List of international treaties of the Russian Federation on issues of legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family, criminal and other cases. List of international treaties of the Russian Federation on legal assistance and legal relations
§ 14. PROBLEMS OF WAR AND PEACE IN THE 1920S, MILITARISM AND PACIFISM
The defeat of the Central Powers bloc did not resolve the contradictions in the international arena. The situation at the end of 1918, when the winners had to determine the foundations of a new world order, was extremely complex and ambiguous.During the war, the Entente countries assumed a number of mutual obligations, in particular not to conclude a separate peace and not to put forward peace conditions not agreed upon with the allies. In the preliminary plan, agreements were reached on the redistribution of spheres of influence and territorial changes. However, full implementation of preliminary agreements, many of which were secret and contradictory, was practically impossible.
Entente and Soviet Russia. One of the problems was related to Russia, whose withdrawal from the war meant a violation of obligations to the allies. This step removed the question of transferring control over the Black Sea straits to it, especially since the Soviet government abandoned all agreements concluded by the previous regimes. At a time when the Allies were working out the terms of a post-war peace settlement, Russia's political future had not yet been determined. Dozens of unrecognized self-proclaimed states arose on its territory. Each of the leaders of the anti-Bolshevik movement claimed to be the savior of the country.
The emergence of the Soviet Republic in Hungary in March 1919, which lasted 133 days, and the rise of the revolutionary movement in Germany gave rise to fears among the ruling circles of the Entente powers that the countries of Europe, engulfed in post-war devastation and chaos, would fall to Bolshevism. All this, as well as hopes for the possibility of dividing Russia itself into spheres of influence, prompted the allies to support anti-Bolshevik movements. The Entente countries ignored the Soviet government, which controlled only a few central provinces.
As a result, the foundations of the post-war world order were laid without Russia, its interests were not taken into account, which, regardless of the ideology of Bolshevism, laid the seeds of a future conflict between the USSR and the victorious countries in the world war. It is significant that the majority of the leaders of the white movement (generals A.I. Denikin, P.N. Wrangel, Admiral A.V. Kolchak) advocated the preservation of a “united and indivisible” Russia. They denied the right to independence of the countries that separated from the empire - Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia.
W. Wilson's peace plan. The peace conditions advocated by US President William Wilson also created a certain problem for Great Britain and France. Wilson is considered to be one of the founders of the so-called “political idealism.” His approach to international affairs, without denying that they are decided on the basis of balances of power and power confrontation, was based on the need to establish a universal international order based on legal principles.
The World War, according to Wilson, was the last lesson proving the need to bring order to international relations. For this war to be the last, the terms of peace, as Wilson believed, should not humiliate the dignity of the defeated states. At the beginning of 1918, he formulated the “14 basic principles” of the post-war world, which included, in particular, ensuring freedom of trade and navigation, taking into account the interests of the peoples of colonial countries, and collective resolution of controversial issues, which undermined the prospects for the expansion of the British and French colonial empires.
The US delegation insisted that peace in the future should be guaranteed by a new international organization - the League of Nations. When disputes arose between states, it was called upon to play the role of an arbitrator, and in the event of a military conflict, take collective action to stop aggression. The Charter of the League allowed for the possibility of introducing international sanctions against the aggressor country, ranging from an economic blockade to, after appropriate consultations, the use of military force. At the same time, the US delegation insisted that the Charter of the League of Nations be included as an integral part in the peace treaty with Germany.
Results of the First World War. A compromise between the winners was found with great difficulty. France's aspirations to weaken Germany as much as possible were only partially satisfied. According to the decisions of the Paris Conference of 1919, it regained Alsace and Lorraine, annexed to Germany after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. The Saar region, rich in coal, was removed from German jurisdiction, its fate was to be decided by a referendum. The territory of Germany on the left bank of the Rhine was proclaimed a demilitarized zone, Germany itself was obliged to pay reparations, which were supposed to weaken its economy. The borders of new states in Eastern Europe were recognized, while the eastern lands of Germany were transferred to Poland, and Transylvania was transferred to Romania, previously part of Austria-Hungary, where a significant part of the population were Hungarians, part of the territory bordering Bulgaria. The greatest benefits were received by Serbia, which became the core of a new state - Yugoslavia (the kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes).
Not all European states satisfied the peace conditions. In Germany, Hungary and Bulgaria, the issue of returning territorial losses became one of the main ones in their internal politics, the basis for the consolidation of militaristic, revanchist forces. The obligations that the allies had previously given to Italy, both in terms of dividing the colonies and increasing territory, were not fulfilled.
