Principle Of Sovereign Equality Research Articles

China's collectivist cosmopolitanism: Harmony and conflict with Western conceptualizations of cosmopolitanism rooted in individualistic notions of human rights

Just as leading Western countries have begun withdrawing from the neoliberal Washington Consensus that paved the way for economic globalization over the last 40 years, China has proposed an ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, or One Belt One Road, outlining its vision for global development. President Xi's vision of collectivist cosmopolitanism is centered on the principle of sovereign equality between nations, emphasizing civilizational uniqueness rather than universal human rights. In this view, economic and social development are path dependent, and in China's case, prioritize decolonization and national sovereignty. Xi's view in major speeches is cosmopolitan but collectivist, emphasizing economic growth, openness, dynamism, and an “avowed respect” for the integrity of other cultures, while saying nothing about individual human rights or groups within China. This approach positions ancient Chinese traditions like Confucianism as playing a central role in cultivating individuals’ and society's moral qualities so that person, society, and governance are bound together as a mutually beneficial and interconnected whole. It forms the theoretical basis of a Chinese view of cosmopolitanism, which could be the basis of dialogue with Western cosmopolitanists. The challenge is reconciling the different emphasis accorded to human rights versus national sovereignty in the two views. Empirical results of a new measure of Cosmopolitan Orientation that correlates positively rather than negatively with nationalism and religiosity provide insights into the specific basis for this dialogue to become beneficial rather than conflictual.

Principle of Sovereign Equality and Non-Interference in the Internal Affairs of A State

Principle of Sovereign Equality and Non-Interference in the Internal Affairs of A State

Constitution and International Law: A New Model of Interaction

The paper analyzes the constitutional reform in Russia with an emphasis on the constitutional amendment on the interaction of the norms of international law and national legislation within the domestic legal system. Constitutional provisions and doctrinal approaches enshrined there play an important role in ensuring stable and predictable international relations. The paper discusses the possibility of applying two classical doctrines on the relationship between international and national law (dualistic and monistic) to the definition of the characteristics of amendments to Article 79 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The authors substantiate the necessity of introducing constitutional amendments from the point of view of the development of international relations and the maturation of domestic political, economic and social conditions over the past decades. Some doctrines of interpretation of international treaties of interstate bodies and the possibility of determining the parameters of their execution in the legal system of Russia are considered. It is concluded that the new model of interaction between international and Russian law corresponds to the principle of sovereign equality of states enshrined in the UN Charter. The authors summarize that the supplement of the constitutional norm under consideration clarifies the constitutional model of the relationship between international and Russian law. It allows for the full implementation of the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as the execution of international legal acts, including decisions of interstate bodies that comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which eliminates possible threats to destabilize the rule of law of the state. Thus, we are not talking about adopting a radical model of the primacy of national law over international law, but rather about adapting the doctrine of dialectical interaction between Russian and international law to the needs of modern development of our state.

