The role of the UN in preventing and resolving international conflicts. The role of the UN in resolving and preventing international conflicts What is the role of the UN in resolving international conflicts

Short description

The main purpose of this essay is to examine the concept of “international conflict”, the activities of the UN as a guarantor of international peace and security, UN mechanisms used to resolve conflict situations and a set of factors influencing the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of the UN.

Introduction
1. What is an international conflict?
2. The role and methods of the UN in resolving and preventing international conflicts.
3. New challenges and threats of our time.
4. The main factors of the ineffectiveness of the UN mechanism in resolving international crises.
Conclusion
List of used literature and sources

Attached files: 1 file

Another problem is related to the fact that the introduction of sanctions damages not only the economy of the country against which they are imposed, but also the economy of the state imposing sanctions. This happens especially in cases where these countries had close economic and trade ties and relationships before the imposition of sanctions.

1. New challenges and threats of our time.

In today's realities of world politics, new threats and conflicts have arisen, which, in the new conditions of the globalization process, undermine the security and stability of entire regions and groups of countries.
Over the last decade of the 20th century. There has been a qualitative change in the nature of conflicts. They began to have not so much an interstate, but an intrastate character. These are predominantly civil conflicts between population groups that differ primarily along the lines of ethnicity, race, religion or culture. It is precisely such differences and the emerging new group interests that are the reasons for the emergence of new and escalation of old conflicts and wars.

In the traditional sense international security the emphasis is on two, largely mutually exclusive, points. Firstly, on the task of the physical survival of the state and on its right and opportunity to behave in the international system, guided primarily by its sovereignty. In practice, this encourages the strong to violate international security in favor of their own interests. Secondly, on the task of guaranteed maintenance of peace in relations between states within a certain political space. At the same time, the question is not raised about on what objective basis, other than the desire of the participants, peace will be maintained and how it can be guaranteed over a long period of time.

Back in the early 70s of the 20th century, many researchers noted the emergence and increasing role of non-state actors in international relations, with a simultaneous relative decrease in the role of individual sovereign national states. Supporters of neoliberal views drew attention to the positive, from their point of view, nature of such processes. Meanwhile, today their negative side has come to light. Thanks to technical and technological progress, and the development of means of communication, non-governmental international terrorist organizations, which undoubtedly include Al-Qaeda, have received opportunities unprecedented for such structures. In the new conditions, these organizations are capable of challenging even the most economically and militarily powerful states and creating a direct threat to their security. The states, as it turned out, turned out to be poorly prepared for new challenges and vulnerable to the danger posed by opponents with significantly fewer resources. Consequently, it can be concluded that security issues are acquiring a new dimension both nationally and internationally. international levels. This is very important to take into account in theory and practice. international relations.

IN modern world The economic and information aspects of security are becoming increasingly important. Economic crises in the context of globalization of the world economy can, in a matter of hours, destabilize national economies located thousands of kilometers apart. It is difficult to imagine the possible consequences of failures in the functioning of information networks, since information becomes an important economic, political and social resource. Unsolved global problems of our time - environmental, energy, food - also fill the concept of international security with new content.

The socio-political conditions in which fundamentally new tasks in the system of international relations as a whole and in the sphere of international security must be solved have also changed. If previously the state had two clearly demarcated areas of activity - internal and external, and security in them was ensured in very different ways, then at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries this line was blurred. Previously, the state, having achieved internal stability, was quite confident that it could stand up for itself externally. In our time, the international sphere can, in principle, break any state, no matter how internally stable, even if it does not show any signs of external aggressiveness (for example, in the case of a global nuclear disaster dozens of neutral countries would have been destroyed “along the way”). On the other hand, the international sphere can become a powerful factor in the internal security of a state, which for some reason cannot be achieved by other means.

The ability of the international community to prevent conflicts is still quite limited. These restrictions stem from the "structural heritage" cold war"constraining multilateral action, while the growing number of interventions reflects the rise in deadly internal conflicts." The growing number of internal armed conflicts is reducing the role of states in conflict prevention; States' traditional strategic means, such as containment diplomacy and coercion, become significantly less suitable.

1. The main factors of the ineffectiveness of the UN mechanism in resolving international crises.

Over the years, the United Nations has played an important role in helping to prevent international crises and resolve protracted conflicts. It carried out complex operations related to establishing and maintaining peace and providing humanitarian assistance. IN last years The UN, regional organizations, governmental and non-governmental organizations are involved in conducting regular analyzes of “lessons learned” and “best practices” in relation to failed missions or missed opportunities. In addition, numerous well-publicized and funded research projects and special reports provide policy recommendations that go directly to the actual decision makers. high level, at the UN and other organizations.

However, despite all this, it is still not clear how to prevent conflict. Conflicts continue to arise, and many of them become violent. Only in the 1990s. Some 5.5 million people have died in nearly 100 armed conflicts. These deadly conflicts have led to large-scale devastation and regional instability, as well as large numbers of refugees. The international community remains unable to prevent wars, and the focus of many organizations is on limiting the negative consequences of violence.

