The principle of conscientious performance of contracts. The principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations

The principle of good faith international obligations- one of the fundamental imperative principles of modern international law. It originated in the form of the international legal custom pacta sunt servanda in the early stages of the development of statehood, and is currently reflected in numerous bilateral and multilateral international agreements.

As a universally recognized norm of behavior of subjects, this principle is enshrined in the UN Charter, the preamble of which emphasizes the determination of UN members to create conditions under which justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be observed. According to paragraph 2 of Art. 2 of the Charter, all Members of the United Nations shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed under this Charter in order to secure to them all collectively the rights and benefits arising from membership in the membership of the Organization. The development of international law clearly confirms the universal character of P.d.w.m.o. According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, every treaty in force is binding on its parties and must be performed by them in good faith. A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as an excuse for its non-performance of a treaty. Scope of P.d.m.o. expanded markedly in last years which was reflected in the wording of the relevant international legal instruments. Thus, according to the Declaration on the Principles of International Law of 1970, each state is obliged to fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by it in accordance with the UN Charter, the obligations arising from the generally recognized norms and principles of international law, as well as. obligations arising from international treaties valid in accordance with generally recognized principles and norms of international law. The authors of the Declaration sought to emphasize the need for faithful observance, first of all, of those obligations that are covered by the concept of “generally recognized principles and norms of international law” or follow from them. Different legal and socio-cultural systems have their own understanding of good faith, which directly affects the observance by states of their obligations. The concept of good faith has been enshrined in a large number of international treaties, resolutions of the UN General Assembly, in declarations of states, etc. However, it should be recognized that determining the exact legal content of the concept of good faith in real situations can be difficult. It seems that the legal content of good faith should be derived from the text of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, mainly the sections "Application of Treaties" (Articles 28-30) and "Interpretation of Treaties" (Articles 31-33). The application of the provisions of the treaty is largely determined by its interpretation. From this point of view, it can be assumed that the application of the treaty, which is interpreted in good faith (according to the usual meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context, and also in the light of the object and purpose of the treaty), will be in good faith. P.d.w.m.o. only applies to valid agreements. This means that the principle in question applies only to international treaties concluded voluntarily and on the basis of equality. Any unequal international treaty, first of all, violates the sovereignty of the state and, as such, violates the UN Charter, since the United Nations is founded on the principle of sovereign equality of all its members, who, in turn, have committed themselves to developing friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle equality and self-determination of peoples. It should be considered generally accepted that any treaty that is contrary to the UN Charter is null and void, and no state can invoke such a treaty or enjoy its benefits.

L.M. CHURKINA, lawyer The article considers the formation of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations, the role of the principle in the process of compliance with international treaties, as well as in the course of monitoring the fulfillment of such obligations, including monitoring the execution of decisions of international courts.

This article was copied from https://www.site

UDC 340.132.8

Pages in the magazine: 21-24

L.M. CHURKINA,

The formation of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations, the role of the principle in the process of compliance with international treaties, as well as in the course of monitoring the implementation of such obligations, including monitoring the implementation of decisions of international courts, are considered.

Keywords: principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations, control over the execution of decisions of international courts.

The Role of the Principle of Fulfillment in Good Faith of Obligations under the International Law

The author of the article considers the development of the principle of fulfillment in good faith of international obligations in compliance of an international treaty, and also in the course of the control for fulfillment of international obligations, including the control for execution of international judgments.

Keywords: principle of good faith fulfillment of international obligations, monitoring of implementation of decisions of international courts.

Relations between states in different historical periods were formed and regulated differently. The development of economic, political and cultural ties stimulated the strengthening of relations and led to the conclusion of bilateral agreements. International agreements gradually acquired more and more importance. However, a mutually beneficial agreement was of great value when strictly observed by the participants.

The principle of conscientious observance of international obligations has become the main guarantor of the strict implementation of the signed agreements. The London Conference of 1871, dedicated to the revision of the Paris Peace Treaty of 1856, became the most important step towards the universal recognition of this principle. The European powers recognized as an essential principle of international law that no power can either release itself from the obligations of the treaty or change its provisions otherwise than with the consent of the contracting parties, reached by friendly agreement. This decision, in fact, for the first time consolidated at the international level the principle of conscientious fulfillment of obligations, which was interpreted as the principle “contracts must be respected”.

