Detente in Europe. Pan-European (Helsinki) Process

The fundamental document on security and cooperation in Europe is the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), signed in Helsinki on August 1, 1975 by the leaders of 33 European countries, the United States and Canada.

The Helsinki Final Act consolidated the political and territorial results of the Second World War and established ten principles (the Helsinki Decalogue) of relations between states: sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty; non-use of force or threat of force; inviolability of borders; territorial integrity; peaceful settlement of disputes; non-interference in internal affairs; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; equality and the right of peoples to control their own destinies; cooperation between states; fulfillment of international legal obligations.

The Helsinki Final Act formed the basis for the work of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and for a long time established the key principles of world security. But a lot has changed over the years, and now Western countries call for a revision of the document. A number of Western politicians in Lately they began to talk about the organization’s inability to cope with modern challenges. Russia does not intend to abandon the Helsinki Act, but proposes to modernize it in accordance with modern realities.

In 2013, a draft concept for a new agreement was proposed, which was called “Helsinki Plus 40”. However, from the very beginning, the participants could not agree on the main components of the document. Thus, Russia opposed the revision of the basic principles of the Helsinki Act and insists only on their updating. The Russian Foreign Ministry emphasizes the need to preserve the OSCE.

In December 2014, diplomats agreed to continue the Helsinki Plus 40 process. A special expert body was created, which was called the “Group of Wise Men”. Its work should contribute to constructive dialogue on security issues, as well as the restoration of trust in the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian regions and the strengthening of OSCE commitments.

The material was prepared based on information from RIA Novosti and open sources

Détente is a term that in the 1970s characterized the state of Soviet-American relations and political development in Europe. Détente implied not only a reduction in the level of tension in relations between the states of the two opposing military blocs, but also the development of trade, economic, scientific, technical, and humanitarian ties between them on a mutually beneficial basis. At the same time, détente did not mean the abandonment of competition between blocs for influence on third countries and on world public opinion.

Beginning in the late 1960s, the United States and the Soviet Union began implementing concerted measures to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Direct communication systems between capitals were installed nuclear powers, agreements were reached on cooperation in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (1970), which reduced the risk of the emergence of new nuclear powers.

In 1972, the USSR and the USA came to an agreement to limit the number of carriers of nuclear weapons. For the first time the existence of parity (equality) was recognized strategic forces, it is confirmed that its preservation is the basis of sustainable peaceful relations. In the name of maintaining parity, the USSR and the USA agreed to limit the systems missile defense(PRO). The ABM agreement was of particular importance. It made it possible to prevent a new round of the arms race, in which the USSR and the USA would begin to race to create hundreds anti-missile systems and thousands of new nuclear weapons delivery vehicles.

The 1972 Treaty on the Fundamentals of Relations between the USSR and the USA stated that these powers proceed from the inadmissibility of a nuclear war. In 1979, a second agreement was signed to limit strategic weapons(OSV-2), which established restrictions on the qualitative parameters of improving nuclear weapons.

The improvement in relations between the superpowers was combined with a decrease in the level of tension in Europe, where the main forces of the military blocs were confronted. The prerequisite for this was the signing of an agreement on West Berlin in 1971, which took into account that the USSR did not recognize this city as part of the Federal Republic of Germany. In 1972, diplomatic relations were established between the GDR and the Federal Republic of Germany, which reduced the severity of contradictions in the center of Europe. In 1975, the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe was signed in Helsinki. This document recorded the mutual obligations of the countries of Europe, the USA and Canada to respect the integrity of the borders of states existing in Europe, their sovereignty, basic human rights, to take measures to strengthen security and mutual trust in Europe, and to develop mutually beneficial cooperation.

The détente in Europe did not stop the rivalry between the USSR and the USA. Attempts by the USSR to strengthen its influence on the politics of African and Asian countries and Central America in the 1970s were regarded in the United States as contrary to the spirit of détente. The reason for its failure was the entry of USSR troops into the non-aligned state - Afghanistan, where the leaders who came to power tried to modernize society relying on Soviet help. Having provided such assistance, the USSR was involved in the intra-Afghan war. civil war, which soon acquired the character of a liberation war against the presence of Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

The Republican administration of R. Reagan, which came to power in Washington in 1980, considered that the actions of the USSR required the United States to resort to a policy of nuclear deterrence. Negotiations on arms limitation issues were interrupted, and the direct air communication line between the USSR and the USA was closed. In Europe, the deployment of new medium-range missiles began, aimed at the territory of the USSR. In 1983, R. Reagan announced the start of work on the concept of the “Strategic Defense Initiative” (SDI) - a system of space weapons designed to provide the United States effective protection from nuclear missile weapons.