The creation of the League of Nations allowed the ruling circles of England and France to find a solution to the problem of the colonies seized from Germany. Formally, they were transferred under the control of the League of Nations, which, until the time when the colonies were ready for independence, transferred mandates to manage them to the Entente countries.
The idea of creating a universal international organization capable of considering emerging controversial issues from an impartial standpoint, taking measures to suppress aggression, in other words, acting as a guarantor of peace, was undoubtedly promising. However, the League of Nations did not become a universal organization. Initially, Russia, engulfed in civil war, was not included in its composition. The US Congress, despite the fact that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and the Charter of the League of Nations were developed with the participation of the President of this country, William Wilson, did not approve these documents. In the highest legislative body of the United States there was a strong influence of supporters of isolationism and non-intervention in conflicts outside the American continent. As a result, the United States did not enter the League of Nations, in which the colonial powers, Great Britain and France, thereby gained predominant influence. The United States signed a separate peace treaty with Germany in 1921.
Japan was not satisfied with its position in the international arena either. During the war, she managed, taking advantage of the distraction of competitors and the weakening of Russia, to impose on China a treaty known as the “21 Conditions,” which effectively turned it into a protectorate. At the Washington Conference of 1921 -1922, faced with a united front of other powers, Japan was forced to abandon the “21 conditions” to China and return to it the captured former German port of Qingdao. As part of the concluded agreement to limit naval armaments, Japan failed to achieve recognition of equality with the United States and Great Britain. The only concession that was made to it was the US commitment to refrain from military construction on its islands in the Western Pacific and the Philippines.
Pacifism of the 1920s 1920s went down in history as the “decade of pacifism.” The peoples of Europe were tired of war, which contributed to the growth of pacifist, anti-war sentiments, which were taken into account by political leaders. Countries dissatisfied with the terms of the peace were too weakened and divided to attempt revenge. The powers that were most strengthened as a result of the war - Great Britain and France - were more interested in preserving and strengthening their conquered positions than in new conquests. In order to prevent the growth of revanchist sentiments in the defeated countries, they were ready for certain compromises, including with Germany. The terms for paying reparations to her were increased (in 1931, due to the global economic crisis, payments were stopped altogether). American capital contributed to the restoration of the German economy (Dawes Plan of 1924). In 1925, in the city of Locarno, the Rhine Guarantee Pact was signed between Germany and its western neighbors, which provided for the inviolability of the western borders of Germany, which became a member of the League of Nations. In 1928, on the initiative of French Foreign Minister Briand and US Secretary of State Kellogg, most states of the world signed a pact renouncing war as a means of politics. Negotiations on arms limitation also continued, which allowed the powers with the largest naval forces (USA, UK, Japan, France, Italy) in 1930-1931. agree to limit the maximum tonnage of cruisers, destroyers and submarines.
The most difficult problems arose in connection with the peculiarities of the policy of the USSR, the difficulties of normalizing relations between it and the victorious countries in the world war, however, in this area in the 1920s. there has been some progress.
BIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX
Thomas Woodrow Wilson(1856-1924) - US President from the Democratic Party (1913-1921). Born in Georgia into a religious family, his father was a doctor of divinity, a pastor in the city of Augusta, and prepared his son for a religious career. However, after graduating from one of the most prestigious colleges in the United States, Princeton, and receiving a degree in law at the University of Virginia, V. Wilson decided to devote himself to scientific and teaching activities. He wrote a number of fundamental scientific works and became one of the founders of political science and the theory of public administration. In 1902, he was elected rector of Princeton, which received university status. In 1910, due to a conflict with the professorship, he resigned, but this did not ruin his career: V. Wilson was elected governor of New Jersey, and in 1912 he became a candidate for US President from the Democratic Party and won.
As US President, William Wilson considered himself called upon to give a new look to America and the whole world. In his opinion, his election to this post was a sign of higher will. V. Wilson believed that American policy should be the embodiment of high moral and ethical ideals that the United States is called upon to bring to the world. In domestic policy, V. Wilson defended the idea of social harmony. During his presidency, progressive income tax rates were introduced and the Federal Reserve System was created, ensuring state control over money circulation in the country. In foreign policy, Wilson was a supporter of the US emerging from self-isolation, America's active role in world affairs, and the intensification of its foreign trade expansion. He advocated the establishment of an international organization capable of playing the role of a teacher, punishing pugnacious students and resolving their disputes. Even before the start of the First World War, on his initiative, negotiations began on the creation of a union of Nordic, Protestant nations - the USA, Great Britain and Germany, a coalition of European peoples to respond to the future “challenge” of Asia.
