Introduction 3.
1. The essence of multilateral diplomacy 5
2. Multilateral diplomacy and international security 9
3. Multilateral diplomacy of the Russian Federation 13
4. Organization of multilateral interregional diplomacy of foreign countries on the example of Latin American states 19
Conclusion 25.
References: 26

Introduction

In recent years, significant changes have occurred on the world stage. The growing processes of globalization, despite their contradictory consequences, lead to a more uniform distribution of resources of influence and economic growth, laying the objective basis for the multipolar structure of international relations. The strengthening of collective and legal began in international relations on the basis of recognition of the indivisibility of security in the modern world. In world politics increased the value of the energy factor, in general, access to resources. The international situation of Russia was significantly strengthened. Strong, more confident Russia has become an important part of positive change in the world.
There are many definitions of diplomacy. Some of these are given, for example, in such well-known works as "diplomacy" G. Nikolson, "Guidelines for Diplomatic Practice" by E. Satou et al. Most of these definitions proceed from the direct communication of diplomacy with the negotiation process. So, Nikolson, based on the definition of this in the Oxford dictionary, writes that diplomacy is "conducting international relations through negotiations; the method, with which these relationships are governed and are conducted by ambassadors and envoys; work or the art of diplomat." This definition then followed the basis of many studies on diplomacy and the theory of negotiations. However, it should be immediately made a reservation that it would be wrong to reduce diplomacy only to negotiations. In this case, outside the sphere of diplomacy would be a significant part of consular work, as well as, for example, consultations (they do not intend to make a joint decision on which negotiations are focused) and a number of other activities. Therefore, currently use more widely definitions of diplomacy, where the negotiations are given a key value. A fairly widespread definition is given in the book of the English researcher, J. Berridge, who writes that "diplomacy is international affairs rather through negotiations, as well as through other civilians (such as collecting information, manifestation of goodwill), directly or indirectly involving negotiations than by using strength, the use of propaganda or appeal to legislation.
A number of the above-mentioned characteristic features of the international system (the growth of international organizations, globalization, the end of the "Cold War", multipolarity) contributed to the increase in the role of multilateral diplomacy in world politics. Multilateral diplomacy differs from traditional bilateral diplomacy medium, or the arena, on which it operates. MMPO, MNPO, international conferences and summit meetings (summits) are in this arena.
Multilateral diplomacy is the form of diplomacy within the framework of international organizations, carried out through delegations and permanent representation of states under international organizations.

1. The essence of multilateral diplomacy

Multilateral diplomacy arose simultaneously with Westphalian state-centrist order. For most of its existence, multilateral diplomacy has been manifested mainly on the forums associated with the post-war peaceful settlement (Vienna Congress of 1815, Parisian peace conferences 1919-1920 and 1946). In the modern world, multilateral diplomatic activity is unfolding mainly in the framework of international organizations (MO) (UN, NATO, WTO, etc.).
The "Cold War" had a significant impact on the development of multilateral diplomacy. This was due to the fact that two competing superpowers changed the allies that led to the creation of new MO. So NATO has arisen and the organization of the Warsaw Treaty (WDD). During the Cold War, a large number of new independent states entered into the UN and other MO appeared.
Globalization facilitated the importance of multilateral diplomacy and at the same time its complication. It turned out that it is more suitable for solving problems generated by globalization than bilateral diplomacy. Many, if not all, serious problems of international relations involve a large number of states and MMP.
Actors of multilateral diplomacy are not only representatives of states. Delegates from TNK and MNPO compete for influence in the UN corridors and other MOs with professional diplomats, politicians and international officials. The role of non-state actors who are engaged in lobbying the interests of their organizations among governments, press and international employees increase. Representatives of MNPOs are shown in solving special, very specific issues greater competence than professional diplomats. From among the non-state actors, the so-called "diplomatic controller" is formed, as if opposing professional diplomatic personnel. The German "Dictionary of International Policy" (1998) introduces and the concept of "parallel elite in the diplomacy of the National State". He refers diplomats working in the field of multilateral diplomacy.
There are a number of differences between multilateral and bilateral diplomacy. The first concerns the base of knowledge and information required for a particular type of diplomacy. In traditional diplomacy, a diplomat representing his country in the capital of another state is obliged to understand the national interests of both parties. He should know where these interests coincide, and where they differ. He needs knowledge and understanding of the political system and the political culture of the host country, acquaintance with its prominent people .............

Conclusion

In the second half of the XX century. The forms of multilateral diplomacy became more diverse. If in the past it was reduced to the negotiation process in the framework of various congresses (for example, the Westphalian Congress 1648, Karlovitsky Congress 1698 -1699, Vienna Congress 1914 - 1915, Parisian 1856, etc.), today is multilateral Diplomacy is held within:
- international universal (UN) and regional (OAU, OSCE, etc.) of organizations; conferences, commissions, etc., convened or created to solve any problem (for example, Paris Conference on Vietnam, Joint Commission on Conflict Resolution in South-West Africa);
- Multilateral meetings in the tops (for example, seven meetings, and after Russia's accession - eight leading states of the world).
- Embassy activities.
Multilateral diplomacy and multilateral negotiations generate a number of new moments in diplomatic practice. Thus, the increase in the number of parties when discussing the problem leads to the complication of the overall structure of interests, the possibility of creating coalitions, as well as the emergence of a leader country in negotiation forums. In addition, in multilateral negotiations there are a large number of organizational, procedural and technical problems related, for example, with the coordination of the agenda, the locations of their conduct, the development and decision-making, the chairmanship of the forums, the placement of delegations, the provision of the necessary conditions for work, ensuring the copying and other machinery, vehicles, etc. All this, in turn, contributes to the bureaucracy of the negotiation processes, especially those in the framework of international organizations.

Bibliography:

1. Bogaturov A.D. International procedure in the coming century // International processes, 2003, No. 1.
2. Groom D. The growing manifold of international actors // International relations: sociological approaches - M.: Gardaria, 2007.
3. Konarovsky MA Preventive diplomacy in Asia: problems and prospects // Northeast and Central Asia: Dynamics of international and interregional interactions - M.: MGIMO-ROSPEN, 2004. -
4. Lebedeva M. International Processes // International Relations: Sociological Approaches - M.: Gardaria, 2007.
5. Makfarlain S. Neal. Multilateral interventions after the collapse of bipolarity // International processes, 2003, No. 1, p. 42.
6. Moiseev E.G. International legal framework for cooperation between the CIS countries. -M.: Lawyer, 1997.
7. Petrovsky V.E. Russia and transregional safety regimes // Northeast and Central Asia: Dynamics of international and interregional interactions - M.: MGIMO-ROSPEN, 2004.
8. Snapkovsky V. International organizations in the system of international relations. // Belarusian magazine of international law and international relations, 2000, No. 3.
9. Tikner E. Rethinking security problems // Theory of international relations at the turn of centuries / ed. K. Bess and S. Smith - M.: Gardaria, 2002.

In the XIX - early XX century. The embassies were few, and the ambassador performed many functions personally. Today, although the ambassador remains in a large universal figure, the staff of the embassies expanded in many ways. It includes a press attache, shopping attache, military attache, consuls, intelligence services, etc. The growing bureaucratization of embassies is a consequence of an increase in the volume and complexity of international interactions at present.

The irony of our days, however, is that as the professionalism of diplomats increases, their role in negotiations with a foreign partner is becoming less. A significant array of the work of the embassies is postponed either to international organizations where there are representatives from relevant states or on episodic meetings of the first persons of states or their authorized representatives. You can call two reasons for such a position of things. Firstly, the development of all means of communication, which facilitates the immediate communication of the politicians of the highest ranks of different countries. It is enough to bring such an example: the first president of the United States, crossed the Atlantic Ocean to take part in the diplomatic conclusion of the First World War, was V. Wilson. Today, the communication of the first persons with the help of communications and directly - everyday practice. The second reason is the complication and globalization of the problems of world politics and international development, requiring participation in decision-making of the sentence of state leadership. As a result, today's diplomatic practice in contrast to the previous times is significantly more related to the activities of leading politicians ("Shuttle diplomacy" Kissinger, J. Baker, E. Shevardnadze).

