Basic Principles Of International Law Research Articles

Energy Diplomacy of Turkmenistan: Determining Factors and Legal Framework

Introduction. Energy diplomacy is an effective means of ensuring energy security (international and national) and, at the same time, an instrument for implementing the foreign energy policy of states. Since energy diplomacy is formed and implemented in the conditions of the state legal and international legal environment, the study of its legal component acquires not only theoretical, but also important practical significance. At the same time, the legal aspects of energy diplomacy (both in general and in relation to specific countries) have not yet been systematically developed in the legal literature, including in the science of international law. Based on the analysis of scientific and regulatory material, the article identifies the features of Turkmenistan's energy diplomacy and its legal support.Materials and methods. Within the framework of the study, the sources of international law related to the topic under consideration, political and legal policy documents and acts of national legislation of Turkmenistan are considered. The theoretical basis of the research was the scientific works of experts in the field of international law and energy law, as well as individual studies of the problem of energy diplomacy, including in relation to a chosen country. The methodological basis of the study was presented by general scientific and special legal methods.The results of the study. Factors of a resource-geographical nature, combined with factors of a political and legal nature (the status of Turkmenistan as a permanently neutral state) determine the originality of foreign energy policy and, significant from the point of view of international law, the features of Turkmenistan's energy diplomacy. The main strategic priority of Turkmenistan's energy diplomacy is to increase the export potential of oil and gas products and, in this regard, to create an extensive, modern and efficient infrastructure for transit and delivery of energy resources to foreign energy markets, comprehensive legal support for these processes. Reliance on the potential of multilateral diplomacy (primarily in the UN system) for the international legal legitimization of their national interests in the energy sector is combined with the development of bilateral international legal relations of energy cooperation on terms of mutual benefit, while respecting the basic principles of international law. The head of state plays a special role in the development and legal formalization of Turkmenistan's energy diplomacy. Embargoes, as well as unilateral restrictive measures, used in the practice of a number of States and individual integration associations, are not used as a means of economic pressure on other States. Special importance is attached to preventive diplomacy within the framework of the Central Asian region.Discussion and conclusion. Turkmenistan's energy diplomacy, being the main means of implementing its foreign energy policy, has an international and constitutional legal framework, in turn, including: the UN Charter and other fundamental international legal acts establishing the basic principles of international law and the provisions of the Constitution of Turkmenistan on adherence to these principles, taking into account its permanently neutral status; Resolutions The UN General Assembly and acts of the constitutional legislation of Turkmenistan relating to the legal formalization and implementation of its permanent neutral status; norms of international law and provisions of the constitutional legislation of Turkmenistan regulating the main forms of diplomatic activity; special principles of international energy law correlating with the norms of the constitutional law of Turkmenistan.

