34. Concept and types of aggression. Features of the government department
Aggression(from lat. aggression - attack) is the concept of modern MP, which covers any illegal use of force from the point of view of the UN Charter by one state against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state or people (nation). Aggression cannot be justified by any considerations of any nature, be it political, economic, military or otherwise, and is a crime against international peace.
The concept of aggression, including as an obligation, is a sign of primacy or initiative (use by any state armament forces first).
In the MP, resorting to war, regardless of its goals, was traditionally viewed as the inalienable right of every state (jus ad bellum), as the highest manifestation of its sovereignty international relations. This law was protected by the entire system of principles and norms of the MP. This attitude began to change in the 20th century.
Acts of aggression are usually divided into direct and indirect:
Direct aggression
An invasion or attack by armed forces on the territory of another state; any military occupation, even temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack; any annexation (forced annexation) of the territory of another state. Direct aggression also includes bombing or the use of weapons against a foreign state; blockade of ports or coasts of a state by the armed forces of another state; attack by the armed forces of a state on land, sea or air force(fleets) of another state; violation of the conditions for military presence on the territory of another state established by international agreement.
Indirect aggression
The deployment by a state of armed gangs and groups, irregular forces or mercenaries who carry out acts of use of armed force against another state that are of such a serious nature that it is tantamount to the acts listed above, or its significant participation in them.
Act complicity in aggression are considered to be the actions of a state that allows its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another state, to be used by the latter to commit an act of aggression against a third state.
State responsibility international legal, legal consequences that arise as a result of state violations of international law or international obligations (see also Tort). O.g. may arise as a result of unlawful actions of the state itself (for example, violation of the immunity of a foreign diplomatic representative), unlawful inaction or omission, i.e., failure of the state to take measures that it should have taken to fulfill its international obligations (for example, violation of the obligation to ensure the safety of a foreign diplomatic representative). In addition, the state is responsible for unlawful actions or omissions of all its bodies, as well as individuals (its own citizens and foreigners) committed on its territory. However, state responsibility for the actions of individuals occurs only if state bodies have not fulfilled their responsibilities to prevent and punish illegal actions.
The state bears the most serious responsibility for actions that constitute international crimes, for crimes that pose a threat to international peace and security (apartheid, war propaganda, etc.). An important feature of modern MP is that it provides for responsibility for aggression. Since in international relations there is no court that could necessarily consider disputes between states, direct negotiations between interested parties and other methods of peaceful resolution of disputes play a role important role in establishing the hole, its shape and volume.
In modern MP, it is customary to distinguish between political (application of international sanctions and provision of satisfaction to the injured state) and material ( reparations And restitution). In case of a simple offense causing damage to an individual state or a group of states, the offender state is obliged to compensate for the damage caused or provide satisfaction (in the form of expressing regret, apology, punishment of the perpetrators, honoring the injured state, paying compensation to injured officials persons and citizens, etc.). Disagreements regarding the form and volume of responsibility are subject to settlement by peaceful means provided for by the UN Charter. Most often in such cases, arbitration is used, and it is also possible to consider disputes by the International Court of Justice, whose competence includes determining the nature and amount of compensation due for violation of international obligations.
If the offending state refuses to implement measures of compensation or satisfaction, does not agree to a peaceful settlement of disagreements, or does not comply with a decision of a competent international body that has entered into legal force, appropriate international sanctions may be applied. In case of the most serious international torts, international crimes, encroaching on the fundamental foundations of international communication and causing damage to the entire international community of states, sanctions provided for by the UN Charter should be immediately applied to the offending state (so-called coercive measures under the UN Charter ). International sanctions can be applied to suppress acts of aggression and restore international peace and security only by decision UN Security Council.
AGGRESSION (from the Latin aggressio - attack), a concept of modern international law that covers any illegal use of force by one state against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state or people (nation) from the point of view of the UN Charter. The most dangerous form of aggression is the use of armed force; An armed attack by one state on another is considered the gravest international crime against the peace and security of mankind. The concept of aggression includes the sign of initiative, which means the first use of force by any state. Actions of a state under attack carried out in self-defense, even with the use of armed force, cannot be considered an act of aggression, just like collective actions of states taken in accordance with the UN Charter to maintain or restore international peace and security. The concept of aggression is applicable only to international conflicts, it is not applicable to civil wars: only states can be subjects of aggression, and not part of the people fighting against any other part of it within the same state. The object of aggression is also usually the state, although in the practice of imperialist states there are numerous examples of the use of force, including armed force, against peoples exercising their inalienable right to self-determination and the creation of an independent and free state.
Prohibition of aggression.
Before the Great October Socialist Revolution, resorting to war, regardless of its goals, was considered an inalienable right of every state (jus ad bellum), as the highest manifestation of its sovereignty in international relations. This right was protected by the entire system of principles and norms of international law.