A major source of concern for the international community is its inability to reliably and accurately predict and respond quickly to conflicts that threaten to become violent. This is due both to the complex dynamics of internal, ethnic and religious conflicts and to the reluctance of states to undertake efforts that involve greater risk and expense. However, the growing presence of international organizations, as well as state and non-state organizations in conflict zones, offers hope that increasing the number of parties involved in conflict prevention can reduce the number of missed opportunities in the future.

The sobering experiences of the UN and the wider international community in Somalia, Rwanda and Yugoslavia have led since the mid-nineties to the realization that there is a clear need to re-evaluate the role of the UN and other international organizations in conflict prevention and management. This awareness was based on the recognition that to prevent conflicts, one must have a good understanding of them and the relationship between their occurrence and failed states and state formation, and an institution that can implement policy decisions quickly and consistently.

As a result, in the late nineties, the scientific community and independent panels of experts began to develop important research projects and policy recommendations regarding victims of internal conflicts and the viability and usefulness of preventive diplomacy. A number of studies have focused specifically on the UN, its reform and its ability to respond to conflicts and complex emergencies. Finally, the publication in late 1999 of reports on the UN missions in Srebrenica and Rwanda provides a comprehensive picture of the lessons learned in cases where the UN missed opportunities to prevent deadly violence from escalating into total genocide.

Recent lessons from Rwanda and Srebrenica provide valuable insight into how the UN's approach to situations of unfolding conflict and deadly violence can be improved. Key issues are the use of force, command and control, and the training and equipment of UN peacekeeping forces. The significant question remains how troop-contributing states relate to a peacekeeping operation and what the role of the Security Council is in that regard.

In both Rwanda and Bosnia, the UN failed to prevent genocide. In each of these cases there was much warning of impending massacres, but the UN acted completely wrong in both cases. Two reports analyzing these situations were finally published in late 1999. Given that Kofi Annan was the special rapporteur on the Srebrenica massacre and one of the key UN figures partially blamed for the failed mission during the Rwandan genocide, These reports are in the global spotlight and can have a significant impact on future conflict prevention and management policies.

Chapter VI of the UN Charter calls on the parties between whom disagreements have arisen to try to resolve them peacefully, resorting to a wide variety of diplomatic means. Article 99 of the Charter gives the Secretary-General the power to report to the Security Council “on any matter which, in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.”

However, the effectiveness of these means is limited by the reluctance of UN member states and especially the permanent members of the Security Council to grant greater powers to the Secretary General and his organization. For many years, proposals to create a force were rejected rapid response UN, which are important element conflict prevention, despite being advocated by prominent politicians and experts such as Brian Urquhart.

In connection with these and many other problems in resolving international conflicts, Urquhart in his article proposes various measures for reforming the UN, which should help the UN become a “substantial and effective instrument of world order.” These measures include:

• it is necessary to create an effective early warning system based on economic, social, as well as political information;
• create a special UN forum where leaders of ethnic and other oppressed groups could present their problems and receive recommendations on how to resolve them from experts;
• it is necessary to position the Security Council in favor of preventive measures, which will require greater willingness on the part of governments to accept UN assistance;
• it is necessary to reorganize the Security Council in order to make it more representative and thereby give it greater legitimacy;
• it is necessary to develop a legal framework for UN operations with the prospect of developing it into a generally accepted international legal and constitutional system with appropriate monitoring and, if necessary, an enforcement mechanism;
• it is necessary to create conditions under which, under the influence public opinion and international organizations, governments of all countries would make efforts to solve problems related to arms control;
• It is necessary to create a permanent, well-trained and morally prepared rapid response team, independent of the consent of governments to provide troops.

Urquhart also proposes some other reform measures. But, despite all the listed shortcomings of the UN in the field of conflict resolution, its role as a guarantor of peace and security in resolving international conflicts is very great. And it is this organization that carries out various complex operations related to establishing and maintaining peace and provides various humanitarian assistance.

Conclusion.

Throughout the entire period of its existence (1944-2005), the UN has been and remains the leading and most authoritative and influential international organization in the world. It has accumulated vast peacekeeping experience, taking into account the positions of all participating states, and has really contributed to the formation of a new world order, democratization and the expansion of integration processes.

IN beginning of XXI century there has been a significant surge in activity in world politics, which determined, firstly, the need for a new system of international relations based on non-violence, tolerance, respect international law and respect for human rights, Secondly, the need to move to new philosophy, in which non-violent resolution of disputes and conflicts will be a priority. At the same time, there is an intensive search for ways and forms of strengthening international security.

Trends occurring in the world have consolidated the role of the UN in the formation of a new philosophy advocating non-violent methods of conflict resolution. The UN has become one of the centers for efforts to combat modern threats and challenges, primarily international terrorism, drug trafficking, organized crime, illegal migration, etc.

In addition to new security threats, the situation is worsened by regional conflicts, protracted conflicts with many victims and refugees, in which, as a rule, terrorism, extremism, nationalism, and organized crime are intertwined. In this regard, it is necessary to pay more attention to the fundamental, basic issues of ensuring security and developing cooperation, since at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries the work of the UN began to risk its transformation from a universal mechanism that develops the collective will of member states into an instrument of influence on individual state that violates international law. At the same time, it is necessary to comprehensively increase the UN’s ability to respond to threats and challenges in the security sphere.

