In the international Law all international offences it is possible will divide into three large groups depending on a degree of their danger, scales and consequences:
а) International crimes;
б) Criminal offences of international character;
в) Other international offences (international äåëèêòû).
International crime - especially dangerous international offence encroaching on the vital interests the states and nations, undermining bases of the international law representing threat to the international world and safety.
In the project of the articles about the responsibility of the states prepared by a Commission of the international law a UN, ïîä÷ ё ðêèâàåòñÿ, that ìåæäóíàðîäíî-legal äåÿíèå, arising as a result of infringement by the state of the international obligation, so basic for maintenance of the vital interests of community, that his(its) infringement is considered as a crime before international community as a whole, makes international преступление1. To number of such international crimes concern: aggression, ãåíîöèä, àïàðòåèä, êîëîíèàëèçì, military crimes, crime against humanity etc. As such crimes mention practically âñ ё international community, the states according to the Charter a UN have the right to accept collective measures on their suppression.
The kinds of the armed violence used in international practice of many states are extremely diverse. Proceeding from definition(determination) of aggression from the facts of a history of the international attitudes(relations) after the second world(global) war, we can allocate the following most important kinds:
- agressive war;
-вооруж ё ííóþ intervention;
-âîîðóæ ё ííûå the agressive shares, that is separate âîîðóæ ё ííûå attacks which are not carrying of character wars or intervention;
- the input âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of forces on territory of the foreign state or îñòàâëåíèå them on the given territory contrary to his(its) will and for interference in his(its) internal businesses (here is possible to include preservation on territory of the foreign state contrary to his(its) will of military bases);
- marine blockade in peace time of coast or ports of the foreign state (so-called «peace blockade »);
- support of the armed groups or groups of mercenaries for intrusion on territory of other state with the purpose of interference in his(its) internal businesses.
Agressive war. The most dangerous kind of the forbidden application of the armed force is the agressive war. In the international sertificates(acts) ïîñëåâîåííîãî of period this term meets extremely ðåäêî. In them such terms, as «application of force », «aggression», «the armed attack » are more often used. If the term «war» appears in the Status of League of Nations and in the Paris pact of a 1928, in the Charter a UN this term is present only in item 1 of a Preamble (short of a word in ст.107 concerning the second world(global) war), and in his(its) articles is spoken about application of force (item 4 ст.2), about âîîðóæ ё ííîì an attack (51).
In the sentence of the International military tribunal in Nuremberg agressive actions ãèòëåðîâñêîé of Germany concerning Austria and Czechoslovakia is designated as «grab», concerning Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands of Luxembourg - as «intrusion», concerning Poland, Yugoslavia and Greece - as «aggression» and in the attitude(relation) ÑÑÐ and USA - «agressive war » 1.
In the Geneva conventions on protection of victims of war alongside with the terms of «war», «condition of war » the term «âîîðóæ ё ííûé the conflict » is widely applied.
In the agreements for the mutual help, çàêëþ÷ ё ííûõ after the second world(global) war, term «the agressive war » does not meet, and the term «aggression» and «âîîðóæ ё ííîå an attack » is applied.
Whether Means âñ ё it, what concept «the agressive war » can be replaced by concepts «application of force », «aggression», «âîîðóæ ё ííîå an attack » and should not be allocated in the responsibility of a separate kind âîîðóæ ё ííîé of aggression? By no means is not present. The agressive war is and continues to remain the kind, most dangerous and attracting the widest international responsibility, âîîðóæ ё ííîé of aggression. In spite of the fact that now from life of company, the danger of agressive wars, both in world(global), and in local frameworks has not disappeared. As to the responsibility for agressive war, that, as is known, before the second world(global) war the agressive war was announced by an international crime, and in the Charter and sentences of the International military tribunal in Nuremberg, in which the principles becoming then principles of the international law are formulated, they are qualified as «crimes against the world ».
The concept of agressive war develops of two components: concept of war and concept àãðåññèâíîñòè or aggression. However neither that, nor other concept has not the conventional definition(determination) in the international law. The majority of the lawyers - международников for want of definition(determination) of concept of war the recognitions by them of a condition of war are guided by by formal criterion of the announcement of war, availability at the struggling parties animus belligerenti. For example, Л. Îïïåíãåéì writes: «the Unilateral violent actions, one state against other without the preliminary announcement of war, can be the reason of occurrence of war, but in themselves are not war, as the opposite party does not answer them by similar hostile actions, or, at least, declaration, that they consider these actions as the sertificates(acts) of war » 1. The australian lawyer - международник Äæ. Ñòðàðê states the same point of view;!from the point of view of åù ё sharply. As he said, «a Nature of war in itself becomes more exact îïðåäåë ё ííîé as the formal status âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of hostile actions, in which the intention of the parties should be a determinative. Thus, the condition of war can be established(installed) between two and more by states ïóò ё ì of the formal announcement of war, even between them active military actions » 1 never took place.
It is a point of view;!from the point of view of of the majority of the lawyers - международников does not correspond(meet) to the validity, as the state quite often begins military actions without any announcement of war and, nevertheless, both âðàæäóþùèå of country appear in a condition of war.