BRICS Expanding in the Light of the Principles of International Law

Introduction. Starting from January 1, 2024, Argentina3, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates should acquire membership of the alliance with the former acronym “BRICS” due to the decision adopted by its XV Summit held on August 22–24, 2023. According to one of the official acts classified as a guide for Russian National Policy in International Affairs, namely the “Concept of Russia’s Participation in BRICS”, approved by the President of the Russian Federation back in 2013, BRICS is to be deemed as a valid tool for strengthening the interstate cooperation. Taking into account other dimensions, it is necessary to develop a comprehensive strategy for cooperation between the alliance countries and define mutually agreed principles of partnership. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The research provides the analysis of the doctrinal positions of the most qualified domestic and expatriate publicists in international law, effective international treaties and international legal acts of the United Nations, official documents (declarations) of the annual BRICS summits, materials of the UN International Law Commission regarding its papers on the topic “Peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens)”, outcome of the International Court of Justice practice as of the main judicial organ within the United Nations. In the course of performing the research, a number of general and particular scientific methods of cognition were used, including methods of systemic, structural and functional analysis, formal logic, deduction and induction, the method of comparative law, formal legal analysis and historical retrospective approach. The latter are especially productive in the study of the genesis and evolution of the concepts of “principle” in international law, “international organization”, integration, “paraorganization”, “multipolar world”, etc. Results. Both the BRICS emergence and expanding stand as direct challenge to such an international order, which proceeds from the inviolability of the existence of a single “decision-making center” (i. e., the United States and its satellites) as its core basis. In this aspect, resultant from the outcome of the XIV and XV summits held in 2022 and 2023, as well as of a new configuration of multilateralism previously initiated by China in Johannesburg (July 2018) for states that expressed ambition to cooperate with BRICS (PartNIR – “Partnership in the field of a new Industrial Revolution”), in the functioning of BRICS have been developed atypical models for involving third countries into partnership, including interaction with the countries of the region of the state chairing the group, which is carried out within the “BRICS-outreach” format. In light of the above, the study of such aspects pertaining to the theory and practice of international law as the application of the basic principles of international law and jus cogens norms to such cooperation in order to implement multilateralism, as well as the development of special principles of cooperation within the framework of BRICS should be raised to the rank of a specific subject of analysis. Discussion and Conclusion. In the course of the research, certain theses were formulated which relate to the analysis of current relationships of the “five” – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, accompanied by the assessment of the prospects for the forthcoming future in cooperation of the alliance under new formats. Thus, within the framework of BRICS, preference is given to multilateral or bilateral agreements, as opposed to the institutionalization (which involves coordinating the relationships of the involved parties by creating an international organization/institution). The identification of common features with universally widespread forms, on the one hand, and the distinctive properties of the international legal instruments used by the BRICS, on the other one, in no way deprives the analyzed segment of interstate cooperation of the “cementing” elements inherent to the entire system of international law, which include “basic principles”, “peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens)”, as well as sectoral and special principles of legal regulation of interstate (“inter-governmental”) public relationship.

Recommendations for the Improvement of China's Counter-sanctions Legal System under the Guidance of the Anti-foreign Sanctions Act

In recent years, the United States has regarded China as its most important strategic competitor in the future, and has illegally interfered in China's internal affairs in the political, economic and trade, scientific and technological fields, in blatant violation of the basic principles of international law, and has frequently abused undue unilateral sanctions against party and government organs, multinational enterprises, scientific research institutes and other institutions within China's borders, to the serious detriment of China's national interests, as well as the interests of the relevant organizations and individuals. For this reason, the National People's Congress has enacted and promulgated the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, which adopts "defensive" and lawful countermeasures at the legislative level against unilateral sanctions against foreign countries for their violent interference in China's internal affairs, fully utilizes international law as a means to safeguard China's national security and interests, and protects the lawful rights and interests of enterprises and individuals going to the sea, and also links up with other laws and regulations on anti-sanctions that have already been issued in the field of anti-sanctions. Starting from the legal normative documents in the field of counter-sanctions, such as departmental regulations, and combining them with the actual economic development of China, we will find effective legal countermeasures and suggestions for solving the worsening unilateral sanction dilemma faced by China, and establishing a counter-sanctions implementation mechanism with clearly defined powers and responsibilities, a sound system, and precise law enforcement.

Compliance of modern laws of Ukraine with international legal values: slogan or reality

The article analyzes international legal sources: the UN Charter, Declarations on the principles of international law, friendly relations and cooperation between states in accordance with the UN Charter, the Statute of the Council of Europe, the Lisbon Agreement in the context of the reality of the system of universally recognized values recorded in them, as well as sources the rights of Ukraine: the Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine, the Constitution of Ukraine, codes and other laws of Ukraine regarding the state (which is stable) of the implementation of universally recognized values into the laws of Ukraine; the problems of their implementation in modern conditions are identified and possible ways of their solution are proposed The purpose of the article is to reveal the realities of the system of universally recognized values fixed in international legal documents and the state of their implementation in the laws of Ukraine; to propose ways of transforming such a system of values in order to ensure their effectiveness in the laws of Ukraine and compliance with modern requirements. There are significant violations of the principles of international law, which embody universally recognized values; inadequate response of the international community to such violations; replacement of legal means by other means («political will», agreements, negotiations, «expression of concern», etc.). This turns the prescriptions of international documents into declarative provisions (declaration of ideas, opinions, statements), and the system of international legal values into a «catalogue of wishes» or slogans, since there is no system of legal means and a mechanism for their implementation. The system of universally recognized values enshrined in the sources of international law was based on the idea of coexistence and cooperation of states and was really effective until the end of the 20th century. In connection with modern changes, it is important to form a new conceptual vision of international organizations, their role, significance, form and place in the new world order; creation of an effective institutional and functional mechanism for solving global problems; revision and updating of the system of generally recognized values regarding the interaction of member states within international organizations, as well as their external interaction. The existing system of universally recognized values should be transformed into a system of legal ideas, which are fixed in the basic principles of international law, and their violation should be interpreted as illegal actions. The mechanism for ensuring them should consist exclusively of effective legal means that cause direct (and not conditional) legal responsibility for their violation. All this will make it possible to form new international and legal forms of interaction between the participating states, which will be able to effectively respond to globalization changes and provide appropriate conditions for the further development of humanity. Key words: international law, principles of international law, universally recognized values, laws of Ukraine.