The end of the First World War seemed to create a chance for the implementation of the ideas of a new world order by V. Wilson, who personally took part in the Paris Peace Conference. However, when determining the specific conditions of the Versailles Peace, the last word remained with Great Britain and France. The project for establishing the League of Nations, adopted by them at Wilson's insistence, did not receive support in the United States, where Congress considered that it was not profitable for America to take on too many external obligations. The refusal of Congress to ratify the Treaty of Versailles was a serious blow for V. Wilson, who became seriously ill. For the last 17 months of his presidency, he was paralyzed; his wife led the White House staff. V. Wilson went down in history as the founder of the course of political idealism in foreign policy (restructuring the world according to speculative schemes).
DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS
“Article 8. The members of the League recognize that the preservation of peace requires the limitation of national armaments to a minimum consistent with national security and with the fulfillment of the international obligations imposed by common action. The Council, taking into account the geographical location and special conditions of each State, prepares plans for this limitation for the purpose of consideration and decision by the various Governments.
These plans should be subject to fresh review and, if necessary, revision at least every ten years. Once adopted by the various governments, the limit of armaments so fixed cannot be exceeded without the consent of the Council<...>
Article 10. Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve against any external attack the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League. In the event of an attack, threat or danger of attack, the Council shall indicate measures to ensure the fulfillment of this obligation. Article 11. It is expressly declared that every war or threat of war, whether directly affecting or not affecting any of the members of the League, is of interest to the League as a whole, and that the latter must take measures which can effectively protect the peace of Nations. In such a case, the Secretary General shall immediately convene the Council at the request of any member of the League<...>Every member of the League has the right, in a friendly manner, to call to the attention of the Assembly or Council any circumstance likely to affect international relations, and therefore threatening to disturb the peace or good concord between the nations on which peace depends. Article 12. All members of the League agree that if a dispute arises between them that could lead to a rupture, they will subject it either to arbitration or to consideration by the Council. They also agree that in no case should they resort to war before the expiration of a period of three months after the decision of the arbitrators or the report of the Council<...>
Article 16. If a member of the League resorts to war, contrary to obligations<...>then he<...>considered to have committed an act of war against all other members of the League. The latter undertake to immediately sever all commercial or financial relations with him, to prohibit all communications between their citizens and the citizens of the state that has violated the Statute, and to cease all financial, commercial or personal relations between the citizens of that state and the citizens of any other state, whether it is a member of the League or No.
In such case the Council shall be obliged to propose to the various Governments concerned that numerical strength of military, naval or air force by which the members of the League shall, by their affiliation, participate in the armed forces intended to maintain respect for the duties of the League<...>Any member found guilty of violating one of the obligations arising from the Statute may be expelled from the League. Expulsion is made by the votes of all other members of the League represented in the Council.
Article 17. In the event of a dispute between two States, of which only one is a member of the League or of which neither is a member, the State or States outside the League are invited to submit to the obligations incumbent on its members for the purpose of settling the dispute, on terms and conditions recognized by the Council as fair<...>
If the invited State, refusing to accept the duties of a member of the League for the purpose of settling the dispute, resorts to war against a member of the League, then the provisions of Article 16 shall apply to it.”
“Article 1. The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare on behalf of their peoples that they condemn the method of recourse to war for the settlement of international conflicts and renounce in their relations war as an instrument of national policy.
Article 2. The High Contracting Parties recognize that the settlement or resolution of all differences or conflicts, regardless of the nature of their origin, that may arise between them must be carried out only by peaceful means.
Article 3. This treaty will be ratified by the High Contracting Parties<...>and it shall take effect as between them as soon as all the instruments of ratification have been deposited in Washington.
This treaty, once it has entered into force as provided in the preceding paragraph, will remain open for as long as it may be necessary for the accession of the other powers of the world to it.”
QUESTIONS AND TASKS
1. In what international conditions were the foundations of the post-war world formed?
2. What ideas were W. Wilson’s “14 Basic Principles” based on? What new things did they bring to the approach to international affairs?
3. Describe the Versailles-Washington system. Who was not happy with it and why?
4. When and for what purpose was the League of Nations created? Did it achieve its goals, and what was the significance?
5. Prepare a message: “The Decade of Pacifism: Processes and Problems.”
After World War II, an international order emerged with two significant features. Firstly, this is the already mentioned clear division of the world into two socio-political systems, which were in a state of permanent “cold war” with each other, mutual threats and an arms race. The division of the world was reflected in the constant strengthening of the military power of the two superpowers - the USA and the USSR; it was institutionalized in two military-political (NATO and Warsaw Warsaw) and political-economic (EEC and CMEA) alliances opposing each other and passed not only at the “center” but at the “periphery” of the international system.
