Search

Issues of legal regulation of military captivity are very relevant. At different times, humanity has experienced many wars and military conflicts, with which came experience and the realization that even during armed confrontation it is necessary to respect the law, show mercy and humanity towards an enemy who is helpless or does not want to fight. The emergence of norms in the field of military captivity in international humanitarian law dictated the necessary desire of countries to implement these norms into national legislation. The rapid development of modern law and legal policy determines the increase in the culture of society, and at the same time the preservation of humanity and respect for the human dignity of prisoners of war. Our country, being a highly developed and rule-of-law state, has always strived to implement the norms of international law in the field of military captivity, both in Soviet and Russian legislation. However, in the history of domestic law to this day, organizational, political and legal problems arise in the implementation of the norms of international humanitarian law relating to military captivity into national legislation. The above problems are a consequence of a complex of social reasons, both objective and private. Continuing research into the dynamics of the process of implementing the norms of international law in the field of military captivity into Russian legislation, a comprehensive study of the issue of legal implementation of the implemented norms will allow us to find ways to solve problems in this area, as well as draw a conclusion regarding the further development of legal norms relating to military captivity in our country.

INTRODUCTION. In recent decades, there has been an escalation of armed clashes in the territories of African states, the states of the Middle East and Central Asia with the participation of military formations, international terrorist groups that everywhere use the practice of attacking and looting cultural property as a military strategy. In this regard, of scientific and practical interest is a comprehensive study of the legal and organizational foundations of international legal regulation of the protection of cultural property during armed conflicts, evaluation of their effectiveness and identification of promising tasks for the development of additional measures and strategies for the preservation of cultural heritage, taking into account new challenges and threats.MATERIALS AND METHODS. This paper examines the provisions of key international treaties, decisions of the main bodies and specialized agencies of the UN, which together form the existing international legal regime for the protection of cultural property in armed conflict. The author also analyzes the jurisprudence of international criminal justice bodies on bringing individuals to justice for deliberate attacks on cultural sites as part of hostilities. Special attention is paid to the study of scientific works of both domestic and foreign scientists, within which international legal concepts are formed, designed to resolve existing problems in the current international legal regulation of the issue under study, as well as to form promising concepts in the framework of the development of the doctrine of international law. The methodological basis is made up of general scientific and special research methods.RESEARCH RESULTS. According to the results of the study, it was found that during the XX century states have consistently developed norms for the protection of cultural property from threats associated with armed conflicts, while the XXI century was marked by best practice in the application of the rules on liability for attacks on cultural property in situations of armed conflict in the activities of international justice bodies. In addition, it was determined that for the first time in the history of UN peacekeeping, the UN Security Council tested the mandate of the Multidisciplinary Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, in which the peacekeeping contingent, among other things, performed the tasks of protecting, safeguarding and restoring cultural heritage sites together with UNESCO. It seems significant to identify and generalize the prospects for the development of new international legal measures for the preservation of cultural heritage for future generations, taking into account the changing nature of armed conflicts, the intensification of the activities of international terrorist groups and the growing practice of destroying the centuries-old cultural heritage of peoples in the framework of the so-called “cultural cleansing". The topical aspect of the study was the establishment of new approaches of states to the protection of cultural heritage as a means of ensuring international peace and security.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The publication presents the author's objective assessments of the established international legal framework, judicial practice of international criminal justice bodies, as well as doctrinal approaches of both domestic and foreign scientists on the issue of international legal regulation of the protection of cultural property during armed conflicts. Separately, the forms of international legal cooperation of states at the UN site within the framework of the UNESCO profile organization for the development of modern regulatory and organizational foundations for the interaction of the competent authorities of states to prevent and suppress the destruction of cultural heritage, as well as the looting and illegal export of cultural property in the event of an armed conflict, especially terrorist groups.

INTRODUCTION. Fighting is increasingly taking place in populated areas, including large cities, which leads to indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian objects. This problem is recognized by the UN, by an increasing number of States and requires training of combatants to choose and apply appropriate means and methods of war in populated areas to prevent or minimize accidental harm to the civilian population and civilian objects in such conditions. However, for example, the actions of the US-led coalition in 20162017 to liberate Iraqi Mosul from terrorists, the armed formations of Ukraine in the Donbas since 2014, which caused unjustifiably large civilian casualties and destruction of urban infrastructure, indicate that the Western powers and their satellites ignored these requirements.The purpose of the article is to identify and scientifically analyze problematic issues in the application of international humanitarian law for the protection of civilians and civilian objects in armed conflicts in urbanized areas.MATERIALS AND METHODS. To reveal the theoretical aspects of the problem under consideration, a system-structural approach, generalization, deduction, methods of scientific abstraction, logical and system analysis are applied. Special research methods were also used: historical-legal, comparative-legal and formal-legal.RESEAECH RESULTS. Within the framework of this publication, the authors analyzed the problems of international legal protection of civilians and civilian objects in the context of hostilities in an urbanized area and developed proposals for their solution.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. According to the results of the study, it was found that the principles and norms of international law developed by mankind as a whole make it possible to ensure the protection of the civilian population and civilian objects during the conduct of hostilities, including in cities, under the key condition the realization of responsibility for crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes.

Article is devoted to the problems of development of private military companies in Russia. It shows the practice of private military companies in the current political situation in the world. The phenomenon of private military companies (PMCs) is a rather controversial and ambiguous topic. Over the past more than thirty years, PMCs have played an increasingly important role in local wars and regional conflicts. With further globalization of the world economy, the role of PMCs in future wars and armed conflicts will be increasing. The authors study international documents regulating the activities of these organizations. They point out the necessity of adopting a law to allow this type of activity on the territory of the Russian Federation. Private military companies actually exist within the country and their legalization would allow to introduce their activities into the legal field. Private military companies influence the sphere of human rights, is connected with corruption and dishonest performance of obligations in implementation of contracts. The penalties for establishing and participating in illegal armed groups are shown. The possibilities of their application, both in Russia and abroad, are highlighted.

