Search results

Раздел "Международное право" - рубрика "Вопросы теории" ; According to the Charter of the United Nations the U.N. Security Council bears the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The Council, however, stays sometimes inactive because of controversy among its members. States may thus invoke insufficient efficacy of the S.C. as the basis for actions by the decision of other U.N. organs (Korea crisis 1950, Congo 1961), for collective or individual self-defense. States also try to justify the use of individual coercive measures referring to the necessity to enforce Security Council resolutions (military action in Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003). At present the possibility to act "on the advice" of the Security Council in the case of its inactivity or insufficient efficacy is alleged on the following grounds: 1. Authorization of the S.C. to use "all necessary means". 2. Recognition by the S.C. of the existence of a threat or breach of international peace and security. 3. Authorization of the S.C. to take action in self-defense. 4. Enforcement of earlier resolution of the S.C. 5. Other justifications. The present article considers the status of the above-mentioned justifications without the explicit authorization by the U.N. Security Council in the context of the principle of non-intervention into the domestic affairs of states. The study allows to make the following conclusions. Whenever the system of the collective security provided for by the U.N. Charter doesn't function, the Security Council carries out its enforcement capacity by authorizing individual states or international organizations to act. This enforcement activity doesn't constitute intervention into the domestic affairs of states only in so far as it is accomplished in accordance with the authorization of the Council and ceases as soon as the purpose of the sanction is achieved. Other justifications (for example, recognition by the S.C. of the existence of a threat or breach of international peace and security, breach of obligations provided for in the S.C. resolutions, reference to the right of individual and collective self-defense, threat by the severest consequences) constitute no basis for the unilateral enforcement of the rulings of resolutions and therefore break the principle of non-intervention into the domestic affairs of states as well as the prohibition to use force or the threat of force in international relations. Inactivity or insufficient efficacy of the U.N. Security Council cannot be viewed as an authorization to resort to unilateral military measures either.

The paper refers to Russian and foreign archival documents, which became the basis for the analysis of relationships between the "party-and state authorities" and opposition in the Czech Republic in the late 80s of 20 th century. State authorities with conservative bias demanded that the "normalization" regime be stricter whereas "pragmatists" were contemplating a dialogue with the opposition. After the events of November 17 for a very long time also the followers of "non-political politics" in the opposition considered a dialogue with the pragmatic faction of the state authorities whereas the radical wing representatives were calling for immediate free elections and establishment of democratic institutions of power. However, it was the upward movement, beginning with the student demonstration of November 17, 1989 and ending with mass demonstrations which gathered as many as 700,000 people in Prague in the end of November, that gave momentum to historic transformation in the Czech Republic as it came up with its own hierarchy of historical priorities different from that of numerous government and opposition circles. These activists who were able to adjust their former standpoint to social expectations enjoyed public support. ; W artykule, na bazie rosyjskich i zagranicznych archiwalnych dokumentów poddane zostały analizie relacje między "partyjno-państwowym kierownictwem" i opozycją w Czechosłowacji w końcu lat 80-tych. Konserwatywnie nastawieni przedstawiciele władz domagali się zaostrzenia reżymu "normalizacji", natomiast "pragmatycy" brali pod uwagę dialog z opozycją. W opozycji zwolennicy "niepolitycznej polityki" też – do czasu wydarzeñ z 17 listopada, a także jeszcze długo po nich – brali pod uwagę dialog z nurtem pragmatycznym kierownictwa państwowego, natomiast zwolennicy radykalnego skrzydła domagali się natychmiastowego przeprowadzenia wolnych wyborów i formowania demokratycznych organów władzy. Ale właśnie ruch oddolny – począwszy od demonstracji studenckiej z 17 listopada 1989 roku i kończąc masowymi demonstracjami, gromadzącymi w Pradze w drugiej połowie listopada nawet po siedemset tysięcy uczestników nadawało w Czechosłowacji tempo przemianom historycznym, inaczej akcentując historyczne priorytety, niż to zakładały różne środowiska zarówno rządowe, jak i opozycyjne. Powodzeniem cieszyli się ci działacze, którzy, umieli skorygowaæ swoje poprzednie stanowisko zgodnie ze społecznymi oczekiwaniami.

Marx on Max and Malthus, socialism, and ideology