To the issue of vaccine nationalism in COVID-19 era

Problem setting. The new coronavirus pandemic is one of the greatest challenges in contemporary history, especially in the face of unprecedented globalization. Mankind has been waiting for almost a year since the beginning of the pandemic for the most effective way to fight against the virus – vaccines. Over the last two years, such concepts as “vaccine races”, “vaccine nationalism”, “vaccine diplomacy” have been spread in the international political and scientific discourse. However, in Ukraine these concepts have not become the subject of research yet. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The researched issues have not attracted the attention of Ukrainian scientific community yet, so the basis of our work consists of foreign scientists’ publications, which were, inter alia, done by L. Gruszczynski (Lukasz Gruszczynski), A. Filipovich (Aleksa Filipović), P. Hotez (Peter J. Hotez), I. Yanqiu Rachel Zhou, A. Kobieriecka, M. M. Kobieriecki, Z. Mammedyarov and some others. In addition to that, Academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine S. Komisarenko has studied the problems and prospects of creating Ukrainian vaccine against COVID-19, rightly noting that it is a matter of national security. The target of the research. The target of this research is to examine the content, the scope and genesis of “vaccine nationalism” concept, practical manifestations of this phenomenon as well as the relationship between vaccine diplomacy and vaccine nationalism. Article’s main body. Over the past two years, nation-states have resorted to policies of economic protectionism, and then to so-called “vaccine nationalism”, which we inclined to analyze in three guises: 1) “vaccine races” – at the stage of development and testing; 2) “vaccine egoism” – at the stage of contracting and use of vaccines; 3) the issue of mutual recognition of vaccines. Thus, the article examines the meaning of the concept of vaccine nationalism in its broadest sense. It has been emphasized, however, that vaccine nationalism is not a new phenomenon in international relations as a similar situation was observed, in particular, during the H1N1 pandemic. It has been also illustrated that vaccine nationalism usually characterizes the most economically developed states. Vaccine-producing countries to carry out their foreign policy tasks, as well as recipient countries to ensure their biological security resort to “vaccine diplomacy”. However, there is no unanimous scientific approach to the definition of both “vaccine diplomacy” and “vaccine nationalism” around the globe. It has been established that with the spread of COVID-19, protection of state sovereignty and national security has come to the fore in comparison with the obligation to cooperate and the principle of sovereign equality, which are jus cogens and erga omnes. On the other hand, “my nation first” policy is not directly prohibited by the letter of international law. Conclusions. In the modern world, there are simultaneous phenomena of globalization and deglobalization. Actually, to denote the trend of deglobalization in the field of countering COVID-19 such a concept as “vaccine nationalism” is used. The “vaccine race” can be seen as a rivalry between two political regimes: on the one hand, liberal democracy in the face of the United States and its allies, and on the other hand – states with authoritarian political regimes (China and Russia). However, geopolitical rivalry, the struggle for extension of spheres of influence can be an effective means of combating the pandemic in practice. The concept of vaccine nationalism is closely linked to “vaccine diplomacy”, which is used by vaccine donor countries as a method of achieving their national interests. It was concluded that it is important to ensure sovereignty and biological security of Ukraine by launching the production of vaccines against infectious diseases. That will also strengthen the position of Ukrainian diplomacy.

An Equivocal or Unequivocal Bar for Determining Consent to Jurisdiction

Abstract The legal consequence of the principle of sovereign equality is the fact that the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals in inter-State disputes is contingent on consent of the disputing States. Consent to jurisdiction may be expressed in different forms but requires in each instance the demonstration of unequivocal acceptance of consent. The case law is abundant on and under which circumstances consent can be considered present. Interestingly, the criteria that are set forward in the case law appear to present two different standards for determining whether consent to jurisdiction has been expressed. This arises unequivocally in the English and French texts of the relevant judicial decisions.

УЧАСТЬ УКРАЇНИ У СТВОРЕННІ НОВОЇ АРХІТЕКТУРИ РЕГІОНАЛЬНОЇ БЕЗПЕКИ У СФЕРІ ЗАХИСТУ ПРАВ ЛЮДИНИ

It is known that the principle of sovereign equality and reciprocity of States underlies contemporary international relations. All UN member states are equal in legal status and obliged to co-operate with one another. At the same time, the role of each state on the world stage directly depends on its efficient geopolitical interactions and the willingness to engage in win-win cooperation. The article analyzes the increasing Ukrainian cooperation practices since 2020 through the establishment of the subregional alliances to pursue the newly approved foreign policy strategy. The associations are promoted concerning building a new international security architecture in human rights. The article deals with updated governmental strategic documents aimed at enhanced engagement of Ukraine in regional cooperation. The report also considers theoretical grounds for creating subregional human rights protection mechanisms within the European regional systems and includes the comparative analysis of the most effective subregional associations since the late 1990s. Human rights are a unifying factor in global relations of the last century. Therefore, the study has found that Ukraine's strategy to revive old and create new formats of subregional cooperation, such as the Lublin Triangle, the Association Trio, the Quadriga, and, of course, the Crimea Platform, brings back to the international community agenda issues related to the human rights protection, as well help achieve essential important geopolitical goals of Ukraine. Such activities allow Ukraine, in the short-term perspective, to receive additional vaccines from COVID-19 and modern weapons to strengthen the Defense Force to deter the Russian military aggression in eastern Ukraine. At the same time, in the medium term, the defined strategy will help Ukraine to become a full member of the EU and NATO. And in the long run – to implement the policy of reintegration and deoccupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and its peaceful return to Ukraine within internationally recognized borders. Eventually, such subregional alliances improve the structure of human rights protection within the Universal human rights protection system and European regional mechanisms, strengthen Ukraine's position in international negotiations and consolidate Ukraine's role in international relations as Europe's Eastern Gate.

