1.3. Regional collective security systems
The creation and operation of regional collective security systems is determined by Chapter. VIII of the UN Charter “Regional Agreements”, documents of these organizations and other international legal documents.
In accordance with the UN Charter, members of a regional organization that have entered into such agreements or constitute such bodies must make every effort to achieve the peaceful resolution of local disputes through such regional agreements or such regional bodies before referring such disputes to the Security Council. The Security Council should encourage the development of the application of the peaceful resolution of local disputes through such regional agreements or regional bodies, either on the initiative of the States concerned or on its own initiative.
The Security Council must at all times be kept fully informed of actions taken or proposed by regional agreements or by regional bodies to maintain international peace and security.
Regional collective security systems are characterized by the following features:
· the obligation of the parties to the treaty to resolve disputes among themselves exclusively by peaceful means is established;
· provides for the obligation of participants to provide individual or collective assistance to a state that has been subjected to an armed attack from the outside;
· the UN Security Council is immediately notified of collective defense measures taken;
· as a rule, the treaty involves states of the same region, and the treaty itself is valid within a predetermined area specified in the agreement of the parties;
· the admission of new states into the security system established by the treaty is possible only with the consent of all its participants.
Regional collective security systems include:
1) Collective security system within the CIS
In accordance with the Collective Security Treaty of 1992, the Agreement on the approval of the Regulations on the Collective Security Council of 1992 (Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan participate), a Collective Security Council was established within the CIS. The seat of the Council is Moscow.
The Council consists of the heads of participating states and the Commander-in-Chief of the SIA. By decision of the Council, the Secretary General of the Council is appointed, as well as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the states parties to the Treaty.
The Council shall, in particular, establish and take such measures as it finds necessary to maintain or restore peace and security. Such measures shall be immediately notified to the UN Security Council.
Within the framework of the CIS, the United Armed Forces of the Commonwealth have also been created - troops, forces and command and control bodies, allocated from the armed forces of the Commonwealth states and operationally subordinate to the High Command of the Allied Forces, but remaining directly subordinate to the military command and control bodies of their states.
The CIS Charter stipulates that in the event of a threat to the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of one or more member states or international peace and security, members of the Commonwealth shall carry out mutual consultations to take measures to eliminate the emerging threat, including peacekeeping operations and the use of armed forces in order to implement the right to individual or collective self-defense under Art. 51 of the UN Charter. The decision on the joint use of armed forces is made by the Council of Heads of State or interested members of the CIS.
2) Organization of American States
The Organization of American States (OAS) was created on the basis of the Inter-American Treaty of Mutual Assistance of 1947, the OAS Charter of 1948, and the Inter-American Treaty for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes of 1948. In the 60s and 70s. Significant changes were made to the 1947 Treaty and the OAS Charter.
The goals of the OAS are to achieve peace and security on the American continent, strengthen solidarity and cooperation, protect territorial integrity, organize joint action in the event of aggression, and peacefully resolve disputes.
Any American state that has ratified its Charter can be a member of the OAS. Currently, all American states participate in the OAS, with the exception of Canada and Cuba.
In accordance with Art. 25 of the OAS Charter, any aggression against one of the American states is considered as aggression against all the others. The Charter provides an expanded list of cases in which states have the right to use measures of “legitimate collective self-defense”: if the inviolability or integrity of territory, or the sovereignty or political independence of any American state is violated by an armed attack or act of aggression, or an intra-continental conflict between American states, or in resulting from a situation that could threaten America's peace.
Unlike other regional collective security systems, the OAS Charter does not provide for the obligation of the OAS to notify the UN Security Council of military measures taken, which appears to be inconsistent with the provisions of the UN Charter.
The structure of the OAS is more complex than that of other regional organizations.
The highest body of the OAS is the General Assembly, in which all OAS member states are represented.
A Consultative Meeting of Foreign Ministers has been created to consider urgent problems. A Defense Advisory Committee was established under it to coordinate the activities of participants on issues of military cooperation.
The functions of the OAS Council, consisting of representatives of the OAS member states, include familiarization with all inter-American treaties concluded by the OAS states, development of draft conventions within the OAS, ensuring the work of the so-called. Pan American Union, facilitating relations with the UN, etc.
The General Secretariat of the OAS (formerly the Pan American Union) is headed by the Secretary General of the OAS, elected for five years.
In addition to the main bodies in the OAS, there are auxiliary structures: specialized conferences and specialized organizations (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Inter-American Judicial Committee, etc.).
3) North Atlantic Treaty (NATO)
The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949. The original members of NATO were the USA, Great Britain, France, Italy, etc., a total of 26 states. Currently there are 16 members of NATO.
According to the provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty (Articles 5 and 7), an armed attack against one or more member states will be considered an attack against all of them; if such an attack occurs, each participant will assist the party under attack by all means, including the use of armed force. An attack includes an armed attack, both on the territory of Member States and on their ships and aircraft in a specific area.
Any such attack and all measures taken shall be immediately reported to the UN Security Council, which shall take measures to restore and maintain international peace and security.
In accordance with the Treaty, a NATO Council is created, in which all members are represented. The Council establishes auxiliary bodies - the Defense Committee, the Committee of the Chiefs of Staff, etc. Any other European state that is able to implement the principles of this Treaty, by agreement of all parties, can join NATO, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty.