The summits of the first persons of states are caused both public approval and criticism. On the one hand, they contribute to the mutual understanding of the leaders, exclude bureaucratic red tape when making decisions. On the other - the summits are rather similar to the performance. The journalistic hype around them is much larger than the expected effect. Here is an interesting observation on this occasion of one American diplomat: "What really happens on most summits, where serious issues are discussed? Although there are serious conversations behind the banquet table, the time allocated for food and drink will be amazed by their duration. At the same time in the Middle East And in Southeast Asia, it is not accepted into discussions at all. Wherever it happened, toasts usually replace speeches. They contain diplomatic hints, especially if there is a press. In general, the total meal is a spent time ... Trying to highlight the period of time used for a thorough exchange of views within the framework of a ten-hour summit meeting, the researcher must throw at least four hours, go on food and drink, from two to four hours, which are spent on insignificant conversations ... then divide the remaining time for two or a half, meaning the work of translators. What is left - two or three An hour is used to determine the positions and exchange of opinions. "

Multilateral diplomacy VERSUS bilateral diplomacy

Although multilateral diplomacy has become a permanent practice in Europe after the Vienna Congress of 1815, these were relatively rare events related to international crisis, post-war settlement. From the beginning of the XX century. The role of multilateral diplomacy increases significantly, and at present the main volume of diplomatic contacts is multilateral. In fairness it is necessary to make a reservation that bilateral diplomacy remains essential.

The reasons for strengthening the role of multilateral diplomacy are related, first of all, with an increase in the number of global problems requiring joint discussion and decision. It is also important that many poor countries of the third world can not afford to contain embassies in other states and use international intergovernmental organizations for diplomatic contacts.

Forms of multilateral diplomacy are diverse. This is UN activities and other intergovernmental organizations, international conferences and forums, including informal, such as the annual Economic Forum in Davos. After the end of the Cold War, this form has acquired such a form of multilateral diplomacy as international intermediation in resolving conflicts. In history, this form of diplomacy is known for a long time. So, the intermediary between Russia and Japan after the war of 1905 was the American president of Theodore Roosevelt. However, recently, the importance of this kind of diplomatic contacts has gained a special role in connection with the uncontrolled increase in the number of conflicts of a new generation. Examples are the participation of great powers in resolving conflicts in the territory of the former Yugoslavia in the mid-1990s. (Dayton process), mediation in conflicts in the Middle East (UN, EU, USA, Russia) at present, etc.

Foreign policy

And diplomatic activity

Russian Federation in 2014

Review of the Russian Foreign Ministry

Moscow, April 2015

Introduction	-
Multilateral diplomacy	-
Russia's participation in UN activities	-
Russia's participation in the group of twenty and brix	-
International cooperation in the fight against new challenges and threats	-
Arms control and non-proliferation issues	-
Conflict settlement, crisis response	-
Inter-civilizational dialogue	-
Geographical Directions of Foreign Policy	-
CIS space	-
Europe	-
USA and Canada	-
Asian-Pacific area	-
South Asia	-
Middle and Middle East and North Africa	-
Africa	-
Latin America and Caribbean	-
Economic diplomacy	-
Legal support of foreign policy	-
Humanitarian Direction of Foreign Policy	-
Human rights issues	-
Protection of the interests of compatriots abroad	-
Consular work	-
Cooperation in the field of culture, science and education	-
Interaction with the Federal Assembly, political parties and civil society institutions	-
Interregional and cross-border cooperation	-
Foreign Policy Information Support	-
Historical and archival activities	-
Inspection work	-
Anti-corruption work	-
Ensuring the safety of launches and Russian citizens abroad	-

Introduction

2014 was marked by further complication of the international situation. The ongoing process of forming a polycentric model of the world order was accompanied by an increase in instability, accumulation of chaos elements at the global and regional levels. Increased rivalry between states, often unfair and aggressive, instability of political and economic processes, transboundary challenges and threats. New crises and foci of tension were added to many years of chronic conflict, including directly at the borders of Russia.

What is happening in the world as in the mirror was reflected in the situation around Ukraine, where the "Historical West" attempts clearly manifested themselves at any cost to maintain dominance in the international arena, impose their own approaches and views, including through interference in the internal affairs of other states. The US and EU supported by the anti-constitutional state coup in this country led to a deep, right up to armed conflict, split in Ukrainian society. As a result, tensions in global matters significantly increased, the polarization of approaches to key issues of the current agenda of international relations increased.

The Ukrainian crisis was used by the United States and the Western Alliance headed by the Western Alliance to use the widespread arsenal of funds in order to curb Russia, including unilateral economic restrictions, information war, building up the military potential of NATO near Russian borders. Damage from the confrontation initiated by us is definitely carrying all parties.

Under these conditions, an active Russian foreign policy aimed at improving international situation, building collective action to find solutions to global and regional problems was particularly in demand. Our country has undertaken necessary measures to protect their sovereignty and security, in fact demonstrated the ability to protect compatriots, principles of truth and justice in international affairs. The historic event was the reunification of the Crimea with Russia, carried out as a result of the free, peaceful will of the inhabitants of the peninsula.

Firmly and consistently advocated a comprehensive and exclusively peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis through a political process, taking into account the interests of all regions and citizens of this country. The Russian leadership put forward relevant initiatives that contributed to the exercise in September of the cease-fire arrangements.

At the same time, they retained the preparedness to constructive interaction with Western states on an equal, mutually respectful basis, including in order to make adequate responses to global challenges of modernity. Did not remove the task of creating a single economic and humanitarian space from Lisbon to Vladivostok from the agenda to Vladivostok, which with increasing interest was perceived in the political circles of a number of EU countries.

The Russian Federation remained open to the union of efforts with all who showed counterfeit readiness to cooperate on the basis of the principles of equality, mutual respect and benefit based on the international law and the central role of the UN in world affairs. Our country took an active part in international efforts to resolve conflicts in various regions.

They consistently carried out a line on the activation of collective counteraction of the rise of extremism and terrorism wave in the Middle East region and North Africa. Proceeded from the fact that the measures taken to curb the threat from the "Islamic state", "Jabhata en-Nusra" and other radical groups whose actions are a danger to the future of entire states, should line up without double standards and a hidden agenda on durable basis of international law.

Intensively interacted with stakeholders in order to complete the process of chemical demilitarization of Syria in accordance with the OPCT Executive Board and the UN Security Council approved by the UN Security Council. Consistently worked in the interests of the political settlement of the intrasyrian conflict, supported the desire of Syrians to ensure the future of their country as a sovereign, geographically holistic, secular state, where the rights of all ethnic and confessional groups would be equally guaranteed.

Together with partners in the "six" and Iranian colleagues continued to work to a comprehensive final settlement of the situation around the Iranian nuclear program. Due to all parties, the desire for the search for compromises managed to significantly brought closer positions. The key role was played by the Russian-based principles of phasing and reciprocity, which formed the basis of the dialogue.

As a bilateral basis and, together with the CSTO and SCO partners, there were consistent efforts in order to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan. Reaffirmed the readiness to provide comprehensive assistance to Kabul in building a peaceful, independent, democratic state that can independently fight terrorism and organized crime, including drug trafficking.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the Russian Federation continued to contribute to international efforts to resolve crisis situations in Africa, including in the work of high-level meetings in Somalia, South Sudan, Central African Republic and Mali. A number of African states provided targeted humanitarian assistance. An important direction of the foreign policy of Russia remained the strengthening of multiple relations with Africa countries to the south of the Sahara and their interstate structures.

The leading priority of Russian foreign policy remained the strengthening of close friendly connections with states in the CIS space. Joint work as part of various integration formats received a powerful impetus due to the signing of May 29 by Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan of the Eurasian Economic Union agreement, which entered into force on January 1, 2015. During the year, decisions were made to join Armenia, the process of joining the EAEEC Kyrgyzstan was significantly advanced. More than 40 countries expressed the desire to develop cooperation with the new integration association in certain forms.