The Limitations and Exceptions to Immunity of States Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction: On ILC Draft Article 7

The International Law Commission (ILC) temporarily adopted Draft Article 7 on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, listing six international crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity that state officials don’t share immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction. This paper holds a conservative attitude to the adoption of Draft Article 7 after combing international and national practice and research on immunity theory. First, by sorting out international practices and national practices, it could be drawn that the exception to immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction has not yet formed customary international law. Second, through the analysis of the theory and practices, it could be found that the theory for supporting international crimes as exceptions to the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction: international crimes should not be recognized as official acts, the effectiveness of jus cogens is higher than the immunity rule and the theory of impunity against international crimes are not sufficient. Based on the above results, this paper argues that the ILC should not make clarifying immunity exceptions the core of its work on this topic; instead, it should focus on further clarifying the rules for granting state officials immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction to respect the principle of sovereign equality of states and maintain the stability of international relations.

Nationalism, Human Rights, and the Prospects to Peace

The article exposes the issues of human rights and the prospects for peace in the context of the analysis of the concepts of sovereignty and nationalism. Such an analysis is conducted in the face of a trend towards globalism, cosmopolitanism and liberal internationalism inherent in the world today, on the one hand, and the growing trend of nationalism and violations of human rightson a massive scale by some states, on the other.The evolution of the concept of state sovereignty is considered. The first – the original – is manifested in the principle of sovereign equality and is based on such a human right as the right to self-determination. The second is the concept of “conditional sovereignty”, or “sovereignty as responsibility” as a look at the legitimacy of the state through human rights. It is associated with theactivities of UN institutions, when the state began to be considered as a servant of its people, and individual sovereignty (rights and freedoms of each individual person) was strengthened. The third concept is “sovereignty as fiduciaries of humanity”: sovereign fiduciaries will fulfill their obligation to humanity by collaborating with private as well as public actors. In the context of transnationalthreats, such rethinking the state sovereignty is the best hope for peace.In the last part, the idea of the incompatibility of nationalism in its current form with realistic world politics is developed. Modern nationalism is losing its historical progressiveness, becoming indifferent to the subject of human rights. The gravest threats to peace and to human rights require an internationalist response, politics increasingly tilts toward nationalism. It is concluded that thelatter is only a symptom of today’s disease, and not its treatment. The cure is adopting the standpoint of humanity, and inventing political and legal institutions.

Colonies, semi-sovereigns, and great powers: IGO membership debates and the transition of the international system

AbstractHow did the transition from a world of empire to a global international system organised around the sovereign state play out? This article traces the transition over the past two centuries through an examination of membership debates in two prominent intergovernmental organisations (IGOs). IGOs are sites of contestation that play a role in the constitution of the international system. Discussions within IGOs reflect and shape broader international norms, and are one mechanism through which the international system determines questions of membership and attendant rights and obligations. The article reveals that IGO membership policies during this period reflected different compromises between the three competing principles of great power privilege, the ‘standard of civilisation’, and universal sovereign equality. The article contributes to Global IR as it confirms that non-Western agency was crucial in bringing about this transition. States in Africa, Asia, and Latin America championed the adoption of the sovereignty criterion. In this, paradoxically, one of the core constitutional norms of the ‘European’ international system – the principle of sovereign equality – was realised at the hands of non-European actors.

АНЕКСІЯ КРИМУ РОСІЄЮ:

У статті досліджено події, які передували анексії Криму і відбувались під час захоплення півострову Російською Федерацією у 2014 році. 
 Проаналізовано причини вторгнення російських військових в Україну. Наведено аргументи політиків стосовно того, що завадило організувати військовий опір з початку російської агресії. 
 Визначено наслідки анексії Криму. Окреслено перспективи подальших відносин України з Росією, виявлені загрози ескалації конфлікту.

From Versailles to the Kellogg-Briand Pact: Prohibiting and Justifying Aggression in the Interbellum

Abstract: The article is a historical re-description of international legal debates concerning the ius ad bellum in the Interwar period (1919–1936). Using a core/periphery heuristic, it is demonstrated that the normative changes created by the League Covenant and the Kellogg-Briand Pact were being drafted and interpreted by the great powers in a way that still allowed them to justify military interventions in their peripheries. Even military violence between Western states could only be partially outlawed by these instruments. Legal uncertainties produced during the drafting of the new instruments could readily be exploited by the Western dominated international legal discourse. And yet, with the principle of sovereign equality on the rise in the Interbellum, and the battle of semi-periphery governments against the ‘standard of civilisation', traditional justifications for military violence came under increasing pressure. At that very moment, international lawyers in the core introduced a broader understanding of self-defence, gradually replacing former justifications for military interventions both within the core and in the peripheries of Western powers. All of this taken together in practice arguably consumed a substantial part of the alleged ‘progress' made by international legal pacifism in the Interbellum.