4) Southeast Asian Defense Treaty
The Southeast Asian Defense Treaty was signed in 1954 by eight states (USA, England, France, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Thailand, Philippines). According to the provisions of the Treaty (Article 4), in the event of an armed attack against one of the parties in the area covered by the Treaty, state parties are obliged to provide individual and collective assistance in repelling the aggression in accordance with their constitutional provisions. Moreover, the concept of “area covered by the treaty” includes all the territories of the Asian parties to the treaty and the area of the southwest Pacific Ocean. The UN Security Council is immediately notified of the measures taken.
Norms of international law can be considered in one or another international court only with the consent of the disputing states. 1. The concept and system of international legal means of ensuring international security International security law represents a system of principles and norms governing military-political relations of states and other subjects of international law in order...
honor from production activities. The concept of international and national security, in Russian scientific literature, international security is considered as a state of political, economic and other relations between states, eliminating the threat of aggression of one or a group of states against another state or group of states and ensuring their peaceful coexistence...
They are represented by agreements and organizations that ensure security on individual continents and regions. Their importance is by no means diminished by the fact that modern means of warfare have acquired a global character. The ability to prevent any local conflict, which could escalate into a full-scale war, forces states to unite at various levels. This provision is enshrined in paragraph 1 of Art. 52 of the UN Charter, which allows the existence of regional agreements or bodies “provided that such agreements or bodies and their activities are compatible with the purposes and principles of the Organization.” Effective regional systems of collective security require the participation of all states of a given region, regardless of their social and governmental system. They pursue the same goal as the universal collective security mechanism - maintaining international peace and security. At the same time, their scope of action is limited in relation to the universal system of collective security. Firstly, regional organizations are not competent to make any decisions on issues affecting the interests of all states of the world or the interests of states belonging to other or several regions; secondly, participants in a regional agreement have the right to resolve only such issues that relate to regional actions and affect the interests of the states of the corresponding group.
The competence of regional organizations primarily includes ensuring the peaceful resolution of disputes between their members. According to paragraph 2 of Art. 52 of the UN Charter, members of these organizations must make every effort to achieve the peaceful resolution of local disputes within their organizations before referring disputes to the Security Council, and the latter in turn must encourage this method of resolving disputes.
Given the differences between regions and the situations occurring within them, the UN Charter does not precisely define regional agreements and bodies, which provides flexibility for activities carried out by a group of states to resolve an issue suitable for regional action. This situation gives grounds to talk about the existing model of relations between regional organizations and the UN and about the formal “division of labor” for maintaining peace.
The Security Council can use regional organizations to carry out enforcement actions under its leadership. Regional organizations themselves are not authorized to take any coercive measures without the permission of the Security Council. Regional organizations have the right to use coercive measures only to repel an attack that has already been committed on one of the participants in the regional collective security system.
Another important task of regional organizations is to promote the reduction and elimination of weapons, and primarily weapons of mass destruction.
Considerable attention is paid to the creation of regional collective security systems in the practical activities of states. On the European continent before the Second World War, despite the efforts of the Soviet Union, it was not possible to create a system of collective security. In the post-war period, international relations in Europe were built on the principles of confrontation between two “world systems”. Western countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) in 1949. The reciprocal step of the socialist countries was the signing of the Warsaw Pact in 1955.
The texts of both treaties contained specific obligations of the parties to maintain peace and security: to refrain from the threat or use of force, to resolve international disputes peacefully. But we were talking about these obligations only in relation to the states parties to these treaties. As for the relations of organizations to each other, they were in a state of “cold war”. It is impossible not to note the fact that NATO was formed in violation of the basic conditions for the conclusion of regional security agreements recorded in Chapter. VII of the UN Charter "Regional Agreements": it includes countries that are located in different regions.
According to the treaty, NATO's purpose is to unite the efforts of all its members for collective defense and to maintain peace and security. However, measures to create a powerful military structure are not consistent with this goal.
The admission of new states to NATO indicates a violation of Art. 7 of the Treaty, which provides for the invitation of states, and not acceptance on their personal application. The very expansion of NATO to the east indicates an increase in the military machine at the expense of new members, which does not contribute to European security. The “transformation” of NATO, which its leaders declare, also does not correspond to its goals. The conduct of peacekeeping operations and the implementation of the Partnership for Peace program is not provided for by the 1949 Treaty. The role that NATO assumes on the European continent also goes beyond its competence.
The Warsaw Pact was concluded in strict accordance with the UN Charter and its distinctive feature as a defensive organization was the desire to create a system of collective security for all European states. In Art. 11 of the Treaty stated: “In the event of the creation of a collective security system in Europe and the conclusion for this purpose of a Pan-European Treaty on Collective Security, to which the Contracting Parties will steadily strive, this Treaty will lose its force from the date of entry into force of the Pan-European Treaty.”
The processes that took place in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe since the mid-80s, which led to the liquidation of the “world system of socialism”, predetermined the fate of the Warsaw Pact Organization. In 1991, the Department of Internal Affairs ceased to exist.
The foundations of the collective security system in Europe were laid by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Final Act (1975) signed in Helsinki contains a set of principles for cooperation between states and their relationships, outlines specific measures in the field of disarmament, including confidence-building measures in the military field, and specifies practical steps to ensure European security. A distinctive feature of the Final Act as the basis of the European system of collective security is that it does not provide for the use of coercive measures.