The article is devoted to the analysis of international normative legal acts in the context of determining the criteria for armed conflict. In addition, the authors pay attention to the wording of this concept for the proper qualification of the form of armed violence. The authors also explore the effect of international humanitarian law in the event of an armed conflict, because participants of an international armed conflict are obliged to comply with international humanitarian law applicable in such conflicts. The main sources of international legal regulation of armed conflicts include the so-called “Geneva law” and the “Hague Law”. The category of an “armed conflict” in international relations was first used in the Geneva Conventions of 1949, where, along with the term “war”, the concepts of “international armed conflict” and “non-international armed conflict” are used. In addition, the authors emphasize that the concept of an armed conflict should be distinguished from other related concepts such as war, internal unrest, tensions and acts of violence. The distinction between “war” and “armed conflict” is rather arbitrary. In particular, it is believed that the concept of an “armed conflict” is broader and encompasses the concept of “war”. However, not every armed conflict can be called a war, because war has the following features that are not inherent in an armed conflict: the act of declaring war; severance of diplomatic relations between the belligerent states, which is a consequence of the war declaration; the cancellation of bilateral treaties, especially political ones. The autors think that that today one of the most acute problems in the practice of an international humanitarian law application is the lack of a clear and complete definition of all situations to which its provisions should be applied. Thus, international humanitarian law only describes situations that should be regulated by its norms. At the same time, there are still no clear and unambiguous criteria by which such situations can be identified

Copyright of Law of Ukraine / Pravo Ukraini is the property of Editorial Board of Journal "Law of Ukraine" and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

INTRODUCTION. The article analyzes the consequences of coming into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 2017. This Treaty forbids use of nuclear weapons and its deployment on territories of states, which ratified it. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article is based on the main international treaties, which regulate now the status of nuclear weapons – Non-proliferation treaty 1968, Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 2017 and also Advisory Opinion of UN International Court of Justice 1996. RESEARCH RESULTS. Coming into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons subdivided states into two groups – the states-participants of this Treaty and states-non participants. On the territory of states-participants the use of nuclear weapons is prohibited and must be considered as war crime. On the territory of states- non-participants use of nuclear weapons preserves the same regime as before. This regime was considered by UN International Court of Justice in his Advisory Opinion on Legality of Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons 1996. The article analyzes this Advisory Opinion. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Author comes to a conclusion, that all the legal foundations upon which is based this Advisory Opinion remains intact and also his central clause, according to which it is not forbidden for a state to use nuclear weapons when its survival is at stake. This situation may occur when such a state would be in armed conflict with a state or group of states – members of a military-political organization, which had much stronger military and economic potential. Also use of nuclear weapons is not forbidden against all members of this military-political organization.

INTRODUCTION. The world has many times faced cardinal changes triggered by technological development. Creation of the Internet and the emergence of the artificial intelligence have become the major trend of the ongoing changes with the signifi-cant potential to affect all spheres of live, including the military affairs and the geopolitical phenomena in general. In this paper, in particular, we discuss the opportunities and challenges of the rapid technological development in the defense sector in the context of globalization. The pace and the nature of changes in defense dictate the necessity to analyze the current and future challenges of our digitized age in search of adequate and timely legal and strategic practical solutions. Cyber means of warfare are the weapons of the present. Over the past decades, cyber means of warfare have been frequently used against states in the context of international and non-international armed conflicts, as well as outside of such context. Thus, the fundamental scientific questions that arise are the following: a) are the current legal regulations at international and national levels sufficient to address all the challenges caused by the spillover of armed conflicts into the virtual domain and by the future advancement of cyber weapons, and b) are the current cyber weapons or those of the future capable of changing the nature of “war” described by General Carl von Clausewitz yet in the 19th century as a violent method of forcing its political will by one party of the conflict to the other. We have analyzed the above-mentioned questions in the light of the cyber weapons, which already exist and are being used for military purposes, in the light of possible advancement of cyber weapons and integration of AI into them, as well as in the light of the Big Data management. We have reflected on the dangers, which the smart and entirely data driven world would face, from legal and geopolitical perspectives, through the several possible scenarios of development, emphasizing, in particular, the probable military (defense) aspect of data management. While most frequently the specific problems of application of International Law to the traditional cyber warfare situations become subject for academic debates and discussions, we stress the necessity to also analyze the legal and practical implications of further advancement of cyber weapons, as well as the necessity to consider the role of Big Data management in changing the nature of war and, consequently, also the applicable legal solutions.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The works of academics and international scholars in the field of international law and, specifically, international humanitarian law, and military theorists, as well as international treaties, commentaries to international treaties, and national cyber defense and cyber security strategies comprise the theoretical basis for the current paper. The research has been conducted via general and specific scientific methods of cognition, in particular the dialectical method, comparative legal method, method of interpretation, as well as methods of deduction, induction, analysis, synthesis, and others.RESEARCH RESULTS. The ongoing changes taking place in the world have resulted in a situation, when cyber domain is considered one of the traditional war domains. In this context the international community is now debating more flexible interpretations of international legal regulations in order to most efficiently address the new reality. It is also important that states at national level undertake measures to timely and adequately address the challenges already created and those that potentially may take place as a result of the globalization along with the rapid evolution of the cyber technologies and their military use. In the current article we conclude that the categories of the present generation of cyber weapons are lawful. However, the future developments in cyber weapon technologies, as well as the possible quasi-military implications of Big Data management raise many theoretical and practical questions deserving attention. The efforts of the international community and individual states in the field of legal regulation of cyber technologies should be directed toward creating guarantees that the products of the technological development are used for the benefit of humankind. As one of such measures The Authors indicate national cyber security and cyber defense strategies, which according to the Authors, should be elaborated giving due consideration to the possible future developments.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In this paper we analyze the peculiar features of evolution of the world in the 21st century and argue that wars are not static and autonomous phenomena isolated from the global context and all the changes taking place in the world. In particular, we address one of the most popular debates among the scholars in the field of military affairs concerning the issue whether the nature of war has changed or will change overtime, referring to Carl von Clausewitz’s thoughts. With regard to the current generation of cyber weapons, we conclude that even if they might prima facie seem to be inherently indiscriminate (such as, for example, nuclear weapons) in reality cyber weapons are not per se indiscriminate, but rather are weapons with a very high potential of being used indiscriminately or in violation of the principle of discrimination. However, the high potential of indiscriminate use of cyber weapons does not outlaw the cyber weapons as such. We also agree with the widely accepted opinion that the cyber weapons, which are currently used, are sufficiently regulated by the International Law. At the same time, the future tendencies for advancement and improvement of military cyber technologies, inter alia, via integration of artificial intelligence, may seriously call into question the possibility of their application in compliance with the international legal regulations. Finally, the possible scenarios of advancement of Big Data management have led us to the conclusion that big data management per se has the potential of being used as a weapon with less lethal or even non-lethal consequences, however equally effective in enforcing one’s policy as the traditional weapons or potentially kinetic cyber-weapons. If big data analysis at its current stage of development does not produce very accurate predictions, the well-distributed and structured informational flow in the cyber domain is capable of influencing and manipulating behaviours. In such case if Big data monopoly (including both: hardware and soſtware) vests in one of several actor, it could drastically change the nature of war by making the element of violence redundant and consequently alter the geopolitical balance. One of the measures for early response to future challenges, in our opinion, could be through reflecting on lex ferenda in cyber security and cyber defence national strategies. From the analysis of the content of different strategies we could conclude that most states acknowledge cyberspace as a military domain like land, air or maritime, analyse the main specific characteristics of current generation of cyber weapons, and set state objectives and action plan for cyber offense, cyber defense and cyber deterrence respectively. While the future advancement of cyber means of warfare and the quasi-military dimension of the big data management seem to be overlooked by states in general.