The initiator of the prohibition of aggression and declaring it an international crime was the Soviet state; already in the Peace Decree (1917) it stated that it saw one of its main goals foreign policy eradication of international wars, and declared such wars in any form "...the greatest crime against humanity...". In the context of the broad anti-war movement that arose after the First World War of 1914-1918, the victorious states were forced to take certain measures aimed at condemning aggression. Thus, the preamble to the Statute of the League of Nations recognized the need to “... accept certain obligations not to resort to war...”. Article 11 of the Statute stated that "... any war or threat of war, whether it directly affects any of the members of the League, is of interest to the League as a whole...", and "... the latter must take measures capable of to truly protect the world of nations." The problem of outlawing aggressive wars was discussed in the League of Nations and at various international conferences; the need for prohibition and the criminality of aggression was mentioned in the draft Mutual Assistance Treaty of August 15, 1923, in the Geneva Protocol on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes of October 2, 1924 (both did not acquire binding force). On September 24, 1927, the Assembly of the League of Nations adopted a special declaration declaring that any war of aggression is and remains prohibited and constitutes an international crime. The practical significance of this declaration was nullified by the fact that the Statute of the League of Nations not only did not contain a direct prohibition of aggression, but also allowed (Articles 12, 13 and 15) recourse to war, subject to compliance with certain formal requirements, i.e. essentially legalized war. According to the letter of the Statute, only an attack committed in violation of it was recognized as aggression.
The first real step towards prohibiting aggression and outlawing it was the Pact of Paris of August 27, 1928, which for the first time established a multilateral obligation of states to renounce the use of armed force, indicated that its participants “...condemn the method of resorting to war to resolve international conflicts" and "refuse in their relations war as an instrument of national policy" and undertake henceforth to resolve all their differences only by peaceful means. Thus, the Pact of Paris undoubtedly went further than the Statute of the League of Nations in this matter, but the practical significance of the pact was weakened by the fact that its provisions were not supported effective system sanctions in case of violation. In addition, the Pact contained reservations that made it possible to evade its obligations. In an effort to give a universal character to the principle of prohibition of aggressive wars, the USSR was the first to ratify the Paris Pact and achieved its early entry into force by concluding a special protocol with Poland, Romania, Estonia and Latvia on February 9, 1929 (in the same year Turkey, Iran and Lithuania).
Conducting a persistent struggle to establish the principle of prohibition of aggression in international law, the USSR concluded a number of treaties on non-aggression and neutrality: with Turkey (1925), Germany (1926), Iran (1927), Finland, Poland and France (1932), Italy (1933) , China (1937), which provided for the mutual renunciation of the parties from any aggressive actions, from participation in similar actions taken by third countries, from supporting any aggressive forces, and also established a system of peaceful means of resolving all disputes that might arise.
In modern international law, the prohibition of aggression has the meaning of a generally recognized and generally binding principle for all states, which is enshrined in the UN Charter, as well as in the statutes of the Nuremberg (1945-1946) and Tokyo (1946-1948) international military tribunals. Thus, the UN Charter obliges its members to resolve all their disputes only by peaceful means (clause 3, article 2), without allowing any exceptions to this principle, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence any state or in any other way incompatible with the goals of the UN (clause 4, art. 2). The use of force by the state is permitted only in extreme cases: or in the exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs on a member of the UN, and only until the Security Council takes measures necessary to maintain international peace and security (Article 51), or in the exercise by decision The Security Council will enforce measures aimed at preventing and eliminating threats to peace and suppressing acts of aggression (Articles 39, 41, 42, 43, 48). The statutes of the Nuremberg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals established the legal qualification of aggression as a grave international crime. The principles of international law, as expressed in the Charter and the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal, are confirmed by the resolution General Assembly UN dated December 11, 1946.
Responsibility for aggression.
