Fundamental Principles international security are the principle of equal security and the principle of non-damage to the security of states.

These principles are reflected in the PLO Charter, PLO General Assembly Resolution 2734 (XXV), the Declaration on Strengthening International Security of December 16, 1970, the Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Threat or Use of Force in International Relations (November 18, 1987 .), UN General Assembly Resolution 50/6, Declaration on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations of 24 October 1995, Declaration of Principles international law, relating to friendly relations and cooperation between states in accordance with the UN Charter of October 24, 1970, and other international legal documents.

Thus, in accordance with the UN Charter, all members of the UN shall resolve their international disputes by peaceful means in such a way as not to jeopardize international peace and security and justice, and shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force as against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

The principles of international security are also reflected in the Declaration on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Threat or Use of Force in International Relations (November 18, 1987). In accordance with the Declaration, each state is obliged to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, as well as from any other actions inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force is a violation of international law and the UN Charter and entails international responsibility. The principle of non-threat or use of force in international relations is universal in nature and binding, regardless of the political, economic, social or cultural system or allied relations of each state. No consideration may be used to justify the threat or use of force in violation of the Charter.

States have an obligation not to induce, encourage or assist other States in the use or threat of force in violation of the Charter.

By virtue of the principle of equality and self-determination embodied in the Charter, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State is obliged to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. States must comply with their obligations under international law to refrain from organizing, instigating, aiding or participating in paramilitary, terrorist or subversive activities, including mercenary activities, in other States and from condoning organized activities aimed at committing such acts, to the extent its territory.

States are obliged to refrain from armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats directed against the legal personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural foundations.

No state should use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other measures with the aim of achieving the subordination of another state in the exercise of its sovereign rights and obtaining any advantages from this. In accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN, states are obliged to refrain from promoting wars of aggression.

Neither the acquisition of territory as a result of the threat or use of force, nor any occupation of territory as a result of the threat or use of force in violation of international law will be recognized as a lawful acquisition or occupation.

All member states of the world community are called upon to make efforts to build their international relations on the basis of mutual understanding, trust, respect and cooperation. The parameters of the above set the goal of developing bilateral and regional cooperation as one of the important means of enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of non-threat or use of force in international relations.

Within the established criteria of proper conduct, States are guided by their commitment to the principle of peaceful resolution of disputes, which is inextricably linked with the principle of non-threat or use of force in international relations. States parties to international disputes must resolve their disputes exclusively by peaceful means in a manner that does not jeopardize international peace, security and justice. To this end, they shall use such means as negotiation, investigation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, litigation, recourse to regional bodies or agreements or other peaceful means of their choice, including good offices.

In furtherance of their obligations under the UN Charter, states take effective measures to prevent the threat of any armed conflicts, including conflicts in which nuclear weapons may be used, to prevent an arms race in outer space and to stop and reverse the arms race on Earth, to reduce the level of military confrontation and strengthen global stability.

In furtherance of their stated commitment to strengthening the rule of law and order, states are cooperating bilaterally, regionally and international levels in order to:

• - prevention international terrorism and the fight against it;
• - active assistance in eliminating the causes underlying international terrorism.

In order to ensure a high level of trust and mutual understanding, states seek to take specific measures and create favorable conditions in the field of international economic relations in order to achieve international peace, security and justice. At the same time, the interest of all countries in reducing the gap in levels of economic development, and in particular the interests of developing countries around the world.

The principles of international security were also enshrined in the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States in accordance with the UN Charter. Thus, in accordance with the Declaration, each state in its international relations is obliged to refrain from the threat or use of force either against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other way incompatible with the purposes of the UN. Such threat or use of force is a violation of international law and the UN Charter and should never be used as a means of resolving international issues.

War of aggression is a crime against peace, which entails liability under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN, states are obliged to refrain from promoting wars of aggression. Each State has the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force for the purpose of violating the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of settling international disputes, including territorial disputes and matters relating to state borders. Equally, each State has the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or consistent with an international agreement to which that State is a party or to which that State is otherwise bound to comply. Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as prejudice to the positions of the parties concerned regarding the status and consequences of establishing such lines according to their special regimes or as violating their temporary nature.

States have an obligation to refrain from acts of reprisal involving the use of force. Each state is obliged to refrain from any violent actions that deprive the peoples referred to in the specification of the principles of equality and self-determination of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. Each State is obliged to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands, including mercenaries, to invade the territory of another State.

Each State is obliged to refrain from organizing, inciting, assisting or participating in acts civil war or terrorist acts in another state or from condoning organizational activities within one's own territory aimed at committing such acts, in the case where the acts involve the threat or use of force.

The territory of a State must not be subject to military occupation resulting from the use of force in violation of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State must not be subject to acquisition by another State as a result of the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal. Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as violating:

• a) the provisions of the Charter or any international agreement, concluded before the adoption of the Charter and having legal force in accordance with international law; or
• b) the powers of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter.

All states must negotiate in good faith with a view to the speedy conclusion of a universal treaty on general and complete disarmament under effective international control and strive to take appropriate measures to ease international tension and strengthen confidence among states.

All states must, on the basis of generally recognized principles and norms of international law, conscientiously fulfill their obligations regarding the maintenance of international peace and security and strive to improve the effectiveness based on the Charter of the United Nations security system.

Nothing in the terms of the foregoing should be construed as extending or limiting in any way the scope of the provisions of the Charter relating to cases where the use of force is lawful.

States shall resolve their international disputes by peaceful means in a manner that does not jeopardize international peace and security and justice. Each State shall resolve its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner as not to jeopardize international peace and security and justice.

States should therefore strive for the speedy and fair resolution of their international disputes through negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, litigation, recourse to regional bodies or agreements, or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement, the parties must agree upon such peaceful means as are appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to a dispute are obliged, if they do not reach a resolution of the dispute by one of the above-mentioned peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

States parties to an international dispute, as well as other states, must refrain from any action that may worsen the situation so as to jeopardize the maintenance of international peace and security, and must act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the PLO.