The deterioration of relations with the United States and its allies in the early 1980s confronted the leaders of the USSR with a choice: to follow the path of increasing military power or look for new approaches to relations with the West. The first path promised new rounds of the arms race and great difficulties for the Soviet economy. In addition, the leadership of the USSR reacted painfully to criticism of the policies of both superpowers that abandoned détente from non-aligned countries and the public of Western and Eastern Europe.

The search for new opportunities for dialogue began with meetings between the leaders of the USSR and the USA, M. S. Gorbachev and R. Reagan, in Geneva in 1985 and in Reykjavik in 1986. Although they did not result in concrete agreements, the parties’ desire to eliminate the risk of nuclear war from the lives of peoples was confirmed.

USSR President M.S. Gorbachev in 1987 - 1988 proposed the concept of new political thinking, which made it possible to end the Cold War. Firstly, this concept assumed that since nuclear war will be a disaster for all humanity, then the threat of using nuclear weapons, as well as their possession, have ceased to serve the achievement of reasonable political goals. This conclusion became the basis for putting forward far-reaching proposals for arms reductions, including the elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2000.

Secondly, the highest value of the new political thinking was to ensure the survival of humanity, which was threatened by the unresolved number of problems, from the nuclear threat to the deterioration of the environment. Considering that these problems could only be solved by the joint efforts of the leading countries of the world, main goal policy became to ensure their cooperation.

Thirdly, interaction based on trust required a rejection of the logic and ideology of confrontation. New thinking involved finding a balance of interests based on mutual concessions and strict adherence to international legal norms.

Proposing a new concept in itself could not ensure the end of " cold war" Initially, it was perceived in Western countries as a tactical move designed to give the USSR and its allies time to solve internal problems. However, the unilateral steps of the USSR soon showed that we were talking about real changes in Soviet policy. In 1987 - 1990, the USSR made large unilateral reductions in the number of Soviet armed forces.

Restructuring process European system international relations on principles designed to ensure peace, security and cooperation. It began with the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the final stage of which took place in Helsinki in 1975. The Conference was attended by the leaders of 33 European states, as well as the USA and Canada.

The signing of the Final Act became possible in the context of the ensuing détente of international tension. He marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War and the elimination of its consequences. Historically, the act is associated with the decisions of the powers of the anti-Hitler coalition on post-war structure Europe, which certain forces tried to reconsider in their favor during the Cold War. Soviet Union became the initiator of convening the Meeting and an active participant at all its stages.

The Final Act, signed in Helsinki, opens with a Declaration of principles on which the pan-European system of international relations should be based: sovereign equality, mutual refusal to use force or the threat of force, inviolability of borders, territorial integrity of states, peaceful settlement of disputes, non-interference in internal affairs, respect for rights human rights and fundamental freedoms, equality and the right of peoples to control their own destinies, cooperation between states, conscientious fulfillment of obligations under international law. The Declaration was an authoritative confirmation and development of the basic principles international law, enshrined in the UN Charter (see United Nations).

The Helsinki Act also includes the Document on Confidence-Building Measures and Certain Aspects of Security and Disarmament, which contains provisions on advance notification of military exercises and major movements troops, the exchange of military observers, other confidence-building measures and disarmament issues. Many of these measures are unprecedented in international relations.

Considerable attention is paid to cooperation in the field of economics, science, technology and security environment. Provisions have been established for the development of trade and industrial cooperation. Special attention to cooperation in the field of the latest areas of science and technology. Important place occupy provisions on cooperation in humanitarian areas: contacts between people, information, culture, education. Finally, further steps after the Meeting are outlined. In other words, from the very beginning it was a question of a continuous process during which the consolidation of general security and development of comprehensive cooperation.