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF RUSSIA’S IMPERIALISTIC AND OCCUPATION POLICY IN UKRAINE

In this research paper, the author analyzes the actions taken on behalf of the Russian government in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine. In particular, attention is paid to measures such as the pseudo-referendums held at the end of September 2022 in the east and south-east of Ukraine, the Kremlin’s propaganda, the policy of the occupiers related to the establishment of pro-Russian administrations, control of the local population, deportation of Ukrainians, the distribution of Russian passports, the introduction of a Russian education system and other measures of Russification as well as mass violations of the fundamental principles of human rights.
 In October 2022, the Russian State Duma unanimously supported the incorporation of the so-called “Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics” and Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions into the Russian Federation.
 After the pseudo-referendums held in the four temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, on September 30, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed “agreements” with the representatives of the occupation regime on the acceptance of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions into Russia.
 The documents were published on October 3, but it remained unclear where, in the occupants’ opinion, the borders of Russia now lay in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine.
 These actions contradict the basic principles of international law on the territorial integrity of a state and the inviolability of borders. The results of the “referendums” were not recognized by any country in the world, including the closest allies of the Kremlin such as Belarus, or even those countries that had recognized Abkhazia and the so-called “independence” of South Ossetia (Venezuela, Nicaragua, Syria, Nauru). Accordingly, the holding of pseudo-referendums is another weak attempt by Russia to impoverish Ukraine’s statehood, especially since Russia lost control of a significant portion of its “newly-joined territories” as a result of bold actions on the part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Peculiarities of interpretation of international treaties in the national legal system

The article analyzes the peculiarities of the interpretation of international treaties in the national legal system, defines the actual problems of implementation of the interpretation and ways to overcome them. Ukraine has joined a number of important international conventions that contain fundamental norms, in particular, regarding human rights. These norms are constantly developing and improving both through the practice of international judicial bodies and through the practice of foreign courts, whose decisions may contain important concepts. Therefore, Ukrainian judicial authorities should follow and apply modern trends and concepts of interpretation, which should lead to ensuring the proper protection of human rights.Without the correct interpretation of an international agreement, its correct implementation is impossible. The task of interpreting an international treaty is to clarify what the parties agreed upon at the time of concluding the treaty, and to clarify the agreed will of the parties embodied in the provisions of the treaty. Accordingly, an incorrect interpretation of an international treaty would violate the right to a fair trial.In Ukraine, the interpretation of an international treaty is carried out by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and courts of general competence. The first feature is the use by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to argue its positions not only of the norms of international treaties, but also of generally recognized principles and norms of international law. This practice is special in relation to the practice of courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts. This vagueness and incomprehensibility requires interpretation and supplementation in order to establish and guarantee the principle of legal certainty as part of the rule of law. And such an interpretation should reflect the spirit of the times and be based on modern methods and approaches that are rarely found in the decisions of national courts.On the basis of the conducted research, conclusions were made regarding the solution of the problems of interpretation of international treaties in the national legal system. The interpretation of treaties should be carried out primarily in accordance with the basic principles of international law. The interpretation must be conscientious, honest, and have common sense. The main object of interpretation is the text of the contract, including all its parts, that is, the preamble, annexes, as well as any agreement related to the contract, which was reached between all participants in connection with the conclusion of the contract.