Secondly, this is the formation of the United Nations and its specialized agencies and increasingly persistent attempts to regulate international relations and improve international law. The formation of the UN responded to the objective need to create a managed international order and became the beginning of the formation of the international community as a subject of its management. At the same time, due to the limitations of its powers, the UN could not fulfill its role as an instrument for maintaining peace and security, international stability and cooperation between peoples. As a result, the existing international order manifested itself in its basic dimensions as contradictory and unstable, causing increasingly justified concern among world public opinion.
Based on the analysis of S. Hoffmann, we will consider the main dimensions of the post-war international order. The horizontal dimension of the post-war international order is characterized by the following features:
1. Decentralization (but not reduction) of violence. Stability at the central and global levels, supported by the mutual intimidation of the superpowers, did not exclude instability at the regional and subregional levels (regional conflicts, local wars between “third countries”, wars with the open participation of one of the superpowers with more or less indirect support from the other superpower of the opposite one). sides, etc.).
2. Fragmentation of the global international system and regional subsystems, at the level of which the way out of conflicts each time depends much more on the balance of forces in the region and purely internal factors relating to the parties to the conflicts than on the strategic nuclear balance.
3. The impossibility of direct military clashes between superpowers. However, their place has been taken by “crises”, the cause of which is either the actions of one of them in the region, considered as a zone of its vital interests (the Caribbean crisis of 1962), or regional wars between “third countries” in regions considered as strategically important by both superpowers (Middle East crisis 1973).
4. The possibility of negotiations between the superpowers and the military blocs they lead in order to overcome the current situation, which appeared as a result of stability at the strategic level, the general interest of the international community in eliminating the threat of a destructive nuclear conflict and a ruinous arms race. At the same time, these negotiations could lead to only limited results under the existing international order.
5. The desire of each of the superpowers for unilateral advantages on the periphery of the global balance, while at the same time otherwise mutual agreement to maintain the division of the world into “spheres of influence” of each of them.
As for the vertical dimension of the international order, despite the huge gap that existed between the superpowers and the rest of the world, their pressure on “third countries” had limits, and the global hierarchy did not become larger than before. Firstly, the possibility of counterpressure on a superpower by its militarily weaker “client” has always remained, existing in any bipolar system. Secondly, the collapse of colonial empires occurred and new states emerged, the sovereignty and rights of which began to be protected by the UN and regional organizations such as the Arab League, the OAU, ASEAN, etc. Thirdly, new moral values of the liberal democratic content based on condemnation of violence, especially in relation to underdeveloped states, a sense of post-imperial guilt (the famous “Vietnamese syndrome” in the USA), etc. Fourthly, the “excessive” pressure of one of the superpowers on “third countries” and interference in their affairs created the threat of increased opposition from the other superpower and negative consequences as a result of the confrontation between both blocs. Finally, fifthly, the above-mentioned fragmentation of the international system left the possibility of claims by certain states (their regimes) to the role of regional quasi-superpowers with relatively wide freedom of maneuver (for example, the Indonesian regime during the reign of Sukarno, the regimes of Syria and Israel in the Middle East, South Africa in South Africa). Africa, etc.).
The functional dimension of the post-war international order is characterized primarily by the foregrounding of economic activities in the activities of states and governments in the international arena. The basis for this was profound economic and social changes in the world and the widespread desire of people for increased material well-being, for a life worthy of the 20th century. conditions of human existence. The scientific and technological revolution made a distinctive feature of the period described the activity on the world stage as equal international actors of non-governmental transnational organizations and associations. Finally, due to a number of objective reasons (not the least of which are people’s aspirations to improve their standard of living and the foregrounding of economic goals in the international strategic and diplomatic efforts of states, the achievement of which cannot be ensured by autarky), interdependence is noticeably increasing different parts of the world.
However, at the level of the ideological dimension of the international order of the Cold War period, this interdependence is not adequately reflected. The contrast between “socialist values and ideals” and “capitalist” ones, on the one hand, and the foundations and times of life of the “free world” and the “evil empire”, on the other, reached the mid-1980s. a state of psychological war between two socio-political systems, between the USSR and the USA.
And although by using force at the regional and subregional levels to limit the capabilities of “medium” and “small” states, the superpowers managed to maintain a global security-dependent system. The question of war and peace has acquired a new meaning: everyone involved in making political decisions has come to understand that in a nuclear war there can be no winners and losers and that the war can no longer be considered as a continuation of politics, since the possibility of using nuclear weapons makes it quite probable the death of human civilization. New and unprecedented challenges are also emerging due to the increasingly obvious features of international disorder. All this required corresponding changes in the field of international relations.