Since the signing of the CSCE Final Act (1975), norms ensuring security stability in Europe have been adopted in subsequent CSCE documents. Particularly noteworthy are the packages of decisions adopted at the meetings of the heads of state and government of the CSCE participating states in Helsinki on July 9-10, 1992 and in Budapest on December 5-6, 1994. Among the acts of the Budapest meeting - Code of Conduct Concerning Political-Military Aspects of Security. The thesis that deserves attention is that democratic political control over military and paramilitary forces, internal security forces, intelligence services and the police is regarded as an indispensable element of stability and security.
The documents adopted within the framework of the CSCE-OSCE contributed to the creation of a new form of relations between European states, based on joint approaches to the creation of a security system. A significant outcome in this process was the signing in March 1995 in Paris of the Pact on Stability in Europe, which was later transferred by the European Union to the OSCE for finalization and implementation in close cooperation with the Council of Europe.
The practice of the activities of regional organizations, the documents of which contain provisions on collective measures in the event of an armed attack against any of the members (LAS, OAU, OAS), knows cases of the use of peacekeeping forces (for example, the creation in 1981 by the Organization of African Unity of inter-African Chad Stabilization Force).
Collective security within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
The CIS member states, in accordance with the CIS Charter, have undertaken obligations to pursue a coordinated policy in the field of international security, disarmament and arms control and to maintain security in the Commonwealth.
In the event of a threat to the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of one or more Member States or to international peace and security, states activate a mechanism of mutual consultations in order to coordinate positions and take measures to eliminate the threat, including peacekeeping operations and the use, if necessary, on the basis of decisions of the Council of Heads of State of the Commonwealth of Armed Forces in the exercise of the right to individual or collective self-defense in accordance with Art. 51 of the UN Charter.
All specific issues of military-political cooperation of the CIS member states are regulated by special agreements, the most important of which is the Collective Security Treaty, signed in Tashkent on May 15, 1992. The agreement provides for the obligation to refrain from the use of force or the threat of force in interstate relations. The participating states undertake to resolve all disagreements among themselves and with other states by peaceful means (Article 1). An obligation was accepted not to enter into military alliances and not to take part in any groupings of states, as well as actions directed against another participating state, to respect each other’s independence and sovereignty, and to consult on all important issues of international security affecting their interests.
The collective security of the CIS is built on the basis of the norms of the UN Charter (collective self-defense). Based on this, the Treaty also contains an appropriate mechanism for mutual assistance in the event of aggression. It includes the provision of military assistance as well as mutual support. The use of armed forces to repel aggression is accepted exclusively by the heads of state of the CIS members. The use of armed forces outside the territory of the participating states can only be carried out in the interests of international security in strict accordance with the UN Charter and the legislation of the states parties to this Treaty. The Treaty does not affect the right of participating states to individual and collective defense against aggression.
The treaty is purely defensive in nature. It is open to accession by all interested states that share its goals and principles. Moreover, it provides for the desire to create a system of collective security in Europe and Asia, on which the introduction of the necessary changes to this Treaty will depend.
The decision to conduct peacekeeping operations within the CIS is made by the Council of Heads of State with the consent of all conflicting parties, as well as subject to an agreement between them on a ceasefire and other hostile actions.
Peacekeeping groups within the CIS are staffed in each specific case on a voluntary basis by the states parties to the Agreement, with the exception of the conflicting parties.
The Council of Heads of State of the CIS is obliged, in accordance with the Agreement of March 20, 1992, to immediately inform the UN Security Council and the CSCE Council (now the OSCE) about the decision to conduct a peacekeeping operation.
They are represented by agreements and organizations that ensure security on individual continents and regions. Their importance is by no means diminished by the fact that modern means of warfare have acquired a global character. The ability to prevent any local conflict, which could escalate into a full-scale war, forces states to unite at various levels.
This provision is enshrined in paragraph 1 of Art. 52 of the UN Charter, which allows the existence of regional agreements or bodies “provided that such agreements or bodies and their activities are compatible with the purposes and principles of the Organization.” Effective regional systems of collective security require the participation of all states of a given region, regardless of their social and governmental system. They pursue the same goal as the universal collective security mechanism - maintaining international peace and security. At the same time, their scope of action is limited in relation to the universal system of collective security. Firstly, regional organizations are not competent to make any decisions on issues affecting the interests of all states of the world or the interests of states belonging to other or several regions; secondly, participants in a regional agreement have the right to resolve only such issues that relate to regional actions and affect the interests of the states of the corresponding group.
The competence of regional organizations primarily includes ensuring the peaceful resolution of disputes between their members. According to paragraph 2 of Art. 52 of the UN Charter, members of these organizations must make every effort to achieve the peaceful resolution of local disputes within their organizations before referring disputes to the Security Council, and the latter in turn must encourage this method of resolving disputes.
Given the differences between regions and the situations occurring within them, the UN Charter does not precisely define regional agreements and bodies, which provides flexibility for activities carried out by a group of states to resolve an issue suitable for regional action. This situation gives grounds to talk about the existing model of relations between regional organizations and the UN and about the formal “division of labor” for maintaining peace.
The Security Council can use regional organizations to carry out enforcement actions under its leadership. Regional organizations themselves are not authorized to take any coercive measures without the permission of the Security Council. Regional organizations have the right to use coercive measures only to repel an attack that has already been committed on one of the participants in the regional collective security system.
Another important task of regional organizations is to promote the reduction and elimination of weapons, and primarily weapons of mass destruction.
Considerable attention is paid to the creation of regional collective security systems in the practical activities of states. On the European continent before the Second World War, despite the efforts of the Soviet Union, it was not possible to create a system of collective security. In the post-war period, international relations in Europe were built on the principles of confrontation between two “world systems”. Western countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) in 1949. The reciprocal step of the socialist countries was the signing of the Warsaw Pact in 1955.
