The institutionalisation of international law in a multipolar world

Space law was “born" shortly after the launch of the first satellite, “Sputnik”, in the framework of the United Nations. Intergovernmental organisations were established at global and regional levels for the purpose of operating new transmission technologies via satellite. Luxembourg took a very active role in satellite communication within Europe at the commencement of these international organisations. With the appearance of privately owned satellite operators, of which one of the most important at a global level is established in Luxembourg, the intergovernmental organisations had to restructure to be able to compete at arm's length with the new satellite operators from the private sector. Luxembourg closely followed the restructuring process of one intergovernmental satellite communications organisation, EUTELSAT, with its transformation from an international public law body into a private national law company, thus illustrating the exciting interference of international public law and various types of law (public and private; national and international) within space law.

INTRODUCTION. The term “rules-based order” is increasingly referred to in speeches within many international forums as well as declared from national political tribunes. The initial question is whether this notion is of purely political nature (since it is not used in the UN Charter or in other universal international conventions and this term is not relied upon by the International Court of Justice or by the UN International Law Commission). On the other hand, with the popularization of such a political discourse, the frequent usage of this term by representatives of some states (not only of Western States, but also of China, for example) can affect international law. The very application of this term definitely provokes a splash of other questions. How does the term “rules-based order” correlate with the universally recognized term “international legal order”? Does the idea to use the term “rules-based order” have substantive legal grounds? Which rules in concreto1 are meant by the term? Who and how creates these rules? What is the nature of these rules – are they rules of national law and if so – national rules of what State? If these are rules of international law – why is it not reflected in the term? Due to the attractive wording the concept gets widespread, but lacking a common understanding of its content, everyone might put a different meaning into the concept. Does it result in the fact that some officials, representing states, become politically entitled with the right to abuse the international legal order as it is established by modern international law? This research examines these theoretic aspects of the concept “rules-based order”, taking into account that in the context of international relations it may be referred to also as “rules-based international order”. An additional question to answer is whether the concept might be regarded as one of the numerous attempts to adapt the current international law to new challenges.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The research paper is based on the analysis of numerous statements of representatives of states, in which their attitude to the “rules-based order” concept is manifested, positive and critical remarks relating to the concept made by international lawyers, as well as other research papers of Russian and foreign international scholars. The methodological instruments include general scientific and special methods, among them the historical method, methods of formal logic, analysis, synthesis, as well as systemic, comparative legal methods.RESEARCH RESULTS. Although the above-noted questions about the legal meaning of the term “rulesbased order” have arisen only in recent years mainly in the context of the anti-Russian rhetoric of Western politicians, the term has been used much earlier at different levels in a wide variety of topics. The question of inconsistent perceptions of this term is another reflection of a more general problem of weakening or strengthening the universal legally binding international order. One of the appropriate interpretive versions of this concept might be that “rules-based order” means first and foremost the world order which is based on norms of international law (which are mandatory as well known), and on applicable non-binding international rules containing a normative element, such as international rules provided in the documents of intergovernmental organizations and conferences, interstate political arrangements, and other mutually accepted rules, formed in the contemporary practice of international relations. This interpretation allows to bring the concept in line with modern international law. Nevertheless, even within such interpretation, it is necessary to respect the distinction between the norms of international law, which are binding, and other rules, which do not create State’s obligations under international law. Thus, unilateral or “blocking” imposition of values of one State on other States under the guise of rules on which, according to the first State, the world order is based, will not be allowed.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. If another interpretation prevails, the “rules-based order” concept may have a negative impact on the existing international legal order insofar as it “washes out” the established legitimate procedures of international law-making, thus rejecting traditional international values of legal stability and diminishing the role of international law in international relations. Such scenario would not only multiply legal uncertainly and even unreasonable expectations among the participants of the international processes, but also might lead to undermining the very fundamentals of modern international law based on the UN Charter. The latter in its turn will inevitably lead to the global legal instability and will dramatically increase the risks of World War III. At the moment, the frequent abuse of the term “rules-based order” by the representatives of the NATO countries in support of their politically motivated statements, agreed upon only among them, impedes achievement of accepted understanding of the concept at the universal level, that might be consistent with international law.

