电邮这篇文章 Theoretical understanding of the principle of sovereign equality.
- 作者: Sechin D.S.1
-
隶属关系:
- 期: 编号 3 (2025)
- 页面: 176-190
- 栏目: Articles
- URL: https://bakhtiniada.ru/2644-5514/article/view/361985
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.25136/2644-5514.2025.3.75571
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/QSMLHO
- ID: 361985
如何引用文章
全文:
详细
The subject of the research is the principle of sovereign equality in contemporary international law, its normative fixation, and theoretical interpretation within the context of critical legal studies. The study focuses on the aspect of the perception of this principle in international legal science. The article primarily addresses the principle's place in the international legal system, its relationship with other norms such as state immunities, the self-determination of peoples, and non-intervention. The research relies on key texts of international law, including the UN Charter, the 1970 Declaration, and decisions of the International Court of Justice, which affirm the fundamental nature of the principle while also demonstrating its theoretical limitations in the context of actual inequality among states. The interconnection of the principle of sovereign equality with other fundamental norms of international law, including state immunity, the right of peoples to self-determination, and the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, is examined. The work employs a formal-dogmatic method to identify the place of the principle of sovereign equality within the international legal system. However, such a method offers no foundation for uncovering the meaning of this principle. This gap is filled by critical legal analysis, revealing contradictions and uncertainties in the arguments associated with sovereign equality. Among the findings of the study, it is noteworthy that sovereign equality, despite its declarative universality, faces the problem of substantive emptiness. The novelty of the research lies in applying the method of deconstruction of the principle through the lens of critical theory, allowing for the disclosure of its historical variability and contextual dependency, as well as its internal contradictions and emptiness. The critical analysis reveals the tautological nature of its definitions. The author demonstrates that traditional doctrinal interpretations of sovereign equality represent a logical circle where equality is defined through sovereignty, and sovereignty through equality, yet neither provides meaningful content. The author traces the evolution of the principle from theological origins to contemporary economic determinism. The principle requires rethinking in light of new global challenges.
参考
Устав Организации Объединенных Наций // Сборник действующих договоров, соглашений и конвенций, заключенных СССР с иностранными государствами. – Вып. XII. – М., 1956. 2. Декларация о принципах международного права, касающихся дружественных отношений и сотрудничества между государствами в соответствии с Уставом Организации Объединенных Наций // Официальный сайт ООН. – URL: https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/declarations/intlaw_principles.shtml 3. Доклад Комиссии международного права. Семнадцатая сессия. Генеральная Ассамблея (A/6309/Rev. 1) // Официальный сайт ООН. – URL: https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/russian/reports/a_cn4_191.pdf 4. Доклад Комиссии международного права. Семьдесят первая сессия (29 апреля – 7 июня и 8 июля – 9 августа 2019 года). Генеральная Ассамблея. (A/74/10) // Официальный сайт ООН. – URL: https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2019/russian/chp9.pdf 5. Общие принципы права, замечания и соображения, полученные от правительств. Семьдесят шестая сессия. Комиссия международного права (A/CN.4/779) // Официальный сайт ООН. – URL: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g25/012/40/pdf/g2501240.pdf 6. Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), Preliminary Objections, Judgment // I.C.J. Reports 2018. – P. 322. 7. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), Judgment // I.C.J. Reports 2012 (I). – Pp. 123-124. 8. Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion // I.C.J. Reports 2019. – P. 131. 9. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. USA), Judgment // I.C.J. Reports 1986. – P. 106. 10. Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 March 2014 // I.C.J. Reports 2014. – P. 10. 11. Threat or use of nuclear weapons, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry // I.C.J. Reports 1996. – P. 305. 12. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of 17 September 2003, requested by the United Mexican States // Официальный сайт. – URL: http://www.gaetanoarangioruiz.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/The_Concept_of_International_Law_and_the.pdf 13. Агамбен Д. Профанации. – М.: Гилея, 2014. – 112 с. 14. Алексеев С.С. Собрание сочинений. В 11 томах. – Том 7. – М.: Статут, 2010. – 495 с. 15. Arangio-Ruiz G. The United Nations declaration on friendly relations and the system of the sources of international law. – Alphen aan den Rijn: Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1979. – 341 p. 16. Hjorth R. Equality in International Society: A Reappraisal. – Springer, 2014. – 103-106 p. 17. Kennedy D., Koskenniemi M. Of Law and the World: Critical Conversations on Power, History, and Political Economy. – Harvard University Press, 2023. – 320 p. 18. Koskenniemi M. From apology to utopia: the structure of international legal argument. – Cambridge, 2006. – 704 p. 19. Koskenniemi M., Kari V. Sovereign equality // The UN Friendly Relations Declaration at 50: An Assessment of the Fundamental Principles of International Law. – Cambridge University Press, 2020. – 400 p. 20. Simma B. et al. The Charter of the United Nations: a commentary. – Vol. I (3rd Edition). – Oxford University Press, 2024. – 2000 p. 21. Краевский А. А. Юридическая техника и догматический метод: проблема соотношения // Проблемы методологии в юридической науке: от римского права к современным правовым концепциям. – 2021. – С. 95-102. EDN: VEARCE 22. Малов Д. В. Принцип равноправия и самоопределения народов в системе современного международного права: особенности толкования и проблемы субъектности // Вестник международных организаций: образование, наука, новая экономика. – 2013. – Т. 8. – № 2. – С. 143-153. EDN: QCWQKD 23. Петров А.В., Зырянов А.В. Формально-догматический подход в юридической науке в условиях современности // Вестник ЮУрГУ. Серия: Право. – 2019. – № 1. – С. 94-99. doi: 10.14529/law190114 EDN: YZDXYD 24. Тиунов О.И. Суверенное равенство государств в системе основных принципов международного права // Журнал российского права. – 2014. – № 5 (209). – С. 5-21. doi: 10.12737/3457 EDN: SBXOGR 25. Fischl R.M. The question that killed critical legal studies // Law & Social Inquiry. – 1992. – Vol. 17. – № 4. – Pp. 779-820. 26. Kelsen H. The principle of sovereign equality of states as a basis for international organization // The Yale Law Journal. – 1944. – Vol. 53. – № 2. – Pp. 207-220. 27. Trimble P.R. International law, world order, and critical legal studies // Stanford Law Review. – 1989. – Vol. 42. – P. 811-845. 28. Westen P. The Empty Idea of Equality // Harvard Law Review. – 1982. – Vol. 95. – № 3. – P. 537-596. 29. Woolaver H. Sovereign Equality as a Peremptory Norm of General International Law // D. Tladi (ed.) Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens). – Pp. 713-739.
补充文件