In an increasingly important place in the Ministry of Emergency Foreign Policy of Russia, cooperation with the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, including in the interests of stimulating the innovative development of the country, accelerated ascent of its eastern regions. The Russian approaches to ensuring safe growth in the APR, as well as building regional integration on the principles of transparency, equality and mutual benefit in the interests of the formation of an open common market, have received wide support for the APEC forum forum in Beijing.

Relations between Russia and China came to the new stage of the comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation. Unprecedentedly rich ties between the two countries are firmly established as a major element of maintaining global and regional stability.

An important role was assigned to the development of relations of a particularly privileged strategic partnership with India, maintaining a permanent dialogue with Vietnam and other countries ASEAN.

Russia stands for a strong, politically cohesive Latin America. We note with satisfaction that the countries of the region are increasingly openly defended their identity in global affairs on the basis of equality, the balance of interest and mutual respect. Progressively acted in the interests of expanding multifaceted cooperation with the countries of the LACB.

Over the past years, multilateral network diplomacy is confidently approved in international relations, which involves various forms of interaction on the basis of coincidence of national interests in order to solve common tasks, which is especially important in the light of the continuing difficult situation in the global economy, high risks of new crisis phenomena. The most successful formats of such multilateral cooperation, along with the UN, "Group of Twenty", BRICS, SCO. These sites were actively used to promote the integration agenda, the general recovery of climate in international affairs.

Having entered into the Rights of the Chairman of the SCO in 2014-2015, Russia focused on future consolidation of the organization, building its capacity and practical returns, improving structures.

In working with BRICS partners acted with an eye on the transformation of the forum into one of the carrier elements of the Global Management System. This was largely facilitated by the unity of positions on the strengthening of international stability in its various dimensions, including financial and economic. The practical results of working together, including decisions on the creation of a new development bank and pool of conditional currency reserves BRICS, indicate both the powerful consolidation potential and the harmonious compliance of this format of the work of modern realities.

The G20 summit once again confirmed the important role that this organization acquired in strengthening the stability of the global economy. Supported the current activities of the Forum in the interests of consolidating the international regime of regulation of financial markets and oversight of financial institutions.

Among the natural priorities of Russian diplomacy in 2014, the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of Russian citizens and compatriots abroad, to facilitate the promotion of the interests of Russian business, improving the tools of foreign policy, including economic diplomacy, the use of the possibilities of "soft power", information support of international activities.

Multilateral diplomacy

General principles that have inspired multilateral diplomacy throughout history, had different origins. Thus, the oldest principle of multilateral diplomacy was the sacral principle, which united people of one faith. We will remind the existence of the ancient Greek Amphiki, convened by the priests at the foot of the temple of Apollo Delphic. On the eve of the New Time of the Holy See as a historical subject of international law and the acting person of many diplomatic shares of the Middle Ages, was invariably present, and in many cases was a driving force in the system of multilateral diplomacy.

The modern model of diplomacy was born primarily as a model of multilateral diplomacy. The search and preservation of the balance of forces assumed a multilateral agreement. The most striking example of multilateral diplomacy can be considered a few years to prepare the Westphalian world of 1648. By this period in Europe, a numerous corporation of professional experienced diplomats has already been developed, as a rule, personally acquainted with each other. Over the years, diplomats of warring parties have met each other, preparing peaceful congresses in Münster and Osnabruck- not. Representatives of the most experienced European diplomacy - Vatican and Venetsian played a huge role in these preparations. They agreed to take over the responsibilities of neutral intermediaries and agreed on the texts of documents together with diplomats of opposing coalitions. So they tried to lay the foundations of the future European equilibrium.

The principle of equilibrium has always been interpreted both in a dynamic and static vein. In the first case, it was about the restoration of once disturbed balance of forces, which could not not stimulate the convening of multilateral diplomatic forums, the purpose of which is to agree on the ways to achieve equilibrium. In the second case, the head of the corner is the question of preserving the equilibrium already achieved. This is evidenced by many static forums of multilateral diplomacy - alliances, leagues, long-term contracts and paits. The latter, as a rule, was inherent in military-political character. The reflection of the existing or potential threat from one state or group of states was the direct task of various forms of multilateral diplomacy.

The theoretics of the concept of equilibrium as the change of unions opposed the authors, expressing the hope that in the future the eternal conservation of the world would be possible thanks to the efforts of the global government. The theoretical idea of \u200b\u200bEuropeans of the New and the Newest Time, overcoming the interpretation of the equilibrium of the forces as a natural physical law, focused on the issue of attaching multilateral diplomacy of a regular character personally identified by internationally recognized institutions.

The prototype of this kind of projects can be considered "scheme", developed in 1462 by the adviser to the Bavarian King Antoine Marini. It was about creating a European league of sovereign rulers. The league consisted of four sections: French, Italian, German and Spanish. The Central Authority was the General Assembly, a kind of Congress of ambassadors representing their rulers. Each member of the section had one voice. Particular attention was paid to the voting procedure. A joint army was created, the funds were removed from the taxes on the state. The League could print his own money, have its own emblem printing, archives and numerous officials. In the League, the functioning of the International Court of Judge was assumed, the judges of which were appointed by the General Assembly 1.

The idea of \u200b\u200bthe World Government was kept Erasm Rotterdam. In 1517, in his treatise, the "Complaint of the World" listed the disasters that the war entails were given to the benefits of the world, praised by peace-loving rulers. However, in addition to the abstract wishes to solve problems by creating a global government, labor did not offer any practical program. Two decades later saw the light "Book of the World" Sebastian Frank. Referring to the Sacred Scripture, Frank justified the idea that since the war is soon - the work of human hands, then the world should be provided to people themselves. A more detailed project of conservation of peace thanks to the equilibrium coalitions has developed at the end of the XVI century. English Poet and Essheist Thomas Overbury. Its labor was distinguished by a notable innovation, because the equiliboundation coalitions of Western and Eastern Europe proposed by the world suggested the inclusion in the Eastern European coalition of Muscovy.

Almost across the century, in 1623, in Paris, the work of Emerica Cuis "New Kineas" is published. According to Plutarch, Kinear was the wise adviser to the ancient king of Pyrrhr, more than once the warning of his ruler about the danger of wars. "New Kineas", according to the author.

must become a mentor of modern ruler. Cyut even sketched the draft Union of Peoples in the name of the universal world. Inspired by the idea of \u200b\u200ba continuous negotiation process, he laughed at the permanent Congress of ambassadors, which would represented all European monarchs, as well as the Venice Republic and Swiss Cantons. From time to time, the General Assembly convened, the General Assembly could invite representatives of even non-Christian countries: Constantinople Sultan, representatives of Persia, China, India, Morocco and Japan. Countries that do not obey the decisions of the General Assembly were to be subjected to armed sanctions 2.

Realizing the tragity of the events of the thirty-year war, Hugo Grotia in his famous work "On the right of war and the world" (1625) called for the creation of the European Union of States, whose members should abandon the use of violence in resolving conflicts arising between them. Grounding saw the prospect of preserving peace in the primacy of international law over government interest.

A direct response to these ideas was the so-called "Great Project", set forth in the memoirs of the Duke Sully, Minister of Finance of the French king Henry IV. Sully filled the utopian ideas of the Cow to the real content - the political ideas of his era. His work was created in Europe tenth by religious conflicts ten years before the end of the thirty-year war. In order to establish a universal world, he believed necessary to reconcile Catholics, Lutheran and Calvinists. Under the auspices of France, Europe had to be divided between six equal monarchies of the time. The General Council of the States was designed to solve emerging contradictions. The Council was to make decisions on political and religious issues arising from the European continent, and to solve interstate disputes. In accordance with the project, during the year, the Council would begin in one of the fifteen cities on the principle of rotation. Six regional councils were to be dealt with questions. If necessary, the General Council could interfere in the internal affairs of states. He also established an international court. Unblend the court was punishable by military force generated by Member States, depending on the available resources.