INTRODUCTION. The increase in the number of armed conflicts involving non-State armed groups recognized as terrorist in States and international organizations has been the trend in recent years. In this regard, the question relating to the links between terrorism and armed conflict, as well as between the international legal regulation of combating terrorism and international humanitarian law, is on the agenda. The article examines the regional approaches of the CIS to countering terrorism within armed conflicts and during counter-terrorism operations in peacetime.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The material for the research included the universal treaties, the model legislation of the CIS on IHL and in the field of combating terrorism, as well as the conceptual documents of the military-strategic cooperation of the CIS member states in particular in identifying areas and forms of countering international terrorism as a modern military threat. The methodological basis of the research included general scientific and private scientific methods of cognition traditional for legal researches.RESEARCH RESULTS. The research substantiates the hypothesis that within the Commonwealth there were formed the legal regimes, which are based on the generally recognized principles and norms of international law governing the issues of military counteraction to terrorist threats both in peacetime and during armed conflicts. The article analyzes international treaties, model legislation of the CIS and national legal acts of the member states establishing the legitimacy of military methods and means of response to terrorist challenges and threats within the special legal regime of the "counter-terrorist operation". A relevant aspect of the study was the identification of the prospects of military cooperation between the CIS member states through the development of new mechanisms for combating terrorism– "military-police operations" in the system of their joint counter-terrorism activities.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In modern realities, it is the most effective to build the counteraction to terrorism within the CTO legal regime which enable to combine law enforcement and military tasks faced by the state within ensuring its internal and external security, and also contains guarantees for ensuring and protecting human rights. Meanwhile, the involvement of the armed forces of the state in combating terrorism does not mean an unequivocal transfer of the situation from peacetime to the regime of martial law. The CIS, conscientiously fulfilling its obligations under the key acts of IHL, has set out in its model legislation the norms prohibiting terrorism during armed conflicts and establishing responsibility for acts of its. In addition, under the auspices of the CIS there has been developed and successfully implemented the model legislation regulating the use of military methods and means of response to terrorist challenges and threats within a special legal regime of a “counter-terrorism operation” separated from the regime of the use of armed forces within the IHL.

Modern armed conflicts demonstrate constant military transformation, and the weapon of the future will be precisely what we now name by the word “autonomous weapon systems” (AWS). Despite many advantages of using it, the possibility of lawful use of AWS and especially unmanned maritime systems as a kind of AWS remains a debatable issue in international law. It is primarily due to the loss of human control over the use of lethal force and the autonomy of such systems. AWS are already widely used by many countries, including Israel, the US, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and others, to protect their borders, increasing the response times and effectiveness of border forces both on land and at sea. Authors highlight a list of issues, namely the absence of the conventional definition of the term “autonomous weapon systems”, the possibility of individual prosecution due to the misuse of AWS, the protection of human life, privacy and appropriate remedies, the compliance of the use of AWS with the principles of distinction between civilians and combatants, military necessity and proportionality, precautions, etc. The problems of using autonomous weapon systems lie in both legal and ethical areas. Such uncertainty automatically narrows the protection of human rights in armed conflicts, which is unacceptable and illegal. Therefore, it is proposed at the regulatory level to prohibit states from using fully autonomous weapon systems and unmanned maritime systems as a kind of AWS that could use lethal force against humans, as well as to provide for the definition of AWS, their types, and principles of use, clearly define and limit their scope within which states could guarantee respect for human rights, as they are responsible for compliance with IHL and international human rights law.

INTRODUCTION. In December 2019, an outbreak of coronavirus infection (SARS-CoV-2) transmitted by airborne droplets was recorded in Wuhan, China. In midJanuary, the virus was detected in Tailand and Japan; in March, the center of the pandemic moved to Europe; in early April, the United States came out on top in terms of the number of infections. To combat the virus, many states have introduced emergency measures, including lockdowns, social distance requirements, mass testing, etc. Te pandemic has affected all spheres of public life, including international relations and international law. Tis article continues the article “COVID-19 and International Law: General Issues”.MATERIALS AND METHODS. Te article analyzes the response to the pandemic on the part of states, organizations and the doctrine of international law; examines special international legal aspects of the pandemic: impact of the pandemic on human rights, WTO law, international investment law, and etc. Te problems of legal regulation in connection with the pandemic are defned and the ways of their solution are determined. Te subject of analysis is the materials of foreign legal press, frst of all, posts and articles on the Internet. In addition to the data of international law, scientifc categories of philosophy, economics and political science are used.RESEARCH RESULTS. In response to the pandemic, many states have closed their borders to the entry of foreigners and the exit of their own citizens; have closed their ports to foreign ships, banned disembarkation and change of crew, or introduced mandatory testing and quarantine; have suspended flights and restricted the export of pharmaceutical ingredients; inter alia, these measures affected foreign investors. Te pandemic has also exacerbated problems of wildlife trade, cybersecurity and compliance with international humanitarian law. Border closures and port restrictions have drawn criticism, including citing violations of International Health Regulations, the law of the sea, refugee law and human rights law. Responses to derogations from investment and WTO obligations have been more restrained; many authors noted the legitimacy of the respective actions of states.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In fact, the pandemic marks tectonic changes: the elimination of the outdated political model of the Modern Times and transition to a new political and legal paradigm. First, it is about changing the subject of the social contract. Te Hobbesian model of this contract implies obedience to the sovereign in exchange for guarantees of rights, as well as inviolability of private life; the new model presupposes the abolition of these guarantees and the imposition on the sovereign of the only obligation – the protection of biological (bare) life, which, in turn, means an unlimited right to intervene. Second, the pandemic is the backdrop for the redistribution of power between states, international organizations, corporations and media; by blurring the line between politics and expertise, it contributes to the anonymization of power, excludes political discussion and removes the requirement of public control. Tird, the pandemic radically changes management methods: under the pretext of a common threat, the state enters into direct contact with citizens, involving constant monitoring, verifcation and restrictions; the new mode of citizenship in this regard implies constant fear, consent to medical manipulations and refusal from unauthorized activity.