Processing War Crimes in front of National Courts in the Region – Between International Obligations and Real Politics

The fight against impunity for war crimes is one of the basic principles of international law. The criminal prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes stems from international obligations that states have for the purpose of establishing facts and truth as the basis for establishing the rule of law. The right to the truth as a basic guarantee against repetition, the obligation to prosecute serious crimes under international law and the right to a fair trial, the right to effective legal remedies and reparations, and the obligation to remember and memorialize, are obligations prescribed to states by numerous international legal instruments. A fundamental contribution to the fight against impunity for crimes committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia in the armed conflicts of the nineties of the twentieth century was made by the International Ad Hoc Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. His legal legacy is significant both in the field of determining responsibility for crimes and in the development of international law. With the strategy for ending the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the obligation to process war crimes was placed under the jurisdiction of the national courts of the countries in the region. The judicial authorities in the region, with the support of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Courts, the successor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, took on the responsibility of prosecuting war crimes committed during the armed conflicts of the 1990s in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and for this purpose specialized departments were established courts and prosecutor's offices for processing war crimes. However, numerous suspects of high or middle military and civilian chain of command who participated in crimes, most of which were committed on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and for which their superiors were convicted before the Hague Tribunal, have not yet been prosecuted, that is, the sentences have been carried out. The national courts in the region, which have the obligation to ensure the implementation of the international principle of the fight against impunity and to continue the work of the international judiciary, have proven to be ineffective in that area, if not in the service of realpolitik. Numerous high-ranking war crime suspects avoid criminal responsibility by fleeing to neighboring countries where they have or have acquired dual citizenship. By abusing the institution of extradition, impunity has been granted to those suspected of serious violations of international law. In addition, by unfoundedly applying the institute of universal jurisdiction in the prosecution of war crimes, national courts not only ignore the jurisprudence of international courts, but also contribute to the revisionism of established facts. The lack of regional cooperation in the prosecution of war crimes, despite numerous agreements signed for this purpose, the non-recognition of judgments of the courts of neighboring states in the region, are problems that continue to prevent the acceptance of facts and truth as the basis of a guarantee of non-repetition. Moreover, the facts established in the judgments before the international judiciary are the subject of institutional denial and revisionism in the territories of the states of the former Yugoslavia that participated in armed conflicts in the 90s. Negationism and revisionism, deeply institutionally rooted in the post-war societies of the former Yugoslavia, their toleration and approval, as well as the ineffective work of the national judiciary, led to the phenomenon of glorification of crimes and war criminals in the region. Through the reports of relevant international and national institutions and examples from court practice, this work aims to point out the obligations and key shortcomings in the work of national courts in the region of the former Yugoslavia and the problems of regional cooperation in the prosecution of war crimes.

Großraum versus Lebensraum. Die Interdependenzen geographischer, juristischer und rassenbiologischer Ordnungsvorstellungen

Abstract. Between 1940 and 1943, Nazi jurists such as Reinhard Höhn and Werner Best worked on a political theory of racial-biological rule, which they contoured in a controversy with Carl Schmitt over the basic principles of international law and of a European Großraum. The focus of the contribution is on the entanglement and transformation of geographical, international legal and racial-biological relations between the „peoples“ living in a Großraum. On the one hand, the multiple change in discourse raises the fundamental question of the relevance of geographical knowledge (such as Ratzel's Lebensraumtheorie) for the National Socialist policy of conquest and extermination. At the same time, the focus is on the significant shift from a description of human community and state formation based on supposed natural laws to an action-oriented agenda of racial-biological homogenisation of Europe, which with brutal openness legitimised genocide as an option regarding the „Umvolkung“ that had already been practised in occupied Poland since 1939.