In modern international law, there is a principle of international legal responsibility for aggression, arising from the principle of prohibition of the use of force or the threat of force in international relations. States that have committed crimes against peace bear political and material responsibility, and individuals bear individual criminal responsibility. Under old international law, which recognized the “right to war,” the state that committed the attack and the state that was attacked were legally on an equal footing. The legal consequences of the war were determined by its actual results, since international law recognized the so-called. "The right of the winner." The winner could dictate any peace terms to the vanquished. The principle of state responsibility did not essentially apply to war and its consequences. The establishment in international law of the principle of prohibition of aggression and the use of force in international relations has made fundamental changes to the institution of international legal responsibility of states. The elimination of the “right to war” led to the elimination of the “right of the winner,” as well as such closely related institutions as annexation, indemnity, etc. The legal consequences of war are now determined not by the fact of victory, but by the state’s responsibility for aggression, for committing crimes against peace . The principle of state responsibility for war and its consequences was expressed and consolidated in international treaties and agreements relating to the 2nd World War of 1939-1945 (Declaration of the defeat of Germany and the assumption of supreme power by the Allies in relation to this country, the Potsdam Agreements, etc. .), as well as in peace treaties 1947. Thus, the Peace Treaty with Italy states: “Whereas Italy, under the fascist regime, became a party to the tripartite pact with Germany and Japan, undertook a war of aggression and thereby caused a state of war with all the Allied and Associated Powers and with the other United Nations, and bears his share of responsibility for this war." Similar provisions are contained in peace treaties with Finland, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. State responsibility for aggression may include all types and forms of international legal responsibility (see State responsibility). In the event that, by decision of the UN Security Council, military sanctions are applied against the aggressor, armed forces must be made available by UN members at the disposal of the Security Council on the basis special agreements concluded between the Security Council and the relevant UN member state. To date (1969), however, such agreements have not been concluded, as a result of which the application of military sanctions against the aggressor by the UN Security Council is practically difficult. Individual states also have the right to respond to violations of international law affecting the maintenance of international peace: the means of influence against the aggressor that they can use outside the UN framework are quite numerous, but they differ significantly from the means used by the UN; as a rule, these are measures not related to using armed force. The UN Charter does not affect the right of states to individual and collective self-defense, but the use of armed force in self-defense is possible only in the event of an armed attack, and not in the event of a threat of such an attack or any other form of aggression. The use of any self-defense measures against aggression is placed under the control of the Security Council by the UN Charter. Responsibility for aggression includes not only coercive measures aimed at suppressing aggression and restoring international peace, but also various measures to eliminate the consequences of aggression and prevent the possibility of its resumption.
A distinction is made between political and material responsibility of the state for aggression. Political responsibility is expressed in various forms of temporary limitation of the sovereignty of the aggressor state: complete or partial demilitarization, democratization of the state and social system, etc. For example, in accordance with the Potsdam Agreements, the occupation of Germany was supposed to ensure the eradication of German militarism and Nazism so that Germany never again threatened her neighbors or the preservation of the peace; for this purpose, preventing all fascist and militaristic activities and propaganda, encouraging the democratic development of Germany; the elimination of excessive concentration in the German economy - cartels, syndicates, etc., which ensured the rise of fascism to power, the preparation and implementation of Hitler's aggression.
The financial responsibility of the aggressor state can be expressed in restitution (return in kind of certain material assets) or in reparation (compensation for damage caused).
International law also provides for individual criminal liability for aggression of persons guilty of planning, preparing, unleashing or carrying out aggression, as well as persons who committed crimes against the laws and customs of war and crimes against humanity during the aggression (see War criminals). The principle of individual criminal responsibility for aggression was confirmed in a number of resolutions of the UN General Assembly, as well as in the draft Code of Crimes against Peace and Humanity developed by the UN International Law Commission.
Definition of aggression.
The initiative to develop a definition of aggression belongs to the USSR. On February 6, 1933, at the Conference on Disarmament (in Geneva), the Soviet government presented a draft Declaration on the definition of the attacking party, in the drafting of which the USSR proceeded from the fact that the prohibition of aggression could turn into an empty phrase if the concept of aggression is not clearly defined in advance, i.e. e. what actions of states are prohibited and constitute an act of aggression. Soviet project provided that the attacking side in international conflict The state that will be the first to commit one of the following actions will be recognized: declare war on another state; whose armed forces, even without a declaration of war, will invade the territory of another state; whose armed forces bombard the territory or deliberately attack the ships and aircraft of another state, etc.; will establish a naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another state. The draft emphasized that no considerations of a political, strategic or economic nature could serve as a justification for taking the listed actions, and provided a detailed, indicative list of such considerations. In the event of the mobilization or concentration of significant armed forces by any state near the borders of another state, the latter had to turn to diplomatic or other means of peaceful resolution of the conflict, and also acquired the right to take retaliatory measures of a military nature, without, however, crossing the borders.
The Soviet definition of aggression received wide international recognition, although the Conference on Disarmament was disrupted by the imperialist states and a convention defining the attacker was not adopted. This definition formed the basis of the London Conventions on the Definition of Aggression, concluded by the USSR in 1933 with 11 neighboring states, and also influenced a number of international agreements concluded by other states (for example, the Inter-American Treaty of Non-Aggression and Conciliation of 1933, the Inter-American Convention on Non-Intervention of 1936). The Balkan Entente Pact of 1934 directly referred to the definition of aggression contained in the London Conventions of 1933. The Soviet definition of aggression played an important role in the struggle for international peace and security and was a major contribution to the progressive development of international law. At the Nuremberg trials of major war criminals, this definition was recognized as “one of the most authoritative sources of international law.”