The implementation of the totality of these measures means, in essence, reforming the UN. The task of any reform is, first of all, to eliminate shortcomings through modernization in accordance with the requirements of the time. In particular, it is necessary to highlight the reform of the UN Security Council, since it is this body that is entrusted with the main responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Based on the study and analysis of the practical activities of the Security Council, it seems that the most important and fundamental issue of future reform should not be changing the structure or order of decision-making and strengthening the main role of the UN Security Council in matters of ensuring international peace and security, but increasing its strategic role for more effective responding to modern threats. It is doubtful that increasing the number of permanent members of the UN Security Council will increase the authority of this organization in the eyes of the world community or the effectiveness of its activities. It is possible that an increase in the number of permanent members of the UN Council, on the contrary, will reduce this effectiveness, since with a larger number of its permanent members, firstly, it will be more difficult to come to a common decision, and, secondly, the veto power will be used much more often.

Since ancient times, to resolve conflicts, a third party has been involved, who intervened between the conflicting parties in order to find a peaceful solution. Usually the most respected people in society acted as the third party. In medieval Europe, before they were formed nation states, vital role The Pope played as a third party in resolving conflicts. Acting more as a judge than as a mediator, he decided how the dispute should end. However, later the role of the Pope in resolving conflicts decreased significantly.

From the moment of their formation to the present, national states have been very active and continue to act as a third party in resolving conflicts, since conflicts, especially armed ones, have always directly affected their interests. However, the world has become more complex, therefore, along with states, third parties in it can and often are groups of states united to resolve a specific conflict; international universal and regional organizations; church; informal (non-governmental) institutions and organizations, and in some cases, individuals making efforts to peacefully resolve the conflict. Moreover, it should be noted that the role of other, non-governmental, participants in conflict resolution in the modern world is increasing.

One of such mediators at the present stage is the United Nations. Back in 1945, the UN Charter assigned the future organization a high role in maintaining international peace and security. Initially, it was to consider threats to peace, acts of aggression, disputes and conflicts between states. The Security Council, based on consensus and military power of its five permanent members, was supposed to carry out peaceful resolution of disputes, eliminate, suppress threats to peace and acts of aggression or counter them with force. General principles international peace and security, including principles for guiding disarmament and arms control, were to be the subject of consideration by the General Assembly and recommendations to member states or the Security Council.

Over the 55 years of its existence, the UN has accumulated a lot of experience in resolving armed conflicts. However, in the 90s of the twentieth century, the nature of armed conflicts changed. The vast majority of clashes currently are internal. The resolution of an intrastate conflict collides with the sovereignty of individual states, which often do not want outside interference in their national policy. Therefore, already in the mid-90s, based on the experience of conflict resolution, the development of a strategy for the prevention of armed conflicts began.

But each conflict is unique in nature, so at this stage it is not yet possible to create a universal early warning system. However, the creation of a system that will have data on the socio-economic situation in various countries ah, is one of the most important activities of the UN research centers.

Identifying the very first signs of an armed conflict today is based on monitoring the situation directly at regional level. In this area, the UN relies on its representatives in various countries around the world, regional organizations, NGOs and civil society. In addition, according to Article 35 of the Charter of the United Nations, any Member of the United Nations or any interested non-Member State may bring to the attention of the Security Council or the General Assembly any dispute or situation which may give rise to international friction and give rise to a dispute .

But, unfortunately, according to some authors, the UN has shown itself to be poorly prepared to prevent conflicts. As Urquhart B. points out in his article, “by the new organization of the United Nations” “everyone knew that Yugoslavia after the death of Tito was not a stable state...”, “it was also known in advance about most of the current conflicts. And yet, despite all the talk about the desirability of preventive action, no preventive efforts were made.” As the author points out, the actions taken by the UN were reactive and motivated by criticism from the media and the public, they were also slow and inadequate. And this does not fit into the UN concept of conflict prevention at all.

If the conflict moves to the next stage of armed conflict, then the UN carries out various operations to maintain and restore peace, for example, introducing peacekeeping forces. The assistance of the UN armed forces ("blue helmets") is often resorted to in the event of an armed conflict. They are multinational formations, the creation of which on the basis of a decision of the Security Council is provided for by the UN Charter. The idea of ​​using armed forces under the auspices of the UN was put forward during the settlement of the Suez crisis in 1956 by the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs L. Piersen (for which he received Nobel Prize peace) and was supported by the then UN Secretary General D. Hammarskjöld. Subsequently, UN troops participated in peacekeeping operations in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Central America. Thus, in 1973, UN troops were quickly deployed in the Middle East, which reduced tensions caused by the advance of Israeli troops deeper into Egyptian territory. The UN armed forces also performed peacekeeping functions in Cyprus, Lebanon and many other “hot spots” on the planet. Peacekeeping forces can remain in a conflict zone for a long time, remaining there even after agreements are reached, as was the case, for example, in Cyprus, where their task was to prevent clashes between representatives of the Greek and Turkish communities. In Cyprus, they acted as a guarantor that a new round of armed confrontation would not begin.