International disputes are resolved on the basis sovereign equality states and in accordance with the principle of free choice of means of peaceful resolution of disputes. The application of a dispute settlement procedure or the acceptance of such a procedure which has been freely agreed upon between States in respect of existing or future disputes to which they are parties shall not be considered inconsistent with the principle of sovereign equality.

States have an obligation not to interfere in matters within the domestic competence of any state. No state or group of states has the right to interfere directly or indirectly for any reason in the internal and external affairs of another state. As a consequence, armed intervention and all other forms of intervention or any threats directed against the legal personality of a State or against its political, economic and cultural foundations are a violation of international law.

No state may use or encourage the use of economic, political or other measures with the purpose of obtaining the subordination of another state in the exercise of its sovereign rights and obtaining from it any advantages. No state shall also organize, assist, incite, finance, encourage or tolerate armed, subversive or terrorist activities aimed at changing the system of another state through violence, or interfere in internal struggles in another state.

The use of force to deprive peoples of their national existence is a violation of their inalienable rights and the principle of non-interference.

Every State has the inalienable right to choose its own political, economic, social and cultural system without any form of interference from any other State.

The principle of sovereign equality of states, including in the field of security, is also important. All states enjoy sovereign equality. They have the same rights and obligations and are equal members of the international community, regardless of differences of economic, social, political or other nature.

In particular, the concept of sovereign equality includes the following elements:

• - states are legally equal;
• - each state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty;
• - each state is obliged to respect the legal personality of other states;
• - the territorial integrity and political independence of the state are inviolable;
• - every state has the right to freely choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems;
• - Each state is obliged to comply fully and conscientiously with its international obligations and live in peace with other states.

Starting to consider the psychology of the dispute, we note that everything stated below will also apply to polemics, discussions, disputes, and debates. In other words, we will talk about the psychology of interaction between interlocutors when resolving contradictions in the thinking process. The mechanism of this interaction is the same, only the intensity of passions and the clashes of souls are different. Participants in the discussion (or research) of a problem can move from one state of interaction to another depending on the intensity of passions and changes in approaches. A constructive approach is manifested in the desire to exchange opinions, to have a conversation, to find an acceptable solution. A destructive approach more often results in acute forms of communication: disputes, polemics. The psychological behavior of partners depends on many factors: knowledge of the principles of the dispute, the motives of the interlocutors, personal properties, characters and compliance with ethical rules.

Since the interlocutors may explicitly or implicitly show signs of different approaches, the participants need to be guided by the psychological principles of the dispute. The latter determine the norms of interaction between the parties, ethical rules and regulate the activities of the participants in the dispute, regardless of their goals. What are the psychological principles of the dispute? principle of equal security; the principle of decentral orientation and the principle of adequacy (correspondence) what is perceived, what is said. How are they characterized? Principle of equal safety states: do not cause psychological or other harm to any of the parties to the dispute; in a dispute, do not do anything that you yourself will not be happy about. The principle applies to many psychological factors of personality, but first of all to self-esteem. It prohibits offensive, humiliating attacks against the person of the interlocutor, no matter what thoughts and ideas he defends. If someone violates this principle, then the goal (achieving truth) is replaced, the dispute goes off the rails of the logic of the development of thought and a confrontation of ambitions begins. Finding himself the object of ridicule, a person often blindly and mercilessly takes revenge for humiliation. The principle of equal security, if guided by both sides, presupposes a constructive approach to resolving the issue of the dispute. Another principle is principle of decentralization- prescribes: be able to analyze a situation or problem from the point of view of another person, look at yourself and others based on the interests of the business, and not from personal goals. In short, the credo is this: do not cause damage to the business. The principle involves helping each other and solving the problem through joint efforts, finding an option that suits everyone. If such a focus is achieved in a dispute, then the interlocutors can not only rise above personal interests, but also make a breakthrough through external and internal restrictions, in particular through psychological barriers that prevent them from seeing the truth or a solution that is optimal. Decentric focus develops in conditions of alternatives , i.e., when considering several points of view. Such thinking is improved through frequent communication with people who know how to defend their views with a constructive approach to solving a problem. However, orientation as a set of stable motives for activity that are relatively independent of the situation can also be egocentric. In this case, the individual is guided by the motives of his own well-being, the desire for prestige, victory in an argument, and selfish goals. Interlocutors with an egocentric orientation are usually preoccupied with their own problems and are not interested in the problems of others; rush to conclusions and assumptions; try to impose their opinion on others; deprive other participants in the dispute of a sense of freedom; do not understand the situation when to speak and when to remain silent and listen; their behavior is not friendly. The egocentric credo: “The focus is on my point of view, my theory, but not on the point of view of the enemy.” In a dispute, he divides people into useful people, who help him defend his opinion, and harmful people, who hinder his success. Such a person is capable of “putting him in his place,” scolding him, scolding him, scolding him, humiliating him, and insulting his opponent. When nothing else succeeds, the egocentrist feigns incomprehension and bitter resentment. The sincerity of his indignation can lead the interlocutor into confusion. A person with an egocentric orientation is more often than others prone to a destructive approach in a dispute. The third principle is also important - principle of adequacy what is perceived, what is said. It says: do not cause damage to thought by intentional or unintentional distortion of what was said (heard). For this principle to serve the disputants, the most accurate perception of the meaning of what was heard is necessary. We must strive for simplicity and accuracy of statements. If the phrases are incomprehensible, then attention fades and interest in the interlocutor’s speech is lost. And when interest remains, the sense of tact restrains the listener’s desire to clarify the meaning of what was said and he has to complete the understanding according to his own ideas. This always conceals the possibility of reflecting in the mind something that is not quite what the opponent had in mind. As a result, a semantic barrier arises - a discrepancy between what was perceived and what was heard. There may also be psychological barriers on the way to an accurate perception of the speaker’s speech. They are associated with personality characteristics, its mental conditions or reactions that prevent understanding or accepting the adequate meaning of a statement or the opponent’s point of view. These may be manifestations of the speaker’s excessive confidence, aplomb, ambition, disregard for other opinions, narcissism, envy, hostility, etc. The principle obliges the participants in the dispute to take into account the opponent’s ability to accurately grasp the meaning of the chains of reasoning and make the material accessible, without overloading or simplifying the presentation in damage to the depth of thoughts. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the inertia of thinking characteristic of many of us, outdated ideas and views of past times, turning into dogmas and cliches. New scientific truths are always paradoxical, if judged on the basis of everyday consciousness, but a person is reluctant to throw off the blinders of habitual, proven experience. Not all of us have systems thinking, that is, we are not able to consider an object as a system included in many connections with other subsystems. For one, the subject of speech seems to be illuminated by many spotlights, while for another, due to the narrowness of one’s own knowledge, only a spot is seen on the object of knowledge. Partial, unsystematic knowledge causes doubts where everything is clear to others down to the smallest detail. This is how semantic barriers arise. People trample around such a fence or endlessly fall into one hole or another, visible to one and invisible to another. As a result, a pleasant delusion: “What I saw and heard is everything that can be seen and heard in this statement.” Conviction in the infallibility of one’s own opinion in a dispute leads to a useless skirmish, as a result of which the subject of disagreement remains on the sidelines, and the disputants They defend their positions even more firmly, considering their opponent to be wrong. To implement the third principle, you should learn to listen to each other. What is the inability to listen to the interlocutor and, as a result, inadequate understanding of him?

