created. The bloc includes 28 states: a larger number of countries in Europe, the United States and Canada. The headquarters are in Brussels (Belgium). As of 2010, the combined army had about 3.8 million people.

The alliance, which was created mainly to fight the Soviet Union and repel its attacks, after the disappearance of the Soviet Union, switched to a new enemy, whose name is terrorism. It was under the aegis of the fight against terrorism that NATO countries fought in the territories of Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Libya. The overthrow of regimes in these states from Washington's submission was presented as the liberation of the people living there from the tyranny of militants and the building up of democratic values in these territories that could only be achieved through a bloody path.

Meanwhile, whatever slogans were sung in the world community, the majority understood that NATO acts in the interests of a superpower, namely, the United States. However, having one of the most powerful armies, "star-striped" and successfully coped in "forcing" democracy in different parts of the world.

The USA as the main world aggressor

The term "aggressor country" in the sense that was originally laid down in the postulates of the United Nations, is clearly discredited. Although, from a legal point of view, it may have been a complete ceremony to make America appear as a strong pillar of the world order, hastening to help with the slightest violation of human rights, nevertheless, at the end of the last century, the formula firmly consolidated: "The USA is an aggressor country" .

Today, in many public opinion polls, the majority of respondents are the undisputed leaders in terms of the level of international aggression called Americans. Sociologists blame the media for this, which emphasize the "crusades" of the US to the Balkans, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. At the same time, countries that really can destroy the world, about five or six, are states with nuclear weapons in their arsenal.

Required counterweight

Political analysts, seeing the results of opinion polls, tend to look at this situation somewhat differently. In their opinion, it is easy to imagine what will happen to the world, if there is no such leadership - obvious and unconditional. In this case, in the absence of a clear hegemony of a superpower a hundredfold, local conflicts and the struggle for leadership are intensified.

This leads to greater instability in the world, the outcome of which somehow becomes a major unifying conflict and a new redistribution of the world order. In this sense, in the system of checks and balances in which the world lives, the leadership of one state guarantees the safety of most of the world's population.

Crimea and the Ukrainian crisis

At the end of 2013 in Ukraine, the strongest political crisis began to unfold. Protesters went to the Maidan, demanding the resignation of the current authorities. An unexpected consequence of these events was the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol to the Russian Federation in March 2014. In February, Russian-speaking residents of the Crimea took to the streets to protest against those who came to power in Kiev as a result of the coup d'état of the supporters of Euromaidan. The power that was replaced in the republic declared the new Ukrainian leadership illegitimate and asked for help from Russia. At the same time, for the first time, an accusation was thrown from the whole Western Hemisphere, that Russia is an aggressor country. The Kremlin was accused of annexing Crimea, implying the forcible inclusion of territory in Russia, which, according to international law, entails responsibility.

In order to comply with international requirements, a referendum was held in the Crimea, which was officially designated as illegitimate in most of the countries of the European Union and the United States. Ukraine also does not recognize the actions of the Russian leadership and since April 2014 has been positioning the Crimea as an occupied territory. In addition, the UN General Assembly in late March adopted a resolution according to which a referendum in the Crimea is considered illegal. Absolute majority voted for the document.

At the end of January this year, the Ukrainian leadership officially recognized Russia as an aggressor against its southeastern territories.

Sanctions as manipulation

Russia's actions have become the reason for organizing international isolation. The initiator was the United States, which sold its position with a threat of potential economic damage, as a result of which the EU also introduced economic and political sanctions. They were joined by partners in the G-7 and others. Sanctions provided for several visits. The first package determined the freezing of assets and the restriction of entry to those individuals whom the West considers close to President Vladimir Putin. Among these were, in particular, businessmen brothers Arkady and Boris Rotenberg. Foreign companies in different countries have begun a gradual curtailment of cooperation with Russia in many areas of activity. The status of "Russia is an aggressor country" frightened many, and no one was ready to lose a partner in the person of Washington.

Russian interpretation of aggression

In the realities of sanctions and counter-sentences, the term "aggressor country" acquired a completely new sound. The bill, introducing new realities into the legal field of Russia, was proposed by deputies from United Russia Anton Romanov and Yevgeny Fedorov. The latter is also the coordinator of the organization "National Liberation Movement" in conjunction with Sergei Katasonov, a member of the LDPR faction. The document was submitted to the government for consideration in December 2014. In explanation of the bill, its authors argued the need for such a law by aggressive and non-partner behavior of states that introduce sanctions against Russia and its citizens, as well as legal entities.

It was assumed that the Russian government would be entitled to determine the register of states to which the term may apply, to protect the foundations of the constitutional order. The need for the bill was also conditioned by the provision of national security, the development of the national economy and its protection. Among the main objectives pursued by the law is the leveling of the presence of foreign companies in the Russian consulting business.

In particular, firms that provide consulting services in the field of auditing, rights and other things, whose motherland is an aggressor country, will be prohibited from carrying out their activities in Russia. In addition, the ban should also extend to those affiliated with foreign Russian companies. According to the authors of the bill, the market for consulting services is a monopoly of foreign firms. According to their data, 70% of the market, whose turnover in 2013 exceeded 90 billion rubles, belongs to such large players as British Ernst & Young or American Deloitte. The drafters note that under the current international situation this can seriously damage economic security, since the audit of most Russian strategic enterprises is conducted by foreign companies.

The government does not approve

Despite the seemingly topicality of introducing such a political status as an aggressor country, the Russian government did not support the initiative of the deputies. As follows from the conclusion signed by Sergei Prikhodko, the head of the government apparatus, the status of the "aggressor country", the definition given to him by the authors of the draft contradicts the content invested in the term "aggression" by the UN General Assembly. In addition, the clarification notes that the provisions of the new draft law do not take into account the distinction between the powers of the head and the parliament of the state in the field of protecting Russian sovereignty. In addition, the novels of the proposed bill contradict the norms of procurement legislation.

Political scientists and deputies were skeptical about the possibility of adopting such a law: "aggressor country" is a term, the introduction of which can lead to an even greater escalation of the conflict.