In soviet «the Diplomatic dictionary » yes ё òñÿ the following definition(determination) of war: «War - struggle between the states and classes by means âîîðóæ ё ííîãî of violence representing continuation of that policy(politics), which these states or the classes conducted before war ».
The agressive war it is indispensable çàõâàòíè÷åñêàÿ war, which âåä ё òñÿ àãðåññîðîì to seize a part of territory of the state - victim of aggression or completely to deprive of his(its) independent state existence. The agressive war is accompanied by claims of the state - àãðåññîðà on annexation of a part or whole territory of the state being a victim of aggression. This attribute is inherent just in agressive war, instead of all kinds of aggression. From a formal point of view;!from the point of view of the war as against other âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of the conflicts, as a rule, is connected to break of diplomatic, consular, trade and other normal attitudes(relations) between the struggling states.
Hence, the agressive war is âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ struggle begun by one state against other with the purpose of grab of a part of his(its) territory or deprivation of his(its) independent state existence and accompanying with break of diplomatic, consular, trade and other normal attitudes(relations) between these states.
The agressive war is those irrespective of, has a place the announcement of war whether or not. From it by no means does not follow, that the ìåæäóíàðîäíî-rules of law concerning war have lost force. «For the state beginning war first, the sertificate(act) of the announcement of war does not mean clearing it(him) from the responsibility for ðàçâÿçûâàíèå of aggression » 1. However íà÷àòèå 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 ãèòëåðîâñêîé of Germany against ÑÑÐ 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.
Âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ intervention. Other rather dangerous kind of illegal application âîîðóæ ё ííîé of force is frequently meeting in international practice of some states âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ the intervention, that is intrusion âîîðóæ ё ííûõ 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 îïðåäåë ё ííûå of action on a question which are included in his(its) internal competence. Can be and other purposes âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention, but all of them are usually connected by interference in internal businesses èíòåðâåíèðóåìîãî of the state, instead of with àííåêñèðîâàíèåì by all or part of his(its) territory.
Âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ the intervention can accept rather wide scales, not less, than agressive war.
In the soviet literature the opinions expressed, that between agressive war and âîîðóæ ё ííîé by intervention «there is no difference » 1. It is impossible to agree with this opinion. Undoubtedly, as agressive war, and âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ intervention represent rather dangerous âîîðóæ ё ííóþ aggression. But âñ ё they various kinds âîîðóæ ё ííîé 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, âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ the intervention usually does not put such purposes. She(it) is undertaken to spread in èíòåðâåíèðóåìîì the state óãîäíûé èíòåðâåíòó a political mode and government, or to impose to government èíòåðâåíèðóåìîãî of the state will èíòåðâåíòà in sphere relating the sovereignty èíòåðâåíèðóåìîãî the states.
The agressive war too can put the purposes of change public and political building other struggling party in a favour àãðåññîðà (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 âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ the intervention puts before itself the purposes connected extremely in internal businesses èíòåðâåíèðóåìîãî of the state. Besides âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ the intervention can occur and without break of the diplomatic, consular and trade attitudes(relations) between the state èíòåðâåíòîì and èíòåðâåíèðóåìûì 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 âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention was ïîäòâåðæä ё í widely and in åù 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 âîîðóæ ё ííîé of force by the separate states only in a case âîîðóæ ё ííîãî 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 âîîðóæ ё ííîé 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 èä ё ò both about âîîðóæ ё ííîì interference, and about any other form of interference is further spoken, that. In a 1949 the interdiction by the international law âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention was ïîäòâåðæä ё í INTERNATIONAL court a UN in the decision on business about a strait Êîðôó.
At last, the interdiction of the armed intervention was categorically ïîäòâåðæä ё í GENERAL Assembly a UN on å 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 âîîðóæ ё ííîå 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 âîîðóæ ё ííîãî of interference, no less than from the various forms of indirect interference.
Âîîðóæ ё ííûå the agressive shares. Alongside with agressive war and âîîðóæ ё ííîé by intervention, these most dangerous kinds âîîðóæ ё ííîé of aggression, it is necessary to stay and on other å ё kinds, sometimes is rather close them contiguous. It, first of all âîîðóæ ё ííûå the agressive shares, that is âîîðóæ ё ííûå of an attack which are not having attributes inherent agressive war or âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention, inherent in agressive war âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of forces of one state on territory of other state, attack âîîðóæ ё ííûõ 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 âîîðóæ ё ííîé of aggression in comparison with agressive war and âîîðóæ ё ííîé 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 ïóò ё ì âîîðóæ ё ííîãî of pressure to force the state to execute that or other his(its) requests àãðåññîðà.
The most significant examples of agressive such sertificates(acts) are the systematic bombardments from air and artillery bombardment from the military ships âîîðóæ ё ííûìè by forces of USA against cities and íàñåë ё ííûõ of items of Democratic Republic Vietnam.
By other not less significant example âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of the agressive shares of large scale was the intrusion âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of forces of USA on territory of neutral Cambodia in May, 1970.