• We do not know how to restrain our desire to express a hasty opinion;
• we rush to refute the enemy without thoroughly delving into his reasoning;
• we interrupt him, although he has not finished his argument, and then we find ourselves in a stupid position;
• we cling to the unimportant and end up getting tired before we get to the main thing;
• we are distracted by something in the speaker’s appearance, by the shortcomings of his speech and lose sight of the essence of his thoughts;
• without listening to the end, we are preparing to fend off hints of our ignorance;
• we do not take into account the enemy’s motives that encourage him to resist our view of the problem;
• we are confident that our knowledge is quite enough to defend our position;
• Having believed that the truth is on our side, we prepare ourselves in advance to disagree with the enemy’s statements.
• All this interferes with mutual understanding and adequate perception of what is said.

Types of dispute

There are different disputes. Experts distinguish three types: apodictic, eristic and sophistic. The type of dispute depends on the goal, which, as a law, determines the method and means of achieving it and which he must achieve. If the goal of the interlocutor is the search for truth, then he conducts an apodictic (reliable, based on formal laws thinking and rules of inference) dispute. If the goal of the opponent is to convince, to persuade him to his opinion, then he is conducting an eristic (or, as it is also called, dialectical, based on all the laws of dialectics) dispute. If the opponent’s goal is to win by any means, then this dispute is called sophistical (based on verbal tricks that are misleading). A dispute involves at least two (or two parties), and the combination of their behaviors may be different. Here are just a few options.

• The second one too (apodictic dispute).
• The first strives for truth (apodictic argument).
• The second is to convince (eristic argument).
• The first strives for truth (apodictic argument).
• The second is to victory (sophistic dispute).
• The first seeks to persuade (eristic argument).
• The second is to win (sophistic dispute).
• Both seek to convince each other (eristic argument).
• Both strive to defeat each other (sophistic dispute).