With the European colonization of America, a fastened awareness of the community of two continents, which, in the opinion of theoretics of that time, inevitably had to lead to the creation of an effective world organization. Thus, Quaker William Penn, who managed the colony in North America, called later in his honor Pennsylvania, in 1693 published his "experience about the present and future world." Its basic idea was to substantiate the need for the Universal Union of States. Penn emphasized that fair governments are an expression of a society initially created by the intentions of a peace-loving person. Consequently, he continued Penn, governments are designed to establish a new community, voluntarily conveying part of their powerful powers, as they have done those who concluded a public contract with the monarch 3.

In the century of enlightenment of the concept of European countries based on the social contract, the Union of Europe received special distribution. English liberalism and French "Mind Philosophy" played a big role in this, supported by the increased influence of French culture and French 4.

In 1713-1717. In Utrecht, Abbot Charles-Irene de Saint-Pierre writes the famous "Eternal World in Europe" project, the abbreviated version of which first saw the light in 1729 in accordance with the three-volume project, released from the pen of the Thinker of early Enlightenment, Diplomat and Philosopher, eighteen European countries, including Russia, should have been a federation, the world in which would be ensured by a permanent arbitration court. Ottoman Empire, Morocco and Algeria became associated members of this federation. Proclaimed the principle of irrevoyability of borders. The armed intervention of the federation was envisaged in the event that the internal shocks threatened the stability of one of the member states. The ideas of Saint-Pierre received a famous distribution and were welcomed by many thinkers both in France and beyond.

A passionate supporter of the world was the outstanding German philosopher Immanuel Kant. The progress of mankind, according to Cant, is a natural process, but the targeted Will of a person can delay or speed up it. That is why people need to have a clear goal. For Kant, the eternal world is ideal, but at the same time an idea that has not only theoretical, but also practical as a guide to action. This is dedicated to the famous treatise "To the Eternal Mire" (1795). The treatise is written by Kant in the form of a project of an international treaty. It contains articles of the "Agreement on the Eternal World Between States". In particular, the second article of the Treaty establishes that international law should be the basis of the Federation of Free States. The world inevitably becomes the result of this association and comes as a result of conscious and targeted activities of people.

ready and able to resolve contradictions on a compromise and mutual concessions. The treatise "To the Eternal Mire" was well known to contemporaries and brought him to the author deserved glory of one of the creators of the theory of collective security.

However, in contrast to the theory, the practice of multilateral diplomacy for a long time was limited to the creation of coalitions, as well as the preparation and holding of congresses. Congresses assumed a purely political nature of the meeting, the purpose of which was, as a rule, in the signing of a peace treaty or in developing a new political and territorial device. Such were the Münster and Osnabryuki Congresses, which ended with the signing of the Westphalian world (1648), the Rubvik Congress, which summed up the results of the War of Louis XIV with the countries of the Augsburg League (1697), Karlovitsky Congress, which solved the problems of the end of the war with the Turks (1698-1699) and a number of others. A feature of the first congresses of this kind were only at the bilateral level, joint meetings have not yet become practice.

The Vienna Congress 1814-1815 became the milestone on this path, who crowned the victory of the anti-Napoleon coalition. At the Vienna Congress, for the first time in the agreement on the Union and Friendship between the United Kingdom, Austria, Prussia and Russia, the intention "in the name of the happiness of the whole world" was enforced periodically at the level of both heads of state and foreign ministers in order to consult the issues of mutual interest. The parties also agreed on joint actions that will be required to ensure the "prosperity of nations and the preservation of peace in Europe" 5. Russia at this congress put forward the initiative, perhaps the first in this way in the latest history: the idea of \u200b\u200beffective multilateral diplomacy, operating on the basis of a multilateral union, solving the task of not only military union, but also to preserve the internal device. The Treaty on the Holy Union began with the words:

"In the name of the Blessed and inseparal Trinity of the Majesty ... declare the solemn that the subject of this act, the network to open the person in the face of their unshakable determination ... to be guided ... Commandments of Say of the Savy of Faith, the commandments of love, truth and the world."

The contract was signed by Emperor Alexander I, Austrian Emperor Franz I, King Friedrich Wilhelm 111. Later, all the monarchs of continental Europe joined the contract, with the exception of the Roman Pope and George VI English. The Holy Union found its practical embodiment in the Decisions of Congresses in Aachen, Troppau, Lybakh and Verona, authorized armed interference in the internal affairs of states. It was about the suppression of revolutionary performances in the name of conservative legitimism. For the first time, states were not limited to signing a peace treaty, and committed to further management of the international system. The Vienna Congress provided for the functioning of the interaction and negotiation mechanism, developed formal procedures for making subsequent decisions.

The Vienna Congress has become the starting point when the old traditions gave way to a new experience, which put the flexible system of periodic meetings of representatives of the great powers. The mechanism created by the Vienna Congress was called the "European Concert", which for decades ensured the conservative stabilization of interstate relations in Europe.

Economic and technological progress contributed to the unprecedented rapprochement of peoples. In public opinion, the conviction that international relations cannot be left to the will of the case, but should be reasonably sent by relevant institutions. "Philosophy of the XVIII century. There was a philosophy of the revolution, she changed the philosophy of the organization, "the French publicists wrote 6.

The ideas of creating a confederation of countries choosing a pan-European parliament have been very popular with democratically minded Europeans. In 1880, he saw the light of the work of the Scottish lawwrld James Lorimer. He rejected the idea of \u200b\u200bthe balance of power, considering it with diplomatic fiction provoking an international anarchy. Lori-measures offered to spread the inner structure of England on the international arena. The members of the Upper Chamber were appointed by the governments of European countries, the Lower Chamber was formed by the parliaments of each country, or, in autocratic states, the monarch himself. Six great powers - Germany, France, the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires, Italy and the UK - belonged to a decisive word. Parliament published laws. The European Council of Ministers elected the president who controlled the entire mechanism. An international court and a tribunal was created, consisting of judges of individual countries. Protection against aggression provided a pan-European army. All expenses were made at the expense of a special tax.

But projects of projects, and the practice of international relations led to the creation of a very effective new institution of multilateral diplomacy - conference ambassadors. For the first time, such a conference, designed to observe her who did not strengthen the French government, was established in 1816 in Paris and operated until 1818. The conference of the ambassadors gathered in Paris in 1822 and who worked until 1826, discussed issues related to Spanish revolution. In 1823, the conference of the ambassadors gathered in Rome to discuss the issues of reforming the papal state. The London Conference of 1827 discussed the question of the independence of Greece. Large international and public resonance learned the conference in 1839, which ended with the emergence of the independent kingdom of Belgium. On the agenda of subsequent embassy conferences, there were issues of termination of the Balkan Wars and countering the Bolshevik regime in Russia.

Over time name "the conference" Moved to more representative multilateral diplomatic forums. Supporters of conference diplomacy believed that international conflicts arise mainly due to the misunderstanding and lack of contacts between government officials. It was believed that the communication of the rulers, directly and without intermediaries, would allow better to evaluate mutual positions. It is impossible not to remember the Hague conferences, the initiator of which was Russia. In the circular note of the Russian Foreign Ministry of August 12, 1898, approved by the emperor, to the attention of European governments and heads of state, a common idea of \u200b\u200bthe conference was made by international discussion to find effective means of ensuring peace and put an end to the development of weapons technology. The received benevolent feedback from foreign partners allowed the Russian Foreign Ministry on the eve of the new 1899. Suggest a program of work of the Conference, which included discussion of arms restriction issues, humanization of ways of warfare and improving peaceful tools for the permission of interstate conflicts.