Use peacekeeping forces The UN was preceded by the activities of military observers, which later became quite widespread. A group of UN military observers was present in India and Pakistan, in the Middle East. The task of military observers (and this is where they differ from “observers of the negotiations”) comes down mainly to monitoring the implementation of the truce, identifying facts of its violation and submitting reports to the UN Security Council.

Simultaneously with the introduction of peacekeeping forces, a buffer zone is often created in order to separate the armed forces of the warring parties. The introduction of free-fly zones is also practiced in order to prevent air strikes by one of the parties to the conflict. In particular, such zones were introduced in the airspace of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution No. 781 of October 9, 1992, and in March 1993, in development of this resolution, the Security Council adopted a new resolution. According to which the use of all necessary measures in the event of further airspace violation.

In some conflicts, the military is assigned additional functions, including the delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians (this function was actively implemented, in particular, in the Bosnian conflict), ensuring the holding of free elections (as, for example, in Namibia).

However, along with the positive aspects, the use of armed units has a number of limitations and negative aspects.

First of all, peacekeeping troops cannot always be brought in. The states into whose territory they are introduced must give consent to their deployment. Countries may refuse to accept peacekeeping troops, considering the deployment of the latter as interference in their internal affairs. The problem of neutrality of armed formations is quite acute: how they are perceived warring parties as neutral, and not supporting one side or another in the conflict. They are often attacked by both sides, who accuse them of partiality and bias.

The problem of neutrality can be partially solved by the simultaneous introduction of various troops (collective peacekeeping forces). Such actions make it possible to increase the “degree of objectivity” to some extent, although they do not completely eliminate the problem: and when simultaneous administration they may be accused of bias by various peacekeeping countries. In addition, when introducing collective peacekeeping forces, another problem often arises - a discrepancy in the assessment of the situation among various subjects of the peacekeeping process. In this case, the effectiveness of their actions is called into question. In addition, there is a danger of conflict between those countries whose troops were brought in.

Another way that allows us to slightly increase the level of perception of the troops being introduced as neutral is to follow the UN principle, according to which a country located in a conflict-ridden region and directly or indirectly interested in one or another outcome usually does not participate in the settlement. For the same reason, the dominant power in the region should not have any advantages in carrying out peacekeeping actions. However, in practice this principle is difficult to implement. The argument here is usually a defense national security and ensuring the rights of its citizens located in the conflict zone.

And finally, the most a big problem is that the introduction of peacekeeping forces does not replace a political settlement of the conflict. This act can only be considered temporary - for the period of searching for a peaceful solution.

Another common means of influence by a third party on parties to conflicts, which is restrictive and coercive in nature, is the imposition of sanctions. Sanctions are quite widely used in international practice. They are introduced by states on their own initiative or by decision of international organizations. The imposition of sanctions is provided for by the UN Charter in the event of a threat to peace, a violation of the peace or an act of aggression on the part of any state.

Unlike the introduction of peacekeeping forces, sanctions do not imply the consent of the person against whom they are imposed. Exist different types sanctions. Trade sanctions cover the import and export of goods and technology, with particular emphasis on those that could be used for military purposes. Financial sanctions include prohibitions or restrictions on the provision of loans, credit, as well as investments. Political sanctions are also used, for example, expulsion of the aggressor from international organizations and severance of diplomatic relations with him.

As M.M. Lebedeva points out, the following considerations usually serve as arguments for applying sanctions to the warring parties:

• * “developing relations with a state that does not strive for a peaceful resolution of contradictions means political and economic support for the conflict;
• * many types of products, especially in the electronics industry, can be used by parties to the conflict for military purposes, which also to a greater extent will increase the conflict;
• * if foreign firms or foreign capital play a significant role in the economy of the conflicting countries, then their withdrawal will weaken the regime of the authorities, and this may contribute to a change in its political course regarding the conflict.”

Along with the positive aspects, sanctions, like the introduction of armed forces by a third party, are fraught with many negative consequences. First of all, sanctions themselves do not solve the problem of political settlement of the conflict. Introduced to induce participants to end the conflict, sanctions lead to the isolation of these countries from the outside world. As a result, the ability to influence the conflict from the outside in order to find its resolution through peaceful means is limited.

Another problem is related to the fact that the introduction of sanctions damages not only the economy of the country against which they are imposed, but also the economy of the state imposing sanctions. This happens especially in cases where these countries had close economic and trade ties and relationships before the imposition of sanctions.

In connection with these and many other problems in resolving international conflicts, Urquhart in his article proposes various measures for reforming the UN, which should help the UN become a “substantial and effective instrument of world order.” These measures include:

• 1. it is necessary to create an effective early warning system based on economic, social, as well as political information,
• 2. create a special UN forum where leaders of ethnic and other oppressed groups could present their problems and receive recommendations on how to resolve them from experts,
• 3. it is necessary to position the Security Council in favor of preventive measures, which will require greater willingness on the part of governments to accept UN assistance,
• 4. it is necessary to reorganize the Security Council in order to make it more representative and thereby give it greater legitimacy,
• 5. it is necessary to develop the legal basis for UN operations with the prospect of developing it into a generally accepted international legal and constitutional system with appropriate monitoring and, if necessary, an enforcement mechanism,
• 6. it is necessary to create conditions under which, under the influence of public opinion and international organizations, governments of all countries would make efforts to solve problems related to arms control,
• 7. It is necessary to create a permanent, well-trained and morally prepared rapid reaction group, independent of the consent of governments to provide troops.