Over time, the principle of faithful performance of international obligations has received a more definite interpretation. Paragraph 2 of Art. 1 of the Charter of the League of Nations provided for the condition under which states could become members of the League: to provide valid guarantees of their sincere intention to comply with international obligations.

The inclusion of the principle of fulfillment in good faith of obligations under international law in the text of the UN Charter was of decisive importance for universal acceptance. In the preamble and in Art. 4 of the UN Charter speaks of the determination of peoples “to create conditions under which justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be observed”, and paragraph 2 of Art. 2 establishes the obligation of the members of the United Nations to fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed under the Charter, "in order to secure to them all in the aggregate the rights and advantages arising from membership in the membership of the Organization."

Later, the principle was reflected in Art. 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which states that “every treaty in force is binding on the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith”.

The principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations is specified in the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter, as well as in the Final Act of the 1975 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. In particular, it is emphasized that each state is obliged to fulfill in good faith the obligations arising both from the generally recognized principles and norms of international law, and from international treaties that are valid in accordance with the generally recognized principles and norms of international law.

In international legal practice, various legal mechanisms are used to increase the effectiveness of the principle of conscientious observance of international obligations. Among them, the creation and operation of special international bodies exercising control over the implementation of international legal norms.

As practice shows, states themselves enshrine in international agreements provisions on monitoring the fulfillment of their obligations through the use of various forms and methods. international control facilitating the verification of compliance by states with international legal obligations and the adoption of measures for their implementation.

As G.A. Osipov, the voluntariness of control should be understood in the sense that states, as sovereign participants in international communication, themselves agree with certain international legal norms. However, when these norms are agreed upon and enshrined in an agreement that has entered into force, its provisions, including those on control, are legally binding on all participating States.

International control over the implementation of treaty norms is carried out by the collective efforts of states with the help of international organizations and includes a system of measures aimed at verifying the accuracy of compliance with the international legal obligations of states, identifying possible violations and ensuring the fulfillment of international obligations under an international treaty. This is possible only with the effective assistance of the states themselves. The state in this aspect can be considered as a controlled structure, whose activities are aimed at the voluntary implementation of international treaties on its territory.

Under international treaties, States parties undertake to undertake a wide range of actions in relation to their domestic life, including the adoption of legislative or other domestic measures that may be necessary for the implementation of the rights and obligations enshrined in international agreements.

The state also decides effective ways control over the fulfillment of their international obligations. Domestic control functions are implemented by state bodies, officials and other entities and are fixed by relevant laws.

According to Art. 31 of the Federal Law of July 15, 1995 No. 101-FZ “On International Treaties Russian Federation”(hereinafter referred to as the Law on International Treaties), international treaties of the Russian Federation are subject to conscientious implementation in accordance with the terms of the international treaties themselves, the norms of international law, the Constitution of the Russian Federation and this law, other acts of the legislation of the Russian Federation.

Article 32 of the Law on International Treaties, as well as Art. 21 of the Federal Constitutional Law of December 17, 1997 No. 2-FKZ "On the Government of the Russian Federation" provides that the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation take measures aimed at ensuring the implementation of international treaties. The federal executive authorities must ensure the fulfillment of the obligations of the state.

In accordance with paragraph 4 of Art. 32 of the Law on International Treaties and clause 1 of Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated March 12, 1996 No. 375 “On the coordinating role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation in pursuing a unified foreign policy line of the Russian Federation” The Russian Foreign Ministry exercises general control over the fulfillment of the international obligations of the Russian Federation.

Forms and methods of internal state control can be established by both legislative and executive bodies of state power. Federal Law No. 138-FZ of 05.11.1997 “On the Ratification of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” provides that the fulfillment of the obligations of the Russian Federation arising from the Convention is ensured by federal state authorities, state authorities the authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation within their powers. According to this law, the President of the Russian Federation determines the main directions of the policy of the Russian Federation in the field of chemical disarmament, the measures necessary to ensure the safety of citizens and the protection of environment during the destruction of chemical weapons in accordance with the Convention, as well as measures to control their implementation. Moreover, this law contains provisions on the obligations of the Government of the Russian Federation and Federal Assembly to ensure the fulfillment of obligations under the Convention.