Juxtaposing The Territorial Integrity and Self-Determination Principles in Nagorno-Karabakh Dispute

The separation of the former Soviet Union resulted in non civic divorces; ethnic cleansing, massacres, a territorial dispute which the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute stands as an example of. This conflict has been going on for years and is constantly evolving and regularly flares up resulting in casualties. The differing accusation of Armenia and Azerbaijan regarding the issue of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict create different dimensions of the parties. Armenia sees the settlement as in the framework of self-determination whereas Azerbaijan pertains to the principle of territorial integrity in which both are the basic principles of international law thus leading to confusion regarding the legal dimensions of the conflict. With the most recent aggression, it is paramount now more than ever to seek the best possible settlement to put an end to the dispute. Until recently, Armenia accepts a deal with Russia to surrender the disputed territory by withdrawing its army. The main objective of this article is to give a general assessment of the disputed principles in this case

Human rights, imperative norms and basic principles of International Law: notes of an international lawyer

Human rights, imperative norms and basic principles of International Law: notes of an international lawyer

CHANGING BALANCES IN SOUTH CAUCASUS AFTER 44 DAYS WAR, KEY AZERBAIJAN AND KEY ZENGEZUR

The 44-Day War was a groundbreaking war that radically changed the existing practices and balances in the South Caucasus. After the collapse of the USSR on December 26th, 1991, Armenia unjustly occupied Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding areas of Lachin, Gubatli, Zangilan, Cebrayil, Fizuli, Agdam and Kelbajar with the support of Moscow. During these occupations, thousands of Azerbaijani Turkish women were brutally murdered, along with their children. As a result of this occupation by Armenia in violation of the rules of international law, Azerbaijan lost 20% of its territory. After that date, until the 44-Day War began, Armenia continued to violate the borders it had carried out unjustly and to make provocations that had the potential to start a total war. Finally, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, in his speech at the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on September 25th, 2020, stated that a counter-attack would be launched within the boundaries of the right to self-defense. He also announced that this operation would be carried out in order to realize Azerbaijan’s vision of ending Armenia’s unjust occupation in the region. This honorable war, launched against a long-standing injustice, is the UN Security Council affirming that Armenia is an occupier and that the occupied territories belong to Azerbaijan, and at the same time calling on the Armenians to end the occupation; It is compatible with the four UN Decision “822, 853, 874, 884”. The war started against the Armenian occupation elements on September 27th, 2020, ended with the absolute victory of Azerbaijan on November 10th, 2020. According to the basic principles of international law; attacks to change the borders by using force are not allowed under any circumstances, and the use of force to protect the attacked country and people is considered within the boundaries of the “right to self-defense”. Hence the 44 Day War; Since it complies with the rules of International Law, the UN, the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), it does not have a legal problem. The changing world after the Cold War and the 2008 global economic crisis; It has brought up the changing security perceptions and the ongoing global and regional conflicts, changing balances, new alliances and new potential regional power actors. Considering these developments that took place after the millennium, we can say that Azerbaijan is an important “keyhole” country, especially in the Caucasus region, and by looking at its geographical location that provides an opening from Europe to Asia, and the key to the lock is Zangezur. In this study, especially after the 44-Day War, the changing balances and opportunities in the South Caucasus will be examined. In this context, the importance of the Azerbaijan and Zangezur corridor, which we describe as the key country that was the absolute winner of the 44-Day War, will be discussed.

Towards the Draſt Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination and Forms of its Realization

INTRODUCTION. This article elaborates on the idea of Professor Y.A.Reshetov, who published in the Moscow Journal of International Law a draſt convention on the right of peoples to self-determination. The draſt convention has been one of the first attempts to draw attention to the problem of the limits of self-determination in plural States, the forms of implementation and the main subjects of the right of self-determination. The purpose of the study is to develop the relevant ideas of Y.A.R.Reshetov, as well as to introduce new ideas, taking into account the evolving processes of realization of the right to self-determination in the modern world.MATERIAL AND METHODS. The study is based on international legal instruments, advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice, the jurisprudence of other international legal bodies and contemporary research of domestic and foreign scholars. The methods used in this study are: analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, comparison, classification, systematization, prediction, as well as comparative and formal legal approaches.RESEARCH RESULTS. The territorial disputes resulting from ethnic, regional and local conflicts are among the most pressing problems in international relations. For any multi-ethnic State, including Russia, it is extremely important to have a genuine scientific awareness of the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples, adequate forms of its implementation, and structuring ethnic identity in the system of civil identity. Exploring for well-founded solutions to the matters involved will help consolidate world public opinion and ultimately develop an appropriate international legal mechanism under the auspices of the United Nations.DISCUSION AND CONCLUSION. The articles analyses the evolution of the idea of self-determination of peoples, the place of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples in the system of basic principles of international law. The range of subjects of the right to self-determination, the specifics of secession, institutions of uti possidetis juris, and of delays in secession, as well as questions on the forms and criteria of self-determination of the principal subjects and the phenomenon of «unrecognized States», author draſted the relevant Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Self-determination and the Modalities for its Implementation.