The USSR did a lot of work to implement the act in its internal and foreign policy. Article 29 was included in the Constitution of the USSR, which established that the basis for relations with other states are principles that completely coincide with those listed in the act. In the humanitarian sphere, laws were adopted on citizenship, legal status foreign citizens, rules for the stay of foreign citizens in the USSR and transit passage of foreign citizens through the territory of the USSR, etc. Numerous agreements were concluded on economic, scientific, technical and other types of cooperation with European countries.

The Helsinki Act not only marked a turning point in the development of international relations in Europe, but also provided the rest of the world with a model for solving complex problems. He influenced the world system of international relations as a whole. However, the opportunities opened to him were not used sufficiently. A new aggravation of international tension stood in the way of the implementation of the provisions of the act. The former Soviet leadership also bore its share of responsibility for this. The entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan had an extremely negative impact on the Helsinki process. During the period of stagnation, many provisions of a humanitarian nature were not implemented in the USSR.

And yet, despite the escalation of tensions, Helsinki process did not stop, but continued to develop. This is evidenced by meetings and conferences in Belgrade (1977-1978), Madrid (1980-1983), Stockholm (1984-1986), Vienna (1986-1989). At the Madrid meeting, it was decided to convene a Conference on Confidence-Building Measures, Security and Disarmament in Europe. Its first stage took place in Stockholm (1984-1986) and opened in conditions of a sharp deterioration in the international situation. The situation changed radically with the beginning of transformations in the USSR, which marked the beginning of fundamental changes in international relations. The results were reflected in the adopted Stockholm Document, which was a huge achievement in the development of the Helsinki process. The document obliged states to provide advance notification of exercises, troop movements beyond established parameters, exchange annual plans for notifiable military activities, invite observers, and even conduct foreign on-site inspections. Of particular importance was the agreement confirming the obligation not to use force in all its forms, including armed force.

At the Vienna meeting, which became a new stage in the development of the Helsinki process, much attention was paid to cooperation in the field of economics, science and technology, the environment, etc.

An important step in the development of the Helsinki process was the Paris Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1990. It was timed to coincide with the signing of the Treaty on the Reduction of Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The treaty provided for a significant reduction in the armed forces of NATO and the Warsaw Pact Organization (WTO) members, thereby achieving a balance at a significantly reduced level. As a result, the possibility of a surprise attack was practically excluded.

Last week, the entire Russian parliamentary delegation refused to go to the capital of Finland. Because the head of the Russian State Duma, Sergei Naryshkin, along with six other parliamentarians, was included in the sanctions lists. On this basis, the Finnish authorities denied them the opportunity to take part in the session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Helsinki, although OSCE events are not subject to visa sanctions

I think it would not be an exaggeration to say that such a situation has become a symbol of political changes in the world. The Helsinki Peace, created on the basis of agreements between the USSR and the USA in the capital of Finland, virtually ceased to exist.

The circle is closed.

A new political era is dawning.

And it makes sense for us to remember and compare.

What are the Helsinki Accords?

Many of us, especially those from the younger generation, no longer remember the time when our country was not just a completely sovereign power, but an EQUAL country in all respects compared to the United States. And the world was divided into two spheres of influence: ours and theirs. There was also a third part of the world - one that did not join the first two. It was called that - the non-aligned movement.

Under these conditions, the USSR, together with its Warsaw Pact allies, took the initiative to agree on the rules of the game. Reduce tension, reduce, or better yet, stop the arms race, which is leading the planet to self-destruction.

The result was the “Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.” 33 states took part in it - all European countries except Albania, as well as the USA and Canada. It is clear that the main ones were Moscow and Washington. And neutral Finland provided a platform that suited everyone. The country's relations were equally good with both political European blocs.

Without going into long details, I would like to note that the negotiations took place in several stages for almost two years. Finally, July 30 - Aug 1. 1975 at a meeting at top level The Final Act was adopted in Helsinki.

This document determined life in Europe.

It formulated 10 fundamental principles that should determine the rules and norms of relations between the states participating in the Conference.

— sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty;

— non-use of force or threat of force;

— inviolability of borders;

— territorial integrity of states;

— peaceful settlement of disputes;

- non-interference in internal affairs;

— respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief;

- equality and the right of peoples to control their own destinies;

— cooperation between states;

— conscientious fulfillment of obligations under international law.

When the USSR existed, when we were strong, the West respected this agreement. But only as long as there was someone who could punish for non-compliance with agreements.