ABOUT INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN THE FIELD OF FORENSIC SCIENCE

This article outlines general trends of international cooperation development in the field of forensic expert activity and positive experience for use in the practice of Ukrainian forensic science institutes activity. Also the main principles for international cooperation are universal and fixed in the Charter of the United Nations Organization and in the Declaration on the Principles of International Law, namely: principle of need for mutual cooperation between states, principle of sovereign equality of states; principle of faithful fulfillment of obligations according to requirements of international law; principle of respect of human rights and common freedoms are considered. Main attention is paid to the fact that results of the analysis of the state and dynamics of international cooperation in the field of forensic science demonstrate that currently main trends in various field have been formed, namely: organization of international forensic expert cooperation; scientific, methodological and technical support of forensic expert activity and provided them with a description. Author emphasis paid special attention to fact that the requirement for recognizing results of research at the international level is becoming relevant today. Consequently, any laboratory should meet requirements of international standards for the international recognition of the results of measuring activities. According to requirements of network of forensic institutes all laboratories of the European Community should be accredited according to international standard МСО 17025 (МСО 9001). Further strict adherence to this provision will allow the effective realization of cooperation elements while performing comprehensive many object examinations, increasing dynamics of methodological development through the differentiation of research results, organizing a wide exchange of information (in particular, information and reference arrays of samples) on a single methodological basis.Author concluded that introduction of international standards in activity of Ukrainian forensic science institutes is an urgent issue and the key to the recognition of Ukrainian forensic expert conclusions at the international level.

Non-Discrimination in International Law and Sovereign Equality of States: An Historical Perspective

The interpretation of non-discrimination clauses lies at the epicenter of the practice of international courts and tribunals. In today’s world, an important part of the jurisprudence interpreting non-discriminatory standards, such as the national treatment standard and the most-favorable nation treatment, is in fact “economic.” The reason lies with the ever-expanding fields of international investment law and international trade law, that have brought about the creation of a large body of investor-state arbitration awards, WTO Panel Reports and WTO Appellate Body Reports, all interpreting and applying economic non-discriminatory standards. At the same time, the principle of Sovereign Equality of States, the cardinal organizational and constitutional principle of international relations is constantly the focus of legal and political debates in the international scene. Despite the prominence and prevalence of both concepts, little attention or no attention has been paid to the history of their interrelationship. The present article offers a detailed historical analysis of the relationship between the principles of non-discrimination and Sovereign Equality of States, which is instrumental in the better understanding of both concepts.

International Law and Its Others

If the rule of law means anything, it is that the law is meant to apply equally to all regardless of the vacillations of power. This is the founding myth of law at the national level — famously forbidding the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under the bridges of Paris at night. More recently embraced at the international level, the myth was formalized in the United Nations Charter, article 2(1) of which founds the Organization on the principle of sovereign equality. It is a useful myth, and a popular one — in 2005, every Member State reaffirmed their commitment to the purposes and principles of the UN, and to an international order based on the rule of law. Yet a myth it remains. The history of the rule of law at the domestic and international level is a tale of ongoing struggle to ensure that the powerful as well as the weak are subject to it. That struggle is all the more difficult at the international level, as the absence of a hierarchical structure means that in place of the leviathan’s stick there are only the carrots of enlightened self-interest.

How to Limit Immunity of State Officials in Relation to Grave Violations of Human Rights? Between the Definition of Official Acts and Exceptions

Immunity of States, diplomatic immunity and immunity of other State officials have always been traditional doctrines of customary international law, which have been, thanks to the work of the International Law Commission (ILC), partly codified in international conventions. Currently, work is underway on the codification of immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, which is a very important and sensitive area. New trends have been introduced by the recent development of international criminal law, excluding immunity from the prosecution before international criminal tribunals. Immunities are still important in situations where the principle of sovereign equality of States must be applied, i.e. before national courts. The success of the codification will depend on how well functional immunity will be defined as a principle, and on the definition of relevant crimes under international law in respect of which immunity does not apply.