Correlation of the principles of territorial integrity of states and self-determination of peoples in international law

The article presents a comparative analysis of the principles of territorial integrity of states and self-determination of peoples in terms of international law. The principle of equality and self-determination of peoples, as well as the territorial integrity and inviolability of state borders, are among the basic principles of international law.
 At first glance, there is a certain contradiction between the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity of states, which provides that the territory of the state cannot be changed without its consent. The inability of the parties to find a peaceful solution to such a conflict leads to an increase in national conflicts, which often escalate into a military confrontation.
 From the content of the provisions of international law, it becomes clear that the principle of territorial integrity is aimed solely at protecting the state from external aggression. It does not apply only to those states that do not ensure the equality of the peoples living in them and do not allow free self-determination of such peoples. Conversely, if the state adheres to this principle in its activities, it is impossible to dismember it and violate its territorial integrity, "hiding" under this principle, because this state has already given peoples the right to express themselves within its borders.
 The right of the people to self-determination means that each nation is free to determine, without outside interference, its political status and to pursue its economic, social, and cultural development.
 In turn, the UN Millennium Declaration in fact spoke in favor of an only anti-colonial and anti-occupation interpretation of the principle of self-determination of peoples.
 Thus, the principle of the right to equality and self-determination of peoples does not encourage separatism and secession as a mandatory form of self-determination; on the contrary, the right to secession is directly limited to special cases, such as decolonization, the struggle against occupation and the racist regime.
 The same is confirmed in the practice of constitutional courts of states.

The effect of the principle of sovereign equality on the settlement of multiple nationality relations

Multiple (or plural) nationality is a phenomenon that can be considered both in domestic and international legal perspectives. It has been the subject of controversy for a long time, and no consensus has been developed on this problem. The purpose of this article is to identify the nature of the influence of the basic principle of international law – sovereign equality - on the international legal regulation of multiple and dual nationality relations by examining the effectiveness and compliance with this principle of the methods of resolving bi- and polypatrism cases, developed by science and judicial practice. The article analyzes the possibility of exercising state sovereignty in the diplomatic protection of one’s citizen from the state whose nationality he also possesses. By studying and analyzing the relevant provisions of international treaties, court practice, the Draft articles on diplomatic protection of the UN International Law Commission, the article concludes that the only, albeit imperfect, way to resolve such cases today is the principle of effective nationality.

Transnational law: The scientific breakthrough of professor Liudmila Nikiforovna Galenskaya

The article discusses the main provisions of Professor L. N. Galenskaya’s monograph “Legal regulation of transnational relations” published in 2022. The totality set of L. N. Galenskaya’s ideas is characterized as a scientific breakthrough, which makes it possible to explain the correlation of various regulators of international relations — international and transnational law. The article examines the nature of relations regulated by transnational law, the mutual position (relationship) of international, transnational and private international law. The issues of special principles of transnational law and its subjects, the nature of regulated relations, branches of transnational law are analyzed. According to L. N. Galenskaya, the regulators in the field of transnational law are the basic principles of international law, to the action of which all legal relations are subject — both within the framework of international and domestic relations. In addition, as a special regulator, it highlights the special principles of transnational law. The legal principles cannot be considered either as fundamental ideas in law or as norms of a special kind. Among them, the principle of equality of legal systems, the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of legal protection should be highlighted. In the sphere of cross-border relations, on the one hand, the principle of freedom of subjects to participate in transnational relations operates, on the other hand, participation in them is possible only with the general or special permission of the state. Moreover, in the sphere of transnational relations, the principle of constant connection with the state of nationality of the subject operates. Since the monograph was released published in 2022, when in the year that Professor L. N. Galenskaya celebrates her anniversary, the author tells separately about the scientific achievements of the hero of the day and her long-term work at Leningrad (St Petersburg) State University.