As a result of the implementation of national control, the state has the right to bring to justice those guilty of non-fulfillment of international obligations. For example, in accordance with Art. 40 of the Federal Law of December 17, 1998 No. 191-FZ "On the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Russian Federation" officials, citizens and legal entities for violation of this law and international treaties of the Russian Federation, they are held liable in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.

Thus, the current Russian legislation contains provisions on ensuring the international obligations of the Russian Federation and on monitoring the fulfillment of these obligations in various areas.

In national law, judicial control acts as one of the forms of state control. In international law, the resolution by international judicial bodies of disputes arising in connection with the fulfillment of international obligations refers to the methods of international control. The possibility of considering a dispute in an international judicial institution follows directly from the provisions of an international treaty. Many universal multilateral conventions contain provisions providing for recourse to the International Court of Justice. These include the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of ​​12/10/1982, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change of 05/03/1992, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer of 03/22/1985, etc.

The International Court of Justice makes a decision that is binding on the basis of the principle of good faith fulfillment of international obligations. If the court determines that the state did not act in good faith in fulfilling its contractual obligations, abused the rights granted under the contract, it can make a decision indicating the need to fulfill obligations under the contract. The requirements of the court are also based on the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations.

On the one hand, international courts issue law enforcement acts, on the other hand, they act as a mechanism for monitoring the fulfillment by states of international obligations, thereby contributing to the implementation of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations. Consequently, international judicial institutions are engaged in the implementation of obligations that arise from international legal acts.

As a result of the consideration of disputes by international courts and the issuance of a decision between the parties, new legal relations arise, new international legal obligations aimed at the execution of a court decision. Their legal obligation derives from the provisions of international treaties concluded by the parties in which they have accepted the jurisdiction of the court. At the same time, in connection with the emergence of new legal obligations related to the execution of decisions of an international judicial institution, the problem of monitoring the implementation of these obligations arises. Non-execution of decisions of international courts by states entails an appeal to control bodies, specially created international organizations, the absence of which can lead to a violation of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations. For the International Court of Justice, such a body is the Security Council, for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights - the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, for the EU Court - the European Parliament, for the European Court of Human Rights - the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

For the Russian Federation, the control mechanism of the European Court of Human Rights is of particular interest. In accordance with Art. 46 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the parties undertake to comply with the final judgments of the court in cases in which they are parties. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe oversee the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

The State is under an obligation to enforce the judgment, but it is free to choose the means of enforcement. The control functions of states are assigned to the bodies of legislative and executive power. Thus, by virtue of articles 79 and 87 of the Dutch Constitution, permanent advisory bodies on matters of legislation and government controlled and the States General of the Netherlands have a supervisory function at the national level for the implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

In some member states of the Council of Europe, the mechanism of control (judicial, parliamentary and executive) over the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is provided for at the legislative level. In Ukraine, it is regulated by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Regulations of the European Court of Human Rights, the laws of Ukraine "On the execution of decisions and the application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights", "On enforcement proceedings”, the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine and some other regulatory legal acts. At the same time, the main normative legal act- the law "On the execution of decisions and the application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights" - has no analogues in other states parties to the Convention. Article 11 of this law authorizes the representative body to exercise control and receive from the bodies responsible for the implementation of additional measures of an individual nature, provided for in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on friendly settlement, information on the progress and consequences of the implementation of such measures, as well as to submit prime submissions to the Minister of Ukraine regarding the implementation of additional measures of an individual nature. The Government Commissioner for European Court Affairs must submit a report on the state of execution of decisions, to whom, in turn, the Department of State Enforcement Service is obliged to provide relevant information.

In 2006, Italy passed a law giving the Prime Minister and Parliament a special function to oversee the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The law obliges the Prime Minister to monitor the actions of the Cabinet on the execution of European Court judgments against Italy, and also provides for the preparation of an annual report on the implementation of European Court judgments by Italy and its submission to the country's parliament.

The practice of exercising control functions by Parliament in the United Kingdom is interesting. Since March 2006, the practice of annual reports on the implementation of European Court judgments against the country has been applied in this state. Reports are prepared by the Joint Human Rights Committee and submitted to Parliament, where they are analyzed and recommendations made by the committee are put to a vote. As a result, a decision is made to approve the recommendations and apply them in practice, or to reject them.