Today, the Helsinki peace is buried by the efforts of the USA and NATO:

the sovereignty of states is not respected, the United States considers itself to have the right to interfere in the affairs of any state that cannot defend itself. Including in Europe - the fate of Yugoslavia is a terrible example of this;
The non-use of force as a principle of European policy is a thing of the past - the collapse of Yugoslavia was carried out with the use of foreign armed force;
The inviolability of borders, as a principle that liberals and the United States constantly remind us of, was violated during the destruction of the USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the emergence of such “states” as Kosovo;
The territorial integrity of states was not violated at all in 2014 - this principle was buried in Kosovo, tearing apart Yugoslavia, whose borders were recreated in 1945;
Peaceful settlement of disputes - this principle in the practice of NATO and the United States sounds like a mockery today;
Non-interference in internal affairs - the United States does nothing but interfere in them, trying to teach and instruct everyone how to live, who to choose as a leader, and now they are also trying to present a mortal sin in the form of a new human norm;
Respect for rights and freedoms - in carrying out their policies, NATO and the United States violate fundamental right of a person - the right to life, is denied to everyone in their own decision inner life, following your ideals and traditions;
Equality of peoples - against the backdrop of the crisis in the European Union, we see how “equal” the EU member countries are, the right of peoples to control their own destinies - against the backdrop of support for the coup in Ukraine by the United States, we see a constant violation of this principle by the World Hegemon;
Cooperation between states - the United States is confident that all countries are obliged to buy their debt obligations and fulfill all their political demands, any attempt to pursue a sovereign policy Washington tries to punish different ways: from color revolutions to sanctions and aggression;
ABOUT conscientious execution commitments on the part of the United States and NATO are impossible to speak of - deception follows deception, and lie after lie, NATO expanded to the East and absorbed even part of former territory The USSR also refers to the issue of “the inviolability of borders in Europe.”

To date, nothing remains of the Helsinki Agreement. Everything has been destroyed by the West, which wants to continue to play the role of the only force.

The inability of the Delegation of our country to fully participate in the anniversary (40 years) of the agreement signed in the capital of Finland is very typical.

It is difficult to imagine that in 1975 anyone could have included members of the Politburo or the General Secretary of the CPSU on any sanctions lists. This is nonsense - when the leaders of countries with which negotiations need to be held... are not allowed to attend them.

And this is a symbol. There is no more Helsinki Peace. There are no inviolable borders in Europe.

There is nothing at all.

Except for the army and navy of Russia, which are the only guarantee of our existence as a people, as a unique Russian civilization.

And the “lessons of Helsinki” are lessons for us all.

You can't trust the West.

He will deceive and break agreements at the first opportunity.

But we must not become weak - the West respects all agreements only as long as you are strong. If you become weak, no one will honor the agreements; they will immediately try to tear them apart.

These are the thoughts that arise after analyzing what happened with our parliamentary delegation.

If they don’t want to talk, they don’t need to.

Once again they didn’t want to talk to us near Moscow and Stalingrad.

I had to speak in Tehran, and then in Potsdam.

We will wait.

Although we are for peace. At least based on the Helsinki Agreement...

Helsinki Accords 1975

Introduction. 3

1. International situation in the late 1960s - early 1970s. 5

2. Helsinki process. eleven

3. Consequences of the Helsinki process and a new round of tension. 14

Conclusion. 22

List of used literature... 25

On July 3, 1973, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe began in Helsinki, on the initiative of the Warsaw Pact Organization. All European countries, with the exception of Albania, agreed to take part in the work of the Meeting. The purpose of the event was to soften the confrontation between both blocs - NATO and the European Community, on the one hand, and the Warsaw Pact Organization and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, on the other. Despite all the political contradictions, the planned meetings were supposed to help defuse tensions and strengthen peace in Europe.

On August 1, 1975, after two years of negotiations, the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference was finally signed, in which European countries the immutability of borders, territorial integrity, peaceful resolution of conflicts, non-interference in internal affairs, renunciation of the use of violence, equality and equality of sovereignty were guaranteed. In addition, the document contained a commitment to respect the right of peoples to self-determination and human rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of belief.

Consideration of the international situation on the eve of the conclusion of the Helsinki Agreements, i.e. in the late 1960s - early 1970s;

Determination of the main prerequisites for international “detente”;

Consideration of the consequences of the conclusion of the Helsinki Accords;

Determination of the main results of the Helsinki Pan-European Conference.