The Renunciation of One’s Nationality of Origin and European Union Citizenship: is it Compatible with Spain’s Dual Nationality System?

As a basic principle of international law, the ways of the different modes of nationality acquisition, recovery and loss is a matter falling under the jurisdiction of sovereign nations. However, as with other issues, relatively unrestricted intra-EU mobility rules have spawned a debate on the compatibility between national regulations and the demands of the current European status civitatis. In this study, considering the increasingly common factual and legal phenomenon of plurinationality, we will question the existing requirement in some systems of nationality law (among them Spain’s) for one to expressly renounce their nationality of origin when aspiring to be naturalized through residence in another Member State. In the current stage of the development of European integration process, this demand for renunciation becomes an unsustainable demand. In fact, avoid the legal recognition and enjoyment of two European nationality obstructs the full respect for own personal and plural identity as European citizenship. Implementing the procedures towards a paradigm shift are as needed as possible, which is explored in this study.

Zovnishni znosyny yak obiekt mizhnarodnoho prava

It is determined that when studying foreign relations as an object of international law, it is necessary to clearly establish its content and scope, as well as to distinguish it from other approximate concepts and terms. The understanding of the concept of «foreign relations» with the terms «foreign relations», «foreign affairs and international relations», as well as «the sphere of foreign relations» and «foreign affairs» is distinguished. Attention is paid to terminological and semantic differences between the concepts of «foreign relations» and «international relations». It is proved that international relations are defined as a systemic set of political, economic, social, diplomatic, legal, military and humanitarian ties and relations. These relations are between the main actors of the world community, which include peoples, states, social and public forces, movements and organizations. The opinion is substantiated that the concept of «foreign relations» is defined as part of the general system between state relations and international activities of each state, covering official, supported by special state bodies mainly political ties and relations between states and other subjects of international law in order to carry out their external functions by peaceful means in accordance with the basic principles of international law. It is established that the sources of regulation of foreign relations are numerous international agreements, both bilateral and multilateral. It is stated that foreign relations are regulated activities of the state on a coordinated, democratic basis in the field of official relations and relations, which is established and maintained by the entire system of foreign relations of each state to achieve their foreign policy goals by peaceful means provided by international law. Also, foreign relations are characterized by the following features: first, it is the official nature of the state’s activities in international affairs; secondly, the activity is carried out exclusively by authorized bodies; thirdly, in all cases, foreign relations must be carried out exclusively by peaceful means within the framework of international law. It is established that foreign relations as an object of international law can be defined as the activities of states, international organizations and other subjects of international law on a coherent, democratic basis in the field of official relations and relations, which is established and maintained by the system of foreign relations of such relations, in order to achieve common foreign policy goals by peaceful means provided for by international law, that is a manifestation of the realization by such subjects of their rights within the framework of international legal relations.

Host States’ Due Diligence Obligation Towards Foreign Investors in the Context of Rebellions and Civil Wars

Abstract Based on an analysis of State practice and case law, this article examines one basic principle of international law embodied in Article 10 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on State responsibility. In the context of an unsuccessful insurrection or civil war, the host State is responsible for its own failure to discharge its due diligence obligation to protect foreign investors in relation to acts committed by rebels, i.e. to make all efforts within its capacity to suppress an insurrection and to take all reasonable measures to prevent injurious conduct by rebels and damages from occurring. This article examines the scope and content of this ‘duty to protect’ obligation, the applicable ‘test’ and the relevant circumstances to determine whether any breach of the obligation has been committed in light of recent investment awards analysing the full protection and security clause in the context of Libya’s civil war.

Application of the principles of international law in the field of ensuring international security

The article substantiates the importance of universally recognized international principles in the field of international security. The scientific article outlines legal framework of international security law and grounds for increasing the number of basic principles of international law.

Implementation of state policy in the field of combating cyber crime: legislative aspect

The article substantiates the importance of universally recognized international principles in the field of international security. The scientific article outlines legal framework of international security law and grounds for increasing the number of basic principles of international law.