In order not to get lost in the description of the options for interaction between the disputants, we will give a one-sided description of the types of dispute. Why one-sided? The palette of any option includes various means characteristic of the corresponding types of dispute, and combinations of techniques of constructive and destructive approaches. It is difficult to give a name to a dispute in which one strives for the truth, another tries to persuade rivals to his opinion, and the third tries to defeat them by any means. Everyone has different goals and means of achieving them. What we assume is a kind of characteristic of the movements of the figures on chessboard . The knight moves in its own way, the queen moves in its own way, and the bishop moves in its own way. In a chess game, there are already precisely calculated games with names and possible outcomes. There are thousands of them. But if we imagine that chess pieces are alive, possessing a psyche (soul), all human passions, then any game would turn out to be unpredictable. If chess pieces have strict limitations, people do not. Thus, in an argument, you must immediately prepare yourself for the most unforeseen manifestations of the mind and feelings of your interlocutors. A person prepared for an argument should be able to play his part, improvising in the conditions of improvisation of others, not knocking down the idea, but picking it up, joining the melody of another opponent, feeling the beat of the rhythm and adhering to the general theme. In other words, in a dispute, as in Dixieland, the performers are virtuosos of thinking: the dialectician leads the party to the truth, the orator persuades everyone to agree, the sophist sees his goal only in victory, but the theme sounds. However, a good musician may be unable to play in Dixieland, and an intelligent, educated person may feel completely unfit for argument. After reading the description of the three types of dispute, you will understand why this happens. Apodictic dispute. It presupposes the precise formulation of the thesis, the presence of a main argument (a reliable statement - a large premise from which a chain of conclusions begins), the absence of contradictions in reasoning, the reliability and sufficiency of arguments. In this case, conclusions will be built according to the figures of a syllogism - a form of thinking in which the components are a major premise, a minor premise, a logical connective (following) and a conclusion. Analyze the reasoning: an apodictic dispute arises when a problem is discovered. Thinking people are always faced with different approaches to solving problems. It follows from this that an apodictic dispute arises among thinking people. In this argument, the first phrase is a larger premise, an undoubted statement. The second phrase is a minor premise. How does our brain work? In the major and minor premises, he looks for a term common to general phrases (in the example, this is the word “problem”). When the extreme members of the sentences are equal, the brain equates (connects) the remaining semantic parts (“apodictic dispute” and “thinking people”) and forms a new phrase (statement) from them. It is a conclusion and is called a conclusion. If the premises are recognized as true and the rules of inference relating to them are observed, then the conclusion must necessarily be true (reliable). This scheme for constructing speech, which is called the figure of a syllogism, contains the process of comprehending the truth in verbal reasoning. If, following the previous reasoning, you add a new one: “Andreev is considered a thoughtful and critically thinking leader of our institute” - then the brain will produce the following judgment: “Andreev prefers to lead apodictic controversy." And so the chain of reasoning can be extended to the phrase that we justify as a true statement. With formal observance of the laws of thinking and the rules of inference, reason will lead us to the truth through inferences, which are called apodictic. The credo of a participant in such a dispute: “Plato is my friend, but truth is dearer "This type of dispute requires precise (scientific) definitions of concepts, proven scientific statements as major premises, established facts, clearly stated problems, reliable arguments and an understanding of the essence of disagreements ( controversial issue). In syllogisms, as K. L. Zelinsky noted, “in the movement of thought along the rails of logic there is that compulsion of conclusion that captivates every scientist and paralyzes the imagination... All this is a rail transport of thought that will take you to the truth as the final destination station” ( quoted from the book: Pavlov K. G. Psychology of Dispute. Vladivostok, 1988. P. 139, 140).What is the psychological aspect of an apodictic dispute, when it is conducted by both participants and they have the same goal - to find the truth or at least get closer to her? Opponents manifest themselves psychologically symmetrically, that is, they mutually verify the reliability of the thesis (proponent) and antithesis (opponent). At the same time, deeply respecting each other, they give admiring assessments of the interlocutor’s judgments, encourage each other to clarify and correct formulations, interpretations, definitions, show patience, strive to clarify the opponent’s views, look for and notice what the opponent is right about. All their activities are aimed at mutual correction of points of view. They argue like two firefighters at a hand pump - by opposing each other, they receive a stream of water. An even clearer analogy is with people sawing a tree trunk with a two-handed saw. Is it possible to aggravate an apodictic dispute? Yes, when debaters put different meanings into the same thesis; they perceive concepts that are used in reasoning differently, or argue not on the essence of the subject of disagreement. To conduct an apodictic dispute, it is necessary to develop the following qualities in yourself:

• competence (knowledge general provisions, details of discussion);
• interest;
• optimism (including a sense of humor);
• sense of responsibility;
• constructive approach (readiness to defend a position, opinion in the interests of creating and continuing dialogue);
• ideologicalness (depth of judgment, high philosophical level of thinking);
• well-reasoned conclusions (strength of facts, ability to use argumentation options);
• focus on the problem (highlighting the most essential, clear presentation of the controversial point, short and clear formulation of theses);
• compromise (willingness to give in, take risks, change one’s position);
• sociability (the ability to restore psychological contact);
• intelligence (intellectual tolerance, sincerity in expressing joy, restraint in anger).

Taking into account what has been said about the apodictic dispute, the statement that “truth is born in a dispute” may turn out to be really close to such a result. Eristic dispute. As already mentioned, an eristic dispute is conducted when it is necessary to convince a partner of something, to win over to one’s side, to make a like-minded person. Putting the new into practice and abandoning the old begins with this debate. Anyone who cannot calmly look at the shortcomings, at how interesting initiatives are hampered by outdated dogmas, unwittingly becomes involved in an eristic dispute. This type of dispute is conducted by its initiator and the partner resisting it. In groups, these are supporters of the position and the opposition. Therefore, such a dispute is also called parliamentary. Its theoretical basis is the concepts: reasoning, argumentation, persuasiveness. Reasoning is a chain of conclusions (not necessarily apodictic), presented in a logical sequence. Reasonedness is the logical compulsoryness of the conclusion of the thesis (the reasoning may seem demonstrative). Persuasiveness is a psychological concept based on belief in the truthfulness of what is being presented, associated with certain emotions of the listener. Reasoning ensures a convergence of opinions. Persuasiveness is a coincidence of feelings. In a dispute between non-specialists, passions and emotions often take over. Without worrying, without affecting nervous system people, you can’t even just agitate them. Even gather a crowd and send it to put out the fire. Moreover, it is impossible to “incline” without this! Argumentation is understood as the validity of statements, the support of a thesis by sources, facts, observations, etc. Once you give the arguments a psychological coloring, their persuasiveness immediately increases and they begin to hit the target. The reasoning of the disputants can be evaluated thus: a) reasoned, but not convincing, b) convincing, but not entirely reasoned, c) reasoned and convincing. Impeccably reasoned reasoning is called evidentiary. Its features: definition of concepts; consistency of judgments; diversity of views on the subject; sufficiency of grounds for asserting the thesis. Then the dispute becomes apodictic. However, while possessing logical impeccability, such reasoning may turn out to be unconvincing, i.e. not affecting the emotional state of a person. Naked abstractions will not touch the partner’s soul, and he simply will not agree with us. The rational influence (on the mind and understanding) must be supported by the irrational (on the feelings), then the reasoning will look reasoned and convincing. Analyze two examples and compare the impact of two arguments about the same idea made by famous Russian historians Professors S. F. Platonov and V. O. Klyuchevsky.

S. F. Platonov: “...Anna surrounded herself with her German friends from Courland. The first place among them was occupied by the Courland chamberlain von Biron, and then the Levenveld brothers. They put at the head of the department those Germans whom they had already found in Russia... The burden of Biron’s power seemed terrible to the Russian people.”