In 1899, in the work of the first Hague conference participated in delegates from 26 states of the world, including China, Serbia, USA, Montenegro, Japan. Russia was represented by three Ministry officers, including Fedor Fedorovich Martens, a well-known lawyer, a diplomat, vice-president of the European Institute of International Law, a member of the "Permanent Chamber of the Arbitration Court in the Hague" and the author of the fundamental labor "Modern international law of civilized nations." Following the results of two and a half months of the conference, the Convention was signed: the peaceful resolution of international disputes was signed; On the laws and customs of the war on land; On the use of 1864 of the provisions of the Geneva Convention for Military Action on the Sea of \u200b\u200bRegulations, it is necessary to add declarations that prohibited the use of discontinuous bullets, suffocating gases, as well as throwing explosive shells from balloons. However, according to the main issues of "preservation of the existing number of land forces and freezing military budgets, as well as the study of the means of reducing the number of army", due to the resulting contradictions between delegations of decisions was not taken. The twenty-six states presented at this conference signed a convention on the peaceful resolution of international clashes and the establishment of the Permanent Chamber of the Arbitration Court, the first multilateral establishment of this kind.

The Second Hague Conference was convened in 1907 on the initiative of the American President Theodore Roosevelt. The main goal of the meetings was the improvement and addition of the conventions taken earlier. Issues of arms restrictions on the agenda of his work were not included as practically impossible. The delegates of forty-four states of the world adopted more than a dozen of the Conventions on the laws and customs of the land and sea war, retaining their importance today (with the addition of the Geneva Conventions of 1949).

The Hague conferences laid the foundations of the new branch of law - international humanitarian law, which subsequently belonged an important role.

At the suggestion of the presiding Russian ambassador in France, Alexander Ivanovich Nelidova, it was decided that another peaceful conference would be convened in eight years. However, as you know, the story judged differently. Conference XIX - early XX century. Different from previous congresses more specific political content, great attention to the issues of a purely technical nature. Sometimes they were a preparatory stage of convening Congress. In the conferences of the heads of state, then did not participate.

And yet, in its development, multilateral diplomacy could not be limited to periodic meetings. The trend towards the creation of international institutions operating on a permanent basis has been clearer. Special hopes gave rise to the establishment of the World Telegraph Union in 1865 and the World Postal Union in 1874. These events were considered as evidence of increased interdependence. Newspapers wrote: "The great ideal of international freedom and unity is embodied in postal service. The World Postal Union is a precursor of the disappearance of borders, when all people become free inhabitants of the planet "7. At the beginning of the XX century. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe revival of the "European Concert" by creating permanent pan-European bodies was widely spread. In particular, Leon Bourgeois, French Foreign Minister of the time, in the book entitled "La Societe Des Nations"(1908), spoke in favor of the immediate creation of an international court.

Progress of science and technology caused numerous specialized international organizations to life - institutes. So they began to call this or another interstate association of a functional nature, which has its own administrative bodies and pusing its special goals. An International Institute for Agriculture, International Institute for Non-Private Law, etc. After the First World War from the lexicon of state multilateral diplomacy, the term "Congress" Disappeared, finally moving into the context of non-governmental diplomacy, for example, the Congresses of the Peace of Peace, for Women's Rights, etc. Diplomatic events with the participation of heads of state and governments were called conferences. The first post-war multilateral forum was the Paris Peace Conference 1919. Then followed the 1922 Genoese Conference, the Locarnskaya 1925 and a series of others.

International relations, representing an all complicating and multilayer system, as never needed in the process of multilateral coordination and in the procedure approved by all states. New levers of influence on world politics took. Again, the projects of the World Government and Parliament became popular. For example, Belgian theorists proposed that representatives appointed by international organizations, corporations and other bodies of economic, social and intellectual areas are part of the Upper House of World Parliament. An indispensable condition was the creation of an international court. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe need to put control of the armed forces, the number of which should not exceed the common level. The development of economic relations was reflected in the project on the World Bank and the abolition of customs barriers. A lot was mentioned about compulsory international assistance to all types of educational and cultural activities.

World War II seriously discredited the principle of the balance of power in the eyes of the public. The key to the preservation of the world at the end of the war was to become a multilateral organization, within which states are engaged in coordination of positions, thereby generating mandatory legal norms. Already during the First World War in the UK, a group of scientists and politicians, led by Lord Brys, was created by the Nations (League of Nations Society). In the US, the President Taft was present in the establishment of the American equivalent of this league - League to Enforce Peace. The purpose of these organizations was to convince public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic in the need for a new course of world politics. In August 1915, Sir Edward Gray stated the personal representative of Wilson President Colonel Edward Hause that the "pearl post-war settlement should be the League of Nations, designed to ensure the resolution of disputes between the states" 8. In the spring of 1916, President Wilson called for the creation of a universal international organization. In July 1917, in France, the Chamber of Deputies formed the Commission for the preparation of the "Project of the League of Nations". A published year later, the project provided for the creation of a league, endowed with much broader powerful powers than it was laid in British and American projects. In the final version, the idea of \u200b\u200ban international organization found its embodiment in the fateful 14 points of Wilson's president, formulated in early 1918

The Nations established in 1919 was a universal organization of a new type, which has a political and administrative mechanism. It was about the Council, the Assembly and the Secretariat. The Council, which included representatives of the five major allied powers, could be considered as a continuation of the old "European concert" of the great powers. The Council and the Assembly to a certain extent were two chambers with equal competence. The Euro-American system of parliamentary democracy found its reflection at the interstate level in these mechanisms. The League of Nations has become a new forum of multilateral diplomacy. The process characterized by the transition from diplomacy aD HOC. To constant diplomatic missions, finally spread to multilateral diplomacy. With the League of Nations, the first permanent missions and mission appeared. The members of the League of Nations were obliged to resolve their contradictions in peaceful way. The Charter provided for arbitration and conciliation procedures. The violator of these rules was automatically considered as "the party who committed the act of war against all member countries." The aggressor was subjected to economic sanctions, and he was threatened with the confrontation of the military car of all other countries. Aggression, thus prevented without the conclusion of various alliances. It was believed that this would prevent an expensive and dangerous arms race. Interstate disagreements were carried out at the International Court of Justice, established in 1922.

By this time, multilateral diplomacy has accumulated considerable experience in developing voting procedures. In the XIX century Decisions in international organizations in most cases were made on the basis of the principle of unanimity. Practice has shown the inconvenience of such a decision making method, since even one-sole state could not be reduced to all preparatory work. Gradually moved to making decisions by a simple or qualified majority. The principle of the so-called positive unanimity adopted in the League of Nations did not take into account the votes of the members of the members missing or refrained from the vote. An extremely important event in the history of the diplomatic service was the emergence of the League Permanent Secretariat. Its functioning was provided by the diplomats of a new type - international officials. Since that time, the process of forming an international civil service began. Much brought together an international official with a diplomat of the traditional plan, but there were certain differences. For example, the immunity of an official working in an international organization was narrowed compared with immunity, relying from representatives of states. Unlike a diplomat involved in the field of bilateral relations, and, therefore, first of all dealing with representatives of the host state, an international official is intended to cooperate with all members of the international organization and be aware of the problems of the states that make up this organization.

The League of Nations largely did not meet expectations assigned to it. In addition, she never became a universal organization. The US Congress spoke out against the entry of the country to the League of Nations. Behind her frames until 1934, the Soviet Union remained. In the 1930s, outside the League turned out to be the power aggressors - Germany, Italy and Japan. In 1939, as a result of the Finnish-Soviet war, the USSR was excluded from its composition.

During World War II, the multilateral diplomacy of the Allies on the Anti-Hitler Coalition launched the foundations of post-war world order. It is about the Washington Declaration of 1942, as well as on documents of conferences in 1943 (Moscow, Cairo, Tehranskaya), 1944 (Dumbarton-Okskaya, Bretton Woods), 1945 (Yalta and Potsdam).

Representatives of the States gathered to the Conference in San Francisco in 1945, established a new Universal International Intergovernmental Organization - the United Nations. Under its auspices there was an impressive number of international government organizations that engulfed the most different aspects of international cooperation. The UN programs have been aimed at solving problems of disarmament, development, population, human rights, environmental protection.