INTRODUCTION. States are seized with the question of how International Law norms should be applicable with respect to harmful use of information and communications technologies (hereinafer – ICT) in many different collective formats. Against this background, an intensive disclosure of the states' positions is a brand new trend. So, managerialism is slowly giving way to consensualism, however, do these collective and individual efforts help to clarify, at least, the key problems connected with the qualifcation of these harmful practices?MATERIALS AND METHODS. Being based on the analysis of the reports of the UN Group of Governmental Experts and the Open-Ended Working Group, as well as the ofcial positions articulated by states, this article seeks to reveal on which questions and in which volume states have managed to achieve a consensus on the qualifcation of harmful cyber activities under International Law. Tis question is crucial for the identifcation of the subsequent practice in the application of international treaties which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding their interpretation, as well as the practice and opinio juris as elements of international customs.RESEARCH RESULTS. Te research confrmed that the principle of non-intervention into domestic affairs, albeit its full applicability in cyber context is not being questioned by the states, has a very limited significance for the qualifcation of the harmful use of ICTs, which brings to the forefront the principle of sovereignty. However, the states' ofcial positions, based on a denial or, vise versa, an afrmation of this principle as a separate rule, postulate the impossibility to apply the principle of sovereignty without concretization of its content in the cyber context. Te polyphony of the approaches does not foreshadow a possibility to reach consensus on this issue in the nearest future. With respect to the jus ad bellum and jus in bello norms, the readiness of the majority of states to qualify the cases of harmful use of ICTs as a 'use of force' or even an 'armed attack', and to overstretch the scope of the International Humanitarian Law notions of an 'attack' or 'military operation', is described as being indicative of the abuse of the 'military paradigm' to assess these activities. Approaches of some states go beyond the normative scope of these notions so far that their assertion loses legal signifcance and seems to have rather a political character by primarily fulflling the deterrent function.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Te article concludes by diagnosing that a consensus between states on the application of International law to harmful ICT practices has been reached at a very high level of abstraction and hardly transcends the limits of the general acknowledgment of the applicability of International law in the cybersphere. Tis fact enshrines the indeterminacy as the main feature of the qualifcation of harmful use of ICTs under International law and renders almost every stance on nuances of the application of International law to these acts to be an ad hoc one.

In the recent years debates surrounding the autonomous weapons systems development and regulation have gained a new momentum. Despite the fact that the development of such type of weapons continues since the twentieth century, recent technological advances open up new possibilities for development of completely autonomous combat systems that will operate without human in-tervention. In this context, international community faces a number of ethical, legal, and regulatory issues. This paper examines the ongoing debates in both the Western and the Russian expert community on the challenges and prospects for using lethal autonomous systems. The author notes that Russian and Western discourses on most of the issues have very much in common and diff erences are found mainly in the intensity of debates — in the West they are much more ac-tive. In both cases the most active debates focus around two issues: the potential implications of fully autonomous weapons systems including the unclear line of accountability, and the prospects for international legal regulation of the use of lethal autonomous weapons. Both the Russian and the Western experts agree that the contemporary international humanitarian law is unable to handle the challenges posed by aggressive development of the lethal autonomous weapons. All this points to the need to adapt the international humanitarian law to the new realities, which, in turn, requires concerted actions from leading states and international organizations.

The presence of employees of private military and security companies in the grey zones and in military operations is a reality. The legal regulation of the status of these companies, the types and essence of the services provided, as well as the legal mechanism for prosecuting employees seriously infringing the provisions of international humanitarian law is an imperative need for the international regulatory process and a challenge for the science of international humanitarian law. This article will continue to discuss the correlation between the duties, obligations of non-state actors and their legal status in accordance with the provisions of international humanitarian law, to analyze documents and legal instruments that seek to regulate the legal capacity of military and private security companies, to investigate aspect related to the implementation of the rules described in the documents proposed by the international community.

INTRODUCTION. In December 2019, an outbreak of coronavirus infection (SARS-CoV-2) transmitted by airborne droplets was recorded in Wuhan, China. In mid-January, the virus was detected in Thailand and Japan; in March, the center of the pandemic moved to Europe; in early April, the United States came out on top in terms of the number of infections. To combat the virus, many states have introduced emergency measures, including lockdowns, social distance requirements, mass testing, etc. The pandemic has affected all spheres of public life, including international relations and international law.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article analyzes the response to the pandemic on the part of states, organizations and the doctrine of international law; examines the international legal aspects of the pandemic: application of the International Health Regulations 2005, possible responsibility of China and other states, impact of the pandemic on human rights. The problems of legal regulation in connection with the pandemic are defined and the ways of their solution are determined. The subject of analysis is the materials of foreign legal press, first of all, posts and articles on the Internet. In addition to the data of international law, scientific categories of philosophy, economics and political science are used.RESEARCH RESULTS. Major UN bodies have reacted to the pandemic with general statements. WHO positioned itself as an international center for the fight against the virus and made recommendations that, however, were not implemented by states which adopted more restrictive measures. The main document that guided WHO is the International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR). Some states and the media accused China of a belated reaction and withholding information. As a result, the doctrine has discussed the issue of bringing a claim against China to the International Court of Justice. The legal basis for this claim could be the provisions of the IHR, the WHO Constitution and a number of duediligence obligations. The jurisdictional basis for applying to the ICJ could be Art. 75 of the WHO Constitution, and to an arbitration Art. 56 IHR. In response to the pandemic, many states have limited human rights; references have been made to the possibility of a temporary derogation from human rights obligations in an emergency and the possibility of limiting human rights in the interests of national security, health and the protection of the rights of others.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The foreign doctrine notes an nsufficient response frominternational organizations and makes proposals aimed at expanding the powers of the UN Security Council in combating the pandemic and at reforming the WHO. In addition, there are shortcomings of the IHR that hinder their effective use. The possibility of holding China accountable is questioned: there is nsufficient evidence of the violation; the threshold for breach of duediligence obligations is very high; China is unlikely to agree to participate in the lawsuit against it. Nevertheless, several lessons can be learned for the law of responsibility (the possibility of deviating from the principle of full compensation, etc.).The procedure for derogating from human rights obligations during a pandemic also needs clarification. In general, the international legal doctrine coped with the task of understanding of the pandemic phenomenon: it systematized and qualified the facts, discovered and formulated legal problems, both private and public, and suggested means to solve them. Few questioned the advisability of such a harsh global reaction and formulated a radical criticism; instead, the shortcomings of individual measures were noted and proposals were made to improve their effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION. This research paper presents the authors view on the essence of the problems of modern international law regulation of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) and international arms circulation. The authors dwell upon various aspects of new technologies in the field of creating LAWS, outline the prospects for the solution of the current challenges, as well as give a legal assessment of the legality of new types of weapons, methods and means of warfare from the perspective of contemporary international law. The system and mechanisms of international law regulation of the military purpose products circulation are also analyzed in this scientific work.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The subject of this study comprises international treaties, international customs, general principles of international law and national legislation of states. The study also includes the analysis of international acts of different nature, reports and other documents of international organizations, national authorities, scientific and educationalliterature. The methodological basis of this study is a wide range of research methods, namely: formal-legal, formal-logical, comparative-legal and historical-legal. In addition, the researchers apply system, structural and functional methods, as well as methods of analysis and generalization.RESEARCH RESULTS. The result of the study is the conclusion about the perspectives of developing auniversal definition of LAWS, as well as a common approach to understanding their characteristics and parameters of human control, and also about the advantages of LAWS in the course of military operations and solving national security problems of states, primarily in terms of compliance with IHL rules, which all military personnel are required to strictly observe. It is also necessary to take into account the crucial role of the issues of secrecy and national security, while Article 36 of Additional Protocol I does not contain criteria for distinguishing new types of weapons from other types of weapons, for example, from those that have undergone multi-stage modernization. It can be stated that at present there are only separate and insuffi ently effective mechanisms of international law regulation due to their voluntary basis. Therefore, national export control mechanisms are of paramount importance for the process of regulating the circulation of military purpose products, which is an essential element of national sovereignty.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The authors come to the following conclusions: the existing provisions of IHL are fully applicable to LAWS; responsibility for the use of LAWS should be borne by the person who manages the robotic complex or «programs» and gives the order to use LAWS, but the specific forms and methods of human control should remain at the discretion of states; Article 36 of Additional Protocol I provides extremely limited opportunities to prevent the creation of new weapons systems, does not require any reporting and control format; research and development of new types ofweapons are secret, and the acquisition or adoption of obviously or presumably indiscriminate weapons systems are not a violation, but rather a preparation for a violation or an activity of a controversial nature; further improvement of the international law regulation of arms circulation should be developed by creating mandatory universal mechanisms of international law regulation that would prevent the uncontrolled circulation and illegal distribution of weapons, including their sale to terrorists.

