At present, eventful time, the verb "to denounce" we can hear more and more often.Sometimes, with a question mark (what?), But also that most - with an exclamation mark (done immediately!) However, before you start to take decisive action, it makes sense to understand: what it means to denounce?
What is a denunciation?
term "denunciation" (denunciation) is derived from the French dénoncer (terminate, declare) means refusal to comply with an international agreement of the parties.In other words, to denounce the decision, the contract - simply means to stop their action.
practice, however, such cancellation of the contract - is not as simple a process as it may seem.And for several reasons.One of them - there are agreements do not allow denunciation.These are for example, the 1949 Geneva Conventions.This international legal agreement, the main task - taking care of the victims of armed conflicts.As the basis of global human rights, the Convention requires parties to an armed conflict to distinguish between civilians and the direct participants in hostilities, protect civilians and civilian objects.And, it's important!Denounce (synonym - break) these agreements in time of war is impossible.The reason seems obvious.
Some features of denunciation
So denounce - what does it mean?The denunciation of an international treaty is different from any other method of termination that the right of denunciation is specified in the text.Therefore, it can not be considered a breach of contract - on the contrary, it is quite natural and legitimate way to its dissolution: it laid the basis for the agreement of the contracting parties!The document is usually prescribed procedure and the possibility of denunciation (for example, early warning opposing party).Any violation of this procedure may be grounds to challenge the fact of denunciation.
On termination of international treaties
Inability to denounce the treaty, of course, does not mean that you can not cancel it altogether.There is another, quite relevant legal international standards way - Cancellation: state unilaterally terminate their bilateral agreement concluded.However, for its cancellation are required fundamental political and legal grounds.Among these we can calculate that it can not comply, legal nullity, illegality of the contract, material change in circumstances, prior to his conclusion.A major reason for cancellation of the contract can become its violation by the opposing party.In exceptional cases, they are recognized as lawful cancellation of contracts, if they were to predecessors of the current leadership of the state.The above procedure should take place in accordance with established international practice, including advance notification of all parties to the contract.
For someone inexperienced little difference in terms listed there.Cancel denounce - what does it mean?And the fact that the contract is no more, but is ultimately not the point?A good lawyer with this approach will not accept never.Because the nuances of law (especially international) no trifles: important and terminology, and compliance with any formalities.
Something about Crimea
«denounce the Crimea!" - Until recently this slogan was quite popular in the media and in the statements of the Russian politicians.What is the meaning of this call?
bit about the history of the issue.The Soviet Union, in 1954.Nearing the memorable date - the 300th anniversary of the reunification of Ukraine and Russia.I would like bright propaganda gesture, symbolizing the eternal friendship of fraternal peoples.And an idea, executed in the form of the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the transfer of the Crimean region of Ukraine.This decision shall be published in national newspapers in time for the anniversary, and there is a view: voluntarist Khrushchev (at the time - the head of the Soviet state) gave Crimea to Ukraine!
Of course, not all of this Decision is perceived with delight that many of the condemned Khrushchev unduly generous gift.Do some people have a desire to restore justice - to select the Crimea from Ukraine ("denounce").And if in the era of the Soviet Union this question for obvious reasons, does not rise, after its destruction by the idea of returning Crimea Russia begins to slowly gripped the masses.
different view on the same problem
And whether tyrant Khrushchev so easy, a nice gesture for the sake of, scatter the earth?People close to the leader, a different view on the matter.The well-known journalist, son of Khrushchev, A. Adjoubei, in an interview talked about the trip with the father in the Crimea in 1953.He noted the terrible desolation of this place after the war, devastation, the impossibility of full functioning of the national economy.And because Adjoubei argued, the decision to transfer the peninsula was mainly due to the desire to save this blessed land, to breathe life into it.
About the same reasons, and Khrushchev's son, Sergei.It also considers the issue of the Crimea almost technical, designed to ensure the restoration and further development of the area.However, Khrushchev drew attention to another point: in fact, the Crimea in the Ukraine gave not his father, and Boris Yeltsin.The logic of this reasoning is simple: in 1954, Ukraine and Russia were part of a single state, the USSR, and thus the transfer of the peninsula from one subject to another has been a certain degree of formality.But at the conclusion of the Belavezha Accords Crimea could try to return to Russia, but Yeltsin did not do this - hence gave Ukraine Peninsula was he.
And once again about the meaning of denunciation
Khrushchev noticed absolutely true: at the time of "giving" Crimea Russia and Ukraine were the subjects of a single state.It is doubtful that their agreement made in the form of an international treaty, as it is impossible to imagine the text provided an opportunity to "roll back" the process back, pick up the "gift."Therefore, neither treat finding peninsula "as a part of a State, a call for" denunciation of Crimea "is hardly something worth from the perspective of law.
Thanks to well-known events in Ukraine and the referendum in the Crimea peninsula again as a part of Russia, and you do not even have anything to "denounce".What does this mean for the Crimea, evil or good, how will develop further the relationship between people and nations?All these questions can be answered only time.However, activists are not appeased: already heard another call: "Belovezhskoe denounce the agreement!" And again, to evaluate the idea, should refer to historical events.About
Russian Empire in 1917, the February revolution and later the October.A huge country collapses overnight, leaving behind a pile of rubble (they then called Soviet republics).External aggression and horrible civil war, brother kills brother, battle red and white, monarchists and anarchists - these disasters continue for several years, bringing only grief, pain and devastation.About the suffering of the whole country and everyone living in it, you can talk for a long time.However, here at last is a positive thing.
December 29, 1922 at the conference delegates to the Congress of Soviets of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the Caucasus was signed an agreement on the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.The document was approved December 30, 1922 - the day and was named the date of formation of the Soviet Union, although the governing bodies of the new powers were created later.
About Bialowieza agreement
controversial stories formed the state, all his achievements and failures - is the subject of a very serious conversation.At the time of its collapse in 1991, the Soviet Union was no longer of 4 and 15 of the republics of the free, as sung in the national anthem, have, as stated in the Constitution, the right to self-determination up to secession.In December 1991, the memorial of the founder of the state 3 of 4, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus (then the Transcaucasian Soviet Socialist Republic no longer existed), we decided to implement this right and become independent.It has been signed by well-known Belovezhskaya agreement, and the Soviet Union as a unified state did not.There was a denunciation of the Union Treaty.
How to evaluate a fait accompli?This was more than twenty years arguing politics and ordinary citizens, historians and lawyers.Perhaps, more accurately put the other in 2010. Vladimir Putin: "Who does not regret the collapse of the USSR, has no heart.And those who want to restore it in its present form, there is no head. "
What does it mean to denounce the agreement adopted in the Bialowieza Forest?To revive the Soviet Union, or what?However denounce denounced - not too Is it surprising?We are all here in order from a legal perspective?And what to do with those (and they are many!) Who does not want to denounce?What does it happen?Forced reunion, brotherly love at gunpoint?
Conclusion The existence of a right to any word, and the verb "to denounce" is no exception.Yet an intelligent person before you start juggling slogans prefer to think his thought.The people correctly noted: "The word - not a sparrow ...»