The texts of both treaties contained specific obligations of the parties to maintain peace and security: to refrain from the threat or use of force, to resolve international disputes peacefully. But we were talking about these obligations only in relation to the states parties to these treaties. As for the relations of organizations to each other, they were in a state of “cold war”. It is impossible not to note the fact that NATO was formed in violation of the basic conditions for the conclusion of regional security agreements recorded in Chapter. VII of the UN Charter "Regional Agreements": it includes countries that are located in different regions.
According to the treaty, NATO's purpose is to unite the efforts of all its members for collective defense and to maintain peace and security. However, measures to create a powerful military structure are not consistent with this goal.
The admission of new states to NATO indicates a violation of Art. 7 of the Treaty, which provides for the invitation of states, and not acceptance on their personal application. The very expansion of NATO to the east indicates an increase in the military machine at the expense of new members, which does not contribute to European security. The “transformation” of NATO, which its leaders declare, also does not correspond to its goals. The conduct of peacekeeping operations and the implementation of the Partnership for Peace program is not provided for by the 1949 Treaty. The role that NATO assumes on the European continent also goes beyond its competence.
The Warsaw Pact was concluded in strict accordance with the UN Charter and its distinctive feature as a defensive organization was the desire to create a system of collective security for all European states. In Art. 11 of the Treaty stated: “In the event of the creation of a collective security system in Europe and the conclusion for this purpose of a Pan-European Treaty on Collective Security, to which the Contracting Parties will steadily strive, this Treaty will lose its force from the date of entry into force of the Pan-European Treaty.”
The processes that took place in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe since the mid-80s, which led to the liquidation of the “world system of socialism”, predetermined the fate of the Warsaw Pact Organization. In 1991, the Department of Internal Affairs ceased to exist.
Art. 52 ch. 8 of the UN Charter - regional agreements.
Features of a regional security system:
1. The obligation of the participants to resolve disputes among themselves exclusively by peaceful means is established.
2. The obligation of participants to provide individual or collective assistance to a state that has been attacked from outside is provided.
3. Agreements may provide for all types of assistance, except armed, military.
4. Fact of attack any state party to the agreement, incl. third. Fact of aggression can only be stated by all parties to the agreement.
5. The UN Security Council must be notified of the adoption of collective defense measures.
6. The admission of new states into the regional design bureau system is possible only with the consent of all participants in the system.
Organs – Art. 29 bodies = organizations. Regional agreements = creation of a regional organization.
Criteria int. regional security organizations:
1) Must be of a broad regional nature (all states in the region or most of them). Regional organizations are given the mandate to resolve the conflict. There are no conditions for creating a common armed defense force.
2) The scope of action of regional systems is limited in relation to the universal system and they are used as auxiliary in relation to the universal one.
3) Regional bodies can resolve only local conflicts - disputes only between parties to the agreement.
4) All principles of action of these organizations must be compatible with the goals and principles of the UN.
13. Measures to prohibit the threat or use of force in relations between states.
http://rpp.nashaucheba.ru/docs/index-19013.html?page=14
14. Model of general and comprehensive security for Europe in the 21st century.
http://www.lawmix.ru/abrolaw/11004
15. Open sky concept.
The idea of Open Skies was first founded by US President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1955. It was envisaged that this would be a bilateral agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union, which would allow aerial surveillance over the entire territory of each participating state. However, the Soviet side did not support the American initiative, which was caused, first of all, by N. Khrushchov’s assumption about the possible use of the open skies regime by the Americans for espionage purposes.
This assumption was not a prejudice of the Soviet leadership. A year before the Open Skies initiative, Eisenhower approved the development of a new high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, the U-2. The plane was truly unusual for its time. The climb took place very quickly; to take off from the ground, a short run-up was needed - only about 300 m. After a few seconds of sliver color, the plane virtually disappeared from view. This assumption was not a prejudice of the Soviet leadership. A year before the Open Skies initiative, Eisenhower approved the development of a new high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, the U-2. The plane was truly unusual for its time. The climb took place very quickly; to take off from the ground, a short run-up was needed - only about 300 m. After a few seconds of sliver color, the plane virtually disappeared from view.
In July 1956, the first U-2 flight over the territory of the USSR took place, thanks to which the United States, using aerial photographic aerial reconnaissance, received important strategic information about a number of Soviet targets. The reconnaissance flights lasted only until the end of April 1960. On May 1, 1960, a U-2 plane was shot down near Sverdlovsk by Soviet missile forces, and its pilot, Powers, was captured and tried as a spy.
The beginning of the space age determined a new approach to information support for national security in the military sphere, primarily for the Soviet Union and the United States. Two world superstates have the opportunity to obtain the information they need with the help of reconnaissance satellites. The intensifying confrontation between two opposing political communities in the Cold War made the idea of open skies almost impossible to implement.
Thirty-four years after Eisenhower's original proposal, the idea of open skies was again proclaimed by American President George W. Bush during his speech at Texas A&M University in May 1989. As before in 1955, the emphasis was on a bilateral agreement between the United States and the USSR.
Subsequently, according to the recommendations of Canadian Prime Minister B. Mulroney and Canadian Foreign Minister D. Clark, the United States turned the bilateral proposal into a multilateral agreement. According to the new proposal, the purpose of the Open Skies agreement was to increase transparency of the military activities of both sides and thereby strengthen the cooperation that was expanding between East and West, as well as strengthen the security of all participating states.