In the Russian Federation, the process of exercising control over the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights has not been regulated. This leads to the lack of an objective and prompt analysis of the rulings issued against Russia in the authorities, which, in turn, entails a significant delay in the adoption of general measures and an increase in the number of complaints from Russian citizens.

The urgent adoption of the law “On the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Russian Federation” or the empowerment of the Commissioner of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights with control functions can contribute to a decrease in the number of complaints and decisions. Possibly the creation special service under the Ministry of Justice of Russia would help to improve the situation with respect to the fulfillment by Russia of international obligations taken upon joining the Council of Europe and ratifying the Convention. Control can also be exercised through existing supervisory mechanisms and institutions - such as the prosecutor's office or the presidiums of federal courts.

Particularly noteworthy are proposals concerning control within the framework of prosecutorial supervision over the fulfillment of international obligations. Part 4 Art. 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation proclaimed the universally recognized principles and norms of international law, as well as international treaties of Russia, as an integral part of its legal system. Paragraph 1 of Art. 5 of the Law on International Treaties repeats this provision. In accordance with Art. 21 of the Federal Law of January 17, 1992 No. 2202-1 "On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation", the Prosecutor's Office supervises the implementation of laws and, accordingly, international treaties. Thus, the prosecutor's office is obliged to control the fulfillment of the international obligations of the Russian Federation. However, the limits and procedure for supervision by the prosecutor's office of the fulfillment of international obligations, including the execution of judgments of the European Court, are not specifically defined. This leads to the fact that the prosecutor's office is not able to provide effective control over the execution of such decisions.

Obviously, control should be carried out both at the international and domestic levels in accordance with the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations. This principle is directly related to the activities of the states themselves on international arena, as well as to the control bodies they create, exercising control within the country with national means.

Bibliography

1 See: Peace Treaty between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany (together with the "Statute of the League of Nations", "Charter international organization Labor”, “Protocol”) dated June 28, 1919 // Treaty of Versailles. - M., 1925.

2 See: Charter of the United Nations // Collection of existing treaties, agreements and conventions concluded by the USSR with foreign countries. Issue. XII. 1956. S. 14-47.

3 See: Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties // Collection of International Treaties of the USSR. Issue. XLII. 1988. S. 171-197.

4 See: Collection of current treaties, agreements and conventions concluded by the USSR with foreign states. Issue. XXXI. 1977, pp. 544-589.

5 See: Osipov G.A. International legal problems of arms control and disarmament control. - M., 1989. S. 18.

The principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations arose in the form of the international legal custom pacta sunt servanda in the early stages of the development of statehood, and is currently reflected in numerous bilateral and multilateral international agreements.

As a universally recognized norm of behavior of subjects, this principle is enshrined in the UN Charter, the preamble of which emphasizes the determination of UN members "to create conditions under which justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be observed." According to paragraph 2 of Art. 2 of the Charter, "All Members of the United Nations shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed under this Charter, in order to secure to them in their entirety the rights and benefits arising from membership in the membership of the Organization."

The development of international law clearly confirms the universal nature of the principle in question. According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, "every treaty in force is binding on the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith." Moreover, "a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as an excuse for its non-performance of a treaty".

The scope of the principle under consideration has noticeably expanded in recent years, which is reflected in the wording of the relevant international legal documents. Thus, according to the Declaration on the Principles of International Law of 1970, each state is obliged to fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by it in accordance with the UN Charter, obligations arising from generally recognized norms and principles of international law, as well as obligations arising from international treaties valid in accordance with generally recognized principles. and norms of international law.

The authors of the declaration sought to emphasize the need for faithful observance, first of all, of those obligations that are covered by the notion of "generally recognized principles and norms of international law" or follow from them.

In the Declaration of Principles of the 1975 CSCE Final Act, the participating States agreed "to fulfill in good faith their obligations under international law, both those obligations arising from generally recognized principles and norms of international law, and those obligations arising from treaties or other agreements consistent with international law. of which they are members."

Obligations "under international law" are certainly broader than obligations "following from the universally recognized principles and norms of international law." Moreover, in recent years States have adopted, in particular at the regional level, important instruments which, strictly speaking, do not constitute their obligations "under international law", but which they nonetheless intend to comply with strictly.

For Europe, these are documents adopted within the framework of the Helsinki process. The Final Document of the Vienna Meeting of Representatives of the CSCE Participating States says that they "reaffirmed their determination to fully implement, unilaterally, bilaterally and multilaterally, all the provisions of the Final Act and other documents of the CSCE."