Urquhart also proposes some other reform measures. But, despite all the listed shortcomings of the UN in the field of conflict resolution, its role as a guarantor of peace and security in resolving international conflicts is very great. And it is this organization that carries out various complex operations related to establishing and maintaining peace and provides various humanitarian assistance.

international political globalization

The UN is a forum of sovereign states and what it can do depends on the mutual understanding they reach among themselves. The UN Security Council has developed a system of principles and measures for maintaining peace and resolving conflicts.

1. The cornerstone of this system remains the state, respect for its integrity and sovereignty. But the time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty has passed, real life often refuted pure ones, theoretical concepts. Thus, issues of trade, communication and ecology know no boundaries, and “closed” societies objectively can no longer exist in the modern world. In addition, the previous consensus that existed in the world community and enshrined in international law regarding how and under what conditions interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state is permissible is losing its strength. The objective prerequisite for this is, first of all, the real processes of globalization and democratization, as well as the increasingly widespread (and largely justified) doubts arising from this that the main and almost exclusive threats to international security and stability stem from external sources. , that is, from interstate violence. Organized and large-scale violence carried out within a state (as was the case, for example, in Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda, etc.) today is becoming not only a private domestic political problem, but also a real issue of international security, which neither the world community Neither modern international law has yet a fully satisfactory answer.

As is known, in modern international law there is a principle of the prohibition of the use of force or the threat thereof, which is enshrined in the UN Charter. This principle is universal, that is, it is binding on all states, not just UN members. This principle means that armed force can be used against a state only if its actions pose a threat to international peace or security. At the same time, the UN Charter directly provides that a state may use armed force in self-defense either in the event of external aggression or to implement a decision of the UN Security Council. International practice shows that the Security Council can be an effective and authoritative body that, through its decisions, contributes to the strengthening of international peace and security.

At the same time, conflicts that threaten international peace and security are especially common in Lately arise not only between states, but also within the territory of any individual state (so-called internal conflicts). It is clear that not all internal conflicts pose a threat to international peace and security, but only those that are associated with massive violations of human rights and freedoms, so-called “domicide” (as opposed to genocide), ethnic violence, etc. But just in relation to to them a new and not yet satisfactorily resolved international legal problem arises, namely: is the use of force justified except in self-defense? In particular, is this acceptable in the case of “humanitarian crises”?

If you turn to UN Charter, then it de jure does not provide for the implementation of acts of armed intervention on humanitarian grounds, that is, in connection with violations of human and civil rights and freedoms. If we take a strictly legal approach to the relevant decisions of the Security Council, then the introduction of armed forces on the territory of individual states in connection with “humanitarian problems” can be regarded, in accordance with Article 2(7) of the Charter, as interference in the internal affairs of the state. Confirmation of this can be found in the practice of the International Court of Justice, which, back in 1986, in the Nicaragua case, stated that “the use of force cannot be an appropriate method for... ensuring... respect” for human rights.

And yet, despite the theoretical lack of development, legal complexity and political delicacy of all these issues, in this case, it seems that we are dealing with a certain lag between international law and real processes in the sphere of politics and morality. Today, a new, much more detailed and clear definition of the legal aspects of the use of force in international relations in the context of globalization and democratization, and the development of additional criteria for its use in accordance with the UN Charter, including in humanitarian emergencies, are urgently required. Particular attention should be paid to developing a clear international legal interpretation of humanitarian crises.

In addition, it is necessary to take into account the precedent nature of the international community’s intervention in the internal affairs of certain states on humanitarian grounds. In reality, the Security Council, when deciding on the use of armed forces against any country, takes into account both humanitarian motives and arguments. Thus, by resolution 688 (1990), the Security Council authorized a multinational force to carry out armed intervention in Iraq to protect the Kurds; resolutions 794 (1992) and 929 (1994) authorized groups of States to establish a multinational military force using armed forces in Somalia and Rwanda respectively to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid and other humanitarian operations.

Let us note that at the Moscow meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE in 1991 it was recognized that “issues relating to human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law are international character, since they constitute one of the foundations of the international order." The participating States of this meeting emphasized that "they categorically and definitively declare that the commitments they have undertaken in the field of the human dimension of the CSCE are matters of direct and legitimate interest to all States, and not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the state concerned."

One of the important consequences of the processes of globalization and democratization developing in the modern world is that humanitarian problems and issues of respect for human rights go beyond the exclusively internal competence of individual states. Global community with full justification and right today reacts to violations by one state or another of its obligations in the field of human rights. At the same time, it is fundamentally important that in every special case appropriate reactions and actions (including forceful ones) taken international community, would be adequate and proportionate and carried out on behalf of the UN Security Council.

Considering the above, apparently, the time has come to raise the question of developing and concluding international treaty, which, on the basis of modern international law and taking into account new political realities, would determine in what cases and for what purposes intervention on humanitarian grounds is permissible (or even required). In particular, such a treaty would establish which violations of human rights and freedoms constitute grounds for international intervention. Probably, a certain international body (perhaps under the Security Council) should have been created to implement the goals of such a treaty.