Noticeable shifts in this issue on the part of the Soviet Union emerged after M. Gorbachev came to the top of party power. The General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee approved the principle of aerial surveillance and in 1989 agreed to begin multilateral negotiations regarding the conclusion of the Treaty of Open Skies. This was also facilitated by the detente in the international situation. In December 1987, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed, which led to increased cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union, which was based on the policy of glasnost proclaimed by Gorbachev. The end of the Cold War was approaching.
Open Skies was not only a political initiative aimed at increasing arms control efforts. The Bush administration tried to verify the validity of the ideas of glasnost and perestroika. At the initial stage of negotiations in 1989 and 1990. Some NATO countries were a little concerned about Mikhail Gorbachev's position, which they thought conflicted with his stated support for transparency and openness in international affairs and could mean that he intended to break off the negotiations at the moment of responsibility. Therefore, the success of negotiations on this treaty would mean the favor of the Soviet Union towards openness and the strengthening of trust between countries. Representatives of sixteen NATO countries and seven Warsaw Pact countries took part in the first round of negotiations.
The return to the idea of a voluntary open skies regime made possible real access for non-space states to strategic information that was of interest to the national security systems of these states. It should be noted that superstates could also have certain capabilities in obtaining the necessary information. This was explained by the fact that aerial surveillance has potential advantages over space reconnaissance.
Observation aircraft can fly much lower, under the clouds, while the successful operation of optical-electronic satellite reconnaissance systems can be hampered by cloudy weather, persistent storms and smoke, and the like. In confirmation of this advantage, there is the experience of modern military conflicts, starting with the war of multinational forces against Iraq in 1991, when sandstorms and smoke from burning naftosverdlovs did not allow effective conduct of not only visual (automatically with image formation) space reconnaissance, but also aerial reconnaissance using optical-electronic equipment. In 1999, during the Yugoslav campaign, the NATO Command was forced to admit the low effectiveness of space-based reconnaissance as a result of constant cloudiness over the theater of operations throughout the entire period of combat operations.
It should also be noted that the invariability of the satellite’s orbit makes it possible to predict the trajectory and time of its flight over a certain territory, which, in turn, makes it possible to suspend (camouflage) activities that are undesirable for identification that are carried out in the territory being explored during the period of the satellite’s flight. According to a number of Western experts, space reconnaissance in combination with aerial surveillance and ground inspections at the sites of control missions would create an effective system for obtaining information in the interests of ensuring the national security of participating states and reducing threats associated with the real state of the arsenals of weapons and military equipment of these states -participants.
An independent method of control, implemented in the Open Skies regime, allows each participating state to carry out observation flights over the territory of other participating states in accordance with the quotas noted in the Open Skies Treaty, as a result of which species information is obtained. If we take, for example, the geographical dimensions of such European member states as Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary, Italy or the Czech Republic, then one observation flight allows, taking into account the lateral capture of the equipment and the observation altitude allowed under the Treaty, to obtain information from a significant area of their territory countries
The fact that aerial surveillance is useful for strategic intelligence interests has never been and is not hidden by the participating states. Yes, Canadian Foreign Minister Joe Clark, even in the initial period of negotiations, drew attention to the fact that states had no choice regarding space reconnaissance - they could not stop it, so they were only forced to take note of it.
The concept of open skies allowed states that do not have a space reconnaissance system to obtain a real method of control and a legal way to obtain important, even strategic, information. These countries naturally knew that the USSR and the USA were collecting strategic intelligence information about them for national security purposes using images obtained from reconnaissance satellites. But they could not do the same for two superstates. The Open Skies concept gave all participating states, not including Russia and the United States, the opportunity to have an aerial surveillance system permitted by the Treaty. Its implementation made it possible, firstly, for all participating states to have a means of monitoring the military activities of other countries, and, secondly, to strengthen their trust in the intentions of other countries when flying over their territory.
Beginning in the second half of 1989, negotiations for the Open Skies Treaty continued actively for three years. The first negotiations were held at the suggestion of Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney in Ottawa on February 22-24, 1990. They took place during a historical period for Europe. At the beginning of the negotiation conference, there was more discussion about the issue of German reunification than about the open skies regime. After the German question was resolved, the question of open skies took center stage. There was then hope for the conclusion of negotiations on the Treaty three months before May 1990. However, the package of issues from which no acceptable solutions were found became a stumbling block and required a subsequent negotiation process.
The result of the successful holding of three more subsequent negotiation conferences in Budapest (04/23 - 05/10/1990) and in Vienna (11/04 - 18/1991 and 01/13/20/1992) was the signing of the Open Skies Treaty (further – Agreement) in Helsinki in March 1992.