When the UN Charter was developed, it did not include a definition of aggression, although corresponding proposals were made by a number of delegations at the San Francisco Conference. However, on the initiative of the USSR, the question of defining aggression was raised at the UN and discussed at the 5th (1950), 6th (1951-52), 7th (1953), 9th (1954) and 12th (1957) ) sessions of the UN General Assembly, this issue was also dealt with by the International Law Commission (1951) and special committees created for this purpose (in 1953 and 1956). Soviet Union submitted to the UN the definition of aggression that he put forward in 1933, adding to it the provision that the support by any state of armed bands that, being formed on its territory, would invade the territory of another state, or the refusal of that state should also be considered an attack , despite the demand of the attacked state, to take all measures within its power on its territory to deprive these gangs of all help and protection. Despite resistance from the United States and its UN allies to the development of a definition of aggression, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution in 1952 stating that it was possible and desirable “for the purpose of ensuring international peace and security... to define aggression by means of its constituent elements". At the 9th (1954) and 12th (1957) sessions of the General Assembly, a significant majority of UN member states spoke in favor of developing such a definition. However, the imperialist powers continued to sabotage the implementation of this most important political task, delayed in every possible way and, in the end, disrupted the work of the special committee to determine aggression. The committee created at the 12th session of the UN General Assembly, designed to speed up the consideration of the issue of defining aggression, was also unable to fulfill its tasks due to the obstructionist position of the United States and other Western powers. The Soviet government, concerned about developments in international arena, at the 22nd session of the General Assembly (1967) made a proposal to accelerate the development of a definition of aggression and create a new special UN committee for this purpose. This proposal was unanimously supported by UN member states.
Two sessions of the Special Committee have already taken place (1968 and 1969), during which the USSR submitted a new definition of armed aggression to the Committee for consideration. While maintaining the previous principled approach, according to which the aggressor is the state that was the first to commit certain actions, the new Soviet definition has been supplemented with two essential elements: the inadmissibility of using weapons to attack mass destruction and about the right of colonial peoples to wage armed struggle for their self-determination.
V. I. Menzhinsky
Materials from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia in 30 volumes were used. Ch. ed. A.M. Prokhorov. Ed. 3rd. T. 1. A – Engob. – M., Soviet encyclopedia. – 1969. – 608 p.
This is a complex socio-political phenomenon. Many people wrote about the war prominent figures past and many of them considered armed struggle to be the main content of war. The German military theorist K. von Clausewitz (1780-1831) defined war as follows: “is nothing more than single combat on a large scale. ...war is an act of violence aimed at forcing the enemy to carry out our will.”
According to Clausewitz, violence is armed with the inventions of art and science to combat violence. The same K. von Clausewitz wrote that war “is nothing more than a continuation public policy by other means"; “war is not only a political act, but also a genuine instrument of politics, a continuation of political relations, carried out by other means.”
This definition of war as an armed struggle and the continuation of politics by violent means dates back to the period of classical wars (clashes between armies and the use of fire). This definition of war has entered our encyclopedias, dictionaries, and political and military practice. different countries, including Thailand. “War is an armed struggle between states or social classes for the implementation of their economic and political goals, the continuation of politics by violent means.”
War is a type of aggression (from the Latin aggressio - attack), an armed attack, an organized armed struggle between states or groups of states, classes, groups, nations or peoples. War sets the goal of seizing other people's territories and wealth, subjugating other countries and peoples, it consists in attacks on them, committing violence, pressure, threats, etc.
War includes a mandatory feature - the use military force. If we take a military or political dictionary, we will immediately come across a sign of strength in the definition of war. War is one of the forms of resolving socio-political, economic, ideological, as well as national, religious, territorial and other contradictions between states, peoples, nations, classes and social groups by means of military violence.
But at the end of the 20th century. the organized use of military force (military violence) has lost its mandatory status, and with it the possibilities of war only in its classical sense have been exhausted. Nowadays, many politicians and military men make a fundamental mistake associated with the identification of the concepts of “war” and “armed conflict”, “armed struggle”.
The modern concept of war is broader and deeper in scope than the first - armed struggle. This identification of concepts does not allow us to give a more complete definition of war, establish the correct relationship between politics and war, or resolve strategic issues of repelling military aggression and the country's security. Politics between warring states or potential adversaries is a type of war. We can say that politics is just a sublimated war, that politics is looking for other methods (economic, diplomatic, informational, etc.) to destroy the enemy without resorting to open violence.
The “Cold War” between the USSR and the USA led to the collapse of the USSR without armed struggle, which previously determined the course and outcome of any war. There can be many ways and means of warfare, in addition to methods of armed struggle (political, diplomatic, economic, informational, etc.); armed struggle is an extreme method of waging war. Example: information war. Russian specialist in the field of information warfare theory, Doctor of Technical Sciences S. P. Rastorguev defines the concept of information warfare (WW) as “open and hidden targeted influences information systems against each other in order to obtain a certain gain in the material sphere.”