Reading the International Humanitarian Law, point of view of the status of subjects of Public International Law of the parties ist the only issue that involved in military conflicts matters so that they can be qualified as international or non-international, which depends directly on the volume of legal rules to be enforced and complied by the warring parties. Thus, members of peacekeeping operations conducted under the auspices of the UN, or with the participation of regional structures must strictly comply with the provisions of the rules of war throughout their actions in situations that may CZU: 341.3 https://doi.org/10.52277/1857-2405.2021.2(57).04 qualify as armed conflicts. Mechanisms and instruments for ensuring compliance with the rules of International Humanitarian Law by members of peacekeeping contingents shall be the subject of research in this article.

INTRODUCTION. The research analyzes the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (Basic Principles and Guidelines) of December 16, 2005. The Article examines the stages of the adoption of this document, the concept, structure, basic provisions, as well as the importance for the development of modern international law, particularly in the field of human rights protection and international humanitarian law. Consequently, the Article provides a detailed analysis of the approach to the central subject of this document, that is, the right to a remedy and reparation, which is expressed in practical application by universal and regional bodies on human rights and in the field of humanitarian law. In this regard, the position of the right to a remedy and reparation in the complex of human rights is determined, as well as their interconnection and relation to each other.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The theoretical researches of the Russian and foreign experts in the field of international law have been analyzed in this very Article as well as the normative documents, recommendations, and decisions of the treaty bodies on human rights within the UN system, the law enforcement practice of universal and regional judicial and quasi-judicial bodies for the protection of human rights and in the field of international humanitarian law have also been studied. Such methods of scientific cognition as analysis and synthesis, the generalization method, the system-structural method, as well as the historical-legal and legal-technical methods have also been applied in this research.RESEARCH RESULTS. The Article reveals the significance and impact of the mechanism developed in the Basic Principles and Guidelines, in general, on the international human rights system. The Basic Principles and Guidelines are an international document, developed with the best practice of existing legal systems. It was adopted unanimously through the consensus reached by all parties concerned. The Basic Principles and Guidelines are aimed at codifying the provisions on the right to a remedy and reparation enshrined in various international treaties and as well as at developing a unified approach to these rights. Thus, the said international instrument does not create any new rules but classifies and uniforms the set of provisions on the right to a remedy and reparation. This nature of the Basic Principles and Guidelines makes them an attractive tool for international bodies in their law enforcement practice related to ensuring the right to a remedy and reparation. DISCUSSION ANDCONCLUSSIONS. The Basic Principles and Guidelines enshrine the responsibility of States in the field of human rights protection, when the second party to the conflict is individual, or individuals whose rights have been or may be violated. Therefore, the Basic Principles are focused on the interests of the victim of a violation of human rights, that is, they are deliberately humanistic and human rights oriented. The document provides a classification of victims to more adequately cover human rights mechanisms that ensure the protection of persons, individually or collectively. Further, it pays special attention to the protection of victims of gross violations of human rights. In addition, the Basic Principles and Guidelines list and describe forms of reparation for the victims of human rights violations.

The purpose of the article is to analyse problems arising from applying the rules of International Humanitarian Law in cyberspace, particularly the problems of ratione materiae and ratione temporis of this branch of Public International Law in cyberspace. The rapid development of cyber technologies that can be used within an armed conflict affirm the applicability of this research. The existence of “The Tallinn Manual 2.0” on International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations also confirms the impact of this topic on the modern world. The fact that parties in armed conflicts use new technologies in cyberspace does not affect the applicability of IHL rules to such military actions. In the context of this issue, a key question which instigates scientific discussion is that of which cyber operations are subject to the regulation of the law of cyber armed conflicts. The urgent need to study this problem stems from the fact that cyberspace is not an ordinary theatre of war, with the means and methods of warfare used in it being in no way related to the traditional use of armed force; given this quality of cyber operations, it is essential to understand which areas may be subject to IHL. The article analyses two main doctrinal points of view in relation to this problem; as this doctrine (in the context of this issue) also addresses the legal qualification of cyber-attacks, the article also raises this topical issue. Based on the results of this analysis, the author concludes that, despite all the evidence of theoretical conclusions regarding the problems under analysis, they still do not seem comprehensive due to the lack of relevant state practice, which needs to be developed.