When writing test work To achieve this goal, the author performs an analysis teaching aids By world history, the history of Russia and the USSR, the history of state and law of foreign countries, as well as scientific works of some domestic and foreign authors.

As a result of the analysis of information sources, the author examined in detail the process of signing the Helsinki Agreements, their prerequisites and main results.

In October 1964, when the new leadership of the USSR took power into its own hands, the liabilities of Khrushchev’s foreign policy were: the unity of the socialist camp, shaken due to the split with China and Romania; strained relations between East and West due to the Cuban Missile Crisis; finally, the unresolved German problem. The decisions of the XXIII Congress of the CPSU in 1966 confirmed the trend towards a tougher foreign policy: peaceful coexistence was now subordinated to a higher priority class task - strengthening the socialist camp, solidarity with the international working class and the national liberation movement.

The Soviet leadership was hampered by the restoration of full control over the socialist camp by difficulties in relations with China, Cuba, as well as events in Czechoslovakia. Here, in June 1967, the Writers' Congress openly opposed the party leadership, followed by mass student demonstrations and strikes. The growing opposition forced Novotny to cede leadership of the party to Dubcek in January 1968. The new leadership decided to carry out a number of reforms. An atmosphere of freedom was established, censorship was abolished, and the Communist Party of Human Rights agreed to alternative elections of its leaders. However, the traditionally Soviet “exit” was imposed: “at the request of the Czechoslovak comrades” on the night of August 20-21, 1968, troops of five countries participating in the Warsaw Pact entered Czechoslovakia. It was not possible to immediately pacify discontent; protest demonstrations against the occupation continued, and this forced the Soviet leadership to remove Dubcek and his entourage from the leadership of the country and put G. Husak at the head of the Communist Party of Human Rights (April 1969), a supporter of the USSR. By forcefully suppressing the process of reforming Czechoslovak society. The Soviet Union stopped the modernization of this country for twenty years. Thus, using the example of Czechoslovakia, the principle of “limited sovereignty,” often called the “Brezhnev Doctrine,” was implemented.

A serious situation also arose in Poland due to price increases in 1970, which caused mass unrest among workers in the Baltic ports. Over the next ten years, the economic situation did not improve, which gave rise to a new wave of strikes, led by the independent trade union "Solidarity" led by L. Walesa. The leadership of the mass trade union made the movement less vulnerable and therefore the leadership of the USSR did not dare to send troops into Poland and shed blood. The “normalization” of the situation was entrusted to a Pole, General Jaruzelski, who introduced martial law in the country on December 13, 1981.

Although there was no direct intervention of the USSR, its role in “calming” Poland was noticeable. The image of the USSR in the world was increasingly associated with the violation of human rights both within the country and in neighboring states. Events in Poland, the emergence of Solidarity there, which covered the entire country with a network of its organizations, indicated that the most serious breach had been made here in the closed system of Eastern European regimes.

In relations between the West and the East in the early 70s there was a radical turn towards a real detente. It became possible thanks to the achievement of approximate military parity between the West and the East, the USA and the USSR. The turn began with the establishment of interested cooperation between the USSR, first with France, and then with Germany.

At the turn of the 1960-1970s, the Soviet leadership moved to implement a new foreign policy course, the main provisions of which were stated in the Peace Program adopted at the XXIV Congress of the CPSU in March - April 1971. The most significant point of the new policy should be considered the fact that neither The Soviet Union and the West did not abandon the arms race. This process was now acquiring a civilized framework, which was an objective need on both sides after the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. However, such a turn in East-West relations made it possible to significantly expand the areas of cooperation, primarily Soviet-American, caused a certain euphoria and raised hopes in the public consciousness. This new state of the foreign policy atmosphere was called “detente of international tension.”

