|
Журнал зарубежного законодательства и сравнительного правоведения / Journal of foreighn legislation and comparative law
Правильная ссылка на статью:
Осминин Б.И.
Разрешение коллизий между внутригосударственным правом и международными договорами
// Журнал зарубежного законодательства и сравнительного правоведения / Journal of foreighn legislation and comparative law.
2013. № 1.
С. 114-123.
URL: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=62564
Осминин Б.И. Разрешение коллизий между внутригосударственным правом и международными договорами
Аннотация:
Принципы свободного согласия и добросовестности и норма pacta sunt servanda получили всеобщее признание. Государства должны обеспечивать, чтобы национальная правовая система давала возможность осуществлять международные договорные обязательства. В случае коллизии между внутригосударственным правом и международным договором пересмотру подлежит внутригосударственное право, а не международный договор. Наличие или отсутствие соответствующих норм в рамках внутригосударственного права не может быть использовано как основание для уклонения от выполнения международных договорных обязательств. В этом отношении в статье 27 Венской конвенции о праве международных договоров предусматривается, что «Участник не может ссылаться на положения своего внутреннего права в качестве оправдания для невыполнения им договора».
Ключевые слова:
принцип «договоры должны соблюдаться», внутреннее право и соблюдение договоров, коллизия между законом и договором, место международных договоров во внутригосударственном праве, приоритет международных договоров перед внутригосударственным правом, статус договора в национальной правовой системе, статус, равный ординарным законам, приобретать приоритет перед законами, правило о преимуществе более позднего по времени принятия акта, применять договор как специальный закон.
Abstract: The principles of free consent and of good faith as well as the pacta sunt servanda rule are universally recognized.
States must ensure that their national legal framework permits them to meet their international treaty obligations.
In the case of a conflict between the domestic law and an international treaty, it is the domestic law, which needs to be reconsidered,
not the international treaty. The presence or absence of a particular provision within the legal framework of
a state cannot be used as an argument to evade an international treaty obligation. In this regard Article 27 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification
for its failure to perform a treaty”.
Keywords: principle pacta sunt servanda, internal law and observance of treaties, a conflict between a statute and a treaty, the place of international treaties in internal law, the supremacy of treaties over domestic law, the rank of a treaty within domestic legal system, a rank equal to ordinary statutes, to take precedence over statutes, the “later-in-time” rule, to apply the treaty as lex specialis.
Эта статья может быть бесплатно загружена в формате PDF для чтения. Обращаем ваше внимание на необходимость соблюдения авторских прав,
указания библиографической ссылки на статью при цитировании.
Скачать статью
Библиография
1. Зимненко Б.Л. Международное право и правовая система Российской Федерации. М., 2006.
2. Зорькин В.Д. Предел уступчивости // Российская газета. 29.10.2010. № 246.
3. Лукашук И.И. Право международной ответственности. М., 2004.
4. Марочкин С.Ю. Действие и реализация норм международного права в правовой системе Российской Федера-ции: монография. М., 2011.
5. Осминин Б.И. Заключение и имплементация международных договоров и внутригосударственное право [мо-нография]. М., 2010.
6. Постановление Пленума Верховного суда РФ от 10 октября 2003 г. № 5 «О применении судами общей юрис-дикции общепризнанных принципов и норм международного права и международных договоров Российской Федерации» // Бюллетень Верховного суда РФ. 2003. № 12.
7. The American Society of International Law. ASIL Insights. Comment on “Treaties as Binding International Obligation”. December 15, 1997. // http://www. asil.org/insigh25.cfm.
8. Butler W. Russian Federation // The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement. A Comparative Study. Edited by David Sloss. Cambridge University Press. 2009.
9. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004 (English Translation).
10. ICJ. Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947. Advisory Opinion of 26 April 1988. I.C.J. Reports 1988.
11. ICJ. Case Concerning Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI). (United States of America v. Italy). Judgment of 20 July 1989. I.C.J. Reports. 1989.
12. Jayawickrama N. India // The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study. Edited by David Sloss. Cambridge University Press. 2009.
13. Lima Marques C., Lixinski L. Treaty Enforcement by Brazilian Courts: Reconciling Ambivalences and Myths? // Brazilian Yearbook of International Law. 2009. Vol. 1.
14. Medellin v. Texas. 552 U.S. 491 (2008).
15. Mohallem M.F. Incorporation of Treaties and Normative Hierarchy in Domestic Jurisdictions: the Case of South America and the Constitutionalisation of Human Rights. The European University Institute. Florence. 2011 // http://law. mc.edu/files/7913/3397/7800/Mohallem.pdf.
16. OSCE. Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. Note on Article 20 of the Law on International Treaties of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Warsaw, 20 September 2005.