INTRODUCTION. The article analyses the problem of cyber espionage in the context of armed conflict in cyberspace. The relevance of this research, as part of the problem of international humanitarian law applying in cyberspace, is confirmed by the rapid development of cyber technologies that can be used during armed conflict, as well as the availability of the Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The main sources of this research are the provisions of the Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations, the rules of Additional Protocol I of June 08, 1977 to the Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, the rules of the Hague Regulations on the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907, and the rules of custom- ary international humanitarian law. The methodology consists of the principles used in legal research, as well as general scientific and special methods of legal research (system and formal legal methods).RESEARCH RESULTS. The provisions of the Tallinn Manual on cyber espionage were examined for compliance with the relevant provisions of Additional Protocol I of June 08, 1977 to the Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, the Hague Regulations on the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907, and the rules of customary international humanitarian law, as well as the problems that may arise in the process of possible practical application of this provision of the Tallinn Manual.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. It is noted that the provisions of the Tallinn Manual 2.0 on cyber espionage are based on the relevant rules of international law. In fact, the relevant provision of the Tallinn Manual is completely copied from the relevant rules of IHL. However, based on the results of this research, the author comes to the conclusion that such blind copying does not take into account the specifics of cyberspace and leads to the following problems in the possible practical application of this provision of the Tallinn Manual: firstly, due to the anonymity of users, it will be difficult to distinguish between a cyber intelligence officer and a cyber spy in practice. Secondly, due to the difficulties in establishing clear state borders in cyberspace, including due to the use of blockchain and VPN technologies, in practice it is impossible to reliably establish whether secret information was collected on the territory of the enemy, which, in turn, leads to difficulties in qualifying such an act as cyber espionage. Finally, in the context of modern armed conflicts, espionage has ceased to be a phenomenon exclusively of international armed conflicts, and therefore it is likely that cyber espionage can be carried out not only in the context of an international armed conflict, but also in the context of a non-international armed conflict. Based on the results of this research, suggestions were made to develop state practice on this issue. It is desirable that States raise the discussion of the above issues at the UN General Assembly, which would help to identify the main trends in the development of such practices. Only And only after the practice of States on this issue becomes more obvious, the question of developing an appropriate international treaty, preferably within the UN, can be raised.

Copyright of Continuing Professional Education: Theory & Practice is the property of Continuing Professional Education: Theory & Practice and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

INTRODUCTION. The article analyses the sources of international law, national legislation of the Russian Federation, as well as that of certain foreign States regulating the operation of private military and security companies (PMSCs) in armed conflict. The article highlights the out-comes of the work of the UN Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups to study the activity of PMSCs and the impact it had on the observance of human rights. The authors further analyze the status of PMSC personnel under international humanitarian law. The article also looks at the positions expressed by the delegations of Member States during the discussion of the 2010 Draft Convention on Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) and provides recommendations for developing an appropriate international regulatory framework. The authors also examined State practice of the implementation of the The Montreux Document on Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for Statesт Related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies During Armed Conflict related to the operation of private military and security companies during armed conflict.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article contains an analysis of the main sources of international law, the documents drafted by the United Nations International Law Commission, special rapporteurs and working groups on the matter, and State practice. It also addresses Russian and foreign legal scholarship. From a methodological perspective, this study relied on the general scientific (analysis, synthesis, systemic approach) and private legal methods of knowledge (formal-legal, comparative legal studies).RESEARCH RESULTS. Based on the study, it is argued that an international treaty should be adopted to regulate the activities of PMSCs, which would establish mechanisms to monitor and hold PMSCs and their employees legally accountable.

INTRODUCTION. In recent years, increased attention has been dedicated at the international level to legal issues concerning the possible employment of artificialintelligence-related technologies in hostilities in armed conflict. Most prominently, discussions in the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) have addressed juridical aspects relative to emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems.MATERIALS AND METHODS. I analyze contemporary intergovernmental debates in the context of the CCW, international legal frameworks pertaining to armed conflict, and developments in relevant technologies. I do so to trace current trajectories and generate an analytical framework to help apply legal responsibility.RESEARCH RESULTS. A disagreement has arisen among certain States in the context of the CCW as to whether to develop a new primary legal norm or whether existing international humanitarian law is suffi ent. Taking account of that current normative impasse, I propose an analytical framework aimed at ensuring the applicability of international legal responsibility in respect of the employment of AI-related technologies in armed conflict.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Given the range of relevant technologies, the employment of AI in armed conflict may occur across diverse thematic and functional areas: not only in the conduct of hostilities, including weapons, but also detention, humanitarian services, maritime systems, and many other areas. Identification of the general concepts and specific attributes necessary to apply international legal responsibility across the array of implicated areas may help provide a framework through which to respect the law, guide behavior, pursue accountability, and generate areas of greater normative consensus.

The purpose of the article is to identify the methodology, used in international humanitarian law for the regulation of new types of weapons. Under the settlement of the objectives of the article, regulation is understood as the establishment of permits, prohibitions and restrictions on the use of this type of weapon in accordance with the basic principles of international humanitarian law. The article is methodologically based on the works of foreign and Ukrainian researchers, devoted to the problems of the settlement of new weapons systems in international humanitarian law. The empirical basis of the article was formed by international treaties in the field of international humanitarian law and codified customs of this industry, as reflected in the codifications, developed by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The article establishes that in international humanitarian law there is an obligation for states to assess the compliance of new weapons systems with international humanitarian law. At the same time, this norm has two disadvantages. First, it is too abstract, which allows states to avoid the obligation to assess each time with reference to the fact that a certain type of weapon does not fall under the definition of a new type of weapon. Secondly, international humanitarian law does not contain specific mechanisms to hold violating states accountable. It is concluded, that it is necessary to revise the current international legal regulation of the obligation to assess new weapons systems in the direction of its concretization and strengthening of responsibility for noncompliance. Corresponding changes can be made to the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1977, or introduced by adopting a separate protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a result of changes in the technological tenor and congruous with it organization of the world economy, serious changes have occurred in the gradation of participants in armed conflicts. Firstly, the warring parties are not only states now. Secondly, the vast majority of the targets to be overpowered to ensure victory in the conflict are currently in the private sector and out of state control. Also, an essential feature of the information confrontation is that in the vast majority of situations, the direct perpetrator of an information attack cannot be identified immediately and to a large extent due to the fact that “military” conflicts in cyberspace in the context of international relations can be “embedded” in various forms of struggle for power: political, economic, informational, technological, media and ideological, etc. That is, a significant number of participants in ordinary everyday life implicit activities in all walks of life from all over the globe can be not only indirect but also direct participants of informational conflict.In the digital era, targets selected for destruction can have completely different and unexpected properties, which leads to the existence of a significant number of approaches to the classification of targets of informational impact. Force is used against physical and virtual objects in the physical, informational and cognitive dimensions.The complexity of assessing the physical damage inflicted on states, and their population in the cognitive sphere conformably, and relating it with the practice of assigning international responsibility for the use of traditional means of warfare makes it impossible to form any adequate universal international political and legal regime for countering information threats in the near future. The elimination of threats in cyberspace is a common interest in ensuring international stability, but at present it can be carried out by states only on their own.A statement of the specified list of unacceptable aggressive actions carried out through information influences in the federal legislation will be, in essence, a preventive measure, since it will establish a threshold restriction for other international actors to interfere in the internal affairs of the state from outside.