The purpose of the Treaty, initialed on March 21, 1992 by representatives of 24 states, including the two former Soviet republics of Belarus and Ukraine, was to strengthen confidence between the countries of the international community through flights of non-combat aircraft for aerial surveillance. Formally, the Agreement was signed on March 24, 1992 in Helsinki. Another former Soviet republic, Georgia, also signed the Treaty on the same day, increasing the number of its parties to twenty-five. The first parties to the treaty were the following states: Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Great Britain, Hungary, Germany, Greece, Georgia, Denmark, Iceland, Spain, Italy, Canada, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Romania, the United States America, Turkey, Ukraine, France and Czechoslovakia.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the accession of Georgia and Kyrgyzstan to the Treaty, as well as after the division of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia and their accession to the Treaty in 1993, the number of participants reached 27. Today, there are already 34 states participating in the Open Skies Treaty. The entry into force of the Treaty provided for the following: to strengthen security through confidence- and security-building measures; extend the security regime to the territory of countries from Vancouver (Canada) to Vladivostok (Russia);
to contribute to the strengthening of peace, mutual security and stability in the territory covered by the Treaty;
strive to enhance openness and transparency, as well as facilitate monitoring of the implementation of existing and future arms control agreements and strengthen the capacity to prevent conflicts, including in crisis situations, within the framework of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and other relevant international organizations;
recognize that the Treaty can have a positive impact on security and stability in other parts of the world; allow for the possibility that the open skies regime could be extended to other areas, for example, environmental monitoring;
seek to establish harmonized procedures for conducting aerial surveillance of the entire territory of the participating States, with the intention of observing the territory of one of the participating States or a group of participating States on the basis of equality and efficiency while respecting flight safety; keep in mind that the operation of such an open skies regime will not be directed against states that are not parties to the Treaty;
– hold periodic meetings to evaluate a contract that does not expire.
To facilitate the implementation of the Treaty and promote the achievement of its objectives, the Open Skies Advisory Commission (OSAC) was created. The commission consists of one representative from each participating state. The KKVN is the governing body that ensures the conflict-free implementation of the Treaty. In accordance with Article X of the Treaty, the objectives of the Open Skies Advisory Commission are:
consider issues that relate to compliance with the provisions of this Agreement; find ways to resolve misunderstandings and discrepancies in the interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty that arise in the process of implementing the Treaty; consider applications for membership in the Treaty and make decisions on them; coordinate technical and administrative measures in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, necessary in connection with the accession of other states to this Treaty.
US Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Robert L. Gallucci said in 1993 that the Treaty of Open Skies represents a significant advance in international security cooperation and meets the new requirements of the post-Cold War world community . The first country to ratify the Treaty was Canada (July 1992). Ukraine ratified this Treaty only in March 2000 by Law of Ukraine No. 1509-III (1509-14).
The implementation of the Treaty from Open Skies in the Armed Forces of Ukraine was entrusted to the Verification Center of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Blue Stitch aviation squadron. The squadron included domestic An-26 transport aircraft and An-30B surveillance aircraft, equipped with surveillance equipment for the implementation of the first stage of the Treaty.
On August 18, 1992, the “Open Skies” department was formed within the Center to implement the Treaty. The heads of this department at different times were:
Colonels Belinsky V.M., Komarov O.I., Khikhlukha P.V., Tsymbalyuk F.V.
Even by the time of ratification of the Treaty by Ukraine in 1994-2001, specialists from the Open Skies department and flight crews of the Blue Stitches squadron had carried out 31 training observation flights over the territory of Ukraine and over the territories of the participating states (Greater Britain, Slovakia, Germany , USA, Poland, France, Turkey, Italy and Norway), and is also accompanied in Ukraine by over 15 training observation flight missions of the participating states.
Ukrainian specialists also actively participated in 5 training certifications of surveillance aircraft of the participating states: Great Britain (in 1995), USA (1996 and 1998), Germany (1997 and 2001). In 1996, with the help of representatives of the Aerospace Intelligence Department of the Kyiv Air Force Institute, they prepared and conducted training certification of the Ukrainian An-30B surveillance aircraft in Ukraine.
After ratification of the Treaty, Ukraine carried out 125 observation flights from the open skies over the territories of the States Parties to the Treaty: Benelux, Bulgaria, Great Britain, Greece, Denmark, Spain, Italy, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, USA, Turkey, Hungary, Finland, France, Germany, Czech Republic. In turn, the participating states carried out 127 observation flights over the territory of Ukraine.
The result of the painstaking and persistent work of the Ukrainian Civil Defense specialists in preparation for the first stage of implementation of the Treaty was the certification of the Ukrainian An-30B surveillance aircraft at the “open skies” airfield Nordholz, Germany, in April 2002. The Ukrainian observation aircraft, equipped with professional aerial cameras, was highly praised by experts from the “open skies” and became the first aircraft in the history of the Treaty allowed to carry out observation flights over the territories of the participating states.
Ukrainian professional experts have always taken an active position in the work of the sensor group of the International Open Skies Advisory Commission (Vienna), especially on the development of requirements regarding the configuration of future digital sensors in accordance with the provisions of the Open Skies Treaty, as well as in the work of international seminars within the framework of this Treaty from a discussion of the use of existing and creation of modern carrier platforms and new configurations of sensors that are and will be installed on them.
The importance of Ukraine’s participation in the Open Skies Treaty is due to the fact that this Treaty provides solutions to two main tasks. The first is the creation of an open international regime based on mutual trust and growing awareness of military forces and actions. The second task is comprehensive information support of all components of national security in the military sphere of each participating state in the context of a still unstable world on our planet, environmental problems and losses that become a consequence of natural disasters.
The effective implementation of the Treaty from the moment it was signed by the participating states aroused significant interest in the concept of open skies on the part of countries in the Asian region such as India, Pakistan, China and Japan. On the Latin American continent, Brazil, Argentina and Peru are exploring the possibility of using aerial surveillance in their region.