Different legal and socio-cultural systems have their own understanding of good faith, which directly affects the observance by states of their obligations. The concept of good faith has been enshrined in a large number of international treaties, resolutions General Assembly UN, in declarations of states, etc. However, it should be recognized that determining the exact legal content of the concept of good faith in real situations can be difficult.

It seems that the legal content of good faith should be derived from the text of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, mainly the sections "Application of Treaties" (Article 2830) and "Interpretation of Treaties" (Article 3133). The application of the provisions of the treaty is largely determined by its interpretation. From this point of view, it is logical to assume that the application of the treaty, which is construed in good faith (in accordance with the usual meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context, and also in the light of the object and purpose of the treaty), will be in good faith.

The principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations applies only to valid agreements. This means that the principle in question applies only to international treaties concluded voluntarily and on the basis of equality.

Any unequal international treaty first of all violates the sovereignty of the state and as such violates the UN Charter, since the United Nations is "founded on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members", which, in turn, have undertaken to "develop friendly relations among nations on the basis of respect principle of equality and self-determination of peoples".

It should be considered generally accepted that any treaty that is contrary to the UN Charter is null and void, and no state can invoke such a treaty or enjoy its benefits. This provision is in line with Art. 103 of the Charter. In addition, any treaty cannot be contrary to a peremptory norm of international law, as defined in Art. 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Recent legal and political-legal documents increasingly point to the link between the duty of conscientious observance of international treaties and the internal rule-making of states. In particular, the participants in the Vienna Meeting agreed in the 1989 Outcome Document to "ensure that their laws, regulations, practices and policies are consistent with their obligations under international law and are harmonized with the provisions of the Declaration of Principles and other CSCE commitments."

Formulas of this kind testify to the expansion of the scope of application of the principle of conscientious observance of international obligations.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Established in 1945 at the London Conference. Its Charter entered into force on November 4, 1946. Since December 1946, UNESCO specialized agency UN. The headquarters is located in Paris (France). sovereign equality inviolability border

UNESCO aims to promote peace and security through the development international cooperation in the field of education, science and culture, the use of funds mass media, further development public education and dissemination of science and culture.

The supreme body is the General Conference, consisting of representatives of all member states and convened in regular sessions once every two years. It determines the policy and general direction of the organization, approves its programs and budget, elects members of the Executive Board and other bodies, appoints the general director, and resolves other issues.

The Executive Board is the main governing body of UNESCO between sessions of the General Conference. It consists of representatives of 51 states, elected for four years on the basis of an equitable geographical distribution(10 places of the country Western Europe, North America and Israel; 4 country locations of Eastern Europe; 9 locations in Latin America and the Caribbean; 8 places countries of Asia and the basin Pacific Ocean; 20 places African countries and Arab states). UNESCO's constitution requires that representatives be appointed persons competent in the arts, literature, science, education and dissemination of knowledge, and possessing the necessary experience and authority.

Administrative and technical functions are performed by the Secretariat, headed by the Director General, appointed for six years.

The principle of faithful fulfillment by states of their international obligations- one of the oldest principles of international law, without which it is difficult to imagine the very existence of the international legal system. It is no coincidence that almost simultaneously with the first international treaties, the first means of ensuring them appeared. If states could arbitrarily treat the need to strictly adhere to their obligations, all other norms and principles of international law would become meaningless. The very system of principles as generally binding norms inevitably presupposes the strict observance of the relevant rules, and only if this condition exists does it become an effective regulator. international relations. Therefore, it is generally accepted that the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations is basis of modern international law.

Historically, the principle in question arose as a development of the formula pacta sunt servanda (contracts must be performed), which was adopted by public international law from Roman law. It is not difficult to see that the current formulation of the principle greatly expands its scope. According to the international legal doctrine, states must fulfill in good faith not only contractual, but generally any obligations assumed in accordance with international law (for example, ordinary ones).

The UN Charter does not formally contain this principle, since it obliges states to strictly fulfill only those obligations that they have assumed in connection with membership in the Organization. Despite the importance of such obligations, the range of international obligations of any state is not limited to them. Therefore, the legal content of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations is revealed more fully in the Declaration of Principles of 1970, the Final Act of the CSCE of 1975, and also in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. The content of this principle includes the following main provisions.