And yet, there are a number of UN Security Council measures that help maintain peace and security.

"Human Diplomacy"- these are actions aimed at preventing the emergence of disputes by the parties, preventing existing disputes from escalating into conflicts and limiting the scope of conflicts after they arise.

"Establishing Peace"- These are actions aimed at forcing warring parties to come to an agreement, mainly through peaceful means.

"Keeping the Peace"- is ensuring the presence of the UN or a “third party” in a given specific area, which has so far been done with the consent of all interested parties, which, as a rule, is associated with the deployment of military, police, civilian personnel, both in terms of conflict prevention and establishment peace..

"Preventive diplomacy" requires the implementation of measures aimed at establishing confidence. This requires information about the situation for early warning of conflict.

Mutual trust and goodwill between the parties and preventive measures are also required: systematic exchange of military missions, the formation of regional or subregional centers to reduce danger, and the organization of free flows of information.

In times of national crisis, "preventive deployment" takes place at the request of the government and with the consent of the parties concerned; “preventive deployment” can also take place when one of the parties perceives a threat and requests an appropriate presence of peace forces from only its borders. “Preventive deployment” helps reduce suffering, limit violence in the country, provide humanitarian assistance, ensure state sovereignty, and conduct negotiations. "Preventive deployment" promotes the creation (by agreement of the parties) of demilitarized zones as a means of separating warring parties, as well as eliminating any pretext for attack.

The most significant role in the system of international relations at the present stage is played by the United Nations (UN). It became practically the first mechanism in history for broad multifaceted interaction between different states in order to maintain peace and security, promote economic and social progress of all peoples.

The most important tasks The United Nations is committed to stopping the proliferation of weapons and to reducing and ultimately eliminating all stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations serves as a permanent forum for disarmament negotiations, making recommendations and initiating research in this area. It supports multilateral negotiations taking place within the Conference on Disarmament and other international bodies. As a result of these negotiations, international agreements were concluded such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty nuclear weapons(1968), - Comprehensive Ban Treaty nuclear tests(1996) - treaties on the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones.

Based in Vienna International agency By atomic energy, through a system of safeguards agreements, is responsible for ensuring that nuclear materials and equipment intended for peaceful purposes are not used for military purposes.

The fundamentals of the UN’s activities and its structure were developed during the Second World War by leading participants Anti-Hitler coalition.

The UN Charter was approved at the San Francisco Conference held from April to June 1945. According to it, “admission to membership of the Organization is open to all peace-loving states that accept the obligations contained in the Charter of the United Nations and which, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to fulfill these obligations.” The admission of states to membership of the United Nations is carried out by decision of the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council.

The UN General Assembly is considering the principles of cooperation in the field of ensuring international peace and security; elects non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, members of the Economic and Social Council; on the recommendation of the Security Council, appoints the UN Secretary-General; jointly with the Security Council, elects members of the International Court of Justice; coordinates the international cooperation in the economic, social, cultural and humanitarian spheres; exercises other powers provided for in the UN Charter. The General Assembly has a sessional order of work. It can hold regular, special and emergency special sessions. The annual regular session of the Assembly opens on the third Tuesday in September.

Special sessions of the UN General Assembly may be convened on any issue at the request of the Security Council or at the request of a majority of UN members within 15 days from the date of receipt of such a request by the UN Secretary-General.

Emergency special sessions may be convened at the request of the UN Security Council or a majority of UN member states within 24 hours of receipt of such a request by the UN Secretary-General.

The UN Economic and Social Council is established by the Charter of the United Nations as the main body responsible for coordinating the economic, social and other related activities of the UN, as well as specialized agencies and organizations. Consists of 5 regional commissions for Europe, Africa, etc.

The seat of the International Court of Justice, established by the Charter of the United Nations as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, is The Hague, the Netherlands. International Court is a forum for the peaceful settlement of legal disputes between states. The Court also prepares advisory opinions for the UN and its specialized agencies.

The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security; All members of the UN are obliged to obey its decisions.

The Security Council consists of 15 members: five members of the Council are permanent (Russia, USA, Great Britain, France and China, with veto power), the remaining ten members (in the terminology of the Charter - “non-permanent”) are elected to the Council in accordance with the procedure provided for Charter.

Each of the listed UN structural divisions has subsidiary bodies on various specialized issues (educational and research institutes, agencies, committees, commissions, working groups, tribunals, specialized institutions).

Within the framework of the UN, a number of organizations have emerged that have organically entered the system of international relations both as UN structures and as independent organizations. These include:

WHO ( World Organization Healthcare);

ILO ( International Association Labor);

IMF (International Monetary Fund);

UNESCO (Cultural and Scientific Organization);

IAEA ( International Organization on Atomic Energy);

UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development);

International Court.

UN reform. Since 2006 (after the 2005 World Summit), a number of reports on UN reform have been presented. The main problems of UN reform are:

1. Lack of representation in relation to developing countries.

2. The privileged position of permanent members of the UN Security Council.

3. The need to resolve the financial problems of the Organization with the only solution - granting rich economically developed countries the status of permanent or “semi-permanent” members of the Security Council.