Feminist perspectives provide a critical lens through which to examine international law’s rules, systems, and structures. In the early twentieth century, women’s activism and organizing during World War I was instrumental in drawing attention to the absence of women in peacemaking processes, leading to the creation of feminist peace organizations whose advocacy was highly influential in generating debate regarding the role of international bodies and women’s equal participation in international lawmaking. Second-wave feminist scholarship during the sixties and seventies drew attention to women’s legal and political status, including issues such as reproductive rights and nondiscrimination, influencing legal reforms in domestic law systems. Significant societal debate on these questions of gender equality did not always directly translate to international law settings. However, the global women’s conferences that occurred at regular intervals during the UN Decade for Women (1975–1985) provided the political opportunity structure for women’s groups to organize transnationally. While evident political differences emerged between feminist activists from the Global North and Global South, these tensions nevertheless heightened awareness of international law’s limited engagement with women’s myriad lived experiences. The adoption of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in 1979 provided a foundation for feminist critique centering on the marginalization of women’s rights in international law. The application of a feminist lens to the entire ambit and breadth of international law occurred at a later period during the early nineties. This seminal scholarship coincided with the post–Cold War period, which saw significant social and political change globally. Witnessing a surge in regional ethnic-based conflicts and their gendered impacts, feminist scholars engaged in critique of the law of armed conflict, international criminal law, and transitional justice processes. While the successes of feminist interventions in international law, particularly in relation to the women, peace and security agenda at the UN Security Council, have been cautiously acknowledged, some areas of international law have proved to be particularly resistant to feminist analysis. Although theoretical perspectives, including postcolonial and Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), are yet to move from the periphery to the center of feminist analyses, they provide an important lens through which to understand the tensions that emerge from feminist interventions in international law, as does theoretical engagement with queer and nonbinary perspectives. Scholars have also increasingly engaged in feminist introspection, scrutinizing whether feminist methodologies provide an effective analytical tool to examine international law.

Subtle Transformations:International Law, and Indigenous Rights Bronwyn Leebaw* (bio) Sheryl R. Lightfoot, Global Indigenous Politics: A Subtle Revolution (Routledge, 2016), ISBN 978-1-138-94668-2, 264 pages. "Can the post-colonial world deploy for its own purposes, the law which had enabled its suppression in the first place?" This is a question that can never really be set aside, suggests Antony Anghie, in Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law, and one that is best addressed through an effort to recover and engage "alternative histories—histories of resistance to colonial power" and "history from the vantage point of the peoples who were subjected to international law."1 In Global Indigenous Politics, Anishinaabe scholar, Sheryl Lightfoot, powerfully demonstrates the transformative potential of such alternative histories by investigating the rise and influence of a global movement for Indigenous rights. Lightfoot makes a compelling case that the global movement for Indigenous rights has launched a "subtle revolution"—one that has the potential to remake the international order, confront the limits of human rights liberalism.2 Global Indigenous Politics has profound implications for research on Indigenous politics, human rights, international law, transnational activism, and international relations more generally. International laws and norms can be reconfigured and deployed in ways that radically challenge the parameters of international order, Lightfoot contends. The "subtle revolution" of transnational Indigenous activism has been uniquely powerful, she suggests, in exposing and confronting the subtle logics by which colonial relationships are maintained and reproduced. A number of important recent works challenge scholars to stop treating colonialism as a peripheral dimension of the history of international law, as if, writes Helen Kinsella, "it were simply a jarring note in an otherwise pleasant symphony."3 Works by Anghie, Kinsella, Laleh Khalili, Kamari Clarke, Keally McBride, and Robert Vitalis, among others, investigate how colonial encounters influenced and continue to influence the legal basis of sovereign recognition and the parameters of international humanitarian law.4 Although international law was mobilized in the service of decolonization, ostensibly [End Page 478] extending sovereign recognition to newly independent states, observes Anghie, this did not entail a meaningful effort to engage legal thinking or practices outside of the Western intellectual traditions that had influenced international law. Legal principles that justified the dispossession of Indigenous peoples, such as the Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius, were not effectively repudiated or confronted, but only evaded, writes Anghie. Many treaties that had granted territorial sovereignty to colonial powers remained binding, despite having been secured through deceit, conquest, and genocide. The international legal order that is championed as a triumph over "might makes right," Anghie suggests, has been more effective as a tool for masking persistent patterns of subordination and domination established through colonial rule than it has been as a tool for exposing and challenging such patterns. The expansion of human rights law and the rise of the human rights movement in the decades following World War II altered international law in important ways, influencing the legal basis for sovereign recognition and expanding the scope and reach of international humanitarian law. The emerging human rights framework had some impact on anti-colonial activism and anti-colonial activists would also influence debates on the meaning and role of human rights, though scholars continue to disagree over the nature and extent of these influences.5 The post-Cold War expansion of human rights laws and institutions ostensibly empowers transnational activists to challenge the terms of sovereign authority. Anghie recognizes the transformative potential inherent in the commitment to social justice and human dignity that is articulated in the human rights framework. However, he contends that this critical potential has been set aside in favor of an approach to institutionalizing human rights in ways that reassert the "civilizing" logic of previous eras by mandating liberalism as a universal model of "good governance." Anghie and Khalili both observe that powerful states have succeeded in eliding the critical implications of human rights and humanitarian law by normalizing certain legal anomalies, contradictions, or indeterminate jurisdictional spaces. These legally layered, ambiguous, jurisdictional spaces establish an alternative to accepting or rejecting legal authority, which Khalili refers to as a "third way," enabling those in power to select the...