Hierarchy, status and international society: China and the steppe nomads

While pre-modern China’s relations with her Sinic neighbours have been described as a distinctive variant of the English School’s international society based on a shared Confucian culture and a China-centred tributary system, her relations with her nomadic neighbours, including the Hsiung-nu, Turks, Uighurs and Mongols, have often been characterized as purely power-political, Hobbesian and lacking any societal foundation. This article argues that China and the nomads formed an international society for much of their history, one based not on a common Confucian heritage or China’s immutable centrality, but on the principle of an adaptable hierarchy based on common diplomatic norms and practices that allowed its members to affirm and contest their status within this hierarchy. The case of China and the nomads extends and enriches the concept of international society in three ways. First, it is a historical example of a non-European international society not composed of sovereign states or based on the principle of sovereign equality, but based on the principle of adaptable hierarchy and the ranking of powers. Second, it shows that international society can exist and develop between units as culturally and politically dissimilar as China and the nomads. Finally, it provides us with a unique model of how pre-modern international society in East Asia was stratified, which markedly differs from how modern international society is stratified. This last point has contemporary relevance in relation to China’s rise as a great power, and its frustration at what it feels is the unfair denial of a status commensurate with its growing power and influence by the US and the West.

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AS INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND THE ISSUE OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY

It has been recognized that the anti-money laundering regime comprises of preventive and repressive measures. Regarding the preventive measures, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on Money Laundering issued the Forty Recommendations which are regarded as international standards in preventing and controlling money laundering activities. These standards are generally viewed as ‘soft law’ and have levels of intervention in legislative, financial, and law enforcement of members and non-member countries of the FATF. However, the rule-making as well as the implementation and enforcement strategy of these standards are not involved and approved by non-member countries. This article argues that this policy is contrary to the principle of state sovereignty and regarded as one of state interventions in the domestic affairs of another state. This article seeks to draw the Forty Recommendations as international standards and examines the creation and implementation of these standards from the standpoint of state sovereignty by focusing exclusively on the principle of sovereign equality and non-interference.

Side-Lining Subsidiarity in Collective Security

The UN Security Council's 'quasi-legislative' activity in the field of chemical, nuclear and biological weapon proliferation was both challenged and legitimated using the logic of subsidiarity. Non Security Council member states were worried that the unrepresentative, opaque and selective Council was attempting to govern their domestic spheres. In response assurances were given by the sponsors of resolution 1540 (2004) that a) the implementation strategy would involve the tools of development such as capacity building and technical assistance and not the tools of enforcement such as sanctions and military intervention and that b) individual states retained a broad latitude of interpreting their obligations in the process of implementation. This paper disrupts this reading of the quasi-legislative resolution 1540 (2004) by viewing it through the lens of Michel Foucault's concept of disciplinary power. This lens reveals that since resolution 1977 (2011) the 1540 Committee charged with facilitating the implementation of the resolution has significantly strengthened its use of disciplinary practices, tactics and mechanisms of prescription, surveillance and correction. The paper argues that below the level of formal state consent and binding norms, individual states' latitude to interpret their obligations is systematically and continually diminished. While most nations are in a position to resist such disciplinary power relations, states which lack capacity either in terms of resources or savoir faire are not. This has serious implications for both the principle of sovereign equality among nations and for the democratic self-authorship of the citizens of developing countries.

The Principle of Sovereign Equality with Respect to Wars with Non-State Actors

The desire to defend a state against attacks by a non-state actor requires thinking about counter-attacking without violating the sovereign equality of the territorial state because targeting a non-state actor on the territory of that state may violate its sovereignty. This paper evaluates the main views on self-defense by states against non-state actors by studying the Just War Theory and argues that self-defense against a non-state actor is allowed if the counter-attack complies with the principle of sovereign equality. Sovereign equality is the prohibition of states from dominion over other states because states are equal to one another. This principle can be respected by allowing self-defense against non-state actors to occur only if the state consented to the use of force on its territory or if that state is incapable of controlling or unwilling to control the non-state actor.

The Principle of Sovereign Equality with Respect to Wars Against Non-State Actors

The desire to defend a state against attacks by a non-state actor requires thinking about counter-attacking without violating the sovereign equality of the territorial state because targeting a non-state actor on the territory of that state may violate its sovereignty. This paper evaluates the main views on self-defense by states against non-state actors by studying the Just War Theory and argues that self-defense against a non-state actor is allowed if the counter-attack complies with the principle of sovereign equality. Sovereign equality is the prohibition of states from dominion over other states because states are equal to one another. This principle can be respected by allowing self-defense against non-state actors to occur only if the state consented to the use of force on its territory or if that state is incapable of controlling or unwilling to control the non-state actor.