V. O. Klyuchevsky: “Not trusting the Russians, Anna put a bunch of foreigners, brought from Mitava and from various German corners, to guard her safety. The Germans poured into Russia like rubbish from a leaky bag, crowded the courtyard, inhabited the throne, and climbed into all the lucrative positions in government.”

Surprisingly, it is true: very often non-deductive inferences have greater persuasive power, especially for those who are accustomed to relying on the opinion of the majority, authorities, leaders, respected persons or on their own experience. To non-deductive, i.e. without syllogisms, but plausible conclusions include analogy, hypothesis, induction. An analogy, as already noted, allows the speaker to persuade the audience to his opinion, taking advantage of the similarity of properties, signs, and actions of the new subject of speech and the well-known interlocutor. A hypothesis is an assumption presented at a rapid pace, “flavored” with emotions, appeals to fashion, faith, ignorance, prestige, and traditions. For induction, it is enough to present several facts with an increasing emotional impact - and the partner himself will draw the conclusion to which the initiator inclined him. Induction suggests an idea. To present the psychological characteristics of an eristic dispute, let us compare the motives of the person who persuades the audience to his opinion and the motives of the interlocutor who resists this influence. Why is the initiator arguing?

• To achieve your goal;
• warn against an ill-considered decision;
• arouse readiness to participate in work;
• win over to one's side;
• achieve agreement;
• make your partner a like-minded person;
• find the truth or optimal solution

What is the reason for the resistance to it?

• The desire not to fall under the influence of another person;
• awareness of the fundamental incompatibility of one’s own and others’ points of view;
• a misunderstood statement by the initiator;
• prejudice towards his personality;
• treating the dispute as a sport (“who wins?”)

As we can see, the range of motives for eristic dispute is very wide. All this causes disputants to experience greater communication stress. Plus, personal characteristics affect everything, which predetermine the approach of the interlocutor in a dispute: constructive (creative) and destructive (destructive). Both may be defensive. Suppose the initiator puts forward a proposal and argues for it, but the partner, under the influence of his own motives, personal adversities, failures at work, or out of fear of being drawn into a situation that does not promise him benefits and a quiet life (or the results of consent are unpredictable), defends himself by putting forward an alternative The resulting clash of alternatives also gives rise to a defensive reaction, which can be counter-argumentation (counter-against) or obstruction (obstacle, obstacle) for the interlocutor. In this case, each disputant has an increased sensitivity to the slightest attempts by rivals to influence each other. Doubting the sincerity and goodwill of the initiator’s first position, the partner objects, either by putting up an alternative, or by erecting a psychological defense; shows caution and doubts; bombards the interlocutor with questions and comments; strictly controls his statements; clings to inaccuracies. If the proponent in such a situation still tries to continue the conversation and “grabs the opponent by the chest,” then the opponent can completely withdraw from the dispute: they say, leave me alone. In the worst case, he begins a counterattack with obstruction, murderous criticism, discrediting and exposing the attacker, using any arguments. Two or three words - and a skirmish begins. The dispute ends with direct or indirect disagreement of the parties. Direct disagreement is expressed by phrases like: “I don’t agree with you,” “It’s impossible to agree with you,” “I remain unconvinced,” etc. Indirect signs of disagreement are that the interlocutor loses interest in our reasoning; answers questions carelessly and not to the point; tries to distance himself, begins to rush somewhere; looks at his watch, demonstrating that he is wasting time; yawns and with all his appearance shows that there is no point in counting on his approval and support. What can you advise an initiator for success?

• Try to guess the motive ( driving force) partner, start with his hope, not yours.
• Find out everything about the interlocutor, his interests, personal characteristics, hobbies.
• Formulate your point of view accurately and consistently so that your partner understands it clearly, regardless of the nature of the disagreement.
• Clarify your interlocutor's point of view. Without this, it is impossible to find out where opinions differ and whether there is an opportunity for their convergence.
• Do not hurt your opponent’s pride, respect his personality, recognize his opponent’s successes, do not destroy his hopes, do not celebrate victory.

What mistakes are often made in eristic debate?

1. The first mistake: overestimating the interlocutor’s awareness. If the principle of decentralization is violated, the following happens: what is known and understandable to the initiator is considered known and understandable to the partner. The consequence is that the arguments are not well-reasoned.
2. The second mistake: our opinion should evoke in another the same emotions that arose in us. This is a common misconception. Emotions and feelings are connected and depend primarily on motives that are not easy to identify and understand.
3. The third mistake comes from neglecting the principle of adequacy, when one’s own capabilities and abilities are overestimated and the opponent is underestimated.
4. The fourth mistake: a non-existent motive for his behavior is attributed to the interlocutor, and the initiator wastes time and effort in the wrong direction.
5. Fifth mistake: excessive appeal to the partner’s intelligence at the expense of the persuasiveness of the emotional impact. Cicero made the following conclusion: “An orator must have two main virtues: firstly, the ability to convince with precise arguments, and secondly, to excite the souls of listeners with an impressive and effective speech” (Cicero M. T. Three treatises on oratory. M., 1972. P. 172).

But following good advice and knowing mistakes does not guarantee a positive outcome to the dispute. In communication that is not devoid of emotional intensity, as already mentioned, psychological barriers arise that are associated with personality characteristics, psychological states, and situational relationships that prevent mutual understanding or the perception of the adequate meaning of a statement. Psychological barriers are divided into semantic and communication barriers (communication). Semantic ones arise due to violation of the laws of logic. Communicative - due to a lack of understanding of the nature and psychology of people’s communication, the essence of the processes of their perception and interaction, and, finally, due to rejection of reality. To eliminate barriers of the first type, it is necessary to study logic. There are a lot of rules, advice, and recommendations regarding barriers of the second type. There is no need to graduate from a psychology degree. By mastering the rules developed by humanity, we can protect ourselves from obstacles and situations of destructive development of the dispute. Below are some of these recommendations.

