Главная/

Иностранные языки /

Economic sanctions in MP /english/

However начатие of war without the announcement aggravates this responsibility, as means infringement not only norms about prohibition of agressive war, but also norms concerning management of war.

 The largest and typical example of agressive war is the war гитлеровской of Germany against ССР and his(its) allies in the second world(global) war. After the second world(global) war some agressive wars took place which infortunately, have not received such qualification and appropriate condemnation from the party a UN.

 Вооруж ё нная intervention. Other rather dangerous kind of illegal application вооруж ё нной of force is frequently meeting in international practice of some states вооруж ё нная the intervention, that is intrusion вооруж ё нных of forces of one state on territory of other state with the purpose of interference in his(its) internal businesses. Such intrusion frequently is undertaken to interfere in occurring in the foreign state with internal struggle for the benefit of one of the struggling parties, or to force government of the foreign state to undertake определ ё нные of action on a question which are included in his(its) internal competence. Can be and other purposes вооруж ё нной of intervention, but all of them are usually connected by interference in internal businesses интервенируемого of the state, instead of with аннексированием by all or part of his(its) territory.

 Вооруж ё нная the intervention can accept rather wide scales, not less, than agressive war.

 In the soviet literature the opinions expressed, that between agressive war and вооруж ё нной by intervention « there is no difference » 1. It is impossible to agree with this opinion. Undoubtedly, as agressive war, and вооруж ё нная intervention represent rather dangerous вооруж ё нную aggression. But вс ё they various kinds вооруж ё нной of aggression. Distinctions between them is, that while the agressive war is undertaken to seize a part of territory of other state or at all to deprive of his(its) independent state existence, вооруж ё нная the intervention usually does not put such purposes. She(it) is undertaken to spread in интервенируемом the state угодный интервенту a political mode and government, or to impose to government интервенируемого of the state will интервента in sphere relating the sovereignty интервенируемого the states.

 The agressive war too can put the purposes of change public and political building other struggling party in a favour агрессора (such purposes, for example, put Israel in war against the Arabian states in 1967г.), but indispensable attribute of agressive war is the aspiration to grab of territory of other struggling party or termination(discontinuance) of his(its) independent existence, between that вооруж ё нная the intervention puts before itself the purposes connected extremely in internal businesses интервенируемого of the state. Besides вооруж ё нная the intervention can occur and without break of the diplomatic, consular and trade attitudes(relations) between the state интервентом and интервенируемым by the state, while such break comes(steps) always for want of availability of a condition of war, that is and when has a place agressive war.

 After the second world(global) war the interdiction вооруж ё нной of intervention was подтвержд ё н widely and in ещ ё to the more categorical form. First of all, it(he) directly follows from a number of the articles of the Charter a UN: as from item 4 ст.2 forbidding threat by force or his(its) application against territorial inviolability or political independence of any state, and ст.39, providing application of the international sanctions in case of threat to the world, infringement of the world and sertificates(acts) of aggression, and from ст.51, admitting application вооруж ё нной of force by the separate states only in a case вооруж ё нного of an attack and, hence, not admitting it(him) in other cases.

 The principle of non-interference in internal businesses of the state, including the interdiction вооруж ё нной of intervention, was formulated in the special article (ст.15) of the Charter of Organization of the American states, in which is spoken: « Any state or group of the states under any by a pretext the rights on direct or indirect interference in internal or external businesses of any other state » have not. The speech ид ё т both about вооруж ё нном interference, and about any other form of interference is further spoken, that. In a 1949 the interdiction by the international law вооруж ё нной of intervention was подтвержд ё н INTERNATIONAL court a UN in the decision on business about a strait Корфу.

 At last, the interdiction of the armed intervention was categorically подтвержд ё н GENERAL Assembly a UN on е ё XX sessions in the declaration on inadmissibility of interference in internal businesses of the states, about a protection of their independence and sovereignty, according to which « is condemned not only вооруж ё нное interference, but also all other forms of interference ». In the Resolution ХХI sessions № 2225 from December 19, 1996 by General Assembly about a course of fulfilment of this declaration the Assembly again has found by the responsibility urgently to offer to all states to abstain from вооруж ё нного of interference, no less than from the various forms of indirect interference.

 Вооруж ё нные the agressive shares. Alongside with agressive war and вооруж ё нной by intervention, these most dangerous kinds вооруж ё нной of aggression, it is necessary to stay and on other е ё kinds, sometimes is rather close them contiguous. It, first of all вооруж ё нные the agressive shares, that is вооруж ё нные of an attack which are not having attributes inherent agressive war or вооруж ё нной of intervention, inherent in agressive war вооруж ё нных of forces of one state on territory of other state, attack вооруж ё нных of forces of one state on separate items of territory of other state or on marine and air court outside of his(its) territory. They can carry both individual, and systematic character.  Distinctive feature of this kind вооруж ё нной of aggression in comparison with agressive war and вооруж ё нной by intervention is that such attacks are usually undertaken not for grab of territory of the state or interference in his(its) internal businesses, and for other purposes. More often they are undertaken that пут ё м вооруж ё нного of pressure to force the state to execute that or other his(its) requests агрессора.

 The most significant examples of agressive such sertificates(acts) are the systematic bombardments from air and artillery bombardment from the military ships вооруж ё нными by forces of USA against cities and насел ё нных of items of Democratic Republic Vietnam.

 By other not less significant example вооруж ё нных of the agressive shares of large scale was the intrusion вооруж ё нных of forces of USA on territory of neutral Cambodia in May, 1970.

 In a number of cases вооруж ё нные the agressive shares are undertaken by some states under a pretext возмездия for the valid or seeming offences, that is under a pretext репрессалий1. 

 Input вооруж ё нных of forces on territory of the foreign state and preservation them on it(her) for interference in his(its) internal businesses. One of kinds of illegal application вооруж ё нной of force close contiguous to вооруж ё нной of intervention, is the input вооруж ё нных of forces on territory of the foreign state contrary to his(its) will and for interference in his(its) internal businesses. As the practice of some states, in particular(personally) facts of landing American войск in Lebanon and British войск in Jordan in July, 1958 serving with a subject of consideration III extreme sessions