The fact that an international legal regime, especially an expansive legal regime, can be considered to be applicable in the regions of Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia is all the more significant, given the status of the regions as de facto states without obligations and possibility to apply international standards and norms, leaving the population of the regions without any international legal protection. From our point of view, the regime of international humanitarian law would provide a certain level of protection for the population condemning war crimes, such as rape, murder and torture, protecting civilian assets, and initiating criminal prosecution of alleged offenders. In all the cases in which the European Court found the extraterritorial jurisdiction and the foreign support of the separatist movements there were also revealed the violations of the rights protected by the Convention

The Author analyses the position of France towards reforms of the UN Security Council (UNSC). Special attention is devoted to the French initiative on expanding the UN Security Council and on restraining the use of veto of the permanent members of the UNSC in cases of gen- ocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The article contains detailed analysis of the French initiative, including the concept of «The responsibility to protect» and the mechanisms which trig- ger the procedures in the UNSC for voluntary suspension on using the veto of Permanent Five in the event of mass atrocities. The reference is made on restrained reaction of the Permanent Five and leading regional powers – members of the BRICS on the French initiative. The attitude of the Rus- sian Federation to the French initiative on expanding the UNSC and suspension of the veto is being explained in details. The article focuses also on questions related to further progressing of the French initiative on the reform of the UNSC and introduction of changes in the Proposal of Paris. The forecast is made on perspectives of constructive cooperation of the international community in joint resolution of problems of international humanitarian law related to acute crisis situations.

In the short announcement, we offer an idea about International convention for protection of natural heritage in armed conflicts, based on principles of nature protection, international humanitarian and international environmental law.

On April 14, 2018, the Department of International Law, Law Institute, RUDN University held the annual XVI Annual Blischenko Congress. The main work of the Blischenko Congress traditionally took place in sections focused on the main branches of international law. Co-organizers of the International Congress were international organizations, representative offices and departments. This research event was organized with grant support from: Russian Foundation for Basic Research; the grant of the President of the Russian Federation for the state support of young researches; grant of the Russian Science Foundation.

Terrorism is most often understood as the term used to describe the method by which a political organization (organized group) seeks to achieve its definite goals, mainly by intimidating a large part of society by means of systematic extreme indiscriminate violence against civilians, or selective violence against symbolic targets, to influence the government.All the already known and possible future concepts of terrorism, as well as the official strategies for countering it, are politically preconditioned. These concepts are the result of a combination of actions or alleged intentions of terrorists, and, subsequently, the reactions of states to these manifestations of terrorism. Accordingly, any definition of terrorism known to us is determined only by the capacity of states to counteract and to prevent threats.As for the definition of «state terrorism», the main expected competence of a state is to ensure security and stability (predictability) not only for individuals who delegated their powers to it but for other states also. That is why in a broader sense the «sovereignty» of a state should be understood as a measure of the consent of other international actors with the content and ways that given state does implement its authority.Crimes are always committed only by people, and although it is perfectly permissible to use a fiction about State responsibility to establish collective responsibility for crimes, it seems unacceptable to use such a formal interpretation of the law for the personal impunity of perpetrators of terrorist acts. Therefore, in the modern international discourse, the term «terrorist state» is not used. Since the Nuremberg trial, the criminal responsibility for the use of government apparatus to commit crimes was individualized.

In any specific case of the use of armed violence, the question of its legitimation arises, that is, the need to justify the validity of an act of use of force in the language of the law. In general, the model of the legal regime for the use of force to counter terrorism and other manifestations of violent extremism converges to a search for a balance between norms applied, depending on the forces, means and methods of warfare used: the norms of International Humanitarian Law are to be applied to a greater extent when antigovernment groups maintain control of a part of territory of a state, International Human Rights Law — in the course of “law enforcement” actions, when antigovernment forces do not exercise such a control. The author describes the features of the political- legal rationale of the use of force in internal armed conflicts interrelated with countering terrorism and other violent manifestations of extremism:• there are important peculiarities that unify differing rules of law applicable to the international armed conflict, and applicable to internal armed conflict and other situations of violence;• there are sovereign restrictions on the application of international law in internal armed conflicts and other situations of violence;• there are modern agreed restrictions on the use of means and methods of warfare in internal armed conflicts and other situations of violence;• as a result, joint regulations comprise a highly specific share of customary international law and a significant amount of «law enforcement» norms.

This article explores the problem addressing the application of international humanitarian law for legal qualification of uses of “new” means and methods of warfare. Author alleges that any new mean or method of warfare has to be considered legally as a “new” until a statistical data related to the consequences of its use on the battlefield unveiled and compared to the consequences of the use of well-known means and methods of warfare.

One hundred and ten years ago the Second Peace Conference was held in The Hague. It adopted important documents which codified some laws and customs of war thus contributing to the foundation of the system of international humanitarian law. This Conference was a logical continuation of the 1899 Peace Conference, convened at the initiative of Russia, which established general rules for the peaceful settlement of conflicts between states, as well as a number of resolutions and declarations regarding the conduct of military operations. The article analyzes the reasons for convening these international fora and their significance for the world community.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is an international treaty that should be implemented during both peace and wartime. However, the obligations included in the treaty are dependent upon states' attitudes regarding other issues. Non-use of nuclear weapons is directly related to negotiations done for the purpose of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, non-production or accumulation by other means and disarmament. In our day, prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons has been one of the issues of international law.The present study is of crucial significance due to its endeavor to clarify the general principles of Humanitarian Law in a relationship to the threat of nuclear weapons' up to now, a special norm; significantly limiting or completely prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons, has not been accepted in international law. However, customary international humanitarian law regarding the use of nuclear weapons holds great value because of its purpose in eliminating nuclear weapons as a means of war through ascertaining their non-use and also appeasing the importance of nuclear ascendancy. In this respect, the NPT regime and its relationship with international humanitarian law will be discussed. Firstly, the NPT background, formation, main objectives and principles will be analyzed. In order to evaluate the relationship between the NPT and humanitarian law, the humanitarian obligations in general, humanitarian obligations in the context of the NPT and fulfillmen t of these obligations under the NPT should be studied. One of the main parts of the study is nuclear disarmament obligation included in the NPT. In this section, nuclear disarmament obligation in the context of the NPT and the legal framework of possible, general and comprehensive disarmament will be examined.

Modern international security is a heterogeneous sphere that includes both state and nonstate actors. Legal status of some non-state actors is not always clear. This can be attributed mostly to the dynamics of the global processes. The emergence of new actors, their fast transformation and shift from old forms of activity to the new ones often outpace political and legal assessment of their nature, the impact on some other international trends and the implications of their use that may arise. States and international organizations together with business and non-governmental foundations have started to turn to private security actors more frequently. The fact that traditional methods of state violence are complemented by non-traditional forms influences the idea of violence in the society at large. The efficiency of non-state security actors and the speed they provide services with sometimes exceed the ones of civil servants' and outmaneuver state machine. However these advantages do not contribute to the legitimacy of these non-state actors. As a result during a certain period of time, sometimes a significant one, new actors perform having just a partial legitimacy and a vague accoun tability. Various approaches towards regulation of the abovementioned actors within the framework of national and regional legislation clarify their status in a way. But these measures are not enough for them to obtain legal status under the International Law so far. To address the problem a complex approach that would combine the existing International Law mechanisms with the developing self-regulation methods is needed.