The article is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of the state of scientific development in modern Ukrainian dissertation research on criminal offenses against peace, human security and international legal order. In the article, the authors determine that in Ukraine, one dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Laws has been defended, and more than fifteen dissertations for the degree of Candidate of Laws (PhD in Law), where the subject of research is certain criminal offenses against peace, human security and international legal order. It is concluded that despite the significant intensification of scientific activity in this area, the generalization of the content, directions and results of modern dissertations on international crimes remains insufficient. The absence of a systematic review of such studies makes it difficult to identify scientific gaps, contradictions and unresolved issues that require further study. This necessitates a critical analysis of the current state of the dissertation development of criminal offenses against peace, human security and international legal order, taking into account the realities of martial law in Ukraine and the prospects for its post-war legal transformation. At the same time, we believe that the relevant and promising areas for conducting dissertation research in Ukraine on certain problematic aspects of criminal offenses against peace, human security and international legal order are criminological characterization and prevention of crime in the field of criminal law protection of peace, human security and international law and order; criminal executive principles of execution of sentences in Ukraine in respect of persons convicted of criminal offenses against peace, human security and international law and order; peculiarities of implementation of international humanitarian law and international criminal law into the national legislation of Ukraine and peculiarities of qualification and investigation of criminal offenses against peace, human security and international law and order in Ukraine. Key words: criminal law, dissertation research, legislation, Criminal Code of Ukraine, criminal offense, qualification, crime, criminal offense, peace, security of humanity and international law and order, criminal liability, Draft New Criminal Code of Ukraine.

International fisheries law is a broad field of international law within which significant state practice, instruments, and relevant fora are found at the global, regional, subregional, bilateral, and national level. For the purposes of this bibliography, the analysis of international fisheries law is limited to the law governing marine capture fisheries (other fisheries law definitions may include the regulation of aquaculture or inland fisheries). This bibliography also primarily approaches fisheries law as a matter of fisheries conservation and management under the international law of the sea. The two main treaties of global application which reflect its foundational framework are the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA). As a starting point, one should consult the maritime zones established under UNCLOS and customary law, whereby the distribution of rights and obligations among the various capacities of states differs per maritime zone. As fish do not respect legal boundaries, special rules of international law that emphasize cooperation and management between states must be adopted and adapted for shared fish stocks such as transboundary fish stocks, straddling fish stocks, and highly migratory fish stocks. In addition, various treaties of global application dealing with specific issues exist, such as the 1993 Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (Compliance Agreement) and, most recently, the 2009 Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (PSMA). This global treaty framework is complemented by various global non–legally binding instruments, most of which were adopted under the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). On the regional level, countless multilateral and bilateral fisheries treaties have been concluded, and the field remains highly dynamic. Notably, many fisheries are nowadays managed by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and Arrangements (RFMO/As) or bilateral fisheries commissions. As a thematically defined field of law, international fisheries law is not restricted to the rules governing conservation and management of marine fisheries, but may equally raise, among other issues, questions of general international law of the sea such as jurisdiction and maritime law enforcement operations, international environmental law, international trade law, international human rights law, and international dispute settlement.

