Sources of international security law. Collective Security System

The system of international security law is a branch of modern relations between countries. They mean norms and principles that regulate relations between states. Goals are simple, understandable and very important for humanity - preventing local military and power conflicts and the repetition of the global world war.

Terms of Regulatory Relationships

The rights of international security are distinguished by the following types of relationships:

• Interactions to prevent military and violent conflicts. This also includes international mediation for "cooling" the opposing forces.
• Interactions connected with the creation of international systems of collective security.
• Relations to limit the various types of weapons.

Basic principles

The system of international relations as a separate legal system has its own rules:

• The principle of equality. It implies that the state as a subject of international law has the same rights with other countries. The famous speech of Russian President Vladimir Putin at the international conference on security in Munich in 2006 is indicative in this regard. It was then that the head of the Russian state publicly declared that this principle is often violated by the United States of America. This country does not unilaterally consider itself with other independent states. It can break all existing agreements and, on the rights of force, launch military operations with militarily weaker states. Prior to that, everyone recognized the violation of the principle of equality, but no one openly announced this. In itself, the state as a subject of international law does not have equal rights with more developed countries economically and militarily. We need tools to implement this principle. Only an effective system of international relations will help to protect such countries and prevent a tense situation.
• The principle of inadmissibility of causing damage to another state. It is reduced to the fact that national and international security is jeopardized by the destructive actions of the subject of international law. No state can use military force against another without the consent and approval of the world community.

Sources of International Security Law

We list only the main ones, since there are a lot of them in the world. Any bilateral agreement between the states in this sphere falls under the notion of "the source of the law of international security". But the main documents are:

• The UN Charter. The United Nations was created after the Second World War in order to prevent conflicts and solve all contradictions by diplomatic (peaceful) means. Here it is possible to include also Resolutions of General Assembly of the United Nations. For example, "On the non-use of force in international relations and the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons," and others.
• International treaties, which are conventionally divided into several groups: those holding the nuclear arms race and prohibiting their testing in any space; Limiting the build-up of all types of weapons; Prohibiting the creation and dissemination of certain types of weapons; Preventing accidental wars.
• Acts of international regional organizations and military-political blocs (OKB, NATO, OSCE, CIS).

Inefficient provision of international security

The results of the failure of collective agreements are military actions. Legally they have a definition.

War is the interaction of independent states, in which force (destructive) actions take place between them. At the same time, all diplomatic relations and early agreements are canceled.

The legal status of war

It can only happen between independent, that is, universally recognized countries. They must necessarily have the status of sovereignty: to determine the direction of domestic and foreign policy. It follows that military operations against unrecognized, terrorist, and other organizations and groups that do not have the status of a separate subject of international law are not considered war.

Types of conflicts in terms of international law

Legally divided into two categories:

• Authorized. That is legitimate. Such status in the modern world is given only by the UN Security Council, consisting of representatives of several states. Russia as the legal successor to the USSR is a permanent member and may impose a "veto power" on any decision.
• Wrongful. Not approved by the UN Security Council, and therefore illegal from the point of view of universal norms, of which a collective security system has been established

As a rule, the state that unleashed an unauthorized war is recognized as an aggressor. Such a country is automatically considered a threat to the entire world community. All diplomatic, economic and other ties with it cease. The aggressor state becomes an outcast in world politics. The remaining subjects of international law cease cooperation with him, so as not to fall under all sorts of sanctions. There have been many similar cases in the history. For example, Iraq, having committed aggression against Kuwait. Or Iran, which refused by the decision of the UN Security Council to let international experts on nuclear energy into its territory. Also North Korea, which since 1950 is still legally at war with South Korea, etc. But there have been cases when military actions were unauthorized by the UN Security Council, and the aggressor countries had absolutely no negative consequences. On the contrary, they even economically benefited from such actions. These examples concern the United States, which attacked Iraq in violation of the UN resolution. Israel, which dealt a military blow to Libya. This just shows that the system of collective security is imperfect. In the world there is a policy of double standards, when for the same action different subjects of international law had completely opposite consequences. This is evidence of the violation of the principle of equality in the system of collective security, which leads to an escalation of conflicts, to talks from the position of force.

"Civilizational" warfare

War by nature is terrible and unacceptable. She is beautiful for someone who has never seen her. But, despite all the brutality of the war, humanity has agreed to conduct it "civilizational" methods, if, of course, the sanctioned mass murder can be called so. These methods were first adopted at the Hague Convention in 1907. Specialists already foreshadowed mass slaughter of world wars that would violate all principles of international law.

New rules of war

According to the Hague Convention, there have been serious legal changes in the way of conducting war:

• An obligatory open, diplomatic declaration of war and peace between countries.
• Conducting military operations only by "authorized" types of weapons. With the development of technologies, new and new means are getting under the ban. Today it is nuclear, hydrogen, bacteriological, chemical weapons, cluster bombs, explosive and bullet-centered bullets and other weapons that cause extreme suffering and mass destruction of civilians.
• Introducing the status of a prisoner of war.
• Protection of parliamentarians, doctors, translators, lawyers and other professionals who should not be threatened with destruction.