17. Paulus A. Germany // The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study. Edited by David Sloss. Cambridge University Press. 2009.
18. PCIJ. Exchange of Greek and Turkish populations (Lausanne Convention VI, January 30th, 1923, Article 2). Advisory Opinion. February 21st,1925. PCIJ Series B. No. 10
19. PCIJ. Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex. Judgment. June 7th , 1932. PCIJ Series A./B. No. 46.
20. PCIJ. The Greco-Bulgarian “Communities”. Advisory opinion. July 31st, 1930.PCIJ. Series B. No. 17.
21. PCIJ. Treatment of Polish Nationals and other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech in the Danzig Territory. Advisory Opinion of February 4th, 1932. PCIJ. Series A./B. No. 44.
22. Sloss D. Executing Foster v. Neilson: Two-Step Approach to Analyzing Self-Executing Treaties // Harvard International Law Journal. 2012. Vol. 53.
23. Sloss D. United States // The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study. Edited by David Sloss. Cambridge University Press. 2009.
24. Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 (1888).
25. Xue Hanqin and Jin Qian. International Treaties in the Chinese Domestic Legal System // Chinese Journal of International Law. 2009. Vol. 8
References
1. Zimnenko B.L. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i pravovaya sistema Rossiyskoy Federatsii. M., 2006.
2. Zor'kin V.D. Predel ustupchivosti // Rossiyskaya gazeta. 29.10.2010. № 246.
3. Lukashuk I.I. Pravo mezhdunarodnoy otvetstvennosti. M., 2004.
4. Marochkin S.Yu. Deystvie i realizatsiya norm mezhdunarodnogo prava v pravovoy sisteme Rossiyskoy Federa-tsii: monografiya. M., 2011.
5. Osminin B.I. Zaklyuchenie i implementatsiya mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov i vnutrigosudarstvennoe pravo [mo-nografiya]. M., 2010.
6. Postanovlenie Plenuma Verkhovnogo suda RF ot 10 oktyabrya 2003 g. № 5 «O primenenii sudami obshchey yuris-diktsii obshchepriznannykh printsipov i norm mezhdunarodnogo prava i mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov Rossiyskoy Federatsii» // Byulleten' Verkhovnogo suda RF. 2003. № 12.
7. The American Society of International Law. ASIL Insights. Comment on “Treaties as Binding International Obligation”. December 15, 1997. // http://www. asil.org/insigh25.cfm.
8. Butler W. Russian Federation // The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement. A Comparative Study. Edited by David Sloss. Cambridge University Press. 2009.
9. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004 (English Translation).
10. ICJ. Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947. Advisory Opinion of 26 April 1988. I.C.J. Reports 1988.
11. ICJ. Case Concerning Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI). (United States of America v. Italy). Judgment of 20 July 1989. I.C.J. Reports. 1989.
12. Jayawickrama N. India // The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study. Edited by David Sloss. Cambridge University Press. 2009.
13. Lima Marques C., Lixinski L. Treaty Enforcement by Brazilian Courts: Reconciling Ambivalences and Myths? // Brazilian Yearbook of International Law. 2009. Vol. 1.
14. Medellin v. Texas. 552 U.S. 491 (2008).
15. Mohallem M.F. Incorporation of Treaties and Normative Hierarchy in Domestic Jurisdictions: the Case of South America and the Constitutionalisation of Human Rights. The European University Institute. Florence. 2011 // http://law. mc.edu/files/7913/3397/7800/Mohallem.pdf.
16. OSCE. Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. Note on Article 20 of the Law on International Treaties of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Warsaw, 20 September 2005.
17. Paulus A. Germany // The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study. Edited by David Sloss. Cambridge University Press. 2009.
18. PCIJ. Exchange of Greek and Turkish populations (Lausanne Convention VI, January 30th, 1923, Article 2). Advisory Opinion. February 21st,1925. PCIJ Series B. No. 10
19. PCIJ. Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex. Judgment. June 7th , 1932. PCIJ Series A./B. No. 46.
20. PCIJ. The Greco-Bulgarian “Communities”. Advisory opinion. July 31st, 1930.PCIJ. Series B. No. 17.
21. PCIJ. Treatment of Polish Nationals and other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech in the Danzig Territory. Advisory Opinion of February 4th, 1932. PCIJ. Series A./B. No. 44.
22. Sloss D. Executing Foster v. Neilson: Two-Step Approach to Analyzing Self-Executing Treaties // Harvard International Law Journal. 2012. Vol. 53.
23. Sloss D. United States // The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study. Edited by David Sloss. Cambridge University Press. 2009.
24. Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 (1888).
25. Xue Hanqin and Jin Qian. International Treaties in the Chinese Domestic Legal System // Chinese Journal of International Law. 2009. Vol. 8
|
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