According to the scientist, information warfare is no different from conventional war in terms of signs of enemy defeat. The aggressor achieves victory by exclusively subjugating the enemy’s control structures and psyche, which are the objects (“targets”) of information destruction. Modern information “bombs” (newspapers, television, economic advertising, etc.) affect the consciousness of the leaders, the economic potential, social energies and spiritual values of the enemy country, just as in past wars guns shot down cities and industrial facilities.
Modern war is a policy that aims to achieve victory over the enemy by any available means, methods, methods and means. Let us add that war is a confrontational, aggressive policy, carried out using any available ways, methods, methods and means of its conduct.
In the era of a new type of warrior, the concept of “aggression” is also undergoing changes. According to international norms, military aggression is an armed invasion or attack on another state. In the International Interdisciplinary encyclopedic dictionary“Global Studies” the term “aggression” is interpreted much more broadly and means the practice of violent actions, attacks or seizures of foreign territories, hostile, destructive behavior, causing harm to others, an instrument of domination over others. A modern aggressor invades the political, organizational, economic and spiritual space of a country without resorting to armed forces. Modern wars give rise to a new, broader understanding of aggression. Today we can talk about military-force (hard) and non-force strategies and technologies that correlate with the concept of aggression, and, accordingly, about different forms of aggression: military-force, political, economic, information, psychological, etc. “Velvet Revolutions” in Eastern Europe, “reforms” in Russia, “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine, “Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan” - all these are types of political, organizational and information aggression.
In a modern war, aggression in armed terms may not be required at all, since all subjects of resistance, reflection of aggression - the government, the state, the elite, the army, the people - surrendered without a fight, the previous system was eliminated, and there is no need for any armed intervention. The goals of the war turned out to be achieved through unarmed means, a strategy of indirect action, actions, so to speak, of a paramilitary nature.
All classical theory wars was focused on studying the balance of weapons of opponents, on the clash of combat forces. to the geographical theater of war (“front line”, “rear”, “fronts”). But this is the lowest level of the hierarchical structure of society. Modern warfare involves more high levels wars: geo-economic, social-organizational, informational and spiritual theaters of war. The arsenal of modern warfare includes military-power, political-diplomatic, economic, information, network, psychological and other warriors.
Modern theory of war considers “war” as a socio-political process characterized by the struggle of geopolitical subjects for resources, for survival, for roles and status in this world, for the possibility of redistributing territories, forming a new picture of the world and the subsequent use of strategic successes and victories. The classic world wars with the confrontation of armies with their weapons, the confrontation of powers and coalitions, as was the case in the First and Second World Wars, have been replaced by a global permanent war. Moreover, the war of one superpower (the USA) for world domination and control over the planet's resources.
In the 21st century the desire for war was transformed into its new forms (“Cold War”, measured use of armed struggle, a more flexible combination of armed struggle with economic, political-ideological, subversive secret struggle of the special services, the use of “agents of influence”, private military companies, etc. ), the search for new means and methods of waging fundamentally different wars than previously informational, psychological, network, computer, etc.
At the end of the 20th century, new “futures of war” entered the “game” - political and other organizations, private military companies, financial and economic structures, business corporations, criminal organizations and drug cartels. Modern war was no longer a classic clash on the battlefield of two or more sides with their equipment, but a more complex socio-political, organizational and information process.
Dobrenkov V.I., Agapov P.V. War and security of Russia in the 21st century.
An action that causes physical or mental trauma to others is closely associated with negative emotions, which include anger, hostility and hatred. Aggression that is directed towards oneself is auto-aggression; it serves as an indicator pathological changes personality.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
AGGRESSION
an armed attack by one state on another, undertaken by exploiting states, usually with the aim of seizing foreign territories, violating the independence or enslaving foreign peoples.
A., being one of the main means of foreign policy of exploiting states, is determined by their class essence and directly follows from their external function (see State).
The definition of A. was first developed and formulated by the Soviet Union in February 1933 and proposed as a draft universal Declaration at the Disarmament Conference. The purpose of this Declaration was that the concept of A. should be defined as precisely as possible and given as guidelines to all States on behalf of international organization. This definition was then (in May 1933) approved by the majority of the Security Committee of the League of Nations, consisting of representatives of 17 states.