The paper is devoted to the study of issues related to the definition of international law as a species object of criminal protection for the act provided for in Art. 443 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It is determined that the international law and order as an object of criminal law is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon, which also covers the peace and security of mankind, although narrower in content than international law as an international legal category. It is stated that the international nature of the social danger of criminal offenses against international order is due to the continuity of criminal and international law. International standards of criminal law protection of international law and order we include multilateral treaties. For 12 of the 15 criminal offenses against international law and order, criminal liability was established in view of Ukraine's international obligations. At the same time, not all of the international legal treaties contained provisions on criminalization of a certain act. For example, Part 1 of Art. 20 International Pact on Political and Civil Rights provides for the state to prohibit the law of war promotion, not to establish criminal liability for such propaganda. International law and order as a category of international law is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon that covers the principles of international legal personality and international law-making process, international relations, international cooperation, human rights protection systems and means of resolving international disputes, as well as the principles of international legal liability. Section XX of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is entitled "Criminal offenses against peace, security of humanity and international law". Given that the grouping of articles in criminal law is carried out according to the criterion of the generic object, it can be concluded that the said section enshrines the rules on criminal offenses, united by such generic objects as peace, human safety and international law. On the basis of the above, we can conclude that the international law and order as an object of criminal protection is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon, which also covers the peace and security of mankind, although narrower in content than international law as an international legal category. The primary element of social conditionality of criminal law is the social danger of certain acts, the awareness of which the legislator and society has a consequence of recognizing its criminal illegality. The international nature of the social danger of criminal offenses against international order, is due to the continuity of criminal and international law. For 11 of the 14 criminal offenses against international law and order, criminal liability was established in view of Ukraine's international obligations. And although in some cases, among the international obligations that the state has taken on the ratification of the relevant multilateral treaty, there were no clearly defined obligations for the establishment of criminal responsibility for a certain act (for example, for the illegal use of the symbolism of the Red Cross, the Red Central Century, the Red Creation.

This book is a tale of two towers,two wars and two visions. The two towers are those of the World Trade Center in New York, destroyed by a terrorist attack on 11 September 2001. The two wars are the War Against Terrorism and the War on Iraq. The two visions are of the international legal and political order for the twenty-first century. The issues involved in the War Against Terrorism and the War on Iraq are of fundamental importance because they may define the shape of international order for the twenty-first century. The book has a number of themes. First, it considers the principal international law and international order issues involved in the War Against Terrorism and in the War on Iraq in 2003. Specific attention is given to the application of international humanitarian and international human rights law in the wars. Secondly it asks how the international debate on the Iraq War was conducted and why? Finally it questions whether the post-1945 system of international laws and organizations is capable of surviving, and in what form? Chapter one outlines how the relationship between war and the international legal order has evolved and introduces the idea of ‘complexity theory’ as a framework for understanding the events and issues considered in this book. Chapter two considers the pattern of events from the attacks on the US on 9-11 to the Iraq War 2003. Chapter three addresses the issues of law and morality involved in the War Against Terrorism and the War on Iraq. Chapter four focuses on the moral and legal debate around the War on Iraq and chapter five considers the systemic consequences for international law doctrine and practice, giving particular weight to US policy and approaches and how other states have responded to them. Chapter six appraises the post-war situation in Iraq in terms of political and economic organisation and human rights. It also assesses the consequences of the status of post-war Iraq for the wider region. Chapter seven concludes the book by examining the possible implications of the War Against Terrorism and the War on Iraq for world order in the twenty-first century.

