LawState and Law

Denounce - what does this mean? Denounce the agreement, agreement, decision - what is this procedure?

In the present, eventful time, the verb "denounce" is heard more often. Sometimes with a question mark (what is it?), And even more often - with an exclamation mark (to do immediately!) However, before deciding to take decisive action, it makes sense to understand: what does denunciation mean?

What is denunciation?

The term "denunciation" (denunciation) is derived from the French dénoncer (terminate, declare) and means a refusal to comply with an international treaty by one of the parties. In other words, denouncing a decision, a contract means simply stopping their action.

However, in practice, such a cancellation of the contract is not as elementary as it may seem. And there are several reasons for this. One of them is that there are agreements that do not allow denunciation at all. Such, for example, are the Geneva Conventions of 1949. These are international legal agreements, the main task of which is to take care of the victims of military conflicts. Being the basis of the world humanitarian law, the conventions require from the parties of the armed confrontation to distinguish between civilians and direct participants in military operations, to ensure the protection of civilians and civilian objects. And, important! Denounce these agreements (in synonym - to break) in wartime is impossible. The reason, I think, is obvious.

On some peculiarities of denunciation

So, denounce - what does this mean? The denunciation of an international treaty is different from the other way of dissolving it in that the right to denounce is stipulated in the text of the document. Therefore, it can not be considered a violation of the treaty - on the contrary, it is a very natural and legitimate way to dissolve it: in fact the agreement of the contracting parties is based on it! The document usually prescribes the procedure for possible denunciation (for example, advance warning of the opposing party). Any violation of this procedure may be grounds for contesting the very fact of denunciation.

On the dissolution of international treaties

The inability to denounce the contract, of course, does not mean that it can not be terminated at all. There is another way, quite in line with international legal norms: annulling: the state unilaterally terminates the bilateral treaty concluded by it. However, for its cancellation, fundamental political and legal grounds are needed. These can be considered as an impossibility of observing it, legal nullity, illegality of the contract, significant changes in circumstances preceding its conclusion. A serious reason for the cancellation of the contract may be its violation by the opposing party. In exceptional cases, cancellation of contracts can be recognized as legitimate, if they were predecessors of the current leadership of the state. The aforementioned procedure should take place in accordance with the established world practice, including advance notification of all parties to the treaty.

For a man of unsophisticated special difference in these terms there. To annul, denounce - what does this mean? And the fact that there is no treaty, but is not this the main thing in the end? A good lawyer with such a statement of the question will never agree. Because in the nuances of law (especially international), there are no trifles: terminology is important, and compliance with any formalities.

Something about the Crimea

"Denounce the Crimea!" - More recently, this slogan was quite popular both in the media and in speeches of some Russian politicians. What is the meaning of this appeal?

A little bit about the history of the issue. The Soviet Union, 1954. A memorable date is coming - the 300th anniversary of the reunification of Russia and Ukraine. I want a vivid propaganda gesture symbolizing the eternal friendship of the brother nations. And there is an idea, issued in the form of a resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR on the transfer of the Crimean region to Ukraine. This decree is published in the central newspapers just on the anniversary date, and there is an opinion: the free will Khrushchev (at that time - the head of the Soviet state) Crimea Ukraine gave!

Of course, not all of this Decree is received with enthusiasm: many condemn Khrushchev for an unreasonably generous gift. Some people have a desire to restore justice - the Crimea in Ukraine to take away ("denounce"). And if in the era of the USSR such a question is not raised for obvious reasons, then after its destruction, the idea of the Crimea's return to Russia begins to slowly seize the masses.

A different view of the same problem

And is Khrushchev really a tyrant so simple, beautiful gesture for the sake of being scattered by the earth? People close to the leader have a different view of this issue. A well-known journalist, Khrushchev's son-in-law, A. Adzhubei, in his interview told about a trip together with a father-in-law in the Crimea in 1953. He noted the terrible desolation of these places after the war, devastation, the impossibility of a full-fledged functioning of the national economy. And so, argued Adzhubei, the decision to transfer the peninsula was mainly due to the desire to save this blessed land, to breathe life into it.