According to the Soviet definition, an aggressor is a state that attacks in an international conflict and is the first to commit one of the following actions:
a) which declares war on another state;
b) whose armed forces, even without a declaration of war, invade the territory of another state;
c) whose land, sea or air forces bombard the territory of another State or deliberately attack the ships or aircraft of that latter;
d) whose land, sea and air forces will land or enter the borders of another state without the permission of the government of the latter
or violate the terms of such a permit, in particular with regard to the time or extension of the area of their stay;
e) which establishes a naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another state;
f) will provide support to armed gangs that, being formed on its territory, will invade the territory of another state, or will refuse,
notwithstanding the demand of the invaded State to take on its own territory all measures within its power to deprive the said
gangs of any help or patronage.
An integral and important part of the Soviet proposals is an indication that no considerations of a political, strategic or economic nature, nor the desire to exploit natural resources on the territory of the attacked state or to obtain any other kind of benefits or privileges, as well as no reference to the significant size invested capital or other special interests that may exist in this territory, nor the denial thereof distinctive features states cannot justify an attack. The definition also stipulates that, in particular, the following cannot serve as an excuse for A.:
A. The internal situation of a state, such as:
a) the backwardness of a people politically, economically or culturally;
b) the deficiencies attributed to its management;
c) danger that may threaten the life or property of foreigners;
d) revolutionary or counter-revolutionary movement, civil war, riots or strikes;
e) the establishment or maintenance in any state of a particular political, economic or social system.
B. No action, legislation or regulation of any government, such as:
a) violation of international treaties;
b) violation of rights and interests in the field of trade, concessions or any other economic activity, acquired by another state or its citizens;
c) rupture of diplomatic or economic relations;
d) measures of economic or financial boycott;
e) waiver of debts;
f) prohibiting or restricting immigration or changing the treatment of aliens;
g) violation of privileges recognized for official representatives another state;
h) refusal to allow armed forces to enter the territory of a third state;
i) events of a religious and anti-religious nature;
j) border incidents.
In addition, the Soviet proposal states that if any state mobilizes or concentrates significant armed forces near its border, the state threatened by such actions has the right to resort to diplomatic or other means allowing for the peaceful resolution of international disputes. It may also, in the meantime, take retaliatory measures of a military nature similar to those indicated above, but without, however, crossing the border.
The Soviet definition of A. is still the only definition that has received wide recognition in international law. On the basis of this definition, in 1933 the USSR concluded in London with 11 states 3 conventions on the definition of A. - the first was signed on July 3, 1933 by representatives of the USSR, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Turkey, Persia and Afghanistan (later joined Finland); the second - on July 4, 1933 by representatives of the USSR, Romania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Turkey and the third - on July 5 of the same year between the USSR and Lithuania.
The Soviet definition of A. was used by prosecutors at the trial of major war criminals at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg.
The Soviet definition of A. covers different kinds aggressive acts and various shapes manifestations of A.
The main form of aggression is wars of conquest.
Marxism-Leninism teaches that aggressive wars are a constant companion of exploitative societies and especially of imperialism. “...The imperialists need war, since it is the only means for redividing the world, for redividing sales markets, sources of raw materials, areas of investment of capital” (Stalin I.V., Soch., vol. 12, p. 249). Wars of aggression inevitably follow from the class nature of an exploitative society.
During the period of imperialism, wars between capitalist countries and their inevitability are determined by the operation of the basic economic law of monopoly capitalism.
Examples of aggressive wars are the German-Italian fascist army in Europe in World War II, the Japanese war in Asia in 1931–45, and the wars of conquest of fascist Italy against Abyssinia in 1935–36. and Albania in 1939, etc.
An example of A. is the treacherous attack of Hitler's Germany on the Soviet Union, committed on June 22, 1941, by which German fascism exposed itself in the eyes of the whole world as a bloody aggressor.
One type of aggressive war is military intervention (see), which is the worst type of war. Examples of such wars are the military intervention of England, France, the USA, Germany, Japan and other imperialist states against Soviet Russia in 1918–20, and the US military intervention in Korea, which began in 1950.
A. can also manifest itself in the form of individual aggressive acts, such as an invasion of the armed forces of a state into the land territory of another state (for example, Japanese troops into the territory of the USSR in the area of Lake Khasan in 1938), into the territorial waters of another state, into the airspace of another state, attack on ships of another state, etc. A. can also be expressed in the illegal establishment of a naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another state (for example, the US blockade of the coast of Korea in 1950) (see naval blockade), in the provision by the state direct support for armed gangs invading the territory of another state, etc.
The concept of aggression and aggressor is applicable only in relations between states and is not applicable to civil wars and other armed conflicts within a particular state, since the subject of aggression can only be the state, but not part of the population fighting against another part of it within the same framework the same state or nation. The object of attack (the victim of an attack) is also usually the state. However, imperialist practice is full of examples of committing aggressive attacks and waging aggressive wars against nations and peoples fighting for national self-determination and the creation of their own nation state(A. USA, England and Holland against the peoples of Indonesia and French-American A. against the peoples of Vietnam in 1945, and subsequently against the already created independent states - the Indonesian Republic, Democratic Republic Vietnam, etc.).