In a number of cases âîîðóæ ё ííûå the agressive shares are undertaken by some states under a pretext âîçìåçäèÿ for the valid or seeming offences, that is under a pretext репрессалий1.
Input âîîðóæ ё ííûõ 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 âîîðóæ ё ííîé of force close contiguous to âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention, is the input âîîðóæ ё ííûõ 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 âîéñê in Lebanon and British âîéñê in Jordan in July, 1958 serving with a subject of consideration III extreme sessions of General Assembly a UN shows, such input âîéñê sometimes masks by the request of dependent government. However and in these cases it(he) is rough infringement of the international law, what the intervention «by agreement» or «at the request » èíòåðâåíèðóåìîãî of the state is, mentioned above, âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ.
To âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention the contents âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of forces on territory of other states, contrary to will of this state rather closely adjoins. Quite often states keeping âîîðóæ ё ííûå the forces on territory of other states, ignore requests of governments of these states, and sometimes and resolution of bodies a UN concerning a conclusion âîéñê. So, for example, Great Britain and France entering during the second world(global) war âîéñêà in Syria and Lebanon, continued to keep them and on termination(ending) war (down to April, 1946) contrary to a request of governments of Syria and Lebanon. Great Britain, France and Israel, ïðåäïðèíÿâøèå in a 1956 agressive war against Egypt, continued to keep âîéñêà on territory of Egypt and upon termination of military actions (Great Britain and France till December 22, 1956, Israel - till March 7, 1957.), despite of a number of the resolutions about an immediate conclusion âîéñê, I of Extreme special session of General Assembly a UN and XI General Assemblies a UN.
The experience shows, that presence âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of forces on territory of other states contrary to will last, as we saw, in a number of cases was direct continuation of agressive war (stay Israeli âîéñê in ÎÀÐ, Syria and Jordan) or âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention (stay belgium âîéñê in Êîíãî, American âîéñê in Äîìèíèêàíñêîé to Republic), is directed against territorial integrity and political independence of these states. Therefore it, undoubtedly, is illegal application of force infringing by item 4 ст.2 of the Charter a UN.
Marine blockade in peace time. A kind of illegal application âîîðóæ ё ííîé of force is so-called «the peace blockade », that is blockade by naval forces one or several states in peace time. Å ё as difference from blockade made during war, it is accepted to consider(count) that she(it) is accompanied not by confiscation, and only by temporary detention on period of blockade of courts of the third states trying å ё to tear. As the history of the international attitudes(relations) testifies, «the peace blockade » is usually applied large äåðæàâàìè as the instrument âîîðóæ ё ííîãî of pressure on weaker государства1. Some lawyers -международники try to prove «legitimacy of peace blockade » as to a version âîîðóæ ё ííûõ ðåïðåññàëèé, ostensibly admitted international правом2. Actually so-called «the peace blockade » is the sertificate(act) âîîðóæ ё ííîé of aggression - in such quality she(it) and appears in the London conventions of a 1933 - and certainly is forbidden under the Charter a UN both by virtue of item 4 ст.2, and by virtue of ст.39.
In period after the second world(global) war the largest case of application «of peace blockade » was so-called «quarantine» announced by government of USA concerning Cuba in October, 1962.
Support âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of groups and groups on ё ìíèêîâ for intrusion on territory of other state. At last, among kinds of illegal application âîîðóæ ё ííîé of force the support âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of gangs and groups on ё ìíèêîâ for intrusion on territory of other state should be mentioned with the purpose of interference in his(its) internal businesses, in particular(personally) with the purpose of suppression occurring in í ё ì íàöèîíàëüíî-îñâîáîäèòåëüíîãî of movement(traffic). Åù ё in the agreements about íåíàïàäåíèè, çàêëþ÷ ё ííûõ the Soviet Union with other states in 20-th and 30-th years, provided the obligations of each party to not admit and to interfere with organization and activity on the territory âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of groups putting by the purpose struggle on territory of other party against å ё of government, for an overthrow state building, against integrity å ё of territory or appropriating(giving) to themselves a role of government by all or part å ё of territory. In the London conventions on definition(determination) of aggression of a 1933 of the party consider as one of kinds âîîðóæ ё ííîé of aggression support by the state, «rendered âîîðóæ ё ííûì to gangs, which being are formed(educated) on his(its) territory, have intruded on territory of other state, or failure(refusal), despite of requests of the state which has undergone to intrusion to accept on own territory all measures, dependent on him,(it,) for deprivation of named gangs of the help or protection » (item 5 of an item. II). In the project of the code of crimes against the world and safety of mankind accepted the Commission of the international law a UN on å ё of 6-th session in a 1954, as one of such crimes specified «organization by authorities of any state or encouragement by them of organization âîîðóæ ё ííûõ øàåê within the limits of his(its) territory for intrusion territory of other state, or assumption of use by such âîîðóæ ё ííûìè øàéêàìè of his(its) territory as operative base or basic point for intrusion on territory of other state, no less than direct sharing(participation) in such intrusion or support those » 1.