Состязательное соблюдение Россией и США Договора по космосу 1967 г.

Introduction. Thе Russian Federation and the USA, being parties to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, in their national legal acts refer to this source. Each of these states recognizes that the 1967 Outer Space regime is to be perfected, while having different legal outer space policy. The USA is a leader of the military outer space infrastructure and of creation national outer space legislation and separate international agreements (“The Artemis Accords”), thus imposing its own track to develop the 1967 Treaty.Materials and methods. This research addresses relevant international documents on international space law as well as acts of national legislation pertaining to the topic. Research results. In modern political conditions the quality of a state defense and its economic development is linked to the efficiency of the outer space infrastructure, including communication and reconnaissance satellites. While the U.S. intends to achieve military supremacy in the outer space, the 1967 Treaty seems to be a barrier to such intention although the U.S. provides its own interpretation of the Treaty. Another significant area of competition between Russia and USA in the outer space legal policy is the observance of the natural resources treaty provisions. According to the USA, a state is entitled unilaterally exploit the space resources, and its persons are entitled to commercial use of such resources based on national law. This position of the United States resulted in creation of its national legislation opportunities for natural resources activities in outer space. The Russian Federation continues to defend multilateral approach to the exploitation of space resources and to call upon strictly observance of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. There are also competitive legal positions of the USA and Russia relating to the notion of “common province of mankind” provided by the 1967 Treaty.The main results. In this context, the paper after providing prolegomena to the competitive principle in international law, suggests some theoretical ideas for perfecting of the legal position of the Russian Federation as a response to the modern outer space legal policy of the USA.Discussion and conclusions. In the legal literature on this issue different views are assessed – from a radical rejection of the US model of behavior and continuation of efforts to strengthen the 1967 Treaty regime, to proposals to adopt a new national Russian legislation providing rights of persons to exploit the natural resources of celestial bodies, thus provid-ing incentives for private investors. This track leads to more competition with the USA, observing at the same time the 1967 Treaty as the “corpus juris specialis”.Будучи участниками Договора по космосу 1967 г., Россия и США проводят состязательную политику по совершенствованию режима, созданного указанным договором. Международно-правовая политика США нацелена на «уточнение» этого режима посредством сепаратных соглашений «Артемида». В статье исследуется, как оптимальнее для России реагировать на это в контексте договорных положений о мирном использовании космоса и о неприсвоении природных ресурсов небесных тел

Predicting Patterns of Customer Usage, with Niftecash

Report is the result of the working during 93rd European Study Group with Industry in Limerick

Predicting Patterns of Customer Usage, with Niftecash

Report is the result of the working during 93rd European Study Group with Industry in Limerick

THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: SOME THEORETICAL ISSUES

INTRODUCTION. The International Court of Justice is the only international judicial body established by the Charter of the United Nations as “the principal judicial organ of the United Nations”; and the obligations of States under the Charter of the United Nations shall prevail over obligations under any other international agreement (Art. 103 of the Charter of the United Nations); the execution of the decisions of the Court may be ensured by the UN Security Council (Art. 94 of the Charter of the United Nations). All UN member States, including the Russian Federation, are parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and its Statute forms an integral part of the UN Charter (Art. 92). The present article explores in detail the theoretical and practical issues related to the establishment of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. It contains the analysis of the features, advantages and disadvantages of the methods of establishing the jurisdiction of the Court in the context of the current practice of the Court and the legal positions of States. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article is based on the analysis, first of all, of the documents of the Court related to the establishment of its jurisdiction in international disputes referred to it. This study also examines the practice of States in the field of recognition of the Court's jurisdiction under the Statute, as well as related scientific works of Russian and foreign scholars in the field of international law. The methods used in the course of this study include general and specific (existing in the legal science) scientific cognition methods, including the methods of formal logic, legal history and comparative legal research. RESEARCH RESULTS. The article shows that it is not legally correct to give identical meaning to the terms “competence of the Court” and “jurisdiction of the Court” used in the Statute of the International Court of Justice, although some authoritative foreign jurists do so. Within the meaning of the UN Charter, the term “competence of the Court” is broader in its meaning than the term “jurisdiction of the Court”: the latter is used only in connection with disputes of States that are resolved by the International Court of Justice, i.e. with the establishment of the jurisdiction over the dispute referred to the Court. The article classifies the ways in which States express their consent to the jurisdiction of the Court under its Statute into three main categories: (1) referral of a case to the Court by means of a special agreement concluded between the contesting States; (2) jurisdiction of the Court over disputes submitted to it on the basis of international agreements; (3) recognition by the State of the jurisdiction of the Court by means of a unilateral declaration. The article indicates the features of different ways of expressing the consent of States to the jurisdiction of the Court in the context of the practice of States and of the Court. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. By means of illustration the authors refer to inter-state disputes, where jurisdictional issues were raised at the Court. The analysis of the use of special agreement (or “compromis”) shows that this method of consent to the jurisdiction of the Court is typical for the consideration of an already formed dispute, the existence of which the relevant States do not contest, and its transfer to the Court is expected by the respondent State. The article also reveals the legal disadvantages inherent in this method. The article reveals legally advantageous as well as problematic aspects related to disputes referred to the Court on the basis of jurisdictional clauses of treaties. Attention is devoted to the analysis of unilateral declarations of States recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court, which may be conditional. It is the practice of States to formulate legally sophisticated conditions that has objectively complicated the whole “Optional Clause” system provided for by the UN Charter. In particular, the article indicates the difficulties of interpretation and application of temporal conditions; difficulties of legal assessment of the content of some conditions made by States in their declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court; cases when excessively broad conditions nullify the recognition of the jurisdiction of the Court. The authors conclude that each of the named methods of expressing States’ consent to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice has its own characteristics, advantages and disadvantages. The system of the Court’s jurisdiction established by the UN Charter shows its efficiency only when all legal possibilities provided for in Art. 36 of the Statute are taken into account, and when international legal norms provided in the UN Charter, especially the core principles of international law, are strictly complied with. Selective, fragmentary interpretation of the legal norms applicable to the establishment of the jurisdiction of the Court is not permitted. Each of the methods of recognizing its jurisdiction performs its function only in the general context of the rights and obligations of States under the UN Charter; every method is effective in concrete circumstances and acceptable to disputing States in accordance with their sovereign will

APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON ENHANCING INTERNATIONAL ARCTIC SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION

INTRODUCTION. The Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation, 2017, has recently become part of the International Law applicable to the Arctic Region and the relevant legal history is considered in this paper. Special attention is paid to the scope of application of the 2017 Agreement and the interpretation of provisions which provide new rights and obligations of its Parties in the context of an extensive international legal framework which already applies to the Arctic Ocean.Materials and Methods. The materials for research include first and foremost the text of the 2017 Arctic Agreement, in the context of other rules of International Law, both treaty and customary, which are applicable to the Arctic Ocean. General and special scientific methods of contemporary cognition composed the relevant methodological basis for the research.RESEARCH RESULTS. The 2017 Arctic Agreement has become an important element of the extensive international legal framework which applies to the Arctic Ocean. This broad international legal framework is contained in a system of International Law instruments regulating relations between subjects of International Law: first of all, between Arctic States, and then between them and non-Arctic States; especially in such branches of States’ activity as the protection of the marine environment, including ice-covered areas, freedom of navigation, marine scientific research, and other uses of the sea. Within this extensive legal framework the 2017 Agreement has a special position as lex posterior. This is important in the context of the scope of the Agreement (the designated territories of the Parties) and also taking into account the complexity of its correct interpretation.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. Science cooperation according to the 2017 Arctic Agreement may contribute to improving regulatory measures in a number of vital areas: to promote best available technologies in the Arctic region; to make more safe navigation in the Arctic waters (while they are becoming free from ice during most of the year); to assist in formulating modern maps for Arctic navigation; to advance plans for creating modern port infrastructure in the North ; science cooperation might give impetus to designating new sea lanes and traffic separation schemes (in the Barents Sea and in the Bering Strait, for example) and to promote additional legal measures to protect and preserve the marine environment in the Arctic