In such conditions, the idea of a new international order is making its way more and more persistently. However, between it and its practical implementation lie the political and sociological realities of our days, which are deeply contradictory and require appropriate approaches to their analysis. Let's take a closer look at them.
The First World War led to fundamental changes in the international political situation. The two largest world powers, Germany and Russia, were defeated and found themselves in a difficult situation. The Entente countries and the United States won the war together, but found themselves in an unequal position after its end. Economically, the United States grew enormously stronger during the war years. They provided large loans to England and France. The growth of economic power allowed the United States to pre-
strive for world leadership. These trends were reflected in the American initiative to end the war, set out in the so-called “14 points” of W. Wilson.
During the war, Great Britain finally lost its position as the first world power. She achieved the weakening of Germany, but sought to prevent the growth of French military power. England saw in Germany a force capable of countering the growth of French influence in Europe.
France achieved the military defeat of Germany, but the victory was not easy for her. Its economic and human resources were weaker than Germany's, so it sought to create guarantees against possible revenge on the part of Germany.
An important element of the international situation was the emergence as a result of the national liberation movement of new independent states in Europe - Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and the Baltic states. The victorious powers could not ignore the will of the peoples of these countries.
The results of the First World War were enshrined in peace treaties developed at the Paris Peace Conference, which opened on January 18, 1919. At the conference, which was attended by 27 states, the tone was set by the so-called “Big Three” - British Prime Minister D. Lloyd-George, French Prime Minister J. Clemenceau, US President William Wilson. It is significant that the defeated countries and Soviet Russia were not invited to the conference.
The Versailles Peace Treaty with Germany, signed on June 28, 1919, took a central place in the decisions of the Paris Conference. According to it, Germany was recognized as the culprit of the war and, together with its allies, bore full responsibility for its results. Germany pledged to demilitarize the Rhineland, and the left bank of the Rhine was occupied by the Entente occupation forces. The region of Alsace-Lorraine returned to French sovereignty. Germany also ceded to France the coal mines of the Saar Basin, which came under the control of the League of Nations for 15 years. After this period, the question of the future of this region was to be resolved through a plebiscite among its population.
Germany also pledged to respect the independence of Austria within the borders established by the Treaty of Saint-Germain of 1919. It recognized the independence
Czechoslovakia, whose border ran along the line of the former border between Austria-Hungary and Germany. Having recognized the complete independence of Poland, Germany refused in its favor part of Upper Silesia and Pomerania, and the rights to the city of Danzig (Gdansk), included in the customs border of Poland. Germany renounced all rights to the territory of Memel (present-day Klaipeda), which was transferred to Lithuania in 1923. Germany recognized “the independence of all territories that were part of the former Russian Empire by August 1, 1914,” i.e., by the beginning of the First World War. She also pledged to cancel the Brest-Litovsk Treaty of 1918 and other agreements concluded with the Soviet government.
Germany lost all its colonies. Based on the recognition of Germany's guilt in starting the war, the treaty included a number of provisions providing for the demilitarization of Germany, including the reduction of the army to 100 thousand people, the ban on the latest types of weapons and their production. Germany was charged with paying reparations.
The Treaty of Versailles, together with other treaties: Saint-Germain (1919), Neuilly (1919), Tri-announcement (1919) and Sèvres (1923), formed a system of peace treaties known as Versailles.
The Saint-Germain Peace Treaty, concluded between the Entente countries and Austria, in fact, officially legitimized the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and the formation on its ruins of Austria itself and a number of new independent states - Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which in 1929 was transformed into Yugoslavia.
The Treaty of Neuilly, signed by the Entente countries and Bulgaria in November 1919, provided for territorial concessions by Bulgaria in favor of Romania and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The treaty obliged Bulgaria to reduce its armed forces to 20 thousand people and imposed rather onerous reparations on it. It was also deprived of access to the Aegean Sea.
The Treaty of Trianon (named after the Trianon Palace of Versailles) was intended to streamline the relations of the victorious countries with Hungary.
The Treaty of Sèvres, concluded between the victorious countries and Turkey, legitimized the collapse and division of the Ottoman Empire.
One of the most important results of the conference was the formation of the League of Nations. According to the charter, it was supposed to promote the development of cooperation between all peoples and guarantee peace and security. The creation of the League of Nations was the first step in the formation of an international legal space and the formation of a fundamentally new philosophy of international relations. At the same time, under the auspices of the League of Nations, a world order was created that met the interests of the victorious countries. This was primarily expressed in the actual redistribution of colonies between the victorious countries. The so-called mandate system was introduced, under which individual states, primarily Great Britain and France, were given mandates to administer territories previously belonging to Germany and the defeated Ottoman Empire.