Russian

English

Arabic German English Spanish French Hebrew Italian Japanese Dutch Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Turkish

These examples may contain rude words based on your search.

These examples may contain colloquial words based on your search.

Translation of "principle of equal safety" in English

See examples translated by principle of equal security
(9 examples with alignment)

"> principle of equal security

Other translations

With the establishment of the new world order, its Negative consequences, including the concept of military intervention, which ignores not only the security interests of individual states, but also principle of equal security for all, confirmed at the special sessions of the General Assembly on disarmament.

The new world order has negative effects, including the concept of military intervention that does not take into account the security interests of individual States and the principle of equal security for all, as reaffirmed at the special sessions of the General Assembly on disarmament.

Principle of equal security for all, as reaffirmed at the special sessions of the General Assembly on disarmament.">

In our struggle for security, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation nuclear weapons the most important principle must remain principle of equal security for all States, enshrined in the Charter and approved during the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament.

The principle of equal security for all States, established by the Charter and upheld at the General Assembly's first special session on disarmament, should remain paramount in our quest for security, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

Principle of equal security for all States, established by the Charter and upheld at the General Assembly "s first special session on disarmament, should remain paramount in our quest for security, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.">

The Declaration adopted at the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament proclaimed principle of equal security for all states - as in the field of weapons mass destruction, and conventional weapons, both at the regional and international levels.

The Declaration adopted at the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament adopted the principle of equal security for all States, both in the non-conventional and conventional fields and at both the regional and the international levels.

Principle of equal security for all States, both in the non-conventional and conventional fields and at both the regional and the international levels.">

The basis for taking control measures conventional weapons must serve principle of equal security for all.

The principle of equal security for all must be the basis on which conventional arms control measures are taken.">

Proposals presented at the Conference on Disarmament in 2007 and 2008 deny principle of equal security for all, serve the interests of a few states and undermine the agreed basis for negotiations on a verifiable fissile material cut-off treaty.

The proposals presented in the Conference on Disarmament in 2007 and 2008 negated for all, served the interests of a few States and undermined the agreed basis of negotiations on a verifiable fissile material treaty.

The principle of equal security for all, served the interests of a few States and undermined the basis agreed of negotiations on a verifiable fissile material treaty.">

The Conference recognizes principle of equal security and without prejudice to the security of all States and the paramount importance of the national security interests and security imperatives of all Member States.

The Conference recognitions the principle of equal and undiminished security for all states and the overriding importance of national security interests and security compulsions of all Member States.

The principle of equal and undiminished security for all states and the overriding importance of national security interests and security compulsions of all Member States.">

For example, in many disarmament negotiations, it is essential principle of equal security and not compromising security at the lowest level of weapons.

Thus, for example, in many disarmament negotiations the principle of equal and undiminished security at the lowest level of armaments is essential.

The principle of equal and undiminished security at the lowest level of armaments is essential.">

In arms reduction negotiations, great powers must take into account principle of equal security for everyone, regardless of size, military power, socio-political system or political and economic significance states.

In negotiations on the reduction of armaments, the great Powers should take into account the principle of equal security for all, irrespective of size, military strength, socio-political systems or political and economic importance.

The principle of equal security for all, irrespective of size, military strength, socio-political systems or political and economic importance.">

To achieve progress in global and regional peace and security, it is essential to respect principle of equal security and without harming the security of all states.

To further the cause of global and regional peace and security, it will be essential to uphold the principle of equal and undiminished security for all States.

The principle of equal and undiminished security for all States.">

Fourth, the growing tendency to promote the security of some states at the expense of others through the adoption of measures by a select group of states outside the framework of recognized multilateral negotiating forums undermines principle of equal security and not harming the security of all states.

Fourthly, the growing trend of promoting the security of some States at the cost of others through measures adopted by a select group of States outside recognized multilateral speaking forums undermines

Psychological principles of dispute

Starting to consider the psychology of the dispute, we note that everything stated below will also apply to polemics, discussions, disputes, and debates. In other words, we will talk about the psychology of interaction between interlocutors when resolving contradictions in the thinking process.

The fact that the mechanism of this interaction is the same, only the intensity of passions and the clashes of souls are different, is evidenced, for example, by a newspaper excerpt in which words of a synonymous series are used.

TOTAL CONTROVERSY

“New York 25 (personal correspondent of Pravda). Discussion continued today in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly around the draft declaration on a comprehensive system of international peace and security. The debate around this project proposed by the socialist countries has become so intense that tomorrow, as they believe, a decision may be made to continue the exchange of views.

The deputy head of the Soviet delegation, V.F. Petrovsky, spoke at the morning meeting. He noted that the discussions reveal “important areas of similarity and even overlap in approaches to ensuring security for all.” Today, he continued, new thinking from the field of political consciousness is being transferred to the practice of international relations. To conceptually generalize new ideas and proposals... a broad international dialogue is necessary, the Soviet representative emphasized.

It is clear that our initiative, like any innovation, meets resistance from those who are not ready to part with the stereotypes of the past. During the discussions, two diametrically opposed approaches and two positions emerged.”

The highlighted concepts show that participants in a discussion (or research) of a problem can move from one state of interaction to another depending on the intensity of passions and changes in approaches. A constructive approach is manifested in the desire to exchange opinions, to have a conversation, to find an acceptable solution. A destructive approach more often results in acute forms of communication: argument, polemic.

The psychological behavior of partners depends on many factors: knowledge of the principles of the dispute, the motives of the interlocutors, personal properties, characters and compliance with ethical rules.

Since the interlocutors may explicitly or implicitly show signs of different approaches, the participants need to be guided by the psychological principles of the dispute. The latter determine the norms of interaction between the parties, ethical rules and regulate the activities of the parties to the dispute, regardless of their goals.

What psychological principles of dispute exist?