The Term “Rules-based International Order” in International Legal Discourses

INTRODUCTION. The term “rules-based order” is increasingly referred to in speeches within many international forums as well as declared from national political tribunes. The initial question is whether this notion is of purely political nature (since it is not used in the UN Charter or in other universal international conventions and this term is not relied upon by the International Court of Justice or by the UN International Law Commission). On the other hand, with the popularization of such a political discourse, the frequent usage of this term by representatives of some states (not only of Western States, but also of China, for example) can affect international law. The very application of this term definitely provokes a splash of other questions. How does the term “rules-based order” correlate with the universally recognized term “international legal order”? Does the idea to use the term “rules-based order” have substantive legal grounds? Which rules in concreto1 are meant by the term? Who and how creates these rules? What is the nature of these rules – are they rules of national law and if so – national rules of what State? If these are rules of international law – why is it not reflected in the term? Due to the attractive wording the concept gets widespread, but lacking a common understanding of its content, everyone might put a different meaning into the concept. Does it result in the fact that some officials, representing states, become politically entitled with the right to abuse the international legal order as it is established by modern international law? This research examines these theoretic aspects of the concept “rules-based order”, taking into account that in the context of international relations it may be referred to also as “rules-based international order”. An additional question to answer is whether the concept might be regarded as one of the numerous attempts to adapt the current international law to new challenges.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The research paper is based on the analysis of numerous statements of representatives of states, in which their attitude to the “rules-based order” concept is manifested, positive and critical remarks relating to the concept made by international lawyers, as well as other research papers of Russian and foreign international scholars. The methodological instruments include general scientific and special methods, among them the historical method, methods of formal logic, analysis, synthesis, as well as systemic, comparative legal methods.RESEARCH RESULTS. Although the above-noted questions about the legal meaning of the term “rulesbased order” have arisen only in recent years mainly in the context of the anti-Russian rhetoric of Western politicians, the term has been used much earlier at different levels in a wide variety of topics. The question of inconsistent perceptions of this term is another reflection of a more general problem of weakening or strengthening the universal legally binding international order. One of the appropriate interpretive versions of this concept might be that “rules-based order” means first and foremost the world order which is based on norms of international law (which are mandatory as well known), and on applicable non-binding international rules containing a normative element, such as international rules provided in the documents of intergovernmental organizations and conferences, interstate political arrangements, and other mutually accepted rules, formed in the contemporary practice of international relations. This interpretation allows to bring the concept in line with modern international law. Nevertheless, even within such interpretation, it is necessary to respect the distinction between the norms of international law, which are binding, and other rules, which do not create State’s obligations under international law. Thus, unilateral or “blocking” imposition of values of one State on other States under the guise of rules on which, according to the first State, the world order is based, will not be allowed.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. If another interpretation prevails, the “rules-based order” concept may have a negative impact on the existing international legal order insofar as it “washes out” the established legitimate procedures of international law-making, thus rejecting traditional international values of legal stability and diminishing the role of international law in international relations. Such scenario would not only multiply legal uncertainly and even unreasonable expectations among the participants of the international processes, but also might lead to undermining the very fundamentals of modern international law based on the UN Charter. The latter in its turn will inevitably lead to the global legal instability and will dramatically increase the risks of World War III. At the moment, the frequent abuse of the term “rules-based order” by the representatives of the NATO countries in support of their politically motivated statements, agreed upon only among them, impedes achievement of accepted understanding of the concept at the universal level, that might be consistent with international law