“Détente” began with a significant improvement in relations between the USSR and France and Germany. France's withdrawal from the NATO military organization in 1966 became an impetus for the development of bilateral relations. The Soviet Union tried to enlist the mediation assistance of France in resolving the German question, which remained the main obstacle to the recognition of post-war borders in Europe. Mediation, however, was not required after Social Democrat Willy Brandt became Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany in October 1969, proclaiming the “new Ostpolitik.” Its essence was that the unification of Germany ceased to be a prerequisite in relations between East and West, but was postponed to the future as the main goal of multilateral dialogue. This made it possible, as a result of Soviet-West German negotiations on August 12, 1970, to conclude the Moscow Treaty, according to which both parties pledged to comply territorial integrity all European states within their actual borders. In particular, Germany recognized the western borders of Poland along the Oder-Neisse. At the end of the year, corresponding agreements on borders were signed between the Federal Republic of Germany and Poland, as well as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic.

An important stage of the European settlement was the signing in September 1971 of a quadripartite agreement on West Berlin, which confirmed the groundlessness of the territorial and political claims of the Federal Republic of Germany to West Berlin and stated that West Berlin is not integral part The Federal Republic of Germany will not be governed by it in the future. This was a complete victory for Soviet diplomacy, since all the conditions that the USSR had insisted on since 1945 without any concessions were finally accepted.

This development of events strengthened the confidence of the Soviet leadership that a radical change in the balance of forces had occurred in the world in favor of the USSR and the countries of the “socialist commonwealth.” The positions of the United States and the imperialist bloc in Moscow were assessed as “weak.” The USSR's confidence was built on a number of factors, the main ones being the continued growth of the national liberation movement and the achievement in 1969 of military-strategic parity with the United States in terms of the number of nuclear warheads. Based on this, the buildup of weapons and their improvement, according to the logic of the Soviet leadership, became an integral part of the struggle for peace.

Achieving parity put on the agenda the issue of arms limitation on a bilateral basis, the goal of which was the regulated, controlled and predictable growth of the most strategically dangerous type of weapons - intercontinental ballistic missiles. The visit of US President Richard Nixon to Moscow in May 1972 was extremely important. During this visit, by the way the first visit to the USSR by a US President, the process of “détente” received a powerful impetus. Nixon and Brezhnev signed the “Fundamentals of Relations between the USSR and the United States of America,” stating that “in nuclear age there is no other basis for relationships other than peaceful coexistence.” On May 26, 1972, the Interim Agreement on Measures in the Field of Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (SALT) was concluded for a period of 5 years, later called the SALT-1 Treaty. In the summer of 1973, during Brezhnev's visit to the United States, an agreement on the prevention of nuclear war was also signed.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, consisting of 56 member states, was created in accordance with Chapter 8 of the UN Charter as the main instrument for early warning and prevention of crisis situations, resolution of existing conflicts and post-conflict reconstruction in Europe.

The official date of the Organization's establishment is August 1, 1975, when 33 European states, as well as the United States and Canada at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) approved the Final Act in Helsinki. The results of the agreements signed therein can be grouped into several sections. In the international - consolidation of the political and territorial results of the Second World War, outlining the principles of relations between the participating states, including the principle of the inviolability of borders; territorial integrity of states; non-interference in the internal affairs of foreign states. In the military-political sphere - coordination of confidence-building measures in the military field (preliminary notifications of military exercises and major movements of troops, the presence of observers at military exercises); peaceful settlement of disputes. In the economic sphere - coordination of the main areas of cooperation in the field of economics, science and technology and environmental protection. In the humanitarian field, this is the coordination of obligations on issues of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of movement, contacts, information, culture and education, the right to work, the right to education and health care.

The activities of the CSCE participating states on issues of a humanitarian nature received the official name in its documents: “The Human Dimension of the CSCE”. Subsequently, within the framework of the CSCE process, its participants held a number of meetings, as a result of which final documents were adopted. As a result of the meeting in Vienna in 1986, a decision was made to create a special structure to handle human rights issues - the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, which carried out its work in the form of special meetings. In 1994, the Conference was transformed into the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Within the framework of the CSCE and the OSCE, important decisions were taken concerning human rights and developing the fundamental ideas of rights and freedoms. The uniqueness of these decisions lies in the fact that they are not international treaties in the generally accepted sense. Their basis is agreements stating certain standards, the level of approach to solving the problem of human rights and fundamental freedoms and constituting a unified system of values in the field of human rights. Refusal of these standards harms any state, so they are treated as international regulations.

Experts highlight a number of features characteristic of agreements within the framework of the CSCE-OSCE human dimension process:

Firstly, they link into a single whole issues of human rights and freedoms with issues of a humanitarian nature.