16. Measures for the use of regional security organizations.
In the post-war period, a worldwide system of collective security was created in the form of the United Nations, the main task of which is to “save future generations from the scourge of war.” The system of collective measures provided for by the UN Charter covers: measures to prohibit the threat or use of force in relations between states (clause 4 of Article 2); measures for the peaceful resolution of international disputes (Chapter VI); disarmament measures (Articles 11, 26, 47); measures for the use of regional security organizations (Chapter VIII); temporary measures to suppress violations of the peace (Article 40); compulsory security measures without the use of armed forces (Article 41) and with their use (Article 42).
Regional collective security systems are part of a universal collective security system. The purpose of regional systems is to maintain international peace and security. The most effective regional organizations operate in which the majority of states in a given region participate. The UN Charter enshrines the possibility of creating regional security organizations “to resolve such peacekeeping issues as are appropriate for regional action” (Article 52). Previously, the doctrine of international law was dominated by an unambiguous point of view regarding regional security organizations.
- 1. Members of such organizations are only states of one political and geographical region.
- 2. The activities of regional security organizations cannot extend beyond the boundaries of a given region.
- 3. No enforcement action should be taken without authority from the UNSC.
- 4. The UN Security Council must always be informed of actions taken or proposed (Article 54 of the PLO Charter).
The scope of action of regional organizations was considered strictly limited:
- – regional organizations are not competent to make decisions on issues affecting the interests of all states of the world or states belonging to other or several regions;
- – participants in a regional agreement have the right to resolve only such issues that relate to regional actions and affect the interests of states only in a given region.
The main task of regional security systems is to ensure the peaceful resolution of disputes and the peaceful prevention of war.
The UNSC can use regional organizations to carry out enforcement actions under its leadership. Regional organizations cannot take coercive measures without the permission of the UN Security Council. An exception is coercive measures using armed forces to repel an attack that has already been committed on one of the participants in the regional security system (the right to collective self-defense - Article 51).
This position does not reflect the established practice of regional security organizations. The UN Charter does not contain a precise definition of regional organizations. Using the concept of inherent competence, the concept of “issues that are appropriate for regional action” now has a broader interpretation, as does the list of activities that regional organizations are competent to carry out. A stable system of flexible relationships between regional organizations and the UN has already emerged, allowing us to talk about a “division of labor” in the sphere of maintaining peace.
In Soviet literature until the early 1990s. (and still in the works of some domestic scientists), an absolutely imperative condition for the creation of regional security systems was considered to be the obligatory belonging of members of the organization to only one geographical region. This concept was used to prove the illegality of the creation of NATO and its inconsistency with the requirements of Chapter. VIII of the UN Charter (NATO members such as Turkey, Greece, Italy, the Czech Republic, Hungary do not belong to the North Atlantic region). Such a concept does not (and has never reflected) the actual legal reality.
Chapter VIII of the Charter does not directly contain a requirement for states of only one geographic region to participate in regional security organizations. This requirement was derived through a broad interpretation of the norms of Chapter. VIII, which is prohibited by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. The activities of the CSCE/OSCE (the legality of whose creation has never been disputed by any of the domestic lawyers) and the activities of the CSTO show that security organizations with a subregional structure are as legitimate as organizations with a completely regional structure. The main thing is the very nature of the organization’s activities, its focus on maintaining peace, its readiness to resist acts of aggression and its commitment to the basic principles of international law.
The main regional security systems operate within the framework of regional organizations of general competence.
OAS– the legal foundations of the regional security system on the American continent are contained in the OAS Charter of 1948, the Inter-American Treaty for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes of 1948, and the Bogota Declaration of 1948 (changes to all these documents were made in the 60–80s. XX century). The goals of the American collective security system: achieving peace and security on the continent, strengthening solidarity and cooperation, protecting territorial integrity, organizing joint action in the event of aggression, peaceful resolution of disputes. In accordance with Art. 25 of the Charter, any aggression against one of the American states is considered an aggression against all the others.
The OAS Charter provides an expanded list of cases when states have the right to use measures of legitimate collective self-defense: “If the inviolability or integrity or sovereignty or political independence of any American state is violated by an armed attack or an act of aggression not constituting an armed attack, or an intracontinental conflict between American States, or as a result of a situation which may endanger the peace of America."
Unlike other regional collective security systems, the OAS Charter does not provide for the obligation to notify the UN Security Council of military measures taken.
AC– the African collective security system was established in accordance with the AU Charter, which establishes the obligations of states for mutual assistance and common defense, the obligation to provide each other effective assistance in the event of an armed attack on any African state, and to prevent any acts of aggression against any AU member state.
In 1981, the Inter-African Peacekeeping Force was created to monitor the implementation of the agreement between the warring factions in Chad.
PAH– the system of Middle Eastern collective security is enshrined in the Arab League Pact, which contains provisions similar to the AU Charter and the OAS Charter. In 1971, the Inter-Arab Armed Forces for Disengagement in Lebanon (Green Helmets) were created. The purpose of its creation is to prevent armed clashes between different religious groups.
SCO(Shanghai Cooperation Organization) – regional Eurasian security organization; has been operating since 2001 on the basis of the Declaration on the Establishment of the SCO. The Organization's statutory documents - the Charter and the Agreement on a Regional Anti-Terrorism Structure (RATS) - were adopted in 2002. Member States: China, Kazakhstan, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan; observer states: Pakistan, Iran, India and Mongolia.
Main areas of activity: maintaining peace, strengthening security and trust; countering terrorism, separatism and extremism, drug and weapons trafficking, transnational criminal activities and illegal migration. The SCO is open to all states in the region to join.