Reform of the Security Council is one of the key and hotly debated areas of UN reform. For quite a long time, negotiations on this point could not move forward. dead center, but with the advent of the G20, which is increasingly successfully winning back zones of influence from the G8, supporters of diplomatic innovations have gained a second wind.

The question also arises about the radicalness of reforming the Security Council. Most of the existing proposals for reforming the Security Council can be reduced to two groups.

First, various ideas to improve the effectiveness of the Council.

Supporters of radical reform of the Security Council believe that he usurped power in the UN, appropriated it to himself, a council of limited composition, controlled by its five permanent members who have the right of veto. As a result, the so-called “small countries” that do not have such a right cannot trust the Security Council.

One of the weighty arguments is the lack of application of the sanctions provisions of Article VII of the UN Charter to the United States and Great Britain after the events in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia. In this regard, supporters of radical reform of the Security Council demand the transfer of powers of the Security Council to the General Assembly, which will ensure a more democratic decision-making process: the application of the provisions of Chapter VII of the UN Charter should become the prerogative of the General Assembly, it should have the right to adopt binding resolutions, the Security Council should become an instrument for implementation of General Assembly resolutions. In this case, the UN General Assembly, performing the functions of the world parliament, will remain the main " legislative body and the Security Council will not be able to dictate its terms while remaining one of executive bodies.

Secondly, proposals to change the composition of the Security Council.

In this case, the interests and influence of various countries and regions should be taken into account.

Countries of the “South”: they lack the material resources to support the functioning of the UN and the ability to influence the Security Council, so developing countries rely on limiting the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council. These countries are demanding greater participation in the UN decision-making process, expanding the number of permanent members to 11 countries based on the principle of equal geographical representation, and the Security Council should consist of 26 countries in total.

Countries of regional importance such as Italy, Spain, Turkey, Malaysia and some Scandinavian and Latin American countries want to formalize their status by lifting the ban on membership in the Security Council.

Highly developed countries (Germany, Japan), as well as representatives of all three regional groups developing world(India, Pakistan, Indonesia in Asia; Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa in Africa; Brazil Argentina in Latin America) claim to be permanent members of the Security Council.

Finally, the five current permanent members of the Council are united in their desire to maintain their current status, including the right of veto.

The United States has always actively advocated UN reform to increase the number of its allies in the organization. Back in the 70s, Washington put forward the idea of ​​“quickfix” - the inclusion of Germany and Japan in the Security Council as permanent members. This would increase the number of American allies in the Security Council and at the same time reduce the size of US contributions to the UN budget, non-payment of which has become the main financial problem of the Organization. In the 1990s, under pressure from developing countries, Washington changed the “quickfix” to the “2+3” formula (Germany, Japan, plus one country from each region of the developing world). In 2000, the Bill Clinton administration agreed to expand the Security Council to more than 23 members.

Russia's position is ambiguous. Initially, based on the commitments given to Japan and Germany by Yeltsin, only these two candidates were supported. Subsequently, Russia's position was that the Security Council should include both industrialized and developing countries. The number of members of the expanded Security Council, according to Russia, should not exceed 20-21.

In the future, UN reform should concern:

1. freeing him from the political situation and bureaucratic fetters,

2. a sharp increase in the speed of response to crises and conflicts,

3. transfer main organizational work, primarily the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, from New York “to the field.”

An example of a balanced decision within the framework of UN reform is the fate of the Commission on Human Rights: having lost confidence, it was disbanded. The commission was overly politicized and used by states to selectively criticize each other rather than solve real problems. The commission was replaced by the Human Rights Council, whose 47 members are elected General Assembly UN. The General Assembly is authorized, by a vote of two-thirds of its members, to suspend the rights and privileges of a member of the Council if he has persistently committed gross and systematic violations of human rights.

On September 8, 2000, the General Assembly adopted a landmark document - the UN Millennium Declaration. In it, states noted the values ​​and principles that should be fundamental in the 21st century. In particular, the declaration set the vector for further transformation of the UN system and activities.

Comparison of what is proclaimed in the UN Charter with what has been implemented in practice, high and noble aspirations with real methods and methods of their implementation, as well as the results and consequences of many UN actions cannot but cause mixed feelings. The general indicator of the effectiveness of the UN for 55 years is as follows: at the end of the twentieth century. More than 1.5 billion people lived on less than $1 a day. More than 1 billion adults, mostly women, could not read or write; 830 million people suffered from malnutrition; 750 million people lacked access to adequate housing or health care.

The United Nations has certainly played a significant role in history and will leave a brighter mark on it than its predecessor, the League of Nations. Figuratively speaking, the UN played the role of a kind of international constitutional assembly to harmonize rules of law that have become common not only to individuals, but also to entire states. And a lot has been done in this capacity.