How 'Public' is Public International Law? Towards a Typology of NGOs and Civil Society Actors

The article is devoted to the study of modern challenges faced by the international legal order in the context of geopolitical challenges and the conditions for its effective legal regulation. The author analyses that international law as a set of rules governing relations between States and other international actors has played a key role in the global world order since its inception. By its very nature, international law is the basis for maintaining peace and security, promoting cooperation and resolving conflicts between states. It is proved that despite its importance, international law faces numerous challenges in the 21st century. One of the main problems is the contradiction between the principle of state sovereignty and the need for effective global governance. The author establishes that, unfortunately, the current trend of changes in state regimes indicates a decrease in the number of democratic states and a corresponding increase in the number of authoritarian states, which may have significant consequences for the international order. Today, the international legal order is under enormous strain, but it is not collapsing, but is in a sense at a ‘tipping point’. The current rules-based international legal order is facing serious challenges that may change the current global ‘landscape of international relations’. It is proved that the question of whether the international legal order can be guided by the rule of law has always been relevant, and has become even more urgent after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. The armed conflict has not only violated the integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, but has also led to systemic human rights violations and encroached on the rule of law in the country. Despite the current challenges faced by international law, the international legal order is undergoing a transformation, acquiring new qualities. The author concludes that States should not only resist the threats of dismantling the international legal order itself, but also make efforts to strengthen and develop the international order based on clear rules.

Informal international lawmaking, a phenomenon involving new actors, processes, and outputs, is an important and increasingly common phenomenon of contemporary international life. It has not, however, entirely replaced traditional international lawmaking. In fact, informal international law exists alongside treaties and custom. But while the interaction between treaties and informal law has been consistently addressed in the academic literature, the relationship between customary international law and informal law remains largely neglected, despite the complex questions it raises. First, what explains the rise of informal international law to the detriment of custom? What place is there still for custom in a world of increasing informality? Second, how do custom and informal law interact in practice? Do they merely serve as alternatives in states’ cooperation endeavours, or do they also interact in a complementary manner? This chapter will attempt to answer these questions. We first examine and explain the rise of informal international lawmaking and the functions it serves. Next, we turn to the place of custom in an age of informality. We then focus on the complementary interaction between custom and informal international law. Finally, we examine the possibility of stretching the boundaries of the traditional international system in order to incorporate informal international lawmaking. THE RISE OF INFORMAL INTERNATIONAL LAWMAKING Many authors have recently indicated that international law finds itself in impasse. Indeed, there is a rather broad acknowledgement among international lawyers that traditional forms of multilateralism are facing a deep crisis, and that new multilateral processes have emerged. “What crisis?” one might curiously ask. Contemplate, for instance, all the great challenges to modern international relations: globalization, economic development, global environmental protection, international public health, technology, cybersecurity, and, why not, financial cataclysms. Would you imagine that customary international law (CIL) could effectively address these challenges? Arguably not. Treaty-based hard law, on the other hand, might fit the bill much better. But even the development of treaties is in decline. The limited scope of Article 38 (1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ Statute) has become ill-suited to address the complexities of global governance. Therefore, in order to circumvent the rigidities and inadequacies of the traditional framework of international law, states have been progressively turning toward informal cooperative fora, radically transforming the international legal order. The ever-changing demands of international society, it seems, have brought into the limelight new, nontraditional types of international lawmaking.

This article focuses on the right to a healthy environment, which is a challenging aspect of international law because, until recently, it was not explicitly addressed at the global level. The United Nations' human rights instruments do not contain provisions related to the environment, but the approach of 'greening the existing' human rights can be observed in several forms, for instance, in general comments. International environmental law introduced a similar concept, the 'human rights approach', which connects environmental issues with human rights. We assume that these two concepts can serve as the foundation for declaring the right to a healthy environment but do not replace that. We argue that the global recognition of the right to a healthy environment could connect the two branches of international law and ease its fragmentation. This article aims to examine and evaluate the existing international legal background at the global and regional levels. While doing so, we will analyze the legally binding and soft law instruments and the relevant case law of international human rights law and international environmental law. The article emphasized the recent legal development, as the United Nations Human Rights Committee adopted 2021 resolution no. 48/13, which promotes the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Here, we also present suggestions for the further global elaboration of the right. On the one hand, the examination reveals that international law already has several instruments and concepts that can be considered a starting point for the declaration. On the other hand, we propose that innovation, new approaches should be expressed in the future, related to the right to a healthy environment.