Secondly, these agreements contain provisions that the commitments that have been made in the field of the human dimension are not exclusively the internal affairs of CSCE states.

Thirdly, since the CSCE-OSCE agreements contain many provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the Human Rights Covenants of 1966, it is advisable for those CSCE participants who have not yet joined them to join these pacts, which would make it possible to more effectively improve They have their own laws in the humanitarian field, the practice of implementing them in life.

Fourthly, the CSCE-OSCE documents detail the provisions of the human rights covenants and give them an organizational focus.

Fifthly, the CSCE-OSCE documents link the effectiveness of human rights and freedoms with the establishment of the principles of justice that form the basis of the rule of law.

Sixth, the CSCE-OSCE documents highlight certain groups of the population whose rights protection requires increased attention - migrant workers and national minorities. 29

The Final Act and the Helsinki Process itself, without exaggeration, revolutionized international law by making the human dimension, human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized subjects of international dialogue and negotiations between East and West.

The participating States pledged to “respect and apply in the relations of each of them with all other participating States, regardless of their political, economic and social systems, as well as their size, geographical location and level of economic development,” the ten fundamental principles of Helsinki: 1. Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty. 2. Non-use of force or threat of force. 3. Inviolability of borders. 4. Territorial integrity of states. 5. Peaceful settlement of disputes. 6. Non-interference in internal affairs. 7. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief. 8. Equality and the right of peoples to control their own destinies. 9. Cooperation between states. 10. Conscientious fulfillment of obligations under international law.

The Final Act established the “working areas” of the CSCE, covering all areas of interstate relations. Initially they were called Helsinki “baskets”, and are now called “dimensions”. The first “basket” - the military-political dimension - includes issues of political security and arms control, conflict prevention and resolution. The second - the economic-ecological dimension - covers problems of cooperation in the field of economics, science, technology and the environment. The third “basket” - the human dimension - includes cooperation in humanitarian and other areas (information, culture, education), as well as human rights.

Along with the issues discussed above, “human rights law” includes others, such as the law and problems of citizenship, human rights and the regime of foreign citizens, human rights and the law of asylum, human rights and the legal regulation of the status of refugees and internally displaced persons, and others.

The most important milestones in the activities of the OSCE were: the CSCE Summit in Paris and the adoption of the Charter for a New Europe (1990). The signing of the Charter for a New Europe on November 21, 1990 in Paris put an end to the Cold War and marked the beginning of the transformation of the CSCE from a forum for negotiations and dialogue into an actively functioning structure; Summit in Helsinki (1992). The meeting became decisive for the further development of the concept new architecture European security. The decisions taken here were mainly aimed at transforming the CSCE from a representative forum for discussions on European security issues into a powerful organization with a range of operational functions. One of the decisions of the summit that was implemented and enriched the potential of the CSCE was the creation of the post of High Commissioner on National Minorities; CSCE Summit in Budapest (1994) - discussion of the security model in the 21st century; OSCE Summit in Istanbul (1999), where the discussion on a security model for Europe in the 21st century was summed up.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation, which incorporates the experience of the development of human rights in democratic states, as well as international legal aspects of the protection of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its complementary covenants and conventions, contains principles that represent value guidelines for the development of society:

Human rights belong to him from birth and are therefore natural, inalienable and inalienable;

Human rights are universal, based on the principle of equality;

they are guaranteed to everyone who is under the jurisdiction of a given state;

Human rights are the highest value. Their observance, respect and protection is the responsibility of the state;

Human rights are a means of control over power, a limiter on the omnipotence of the state in matters of individual rights and freedoms;

Ensuring rights and freedoms is incompatible with discrimination on any basis;

The exercise of the rights and freedoms of one person should not violate the rights and freedoms of other people;

Fundamental rights and freedoms must be uniform throughout the territory of the state;

There is no hierarchy in the system of rights; they are all equal;

Collective rights are inseparable from individual rights. They should not contradict individual rights and limit the legal status of the individual;

Human rights are regulated by Law;

Human rights and freedoms may be limited by law on the basis of circumstances specified in constitutions and basic international legal acts 30 .

Law cannot save us from conflict, but it allows

each party to refer to the definition of fair and unfair, normal and abnormal,

legal or unacceptable behavior.

Francoise Boucher-Solognier

$mob_info$