The UN Charter provided for the procedure for peaceful resolution of disputes, as well as joint actions against the threat of peace, violation of the world and acts of aggression. Possible sanctions, embargo and peacekeeping facilities were not excluded using the UN peacekeeping and military coalition of the UN member states, as well as a regional organization by agreement. The Meaning of the UN Charter was that it not only became a constitutional document regulating the activities of the International Organization, but was also intended to play a key role in developing a peculiar code of behavior of states in military, political, economic, environmental, humanitarian and other fields.

The negotiable legal capacity has generated an extensive system of multilateral agreements concluded under this organization 9. For the first time in the UN Charter, the sovereign equality of all those included in the organization of states was recorded. Each state has a single voice in the UN. The predominant strength of obligations was envisaged if the state's commitments on any other international agreement will contradict the provisions of the Charter. Thus, the UN Charter laid the foundation for the progressive development and codification of international law.

Effective forums of multilateral diplomacy were UN authorities - General Assembly, Security Council, International Court and Secretariat. The UN system also includes about two dozen associated organizations, programs, funds and specialized agencies. First of all, we are talking about ILO, Ecosos, Fao, UNESCO, ICAO, WHO, WMO, WIPO, IMF. GATT / W), IBRD and many others.

Regional organizations - OSCE, LAG, CE, EU, ASEAN, ADES, OAS, OAU, ASEAN, ATEZ, OAS, OAU, CIS, etc. In the second half of the 20th century, a large number of so-called multilateral interest organizations have also arose. In the second half of the 20th century. This, in particular, the movement of non-aligned, OPEC, "group of seven", "group eight" and "group of twenty".

Multilateral diplomacy of international organizations used the form of representative offices. For example, the representative offices of the UN states on their size and composition almost do not differ from ordinary embassies. In 1946, the UN GA adopted the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. In accordance with this Convention, immunities and privileges of representatives of states in the UN as a whole are equal to diplomatic. The same position also applies to delegations involved in the international conferences of the UN system.

At the same time, unlike diplomatic representatives working in the system of bilateral diplomacy, representatives of states under international organizations are not accredited under the states of their stay and implement their rights to international representation are not in front of them, but within the international organization. Therefore, their appointment does not require the receipt of agreman from the organization or state of stay. The heads of representative offices upon arrival in the UN do not give credentials to the head of state, in which the UN organization is located in the territory. They transfer their mandates directly to the UN Secretary-General in the work environment.

Bilateral agreements on UN headquarters and a number of other international organizations provide for permanent representatives of the States of privileges and immunities similar to diplomatic, but in some agreements they are somewhat narrowed. Thus, the 1946 Agreement with the United States on the UN Headquarters, recognizing the right to diplomatic privileges and immunities, in principle, the right to diplomatic privileges and immunities, at the same time allows US authorities with the consent of US Secretary of State to initiate cases against The staff of representative offices and officials of the UN in order to present them the requirements for departure from the United States "in case of privileges abuse".

True, the agreement stipulates that such consent can be given by the American Secretary of State only after consulting with the relevant State - UN member state (when it comes to a representative of such a state or a member of his family) or after consulting with the Secretary General or the main official of a specialized institution (when We are talking about his officials). Moreover, the agreement provides for the opportunity to present the requirement to leaving the US data from the United States "in compliance with the usual order established against diplomatic missions accredited under the Government of the United States" 10.

In 1975, an Convention on the Office of States in their relations with international organizations was adopted at the Conference in Vienna. The Convention had a universal nature and confirmed the legal status of permanent representatives of states and permanent observers in international organizations, delegations and observers at international conferences, as well as the amount of approaching diplomatic immunity and privileges provided to the above categories and administrative and technical staff. The circle of persons who use privileges and immunities, and in the territory of all countries of the Convention, is determined by the UN Secretary-General.

UN experts. We travel to business trips, use during a business trip to broader immunities and privileges than UN officials in its headquarters. UN Secretary-General. His deputies, as well as wives of these individuals and minors, enjoy the full amount of privileges and immunity provided to diplomatic representatives. The UN Secretary-General himself cannot refuse to immunominate to him. This right belongs to the UN Security Council.

The Convention includes provisions on the responsibility of the state of staying an international organization. It is not only about ensuring appropriate conditions for the normal activities of permanent missions and delegations, but also on the obligation to take adequate measures to initiate prosecution and punish persons responsible for encroachments on representation and delegation.

The autumn sessions of the UN GA is an excellent opportunity for the participation of the participation of state leaders to meet with each other and lead the necessary negotiations. If necessary, they can take advantage of the competent mediation of the UN Secretary-General. Small countries often use their representative offices in the UN to lead bilateral negotiations with representatives of those countries where they have no embassy. Of course, as needed by both greater countries. Permanent missions can become communication channels between countries that are not among themselves diplomatic relations or boring them. In this case, the contacts are also favored by personal dating of members of permanent missions working in the UN.

With the emergence of the UN in the world of multilateral diplomacy, the term has become given to the term " organization". Organizations were considered as a form of interaction between states creating their own structure and constant operational bodies. Such a name, for example, was given to various military-political associations - NATO, ATS, Seato, Sento, CSTO. In the late 1940s - early 1950s, international institutions called in Europe soviets. This is the Council of Europe, the Northern Council, the Council of Economic Mutual Assistance. The name reflected the idea of \u200b\u200bequality of participating States and collegiates in decision-making. Multilateral diplomacy forums also received the name community (European Economic Community, European Communities). It was a new stage in the development of multilateral diplomacy, which marks the emergence of integration associations with a tendency to approve the supranational principle. At the present stage, the "old" names are often returned to the lexicon of multilateral diplomacy, the Union of Independent States, the Union of African States, the League of Arab States.

UN and other international organizations play a major role in the development conference diplomacy. Numerous conferences on social, economic, legal and other special issues are held under their aegid. The heads of permanent offices in international organizations involved in conference diplomacy are based on their work on the states formed not only from professional diplomats, but also from employees of various departments. Their task is to discuss special issues in a detailed discussion. Therefore, specialized conferences are professional diplomats, as a rule, do not make up the majority. There are mainly represented policies and experts. True, a professional diplomat who knows the rules of procedure, capable of analyzing the incoming information, owns the art of work in the sidelines, is a valuable advisor to the delegation.

The multilateral negotiation process is unfolded both within the framework of the organizations themselves and during the work of regular conferences convened, as well as outside the framework of organizations to consider a certain circle of issues. Often the conferences are engaged in rule-making activities, which creates an entirely expanding international legal field. In particular, the conference 1961, 1963, 1968-1969, 1975, 1977-1978. They played a big role in the development of diplomatic and consular law.

The presence of general rules and the frequency of international conferences allows us to talk about them as a kind of established institutes of the world community.

Multilateral diplomacy, thus, developed a diverse toolkit, one of whose goals - to achieve a peaceful resolution of international disputes and various kinds of conflicts. We are talking about good services, mediation, monitoring, arbitration, peacekeeping promotions, creating an international judicial system. Regular meetings of diplomats and political figures at the UN headquarters, its agencies and regional organizations are soil for parliamentary diplomacy, propaganda and confidential negotiations. Moreover, negotiations are conducted between representatives of both the states and international organizations themselves, which follows from their international legal personality. This is especially characteristic of the UN and the EU.

The historical period, which has passed since the formation of the UN, indicates the emergence on the world map due to the processes of decolonization, the collapse of the USSR, a number of countries of the former Soviet bloc, separatism of a considerable number of new state entities. As a result, this led to more than a three-time increase in the number of states compared with 1945. This avalanche-like process unfolded in the context of economic globalization and integration, regionalization and fragmentation of many of the states that lost their former sovereign functions. Often, this led to the loss by the national governments of control over the processes occurring and undermined the framework of the sovereignty, which was based on the global order initiated in the era of the Westphalian world.

In this situation, there was even more acute than in 1945, the need for an effective intergovernmental forum capable of providing governments to identify problems that could not be solved at the national level, to develop joint strategies for their permission and coordinate joint efforts for this purpose. Undoubtedly, in order to meet the requirements of the time, the UN structure needs reform. The UN Secretariat suffers from ailment characteristic of most multinational bureaucratic organizations. In particular, we are talking about the need to change a number of senior officials. No wonder UN Secretary-General Boutros Bootros Gali during the first three months of stay in his post reduced by a 40% number of senior posts. His successor to Kofi Annan delivered two packages of further reforms in this direction to the international community.