Earlier this year, Galal Nassar asserted that universities, once the “guardians of debate and intellectual freedom”, were quickly becoming places “where young people learn how to keep their mouths shut.” In this he is correct and though it might at first appear counter-intuitive, Western law schools have been leading the reformative charge. As Duncan Kennedy demonstrated nearly thirty years ago, law lecturers, for both self-serving and self-legitimating purposes, employ methods and foster teacher-student relationships that encourage fealty to ensconced equations of power. Legal education, Kennedy bemoaned, bequeaths not merely a qualification but also an ideology and a worldview, both of which buttress the preeminent standing of established hierarchies. This is particularly worrisome from a Third World perspective for some of the more insidious hierarchies that students subtly learn to accept exist between the First and Third worlds. Though explicit efforts to inculcate students with the racial rankings of the colonial era are uncommon, the facileness with which legal academics disregard this historical record relegates it to the bin of past injustice implicitly making it irrelevant to modern legal education. Not unlike with the teaching of municipal law where class stratification is presented as inevitable, First-Third world divisions acquire a similar innocuousness, a perception that does not lend itself to the questioning of the agent-subject relationship that persists between the two blocs in international lawmaking. In this article then, we explicate, from conceptualization to practice, the theory behind and the use of an alternate pedagogy - derived from the work of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) scholars, of Paolo Freire, and of Ngugi wa Thiong’o - in the delivery of a course on international law in a mainstream Western law school. We argue that this approach has enabled students to familiarize themselves with critical legal theories, to experience a dialogic and democratic approach to teaching and learning, and to reflect on the place of justice in international law, a series of achievements unlikely within the conventional banking model. The authors do not claim to offer a definitive account on the teaching of international law. Emancipatory initiatives are neither exclusive nor exclusionary and we would not advocate the adoption of a single teaching method. Instead, what we put forward is both a theoretical and a practical examination of the application of a TWAIL-inspired approach to legal pedagogy. This pedagogy, we argue, is very effective in acquiring a nuanced understanding of international legal matters, developing a wide range of practical skills, and nurturing awareness of the harmful outcomes international law produces for the Third World. It is hoped, and only time will tell, that the understanding, skills, and awareness the students acquire will manifest outwardly into a deeper social consciousness and a meaningful desire to struggle for a just international legal order.

The nature and essence of peace and security as fundamental universally recognized values is analyzed, their significance for international and constitutional legal orders undergoing transformations of organizational and legal foundations, institutional mechanisms is clarified. The axiological dimension of the concepts of the right to peace and the right to security as individual and collective rights, their dichotomous nature, which determines their provision at the national, universal, regional levels, is emphasized. The realization of the rights to peace, security, identity, national resilience or stability, sustainable development requires effective cooperation between international and national institutions, experts, civil society etc. It is seen that these are values of the highest order for a person and all of humanity, the world community and its individual regions, and at the same time, a shared responsibility for their provision or violation. The dynamics of international and constitutional legal order in the context of the aforementioned challenges and threats necessitates the transformation of their organizational and legal foundations, institutional and other mechanisms. This concerns ensuring continuity, consistent development of object-subject components, modernization of the system of international law and the system of international collective security at various levels, the national legal system of Ukraine, other states, the evolution of their components, including doctrinal sources, constitutional and legal framework and law enforcement practice, increasing legal awareness and legal culture. At the same time, in our opinion, it is time to reform the UN, OSCE, other international organizations, update the sources of international humanitarian law and international criminal law, international human rights law, etc., taking into account the experience of russian aggression against Ukraine, the actual genocide of the Ukrainian people, as well as digitalization and other innovations. In the context of ongoing aggression and globalization challenges, European integration and digitalization, guaranteeing peace and security, protecting fundamental rights, restoring violated rights and freedoms, creating conditions for peaceful coexistence and civilized conflict resolution, as well as finding optimal urgent and effective ways to hold accountable for violations of imperative norms and principles of international law, international and constitutional orders are priority tasks not only for Ukraine, but also for the world community. That is, the Ukrainian state is actually the locomotive of transformations not only of the constitutional, but also of the international legal order in order to establish and preserve peace and security, achieve victory and justice, and ensure the effectiveness of guarantees of human rights and humanity for current and future generations. Key words: peace; security; human rights; aggression; international legal order; constitutional legal order; values; transformation; identity; national resilience; state; responsibility.

Snapshot: The Process of Change in International Space Law Politics