An undoubted achievement is the very unification of all peoples and states of the planet under the common banner of ensuring international peace and security. An unconditional achievement is also the recognition of the principle of sovereign equality of all states and the universal obligation not to interfere in each other's internal affairs. Thanks to the global organization, the share and role of secret diplomacy has been significantly reduced, the world has become more open, and humanity has become more informed about what is happening in it. The annual sessions of the General Assembly, which brings together the leading figures of almost all states of the world, give each state the opportunity to address the international community with its problems and concerns, and the inhabitants of the planet to learn in a timely manner what is primarily troubling humanity as a whole.

With the active participation of the UN, important international legal acts were developed and adopted, which in a certain sense determined the course of world politics in the second half of the twentieth century. Suffice it to note that the first resolution adopted by the General Assembly on January 24, 1946 dealt with the problems of the peaceful use of atomic energy and the elimination of atomic and other types of weapons of mass destruction.

Continuing the traditions of the League of Nations, the UN organized the work of its permanent body - the international Conferences on Disarmament in Geneva. It discussed the main ideas of treaties banning nuclear weapons tests: first in the atmosphere, underground and under water (signed in 1963), and then over the seas and oceans (1971). The main ideas of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons were also discussed here, according to which nuclear powers pledged not to provide nuclear weapons to other countries, and states that did not yet possess such weapons - not to develop or produce them. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 10 and has been open for signature since September 24, 1996, that is, more than half a century after the adoption of the first UN General Assembly resolution on the elimination of atomic and other weapons of mass destruction. In 1972, an agreement was signed banning the development, production and storage of bacteriological weapons, and another 20 years later (in 1992) a similar document was signed in relation to chemical weapons. In 1990, it was possible to achieve the conclusion of an agreement on the reduction of conventional armed forces in Europe.

Humanity has long been using the riches of the seas and oceans, but so far only a small fraction of what they can give to people. Land, rivers and lakes are already divided between peoples and states, belonging to those who live in the corresponding territories. Enormous wealth lies at the bottom of international seas and oceans. How to use them and on the basis of what right?

In 1958, UN member states signed the Convention on the Continental Shelf, according to which the shelf of an internationally agreed width is divided among all coastal states. In 1982, the International Convention on the Law of the Sea was concluded. In connection with the beginning of space exploration, the question arose about the ownership of space objects and their natural resources. After lengthy discussions, an agreement was signed in 1979 on the activities of states on the Moon and other celestial bodies. These agreements and the Convention on the Continental Shelf declared space, the deep seabed and its mineral resources common heritage of humanity.

According to these international agreements, it was found that:

1) the sphere of the common heritage of humanity is not subject to any appropriation by states, individuals and legal entities;

2) when using the resources of the common heritage of humanity, the interests of the entire international community must be taken into account;

3) states are obliged to ensure that the activities of their organizations and individuals in areas of the common heritage of humanity are carried out in strict accordance with international rules;

4) when developing resources in these areas, the necessary measures must be taken to protect the environment.

Another important field of activity of the UN is its assistance in the process of eliminating colonial dependence and gaining the peoples of Africa, Asia and the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans state independence. The UN General Assembly adopted in 1960 played an extremely important role in this process. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples". In accordance with it, more than 60 former colonies received state independence and became members of the UN. By the 50th anniversary of the UN (in 1995), there were still 17 self-governing territories in the world. The anniversary session of the General Assembly declared the year 2000 to be the year of the end of colonialism. The UN has also made a certain positive contribution to the process of resolving political and ethnic conflicts in individual countries.

The role of the UN is especially significant in the development of the international code of human rights. The inalienability and inalienability of human rights is already stated in the UN Charter itself. It also says about the UN mission, which is the need to “... to carry out international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural and humanitarian nature and in promoting and developing respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.”. Of lasting importance are Universal Declaration of Human Rights and adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966 and entered into force in 1976 “ Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights" And " Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". The states that signed them pledged to create all the necessary conditions for the implementation of the human rights and freedoms proclaimed here. In development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international covenants on human rights, the UN has adopted many dozens of declarations and conventions on the rights and freedoms of various segments and groups of the population. The achievements of the UN also include the activities of the UN specialized agencies discussed above (UNESCO, WHO, ILO, etc.)

The UN achieved its greatest successes in those areas of activity where the rivalry of the world's leading powers was less pronounced. Although it cannot be denied that it was the leading powers of the world who made the most significant contribution to this success. Oddly enough, it was the rivalry between the USA and the USSR and the systems of social relations they personified that played a good service for humanity and significantly advanced it along the path of progress. Thus, over the 85 years of the 20th century, despite two destructive world wars, global production of goods and services increased more than 50 times. 80% of this colossal growth occurred during the period of the most acute confrontation between the two systems - from 1950 to 1985. During this period, the rate of economic growth in the world was the highest in the history of mankind - about 5% annually. Of course, such development became possible thanks to many factors, including the scientific and technological revolution. In conditions of intense rivalry among themselves, states sought to use them to their maximum benefit. All this taken together made it possible to achieve the highest rates of economic growth and the longest cycle of crisis-free development in the world. The merits of the UN and its specialized agencies in these successes are significant. In the 1990s, after the collapse of the USSR, “conflicts on ideological grounds and disagreements in the bipolar world gave way to ethnic and religious intolerance, political ambition and greed, and is often enhanced by the illegal trade in weapons, jewelry and drugs." The rate of economic growth has also decreased significantly.