Consolidating the division of the world into colonial systems did not meet the interests of American diplomacy. The United States did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles and did not join the Council of the League of Nations. At the same time, the United States could not remain aloof from the formation of a new world political space. A new conference, held in the US capital Washington at the end of 1921 - beginning of 1922, was supposed to reconcile their positions with their former allies.
At the Washington Conference, a number of decisions were adopted that revised or clarified the provisions of previously concluded treaties. In particular, restrictions were introduced on the navies of five powers - the USA, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan. The United States managed to achieve the conclusion of an agreement between four countries - the United States, England, France and Japan - on the joint defense of their island possessions in the Pacific Ocean. A nine-nation treaty on China was signed, according to which the American “open door” principle applied to this country. It also provided for the return of the Shandong Peninsula to China by Japan.
The system of treaties created in Versailles and Washington fixed the balance of power between the great powers that emerged as a result of the world war. The Treaty of Versailles proclaimed the beginning of a new era without wars and violence. However, the subsequent course of events demonstrated the instability, fragility and fragility of the system, which consolidated the split of the world into winners and losers.
Find Reset
MULTILATERAL TREATIES OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
2.3 Fourth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition of 20 September 2012;
3. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10, 1958;
4.1. Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 17 March 1978;
7. Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents, October 5, 1961;
8. Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of November 15, 1965;
7. Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters of March 18, 1970;
10. Protocol amending the European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism of 27 January 1977, dated 15 May 2003;
11. Convention on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment to serve their sentence in the state of which they are citizens, of May 19, 1978;
12. Agreement on the procedure for resolving disputes related to the implementation of economic activities, dated March 20, 1992;
13. Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of January 22, 1993;
13.1. Protocol to the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of 22 January 1993;
14. Convention on the Transfer of Persons Sentenced to Imprisonment for Further Serving of Sentence of March 6, 1998;
15. Convention on the Transfer of Persons with Mental Disorders for Compulsory Treatment of 28 March 1997;
16. Agreement on the formation of the Council of Heads of Penitentiary Services of the member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States dated October 16, 2015;
17. United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime of November 15, 2000;
17.1 Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air of 15 November 2000;
17.2 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, of November 15, 2000;
19. Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of December 17, 1997;
20. Agreement on the formation of the Interstate Anti-Corruption Council dated October 25, 2013.
CURRENT BILATERAL TREATIES
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
1. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Abkhazia on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters dated May 28, 2015;
2. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Abkhazia on the transfer to serve sentences of persons sentenced to imprisonment, dated May 28, 2015;
3. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Austria on issues of civil procedure dated March 11, 1970;
4. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Azerbaijan Republic on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases dated December 22, 1992;
5. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Azerbaijan Republic on the transfer of convicts to serve their sentences dated May 26, 1994;
6. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's Republic of Albania on the provision of legal assistance in civil, family, marriage and criminal cases dated June 30, 1958;
7. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Algerian People's Democratic Republic on mutual legal assistance of February 23, 1982;
8. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Angola on the transfer to serve sentences of persons sentenced to imprisonment dated October 31, 2006;
10. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Argentine Republic on cooperation and legal assistance in civil, trade, labor and administrative matters of November 20, 2000;
11. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Argentine Republic on extradition dated July 12, 2014;
12. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Argentine Republic on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters dated July 12, 2014;
13. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Argentine Republic on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment dated July 12, 2014;
14. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Bahrain on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment, dated December 15, 2015;
15. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Bahrain on extradition dated May 27, 2016;
16. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment dated November 12, 2013;
17. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on the transfer to serve sentences of persons sentenced to imprisonment dated March 23, 2005;
18. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus on the procedure for mutual execution of judicial acts of arbitration courts of the Russian Federation and economic courts of the Republic of Belarus dated January 17, 2001;
19. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's Republic of Bulgaria on legal assistance in civil, family and criminal cases dated February 19, 1975;
20. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Federative Republic of Brazil on extradition of January 14, 2002;
21. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Hungarian People's Republic on the provision of legal assistance in civil, family and criminal matters dated July 15, 1958 with the Protocol on amendments and additions to the Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Hungarian People's Republic on the provision of legal assistance on civil, family and criminal cases, signed in Moscow on July 15, 1958, dated October 19, 1971;
22. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal cases dated August 25, 1998;
23. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Greek Republic on legal assistance in civil and criminal matters dated May 21, 1981;
24. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Arab Republic of Egypt on mutual legal assistance and legal relations in civil, commercial and family matters dated September 23, 1997;
25. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Arab Republic of Egypt on the transfer to serve sentences of persons sentenced to imprisonment, dated June 23, 2009;
27. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of India on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters dated December 21, 1998;
28. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of India on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and commercial matters dated October 3, 2000;
29. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of India on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment dated October 21, 2013;
30. Agreement on mutual legal assistance between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Iraqi Republic of June 22, 1973;
31. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal matters dated March 5, 1996;
32. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Kingdom of Spain on legal assistance in civil matters of October 26, 1990;
33. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Spain on the transfer to serve sentences of persons sentenced to imprisonment, dated January 16, 1998;
34. Convention between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Italian Republic on legal assistance in civil matters of January 25, 1979;
35. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen on legal assistance in civil and criminal matters dated December 6, 1985;
36. Treaty between the Russian Federation and Canada on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters of October 20, 1997;
37. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Cyprus on legal assistance in civil and criminal matters dated January 19, 1984;
38. Convention between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Cameroon on the transfer to serve a sentence of persons sentenced to imprisonment, dated May 28, 2015;
40. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China on legal assistance in civil and criminal matters dated June 19, 1992;
41. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China on extradition dated June 26, 1995;
42. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China on the transfer of convicts dated December 2, 2002;
43. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Cyprus on the transfer to serve sentences of persons sentenced to imprisonment, dated November 8, 1996;
44. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Colombia on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters of April 6, 2010;
45. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on the provision of legal assistance in civil, family and criminal matters dated December 16, 1957;
46. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters dated May 28, 1999;
47. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters dated November 17, 2015;
48. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on extradition dated November 17, 2015;
49. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Cuba on legal assistance in civil, family and criminal matters dated November 28, 1984;
50. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Cuba on the transfer to serve sentences of persons sentenced to imprisonment, dated December 13, 2016;
51. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kyrgyzstan on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases dated September 14, 1992;
52. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Latvia on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases dated February 3, 1993;
53. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Latvia on the transfer of convicts to serve their sentences dated March 4, 1993;
54. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Lao People's Democratic Republic on extradition dated May 28, 2015;
55. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Lebanon on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment, dated December 16, 2014;
56. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Lithuania on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases dated July 21, 1992;
57. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Lithuania on the transfer to serve sentences of persons sentenced to imprisonment, dated June 25, 2001;
58. Convention between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Morocco on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment of September 7, 2006;
59. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the United Mexican States on the transfer to serve sentences of persons sentenced to imprisonment dated June 7, 2004;
60. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United Mexican States on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, dated June 21, 2005;
61. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Moldova on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases dated February 25, 1993;
62. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Mongolian People's Republic on mutual provision of legal assistance in civil, family and criminal matters dated September 23, 1988;
63. Agreement between the Russian Federation and Mongolia on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal cases dated April 20, 1999;
64. Protocol of September 12, 2002 to the Treaty between the Russian Federation and Mongolia on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal cases of April 20, 1999;
65. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the United Arab Emirates on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters dated November 25, 2014;
66. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United Arab Emirates on extradition dated November 25, 2014;
67. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Panama on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters dated April 30, 2009;
69. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Poland on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal cases dated September 16, 1996;
70. Agreement between the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Poland on the procedure for communications in civil cases dated May 17, 2012 within the framework of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Poland on legal assistance and legal communications in civil and criminal cases dated September 16, 1996 .;
71. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Romanian People's Republic on the provision of legal assistance in civil, family and criminal cases of April 3, 1958;
72. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America on the procedure for the execution of letters rogatory from November 22, 1935;
73. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters of June 17, 1999;
74. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and on extradition dated December 1, 2014;
75. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Tunisian Republic on legal assistance in civil and criminal matters dated June 26, 1984;
76. Agreement between the Russian Federation and Turkmenistan on the transfer to serve sentences of persons sentenced to imprisonment, dated May 18, 1995;
77. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Finland on legal protection and legal assistance in civil, family and criminal matters of August 11, 1978 with the Protocol of August 11, 1978;
78. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Finland on the mutual transfer for serving sentences of persons sentenced to imprisonment, dated November 8, 1990;
79. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and France on the transfer of judicial and notarial documents and the execution of letters rogatory in civil and commercial matters of August 11, 1936;
80. Convention between the Russian Federation and the French Republic on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment, of February 11, 2003;
81. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal matters dated August 12, 1982;
82. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters dated May 28, 2015;
83. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment, dated May 28, 2015;
84. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on extradition dated May 28, 2015;
84. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Estonia on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal matters dated January 26, 1993;
85. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia on legal assistance in civil, family and criminal matters of February 24, 1962;
86. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of South Ossetia on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment dated October 14, 2014;
87. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of South Ossetia on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters dated October 14, 2014;
88. Treaty between the Russian Federation and Japan on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters dated May 12, 2009.