Prohibition. A. and the fight against it. Modern international law prohibits A., considering it as a grave crime against humanity (see). The initiator of the prohibition of A. was the Soviet state, which declared in the Decree on Peace (see) that it considered the continuation of the First World War to be the greatest crime against humanity. In order to fight against A., the Soviet Union concluded a number of treaties and agreements on neutrality and non-aggression: in 1925 - with Turkey, 1926 - with Germany, 1927 - with Iran, 1932 - with Finland, Poland, France , 1933 - with Italy, 1937 - with China, etc. The same purpose was served by mutual assistance agreements concluded in 1935 by the Soviet Union with Czechoslovakia and France, in 1936 - with the Mongolian People's Republic. However, the implementation of agreements with Czechoslovakia and France was thwarted by the Anglo-French imperialists, who tried to direct A. fascist Germany against the Soviet Union. In order to prevent war, the Government of the USSR entered into negotiations with Great Britain and France in the summer of 1939 on concluding a mutual assistance pact in the event of a fascist attack. However, during these negotiations it became clear that the governments of these countries did not have any serious intentions to prevent a fascist attack, but only are trying to direct it against the USSR.
Fighting for peace and against aggressive wars, the Soviet Union not only entered into bilateral agreements with other countries, but also took an active part in international events that could, at least to some extent, contribute to the creation of conditions that would make it difficult to unleash aggressive wars. So in 1928, the Soviet Union not only joined the Kellogg-Briand Pact (see Kellogg-Briand Pact), which condemned the resort to war as a means of resolving international disputes and proclaimed the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, but also introduced it ahead of schedule into action in relations with their neighbors.
While seeking to recognize assault as an international crime, the governments of imperialist states at the same time strive to prevent a specific definition of assault, thereby wanting to make it impossible to identify the attacking party and avoid responsibility for assault.
The Soviet state, in the struggle for peace, took upon itself the noble task of preventing these aspirations of the imperialist states and giving
definition of A. On May 24, 1933, the Security Committee at the Conference on the Reduction and Limitation of Arms adopted the Soviet proposal to define A. In the same year, the USSR concluded the 3 above-mentioned conventions on the definition of A. with 11 states. These conventions were a major achievement of the Soviet Union in its struggle for peace, for the prohibition of A.
In order to fight against A., the Soviet Union joined the League of Nations in 1934, using the platform of this international organization to expose and curb the aggressors and their accomplices.
However, England, France, the USA and other capitalist countries assisted the aggressive states in their seizures and the outbreak of the Second World War. The USA helped the Nazis create in a short time the military-economic base of German Austria and thus armed this Germany; Anglo-French ruling circles refused collective security and thereby upset the ranks of peace-loving countries, dismantled the united front of these countries against Africa, cleared the way for fascist Africa and helped Hitler start the Second World War.
Waging a war of liberation against the fascist aggressors, the Soviet Union and all peace-loving peoples sought not only to defeat German fascism, but also to create conditions that would make the emergence of a new army impossible.
During the Second World War, on the initiative of the Soviet Union, a number of declarations and decisions were adopted at international conferences (Moscow 1943, Tehran 1943, Crimea and Potsdam 1945), which provided guarantees against the emergence of a new A., and also provided punishment of the main war criminals in Europe and Asia who launched a criminal war of aggression. The prohibition of A. is enshrined in the UN Charter, which states that all members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force, either against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations (Article 2, paragraph 4), and that the task of the Organization is to maintain international peace and security and, for this purpose, to take effective collective measures to prevent and eliminate threats to the peace and suppress acts of aggression (Article 1, paragraph 1) .
International legal norms on the recognition of the crime of A. were unanimously supported by all progressive humanity. This was expressed in the Appeal of the Second World Peace Congress to the United Nations, which stated that aggression is a criminal act of the state that is the first to use armed force against another state, under any pretext.
Responsibility for A. Crime of A. entails placing on the aggressive state and its rulers responsibility for the preparation and commission of acts of A. Aggression and invasion of foreign countries should not remain unpunished if one really strives to prevent new aggressive wars and other acts of A.
The aggressor state bears moral, political (up to temporary limitation of sovereignty, demilitarization, etc.) and material (compensation for damage to countries affected by A.) responsibility for A. Individuals those guilty of preparing, planning and carrying out A. are criminally liable. Thanks to the decisive struggle of the USSR and under the pressure of the world democratic public opinion the principle of responsibility for A. was enshrined in a number of international agreements (the Declaration on the responsibility of the Nazis for the atrocities committed in 1943, the decisions of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences in 1945, the Charter of the Nuremberg and Tokyo international military tribunals) and was applied in practice after the Second World War ( see State responsibility, War criminals).