Germany, Japan, India and Brazil strongly promote their positions in the form of draft resolutions of the UN General Assembly, which make a proposal to expand the number of permanent members of the Security Council. In his proposal, they made certain advances and non-permanent members of the Council, offering to expand and play the Council. However, the situation is that most of the rest of the countries of the world who do not have perspectives to become permanent members of the UN Security Council, no matter how they relate to the claims of the specified four, they decided to take care primarily about their interests and created a group ("Coffee Club"), which developed her "Guidelines for the expansion of the Security Council." In the future, this group was called "united in support of consensus". She proposed to increase the Security Council for ten non-permanent members with the possibility of immediate re-election and in accordance with the principle of equitable geographical distribution. In the complex position, the five permanent members of the Security Council were also. We had a simple desire to prevent the weakening of their status and their own special role in the Security Council and in general in the UN. This applied not only to the "law of veto", but also to the question of the number of states that would have had this right to the Council. Of course, they took into account the new reality in the world and strengthen the Four States, as well as ambitions of Asia, Latin America and Africa. But on specific "schemes" of the reform of the Security Council and specific candidates, they had significant discrepancies. There is no unity and among European countries, where Italy suggests that Europe will be presented in the Security Council not by England, France and Germany, but in one form or another by the European Union. The countries of the South and the North will diverge in understanding the priority of the tasks facing the UN. "South" insists on the primacy of sustainable development and assistance issues. "North" at the head of the corner puts the problems of security, human rights and democracy. This differs accents in the approaches of these groups of states to the request of the UN reform. "A number of countries insisted on improving the political role of the UN Secretary General. This caused an ambiguous reaction. Some countries saw a tendency to give the UN of the Necknowledgment in this project. Others made support for the functionalization ideas The Secretary General in their opinion, the UN reform only can be considered effective when the Secretary General becomes more independent in its actions. In this case, he will be able to insist on holding a certain policy, even if it is not divided into all UN member countries.

The question of coordinating the actions of multilateral diplomacy institutions within the UN system is acute. Bootros Bootros Gali tried to introduce a rule, in accordance with which the United Nations Office, which coordinating the activities of the UN system organizations as a whole, was established in each capital. However, in his undertaking, he came across a sharp resistance of developing countries that did not want to provide the Secretary-General with power over specialized UN agencies. The agencies also showed concern about the threat of their independence. Kofi Annan continued attempts in this direction. But he collided with the same obstacles as his predecessor. UN agencies (for example, IAEA) continue to qualify for having their own independent intergovernmental cooperation.

In June 2011, France made an expansion of both permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council. "We believe," said the representative of France with the UN, - that Japan, Brazil, India and Germany must become permanent members and what should be at least one new permanent member from Africa. We also set a question about Arabic presence. " He stressed that the current Council largely reflects 1945 and today it must be adapted to modern realities 12. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, elected for a second time until 2016, said that the reform of the Security Council by expansion is one of the priorities of his stay as a secrecy 13.

• TCPs still exist, and the parties of the Convention are 90 states. 115.
• At the heart of the privileges and immunities of officials of international organizations lies the theory of functional necessity; In this regard, they are somewhat narrowed compared to those that apply to representatives of states.
• According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, ambassadors of this or that country can part-time perform the functions of the head of the representative office under an international organization.

According to the statements of American officials, the United States is committed to the principle of versatility in foreign policy. With the arrival in the white house of the new administration, it would be necessary to remind the approaches of the administration of the previous one. President J. Bush-ml. He said that solving problems in conjunction with strong partners to best will allow American interests. The United States considers multilateral diplomacy necessary for these efforts. Whether the UN, the organization of American states, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum or one of many other international organizations in which the United States participates, and American diplomats are energetically working in them.

The United States National Security Strategy said: "The United States is guided by the conviction that no state can build a safer and perfect world alone," and proceed from the fact that "unions and multilateral institutions may increase the influence of freedom-loving countries. The United States is committed to such solid institutions as the UN World Trade Organization, the Organization of American States, NATO, as well as other long-standing alliances. "

In the 2006 National Security Strategy, the following position of the White House for Multilateral Diplomacy was set forth: US relations with the main centers of world politics forces should "be supported by relevant institutions, regional and global, aimed at longer, efficient and comprehensive cooperation. Where existing institutions can reform, make them capable of solving new problems, we must reform them together with our partners. In the same place where the necessary institutions are missing, we must create them together with our partners. " This document also was stated that "the United States supports the UN reform in order to improve the effectiveness of the peacekeeping operations, as well as increased accountability, internal oversight and greater orientation of management on the result."

Representatives of the administration of J. Bush-ml. Regularly stated that the United States is actively committed to the United Nations and ideals on which it was founded. The same stated American official documents. "The United States is one of the founders of the UN. We want the UN effective, respected and successful," said President J. Bush, speaking at the 57th session of the UN General Assembly in 2002.

The United States is a leading financial depositor to the UN budget from the date of its foundation. In 2005 and 2006, they allocated 5.3 billion dollars on the UN system. Because of this, the United States considers themselves entitled to expect from the organization that these funds will be consuling efficiently. The Deputy Secretary of State for International Organizations K. Silverberg In September 2006, she said that "the United States spend more than $ 5 billion a year in the UN" and "want to be sure that their taxpayers are spent reasonable and go to improving the situation in developing countries for people suffering from violations of human rights and the spread of dangerous diseases. "

The position of the leading financial donor allows the United States to expect that the UN actions will mainly make a contradiction with the interests of the United States. Thus, the United States voted only for those peacekeeping operations that responded to their national interests and supported them financially, despite the fact that the share of the US military in the number of Blue Katokes is 1/7 from 1%.

In the administration, J. Bush-ml. Recognized that UN membership refers to the national interests of the United States. During its reign of US disputes around the losses and benefits from the country's membership in the United Nations, having a long history, aggravated. Until now, there are such arguments against participation in the UN as undermining the national sovereignty of the United States and violation of the authority of the Congress on the budget. Nevertheless, with time, the awareness of advantages has increased. One of the main advantages of UN membership for the United States consider it possible to influence decision-making in the World Organization and to promote the goal of its foreign policy. In addition, the indisputable benefits, according to the United States, include: coordinating actions to maintain international peace and security, the development of friendly relations between nations, the development of international cooperation in order to resolve economic, social and humanitarian problems, dissemination of respect for human rights and basic freedoms.

Also, according to the United States, without collective action within the framework of the UN, a truce in Korea in 1953 or a peaceful resolution of crises in El Salvador, Mozambique, Bosnia, East Timor would be reached. The US UN membership benefits include the cooperation of states in the fight against infectious diseases through the World Health Organization, the fight against hunger through the global food program, efforts to combat illiteracy through the UN special programs, coordination of aviation, postal transport and telecommunications.

The United States has a wide agenda in the United Nations, reflecting global problems facing foreign policy and diplomacy, is the prevention of HIV / AIDS, the fight against hunger, the provision of humanitarian assistance in need, maintaining peace in Africa, the problems of Afghanistan and Iraq, Palestinian-Israeli settlement , non-proliferation problems of IU (nuclear problems of Iran and North Korea), the fight against international terrorism, control over arms and disarmament, climate change problems on the planet.

Under President Bush Ml. The United States returned to the United Nations Organization on Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO), from which they published in 1984, having considered that it is irrationally spending American funds. In 2003, the United States returned to UNESCO, since it, in their opinion, conducted significant financial and administrative reforms and resumed actions to strengthen their fundamental principles. In addition, the US full participation in UNESCO is important for them from the point of view of national interests, and they could not stay aside for a long time. For example, UNESCO "Education for All" Program, created in order to make publicly available universal basic education, contributed to the promotion of US goals in the educational sphere.