BILATERAL TREATIES,
NOT ENTERED IN FORCE FOR THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
1. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Albania on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal cases dated October 30, 1995 (the Agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on October 30, 1995, not ratified, and has not entered into force).
2. Convention between the Russian Federation and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters of October 10, 2017 (Convention signed by the Russian Federation
October 10, 2017, ratified by Federal Law No. 343-FZ of October 2, 2018 “On the ratification of the Convention between the Russian Federation and the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters”, did not enter into force);
3. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Angola on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters dated October 31, 2006 (the Treaty was signed by the Russian Federation on October 31, 2006, ratified by Federal Law of July 17, 2009 No. 158-FZ “On Ratification of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Angola on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters”, has not entered into force);
4. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Zimbabwe on extradition dated January 15, 2019 (the Treaty was signed by the Russian Federation on January 15, 2018, not ratified, and has not entered into force);
5. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment dated March 28, 2017 (Agreement signed by the Russian Federation on March 28, 2017, ratified by Federal Law of February 5, 2018 No. 7-FZ “On ratification of the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment” has not entered into force);
6. Protocol on amendments to the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal cases dated March 5, 1996 (Protocol signed by the Russian Federation on March 28, 2017, ratified by Federal Law dated February 5, 2018 No. 4-FZ “On ratification of the Protocol on Amendments to the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal matters
dated March 5, 1996”, did not come into force);
7. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Spain on the provision of legal assistance in criminal matters dated March 25, 1996 (the Agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on March 25, 1996, ratified by the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of October 8, 2000 No. 127-FZ “On ratification of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Spain on the provision of legal assistance in criminal matters”, has not entered into force);
8. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Cambodia on extradition dated February 1, 2017 (the Treaty was signed by the Russian Federation on March 28, 2017, ratified by Federal Law dated June 4, 2018 No. 125-FZ “On the ratification of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom Cambodia on extradition”, has not entered into force);
9. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on the transfer to serve sentences of persons sentenced to imprisonment dated December 5, 2017 (Agreement signed
Russian Federation on December 5, 2017, ratified by Federal Law No. 15-FZ of March 6, 2019 “On the ratification of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on the transfer to serve sentences of persons sentenced to imprisonment”, did not enter into strength);
10. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Cuba on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal cases dated December 14, 2000 (the Agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on December 14, 2000, not ratified, and has not entered into force);
11. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Lao People's Democratic Republic on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment, dated September 26, 2017 (the Agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on September 26, 2017, ratified by Federal Law No. 344-FZ of October 2, 2018 “On the ratification of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment” has not entered into force);
12. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Mali on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal matters dated August 31, 2000 (the Agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on August 31, 2000, not ratified, and has not entered into force.);
13. Convention between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Morocco on extradition of March 15, 2016 (the Convention was signed by the Russian Federation on March 15, 2016, ratified by Federal Law of July 26, 2017 No. 180-FZ “On the ratification of the Convention between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom Morocco on extradition”, has not entered into force);
14. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Namibia on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters dated October 8, 2018 (the Treaty was signed in Windhoek on October 8, 2018, not ratified, did not enter into force);
15. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Nigeria on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters dated November 26, 2018 (the Agreement was signed in Moscow on November 26, 2018, not ratified, and has not entered into force).
16. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the transfer to serve sentences of persons sentenced to imprisonment, dated June 24, 2009 (the Agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on June 24, 2009, ratified by Federal Law of August 3, 2018 No. 277 “On the ratification of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the transfer to serve sentences of persons sentenced to imprisonment” has not entered into force);
17. Agreement between the USSR and the Syrian Arab Republic on legal assistance in civil and criminal cases dated November 15, 1984. The agreement was signed by the USSR on November 15, 1984, not ratified, not entered into
by virtue of);
18. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of the Philippines on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters dated November 13, 2017 (the Agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on November 13, 2017 in Manila, ratified by Federal Law No. 276-FZ of August 3, 2018 “On the ratification of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of the Philippines on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters” has not entered into force);
19. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of the Philippines on extradition dated November 13, 2017 (the Treaty was signed by the Russian Federation on November 13, 2017 in Manila, ratified by Federal Law dated August 3, 2018 No. 274-FZ “On the ratification of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of the Philippines on Extradition”, has not entered into force).
- What is a focus group Focus group how many people should there be
- Social status of a person
- Math I Like Limit Theorem
- The theory of archetypes by C. G. Jung and its significance for understanding the mechanisms of perception of the objective world. Basic archetypes in Jungian analysis Jung's archetypes in brief