After the end of the Second World War, the United States, England and France abandoned the agreed course of policy pursued by the wartime allies and enshrined in the resolutions of the Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences of powers. Through a series of actions, the United States has aggravated the international situation, putting the world before the threat of a new world war. The aggressive orientation of the policies of the imperialist states in post-war period manifested itself in the creation of military alliances and blocs directed against the USSR and people's democracies - the Western Alliance (see), the North Atlantic Alliance (see North Atlantic Pact), etc., in the creation of united armed forces with the participation of the revived the German revanchist army, in the placement of American military bases and airfields around democratic countries, etc.
In 1950, the United States intervened in the Korean Civil War. By carrying out this military intervention, the US armed forces are grossly violating the laws and customs of war (in relation to civilians, prisoners of war, etc.).
In an effort to justify their intervention in Korea, the ruling circles of the United States tried to apply the concept of aggression to the civil war in Korea, while in reality, in the presence of a civil war or any other internal conflict in a given country, the aggressor can only be foreign country, which will intervene in this conflict.
Considering that the presence of a precise definition of the concept of “aggression” would make it easier to expose the attacking party and would prevent the desire to cover up or justify the aggressor for one political reason or another, the Soviet Union submitted a proposal to the UN to adopt definition A.
However, delegations from the USA, England and other capitalist states disrupted the discussion and adoption of the Soviet proposal to define A. at the 5th and 6th sessions of the UN General Assembly. Only at the 7th session of the UN General Assembly, contrary to the wishes and efforts of the American delegation, the Soviet Union managed to achieve a discussion of its proposal to define A. and the adoption of a resolution on the desirability and necessity of defining A.
Constantly pursuing a policy of peace as one that meets the vital interests of the development of peoples and believing that the peaceful coexistence of two systems - socialism and capitalism - is quite possible and that there are no disagreements between them that cannot be resolved peacefully, the Soviet Union continues to persistently seek the adoption of real, proposals arising from the current international situation aimed at preventing new war and the cessation of hostilities where they have already begun. “In the field of foreign policy,” points out Comrade Malenkov, “our main concern is to prevent a new war and to live in peace with all countries. Communist Party Soviet Union, Soviet Government believe that the most correct, necessary and fair foreign policy is a policy of peace among all peoples, based on mutual trust, effective, based on facts and confirmed by facts.
Governments must faithfully serve their people, and the people yearn for peace and curse war. Those governments that want to deceive the peoples and go against the sacred desire of the peoples to preserve peace and prevent a new bloodbath will be criminal.”
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
(group of states) against another state (group of states) to capture, enslave or force it to accept its terms by violating its sovereignty, territorial integrity, political and economic independence.
The definition of aggression was adopted in UN General Assembly resolution 3314 of December 14, 1974. This definition is based on the fact of primacy (initiative) in the use of armed force. Specifically, aggression can be carried out in the form of a pre-emptive strike, a combined attack of various scales, an air strike or an invasion.
TO acts of aggression, in particular relate:
TO direct aggression include military attack, invasion, military occupation (no matter how long it lasts), any annexation of the territory of another state, military blockade of ports and coasts, the continuation of the presence of invading armed forces after the cessation of hostilities on the territory of the country subject to aggression. Example direct aggression may serve as an attack by Nazi Germany on Poland, the Soviet Union and other states during World War II.
Indirect aggression consists of the disguised use of the armed forces of one state against another, the sending of armed gangs and terrorist groups to the territory of another state, and assistance in the formation of hostile irregular armed forces or mercenary detachments.
A special form of aggressive actions is sponsorship of aggression- providing assistance (including non-resistance) to the aggressor in the implementation of his plans by political, economic or military means (supply of weapons and military equipment, sending military advisers, training of specialists).
The definition of aggression is given by the UN Security Council, taking into account all the circumstances of its commission. At the same time, no considerations of a political, economic or other nature can serve as a justification for aggression.
Territorial acquisitions or any other benefits obtained as a result of aggression are considered illegal. A state subjected to aggression has the right to individual or collective self-defense (Article 51 of the UN Charter). At the same time, the actions of the state, even if they are offensive, are considered justified.
In the event of aggression, the UN Security Council can decide to use against the aggressor both non-military measures (severance of political and economic relations, imposition of economic sanctions, etc.) and military measures (use of UN armed forces, as well as the armed forces of member states UN) with the conduct of relevant military missions and operations.
It may also provide for a temporary limitation of the sovereignty of the aggressor state, the occupation of its territory, recognition of its governmental and military bodies, as well as political parties illegal and criminal.
The tasks of pacifying aggression are to create barriers that suppress or prevent aggression, as well as cultural development, which serves to transform the natural instinct of aggression into safe types energy.
Loading...