In the XXI century, new challenges and threats were replaced by the confrontation of two ideological blocks and the threat of direct clash with the use of nuclear weapons: international terrorism, human trafficking, international drug trafficking, infectious diseases, poverty, environmental degradation. In this regard, US President J. Bush-ml. And the State Secretary of the K. Rais proclaimed new diplomacy, "transformation diplomacy" (Transformal Diplomacy). The logic of the administration was that "unnaviable states" can not cope with these problems, and therefore measures are needed aimed at strengthening civil society, the development of the legal state and culture of free elections, prompting to economic openness by reducing corruption, eliminating business barriers, Enhance human capital through education. The new diplomacy is focused on the responsible management, economic reforms, the development of strong regional and local organizations, both government and non-governmental.

In this regard, the interaction of the United States of America with the UN is determined by three principles.

The United States, as a statement by the White House, wanted the UN to comply with the idea of \u200b\u200bits founders, obliging all Member States to contribute to international peace and security, guaranteeing their citizens freedom, health and economic opportunities.

Further. The United States has sought to provide an effective multilateral approach. In their opinion, such diplomacy was not to be limited to empty declarations, but to promote peace, freedom, sustainable development, health care and humanitarian assistance for the benefit of ordinary citizens on each continent. At the same time, if the UN does not fulfill its destination, the United States considered himself obliged to declare it. Also, in their opinion, other countries should come.

Finally, the United States achieves rational UN resource management. Effective UN should intelligently spend its resources. Those who are addressed to help on its programs should really receive it. The United States intended to work with other Member States, providing reasonable management and financing of UN organizations and programs, as well as promote reforms that enhance the capacity and effectiveness of the UN.

These three principles of US interaction with the UN, according to the help of the White House, were determined by five American priorities:

Ensure the preservation of peace and the protection of civilians who threaten wars and tyranny;

Put a multilateral approach to the service of democracy, freedom and efficient management. These goals were to identify almost all UN activities. The United States attached priority to creating such a situation when all participants in the UN system would realize that the strengthening of freedom, the authorities of the law and effective management represents an integral part of their mission. Similarly, the United States was considered necessary to vigorously support the UN effort on organizing the help of emerging democracies in elections, preparation of judges, strengthening the authorities of the law and reducing corruption;

Helping countries and persons experiencing extreme need. The United States has often endorsed the UN actions for humanitarian assistance;

Promote economic development-oriented. According to the United States, the market, economic freedom and power of the law are needed for sustainable development. In addition, foreign financial assistance can contribute to growth in that and only if the governments of developing countries will have the necessary reforms;

Insist on reforms and budget discipline in the UN. The emphasis on the main tasks, the fulfillment of the goals and reasonable use of the Member States contributions not only will improve the UN Institutes, but also increase their authority and support in the United States and other countries. The United States will combine efforts with other members to help the UN reform weakly functioning institutions and close ineffective and outdated programs. Moreover, the United States intends to ensure that the leadership posts get only countries supporting the fundamental ideals of the UN.

Since the end of the Cold War, the UN has become an important US foreign policy instrument in their efforts to distribute those values \u200b\u200bin which the Americans believe. The United States believes that they are as a founder state, the receiving party and the most influential UN member state are necessary for the successful functioning of the organization. Hence, they believe, it is very important to preserve the leading role of the United States in the UN.

The United States believes that they should form priorities and lead the leadership of various activities of the UN, to confront initiatives contrary to American politics, and also strive to achieve their goals at the lowest price for American taxpayers. In their opinion, American leadership is necessary to promote the main American and UN principles and values.

The United States positively evaluate the activities of the UN as a peacemaker, an intermediary and a representative of the world community in Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Haiti, Lebanon, Syria, Western Sahara, Congo, Cat D'Ivoire, Liberia. In addition, the UN, in their opinion, plays an important role in issues such as the fight against HIV / AIDS, eliminating the consequences of the tsunami, the fight against illiteracy, the dissemination of democracy, the protection of human rights, the struggle against slave trade, freedom of media, civil aviation, Trade, development, refugee protection, food delivery, vaccination and immunization, election monitoring.

At the same time, the United States noted such disadvantages of the UN as the presence of programs started from the best motives, but with the time of the most useless and absorbing a large number of resources that could be used more efficiently. To disadvantages, they rank excessive politicization of issues, and therefore it is impossible to work on them; Such situations in which States come to the smallest general denominator, thus reaching agreement for the sake of consent; and a position in which countries violating the rights of their citizens sponsoring terrorism and participating in the distribution of wampges are allowed to determine the outcome of solutions.

According to the United States, many UN issues are caused by a deficit of democracy in member countries. Non-democratic states, by the conviction of Washington, do not follow the universal principles of the UN protection of human rights, in addition, by virtue of a large number of such states, they have a significant impact. According to the United States plan, the United Nations, which consists of democracies, would not face the problem of its contradiction between government sovereignty and universal principles of the organization (so, in one time in the White House did not welcomed the election of Libya Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, and Syria included US to the list of terrorism countries is to the Security Council).

In statements of the State Department, it was noted that it is necessary to avoid laying responsibility for the failures of the whole organization on its individual structures or on individual Member States: the UN is so effective as its members themselves want, but this does not mean that they are the source of all the troubles in the UN, Since there are problems within its individual organs and structures.

In Washington, it was believed that the United Nations did not possess indisputable authority and legitimacy and is not the only mechanism for making decisions on the use of force. "Those who believe that ignore the obvious and incorrectly interpret the Charter of the Organization. The UN is a political association, whose members protect their national interests," said the Deputy Head of the US State Department for International Organizations K. Cholms. He also explained that the UN Security Council is not the only and not the main source of international law, even in cases relating to international peace and security. "We still live in a world organized in accordance with Westphalian international order, where sovereign states conclude contracts. Following the conditions of these treaties, including treaties within the UN itself, is an integral right of states and their peoples."

In 2007, the Deputy Secretary of State K. Silverberg stated that the exclusion of the UN from the Competitive Process with other foreign policy instruments should be avoided. When the problem of solving any foreign policy task arises in front of the United States, they use the tool for conducting foreign policy, which is considered to be the most appropriate. In this sense, the UN system does not always have a priority: "In order to work effectively through the UN system, it is necessary to really evaluate its capabilities. UN criticism often do not perceive the value of multilateralism and universalism and ignore the vast work of various UN structures. But the multilateral approach is effective only Then, when it is practiced among relatively similar countries, such as in NATO. Add universal membership here, and difficulties increase. We will add a wide range of bureaucracy, and it becomes even harder. "

In its approach to the United Nations administration J. Bush-ml. Combined numerous assurances in the commitment and support of the World Organization with the promotion of the opinion that the UN is not a key tool for collective regulation of international relations and permits the problems of international peace and security. The White House believed that the UN should be in a competitive process on a par with other tools of foreign policy, such as NATO, and in the event of a foreign policy problem, they choose the means that, in their opinion, will be the most suitable and effective for a particular situation.

Nevertheless, the United States did not refuse multilateral diplomacy at the United Nations platform, which through a network of specialized agencies is quite successfully engaged in various problems. The UN is important to the United States for the implementation of national interests, such as the dissemination of their ideals and values \u200b\u200baround the world. Particular importance under the President of J. Bush-ml. The United States attached the UN roles in supporting and developing democratic movements and institutions in all countries and building democratic states in accordance with their concept of "democracy of transformations". In their opinion, the UN activities are simply indispensable in such states as Burma, Sudan, Iran and North Korea.

It is worth noting that the Bush administration in their approach left for the United Nations to solve problems in the main humanitarian, social and economic nature - such as the fight against hunger, poverty, illiteracy, infectious diseases, elimination of the consequences of natural disasters, solving sustainable development issues. The priority right to solve the US military-political issues still reserve, arguing that "the success of a multilateral approach is measured by not following the process, but the achievement of the results" and that "the consideration of the UN and other multilateral institutions as one variant from the set is important. This approach sets to the chapter angle to achieve its own foreign policy goals of the United States to the detriment of the principles and norms of international law.