This is the principle of equal security; the principle of decentral orientation and the principle of adequacy (correspondence) of what is perceived to what is said.

How are they characterized?

The principle of equal safety states: do not cause psychological or other harm to any of the parties to the dispute; in a dispute, do not do anything that you yourself will not be happy about. The principle applies to many psychological factors of personality, but first of all to self-esteem. It prohibits offensive, humiliating attacks against the person of the interlocutor, no matter what thoughts and ideas he defends. If someone violates this principle, then the goal (achieving truth) is replaced, the dispute goes off the rails of the logic of the development of thought and a confrontation of ambitions begins. Finding himself the object of ridicule, a person often blindly and mercilessly takes revenge for humiliation.

The principle of equal security, if both sides are guided by it, presupposes a constructive approach to resolving the issue of dispute.

Another principle - the principle of decentralization - prescribes: be able to analyze a situation or problem from the point of view of another person, look at yourself and others based on the interests of the business, and not on personal goals. In short, the credo is: don't damage the cause.

The principle involves helping each other and solving the problem through joint efforts, searching for an option that suits everyone. If such a focus is achieved in the dispute, then the interlocutors can not only rise above personal interests, but also make a breakthrough through external and internal restrictions, in particular through psychological barriers that prevent them from seeing the truth or a solution that is optimal.

Decentric orientation develops in conditions of alternatives, that is, when considering several points of view. Such thinking is improved by frequent communication with people who know how to defend their views with a constructive approach to solving a problem.

However, orientation as a set of stable motives of activity that are relatively independent of the situation can also be egocentric. In this case, the individual is guided by the motives of his own well-being, the desire for prestige, victory in an argument, and selfish goals. Interlocutors with an egocentric orientation are usually preoccupied with their own problems and are not interested in the problems of others; rush to conclusions and assumptions; try to impose their opinion on others; deprive other participants in the dispute of a sense of freedom; do not understand the situation when to speak and when to remain silent and listen; their behavior is not friendly.

The egocentric credo: “The focus is on my point of view, my theory, but not on the point of view of the enemy.” In a dispute, he divides people into useful people, who help him defend his opinion, and harmful people, who hinder his success. Such a person is capable of “putting him in his place,” scolding him, scolding him, scolding him, humiliating him, and insulting his opponent. When nothing else succeeds, the egocentrist feigns incomprehension and bitter resentment. The sincerity of his indignation can lead the interlocutor into confusion.

A person with an egocentric orientation is more often than others prone to a destructive approach in a dispute.

The third principle is also important - the principle of adequacy of what is perceived and what is said. It says: do not cause damage to thought by intentional or unintentional distortion of what is said (heard).

In order for this principle to serve those disputing, the most accurate perception of the meaning of what is heard is necessary. We must strive for simplicity and accuracy of statements. If the phrases are incomprehensible, then attention fades and interest in the interlocutor’s speech is lost. And when interest remains, the sense of tact restrains the listener’s desire to clarify the meaning of what was said and he has to complete the understanding according to his own ideas. This always conceals the possibility of reflecting in the mind something that is not quite what the opponent had in mind. As a result, a semantic barrier arises - a discrepancy between what was perceived and what was heard.

There may also be psychological barriers to accurately perceiving a speaker’s speech. They are associated with personality characteristics, mental states or reactions that prevent understanding or accepting the adequate meaning of a statement or the enemy’s point of view. These may be manifestations of the speaker’s excessive confidence, aplomb, ambition, disregard for other opinions, narcissism, envy, hostility, etc.

The principle obliges the disputants to take into account the opponent’s ability to accurately grasp the meaning of the chains of reasoning and make the material accessible, without overloading or simplifying the presentation to the detriment of the depth of thoughts.

In addition, it is necessary to take into account the inertia of thinking characteristic of many of us, outdated ideas and views of past times, turning into dogmas and cliches. New scientific truths are always paradoxical, if judged on the basis of everyday consciousness, but a person is reluctant to throw off the blinders of habitual, proven experience.

Not all of us have systems thinking, that is, we are not able to consider an object as a system included in many connections with other subsystems. For one, the subject of speech seems to be illuminated by many spotlights, while for another, due to the narrowness of one’s own knowledge, only a spot is seen on the object of knowledge. Partial, unsystematic knowledge causes doubts where everything is clear to others down to the smallest detail. This is how semantic barriers arise. People trample around such a fence or endlessly fall into one hole or another, visible to one and invisible to another. As a result, a pleasant delusion: “What I saw and heard is everything that can be seen and heard in this statement.”

Conviction in the infallibility of one’s own opinion in a dispute leads to a useless skirmish, as a result of which the subject of disagreement remains on the sidelines, and the disputants defend their positions even more firmly, considering the opponent to be wrong.

To implement the third principle, you should learn to listen to each other. What is the inability to listen to the interlocutor and, as a result, inadequate understanding of him?

We do not know how to restrain our desire to express a hasty opinion;

we rush to refute the enemy without thoroughly delving into his reasoning;

we interrupt him, although he has not finished his argument, and then we find ourselves in a stupid position;

we cling to the unimportant and end up getting tired before we get to the main thing;

we are distracted by something in the speaker’s appearance, by the shortcomings of his speech and lose sight of the essence of his thoughts;

without listening to the end, we are preparing to fend off hints of our ignorance;

we do not take into account the enemy’s motives that encourage him to resist our view of the problem;

we are confident that our knowledge is quite enough to defend our position;

Having believed that the truth is on our side, we prepare ourselves in advance to disagree with the enemy’s statements.

All this interferes with mutual understanding and adequate perception of what is said.