One of the most important goals EU, enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, are the formation of a unified foreign and defense policy; the acquisition of a “European defense identity” and the creation of a common EU armed force. The main EU member states are simultaneously members of two subregional security organizations - the OSCE and NATO.
The purpose of creating a European security organization is to provide the EU with its own military and political capabilities to conduct humanitarian and rescue missions, peacekeeping operations and “crisis management,” including the use of force. The foundations of the Common European Security and Defense Policy were developed at the informal summit of defense ministers (2000). It was decided to prepare the Political and Security Committee, the Military Committee and the Military Staff. The main objectives of the Pan-European Policy are proclaimed to be the conduct of operations to prevent or resolve conflicts on the European continent; humanitarian actions, evacuation of citizens; mission to restore peace.
The formation of the Pan-European Security and Defense Policy was completed at the official conference of defense ministers in Nice (2000). Permanent EU defense structures were created, guidelines were adopted to ensure military potential, relations with NATO and other states. EU permanent defense structures:
- 1. The Political and Security Affairs Committee is composed of diplomatic representatives of member states. Exercises political control and strategic management of the PKO.
- 2. The Military Affairs Committee consists of representatives of the military of all member states. Gives military recommendations.
- 3. The military headquarters is engaged in analyzing the situation, planning before making a decision.
The Pizza Conference was the first step towards creating a common EU military capability. The obligations of the member states provide for the creation of a reserve of 100 thousand military personnel, 400 combat aircraft and 100 warships. According to EU experts, such a reserve allows the deployment of a combat corps of 50-60 thousand troops within 60 days, including the likelihood of the need to resolve two crisis situations simultaneously. We are not talking about creating a “European army”, but about the formation of multinational structures such as the Eurocorps or the use of national military contingents.
At the summit in Gothenburg (2001), EU members agreed on methods for cooperation between the European security system and NATO. It was especially emphasized that the new security system is not a competitor or alternative to NATO. A Joint Statement between the US and the EU was adopted, which noted that the Common European Policy would strengthen both the EU and NATO. Provisions on close coordination with NATO, maintaining the leading role of the alliance, and the inclusion of non-EU NATO states in the European security system are enshrined in EU documents on the creation of a Pan-European Security and Defense Policy.
The formation of the Common European Security and Defense Policy received a new impetus as a result of the events of September 11, 2001. The Final Document of the Extraordinary Meeting of the EU (Brussels, 2001) emphasized that the increase in the effectiveness of the EU is directly related to the pace of development of the European collective security system.
Russia takes part in peacekeeping operations conducted under the auspices of the EU, in particular, in Brussels on November 5, 2008, an Agreement was concluded between Russia and the EU on Russian participation in the EU military operation in the Republic of Chad and the Central African Republic (EUFOR Chad/CAR).
WES created in 1948 on the basis of the Treaty on Economic, Social and Cultural Cooperation and Collective Self-Defense. The treaty provides for the automatic application of the principle of collective defense in the event of an attack on one of the participating countries. The WEU is a closed regional security organization. Initial members are Belgium, Great Britain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, France. In 1954, Italy, Iceland, Norway, Portugal and Germany joined. From the outset, two alternative strategies emerged: Britain advocated closer cooperation with the United States within NATO, and France championed the idea of a more independent European defense.
Until the early 1990s. The WEU practically did not pursue an independent policy, acting as an appendage of NATO, but it was an important mediator in relations between NATO, Great Britain and the EEC. The Rome Declaration of 1984 declared the WEU to be the “European pillar” of the security system within NATO. In the 90s The WEU military contingent was used by the UN Security Council to conduct peacekeeping operations. 1997 - UN Security Council sanctions against the former Yugoslavia (arms embargo) - WEU provided assistance in monitoring their implementation, carried out a UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, Herzegovina and Croatia.
With the signing of the EU Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and the start of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the functions of the WEU gradually transferred to the EU. The decision to transfer to the EU the majority of powers and operational capabilities of the WEU was enshrined in the EU Marseille Declaration in November 2001. The process of integration of the WEU into the EU was effectively completed by 2002. Formally, the WEU Treaty expired in 2004, but the WEU was not dissolved. The main function remaining with the WEU is collective security; its transfer to the EU has been postponed for now. In March 2010, it was announced that the WEU would cease to operate in 2011.
CSTO(Collective Security Treaty Organization) is a military-political union created by the CIS states on the basis of the Collective Security Treaty (CST), signed on May 15, 1992. The Treaty is renewed automatically every five years. Participants: Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. In 1993, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Belarus joined. In 1999, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Uzbekistan (restored their membership in 2006) withdrew from the CST.
In 2002, it was decided to transform the CST into a full-fledged international organization; The Charter and Agreement on the legal status of the CSTO were signed. In 2004, the GA adopted a resolution granting the CSTO observer status at the UN. In 2009, a representative of the CSTO Secretariat stated that Iran could in the future receive the status of an observer country in the CSTO.
In 2009, the leaders of the CSTO countries approved the creation of the Collective Rapid Reaction Forces (CRRF) and signed the Agreement on the Collective Rapid Reaction Forces of the CSTO (June 14, 2009). Collective forces must be used to repel military aggression, conduct special operations to combat international terrorism and extremism, transnational organized crime, drug trafficking, and to eliminate the consequences of emergency situations. However, documents on the CRRF were not signed by Uzbekistan and Belarus, and such documents can only be adopted on the basis of consensus (Rule 14 of the CSTO Rules of Procedure 2004). Thus, at present there is no need to talk about the legitimate creation of the CRRF.
Loading...