First, states must fulfill their international obligations in good faith. Compliance in good faith means the exact, timely and complete fulfillment of an obligation assumed in accordance with international law. In particular, states must implement international treaties in strict accordance with their spirit and letter, proceeding from the usual interpretation and in accordance with the basic principles of international law.

Secondly, when fulfilling an international obligation, no state has the right to invoke its national law. On the contrary, this principle requires all states to bring their domestic legislation into line with their international obligations, thus ensuring the primacy of international law over national law.

Thirdly, the obligation to fulfill international obligations in good faith concerns only those obligations that do not contradict the basic principles of international law, and, first of all, the system of international legal principles. Any rule of conduct that is contrary to the spirit and principles of the UN Charter is legally null and void and therefore should not be enforced.

Fourth, failure to fulfill international obligations by one or another state entails the onset of international responsibility - a system of measures aimed at restoring the rule of law. Protection of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations is carried out through the activities of special international bodies (judicial and arbitration), by means of multilateral and bilateral diplomacy, and in a number of cases - voluntarily by the offending states.

Fifth, international law contains an exhaustive list of grounds on which a state has the right to evade the fulfillment of its international obligations. For example, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties allows, in strictly defined cases, a state party to a treaty to refuse to execute it. Such cases cannot be considered a violation of the principle under consideration, since they are allowed by international law itself.

The practical implementation of the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations often, as already noted, conflicts with the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs. sovereign state. It should be emphasized once again: the obligations assumed by the state to the world community have absolute priority over its national interests and, therefore, cannot be attributed to internal affairs of this state. Therefore, the principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations should be considered as the foundation of the system of international legal principles and international law as a whole. It is no coincidence that adherence to this principle in one form or another is enshrined in many international documents. For example, Article 1 of the 1994 Declaration on the Fundamentals of Relations between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Kingdom of Spain contains the intention of the parties to build their relationship on the basis of “... voluntary fulfillment of international obligations assumed in accordance with international law”.

The emergence of this principle is associated with the development of statehood and the conclusion of contracts, i.e. it arose in the form of an international legal custom.

However, as a generally recognized norm of behavior of subjects, this principle is enshrined in the UN Charter, the preamble of which emphasizes the determination of UN members "to create conditions under which justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be observed". UN Charter (San Francisco, 06/26/1945) // International law: Collection of documents / Responsible. Ed. A.N. Talalaev. Moscow: Legal Literature, 2003.720 p.

According to Art. 2, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter, "... all Members of the UN in good faith fulfill the obligations assumed under this Charter in order to ensure to them all in the aggregate the rights and benefits arising from membership in the membership of the Organization."

Universality of the principle:

• A) according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, "every treaty in force is binding on its parties and must be performed by them in good faith." Moreover, "a party may not invoke a provision of its internal law as an excuse for its non-performance of a treaty."
• B) according to the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law, each state is obliged to fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by it in accordance with the UN Charter, obligations arising from generally accepted norms and principles of international law, as well as obligations arising from international treaties valid in accordance with generally accepted principles and norms of international law, i.e. the scope of this principle has significantly expanded.
• C) in the Declaration of Principles of the 1975 CSCE Final Act. The participating States agreed "to fulfill in good faith their obligations under international law, both those obligations that arise from the generally recognized principles and norms of international law, and those obligations that arise from treaties or other agreements consistent with international law to which they are parties."

The legal content of good faith follows from the text of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. from sections:

• - Application of treaties (art.28-30)
• - Interpretation of treaties (Articles 31-33) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna, May 23, 1969)//Garant System, 2006.

The application of the provisions of the treaty is largely determined by its interpretation.

From this point of view, it can be assumed that the application of the treaty, which is interpreted in good faith (in accordance with the usual meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context, as well as in the light of the object and purpose of the treaty), will be in good faith.

The principle of conscientious fulfillment of international obligations applies only to valid agreements.

This means:

This principle applies only to international treaties that are concluded in good faith and on equal terms;

Because any unequal treaty violates the sovereignty of the state, i.e. the Charter of the United Nations, it may not be implemented and is not voluntarily terminated;

Any treaty that is contrary to the UN Charter is invalid and no state should refer to it or enjoy its benefits (Article 103 of the UN Charter).

Any treaty cannot contradict the peremptory norm of international law (Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969)