Approximately the same reasoning and the son of NS Khrushchev, Sergei. He also considers the issue with the Crimea almost technical, designed to ensure the restoration and further development of this area. However, S. Khrushchev draws attention to another point: in fact, Crimea was not transferred to Ukraine by his father, but by Boris Yeltsin. The logic of these arguments is simple: in 1954, Ukraine and Russia were part of a single state, the USSR, and therefore the transfer of the peninsula from one subject to another was to some extent a formality. But at the conclusion of the Bialowieza Accords Crimea could be tried to return to Russia, but Yeltsin did not do it - therefore, he gave the peninsula to Ukraine.

And again about the meaning of denunciation

S. Khrushchev noted absolutely true: at the time of the "donation" of Crimea, Russia and Ukraine were subjects of one state. It is doubtful that their agreement would be formalized in the form of an international treaty, as it is impossible to imagine the possibility provided by the text to "roll back" the process back, to take away the "gift". Therefore, no matter how you feel about finding a peninsula "in the composition of a state, the call for a" denunciation of the Crimea "is unlikely to be worth anything from the position of law.

Thanks to the well-known events in Ukraine and the referendum in Crimea, the peninsula is again part of Russia, and for this purpose one did not even have to "denounce" anything. What does this mean for the Crimea, evil or good, how will relations between people and states develop in the future? Only time can answer all these questions. However, the activists do not stop: the next appeal is already being delivered: "Denounce the Belovezhskaya Agreement!" Again, in order to evaluate this idea, one should turn to historical events.

On the Union Treaty

The Russian Empire, 1917, the February Revolution, and later the October Revolution. A huge country collapses overnight, leaving behind a heap of debris (they will later be called the Soviet republics). External aggression and monstrous civil war, the brother destroys his brother, the battles of red and white, anarchists and monarchists - these calamities last for several years, bringing only grief, pain and devastation. The suffering of the whole country and everyone living in it can be argued for a long time. However, at last a positive moment.

December 29, 1922 at the conference delegates to the congresses of the Soviets of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Transcaucasia signed the Treaty on the Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The document was approved on December 30, 1922 - this day was called the date of the formation of the Soviet Union, although the governing bodies of the new power were created somewhat later.

About the Belovezhsky Agreement

The ambivalent history of the newly formed state, all its achievements and misses, is the subject of another, very serious conversation. At the time of its disintegration, in 1991, the Soviet Union consisted no longer of 4 but of 15 republics: free, as the country sang in the Hymn, having, as stated in the Constitution, the right to self-determination, up to secession. And in the memorable December 1991, 3 founders of the state of 4, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus (the Transcaucasian Soviet Socialist Republic did not exist then) decided to realize this right and gain independence. The famous Belovezhskaya Agreement was signed , and the USSR did not become a united state. There was a denunciation of the Union Treaty.

How to assess the fait accompli? Politicians and ordinary citizens, historians and jurists have been arguing about this for over twenty years. Perhaps, Vladimir Putin put it more accurately than others: "Who does not regret the collapse of the USSR, he does not have a heart. And those who want to restore it in its original form, do not have a head. "

What does it mean to denounce the agreement adopted in Belovezhskaya Pushcha? Resuscitate the Soviet Union, or what? But denounce denounced - is this too much? Is everything in order from the legal point of view? And what to do with those (and there are many of them!), Who does not want to denounce anything? What will happen? Forced reunification, brotherly love under the guns of machine guns?

Conclusion

Any word has the right to exist, and the verb "denounce" is no exception. Yet a reasonable person, before starting to juggle with slogans, will prefer his thought to think through. The people correctly noted: "The word is not a sparrow ..."

Similar articles

 

 

 

 

Trending Now

 

 

 

 

Newest

Copyright © 2018 en.birmiss.com. Theme powered by WordPress.