The article analyzes the legal possibility of involving the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission to investigate the US Air Force’s attack on the Trauma Centre of the international humanitarian organization «Doctors without Borders» in Kunduz (Afghanistan). The author concludes that there is no such possibility for the Commission in its current configuration, because the fulfillment of a number of conditions is required. At least one of the parties (the United States or Afghanistan) should file a request for an investigation, and the other-to express its consent. Parties should cover all expenses for investigation. The Commission’s final report will remain confidential, unless the parties request its publication. Given the fact that as such a dispute between the US and Afghanistan is absent, the task of the Commission in connection with the incident in Kunduz is completely missing.

Modern international security is a heterogeneous sphere that includes both state and nonstate actors. Legal status of some non-state actors is not always clear. This can be attributed mostly to the dynamics of the global processes. The emergence of new actors, their fast transformation and shift from old forms of activity to the new ones often outpace political and legal assessment of their nature, the impact on some other international trends and the implications of their use that may arise. States and international organizations together with business and non-governmental foundations have started to turn to private security actors more frequently. The fact that traditional methods of state violence are complemented by non-traditional forms influences the idea of violence in the society at large. The efficiency of non-state security actors and the speed they provide services with sometimes exceed the ones of civil servants' and outmaneuver state machine. However these advantages do not contribute to the legitimacy of these non-state actors. As a result during a certain period of time, sometimes a significant one, new actors perform having just a partial legitimacy and a vague accoun tability. Various approaches towards regulation of the abovementioned actors within the framework of national and regional legislation clarify their status in a way. But these measures are not enough for them to obtain legal status under the International Law so far. To address the problem a complex approach that would combine the existing International Law mechanisms with the developing self-regulation methods is needed.

The initiative of Russia to convey the Brussels Conference of 1874 of the European states to codify the laws and customs of war, where professor Martens presented his project of the Convention of the Laws and Customs of War. The participant states recognized the importance of the Russian proposal. However, due to discord between them they had not come to a common decision on agreement on the text of the International declaration of the Laws and Customs of War.

The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the problems associated with a significant increase in the number of private military and security companies are actively involved in armed conflict presents issues of legality of their participation in hostilities, analyze the possibility of regulation of their activities by international humanitarian law. Special attention is paid to the authors of the status and prospects of forming an international regulatory framework for the management, monitoring and control of the activities of private military and security companies.

The author casts doubts on existence of a collision between norms of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law in sphere of protection of the right to life and draws a conclusion that the wording and systematic interpretation of the international treaties, as well as subsequent practice of its application allow to unify the criteria of assessment of legality of deprivation of life in armed conflicts in one test, which unifies requirements of both branches of International Law. Application of this complex test strengthens the rules, governing use of force in armed conflicts, in comparison to the norms of International Humanitarian Law and indicates a new stage of development of International Law applicable in armed conflicts.

The article notes that the armed conflicts emerged after collapse of the Soviet Union on the territories of the CIS member states gave rise to conclusion of agreements in the sphere of the international humanitarian law (IHL). The first of them was the agreement on immediate measures to protect victims of armed conflicts in 1993. Later in the post-Soviet space the IPA CIS began to play an active role in legislative activity for convergence and harmonization of laws of the states ‒ participants of CIS, including the development of legislation in the sphere of IHL.The authors analyze the model laws in the field of IHL, adopted by the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the CIS member states (IPA CIS).

The article is dedicated to the historical and legal analysis of issues and the development of one of the special (branch) of the principles of international humanitarian law ‒ the principle of protection of civilian objects in armed conflicts. The author develops her analysis and examines the formation of the protection of civilian objects in the context of direct public international law taking into consideration international agreements, existing opinions of philosophers, historians, scholars of international affairs.The article describes current contribution of the international community in progressive development of rules on the protection of civilian objects in armed conflicts, but also focuses on the conflict in Libya from the position of violations of the protection of civilians and civilian targets by NATO.

Among the main advantages of the Guidance the author distinguishes a classification of persons in non-international armed conflicts, use of the purpose as a defining feature of the notion of “hostilities”, inclusion of unlawful attacks against the civilian purposes in this notion, application of the principle of military necessity as one of the restrictions of the use of force. Several issues of the Guidance are subjected to criticism: a limited scope of application of the minimum threshold requirement to the harm, a dogmatic position on absolute impossibility of qualification of attacks on the persons under authority of a party to the conflict as “hostilities”, a requirement of existence of a link between a civilian and a party to the conflict, elusion from qualification of general planning and leadership. Finally, the author comes to the conclusion that the process of clarification of the notion “direct participation in hostilities” should be continued.

The article addresses the issue of international legal grounds of prohibiting usage of certain methods and means of warfare by belligerent parties. The sources and modern doctrine of Humanitarian law have not defined the notion of the “means of warfare”, often there is no distinction between the “methods” and “means”, which hampers classification of war conduct by the conflict parties in case of illegal implication of force and means.The author holds that means of warfare can be distinguished on a number of features and suggests classifying them depending on the criteria of lawfulness of their utilization, scale of usage, typical affecting factors, and spatial sphere of war conduct.

This article focuses on the increasing influence of international court rulings on the development of new concepts within international law, in particular, the concept of subsidiary protection to persons who fall outside the scope of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The author also considers the issues related to the concept of indirect effect in EU law, as well as the interaction between the EU and international law.

Review on the “Handbook of International Humanitarian Law” (Ed. D. Fleck) contains the comparative analysis of the first and the second edition of the “Handbook”. It highlights the advantages of this treatise and draws attention to some disputable issues. A positive evaluation is given to the transformation of the concept of the “Handbook” from a commented manual for German military to the “modern universal handbook for the military forces”, which has not only a practical importance, but could also be used in the research on different problems of International Humanitarian Law and in the study process.

The author analyses Art. 36 (New weapons) of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. The term “new weapons” should be considered in the context of currently existing groups of weapons, taking into consideration that the use of some weapons is limited during armed conflicts while the use of others is permitted. In the author’s opinion, the absence of the term “new weapons” definition in the art. 36 produces difficulties and hinders implementation of the article. The author introduces his definition of the term and discloses its contents. Extensive attention is paid to the need of prohibition of space weapons as a type of new weapons.