From the book Logic: lecture notes author Shadrin D A

1. Dispute. Types of dispute In order to reveal the essence of the dispute, it is necessary to say a little about the evidence. Our world is unthinkable without them, every judgment requires proof. Otherwise, whatever a person said would be true. Exclusion of evidence in

From the book Logic author Shadrin D A

2. Dispute tactics The tactics of arguing, arguing, proving your own theses and refuting your opponent’s judgments have been studied quite well. It often involves applying techniques that have been developed over several thousand years. These techniques themselves originated

From the book Critique of Pure Reason [with unlost italics] by Kant Immanuel

49. Dispute. Types of dispute There are three types of dispute: scientific and business discussion and controversy. In the first case, the purpose of the dispute is to solve any practical or theoretical problem that arises within the framework of a particular science. The second is aimed at reaching agreement on

From the book I peer into life. Book of Thoughts author Ilyin Ivan Alexandrovich

50. Dispute tactics The tactics of arguing, arguing, proving your own theses and refuting your opponent’s judgments is to use techniques developed over several thousand years. All techniques can be divided into general techniques,

From the book The Art of Thinking Correctly author Ivin Alexander Arkhipovich

From the book Jewish Wisdom [Ethical, Spiritual and historical lessons according to the works of great sages] author Telushkin Joseph

46. ​​The Art of Argument If two trains run on the same rails and collide, it is a misfortune; sometimes a disaster. In a dispute, it’s the other way around: it succeeds only when the opponents move along the same “rails” and truly “collide.” One must say exactly that

From the book How to Win an Argument: On the Culture of Controversy author Steshov Anatoly Valentinovich

ABOUT DISPUTE FOR THE SAKE OF DISPUTE The art of arguing is usually called eristics (from the Greek eris - dispute). Eristics should teach the ability to convince others of the truth of the views expressed and, accordingly, the ability to persuade people to the behavior that seems necessary and

From the book Basics of the Theory of Argumentation [Textbook] author Ivin Alexander Arkhipovich

9. Laws of Dispute How to argue correctly The schools of Hillel and Shammai argued for three years, and each argued: “We see the law correctly.” Then the voice of Heaven declared: “Both teachings are the words of the Living God, but the law will follow the school of Hillel.” But (they asked) if both teachings are the words of God

From the book Works by Kant Immanuel

6. PSYCHOLOGY OF DISPUTE The mind loses all its charm if it is imbued with anger. R. Sheridan Live with people so that your friends do not become enemies, and your enemies become friends Pythagoras Psychological principles of dispute Starting to consider the psychology of dispute, we note that everything

From the book Logic. Tutorial author Gusev Dmitry Alekseevich

Types of dispute There are different types of disputes. Experts distinguish three types: apodictic, eristic and sophistical. The type of dispute depends on the goal, which, like a law, determines the method and means of achieving it and which he must achieve. If the goal of the interlocutor is the search for truth, then he

From the author's book

Chapter 9 THE ART OF DISPUTE 1. Dispute as a special case of argumentation A dispute is a clash of opinions or positions, during which the parties present arguments in support of their beliefs and criticize the incompatible ideas of the other side. Dispute

From the author's book

2. Correct methods of argument As in other cases of argumentation, the arguments used in an argument can be correct or incorrect. The former may contain elements of cunning, but there is no direct deception in them, much less treachery or coercion by force. The second ones are nothing

From the author's book

3. Incorrect methods of argument Incorrect methods used in disputes are not only numerous, but also extremely heterogeneous. Among them there are rough and even very rough, but there are also very subtle ones. The roughest are “mechanical”, as S.I. Povarnin calls them,

From the author's book

Critical resolution of the cosmological dispute between reason and itself The entire antinomy of pure reason is based on the following dialectical argument: if the conditioned is given, then the whole series of all its conditions is given; but the objects of the senses are given to us as conditioned,

From the author's book

5.12. Correct and incorrect methods of argument Correct or loyal methods of argument are few and simple.1. It is possible to seize the initiative in the discussion from the very beginning: propose your own formulation of the subject of the dispute, plan and rules of discussion, direct the course of the debate in

From the author's book

5.13. Varieties of unacceptable methods of argument Often an unacceptable method of argument in the form of substituting the thesis of evidence is associated with the use of arguments that are not on the merits of the matter, i.e., not related to the subject of discussion. Arguments that are used in discussion are

The modern international legal concept of security is based on reducing the role of the force factor in international relations while simultaneously strengthening stability in the world. Since the second half of the 20th century, the conviction has gradually emerged that the time has passed in the history of human civilization when states could only hope to protect themselves by creating their own powerful defenses. Character modern weapons leaves no hope for any state to ensure its security only by military-technical means, by building up weapons and armed forces, since not only the nuclear war itself, but also the arms race cannot be won in this way. It became obvious that the security of states can be ensured through political and legal means rather than military ones.

Modern international law is the law of peace, and therefore even those of its provisions that, it would seem, are not directly related to the prevention of war, should help strengthen international security. Thus, international security is the state of protecting the vital interests of states and the international community from potential and actual existing threats or the absence of such threats.

The goal of international security is the preservation of the state

among other sovereigns, ensuring their own independence and sovereignty. If before the twentieth century. we could really only talk about preserving ourselves as an international personality, then with the advent of weapons of mass destruction we can already talk about preserving the state and its population in the physical sense, and the entire civilization as a whole.

The experience of the anti-Hitler coalition proved that through joint efforts states are able to defeat the aggressor and bring him to justice. This gave confidence in their ability to ensure post-war peace and security. The concept of peace and security was embodied in the UN Charter. Its implementation was prevented by " cold war" In 1975 important decisions were adopted by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. In 1986, the USSR proposed the concept of comprehensive international security. Its provisions were supported by the UN in resolutions of 1986 and subsequent years devoted to a comprehensive system of international peace and security.

Modern system security is conceived as comprehensive. It covers not only military and political, but also other aspects - economic, environmental, humanitarian and, of course, legal. Particular importance is attached to democracy in international relations and in states. Prophylactic (preventive) diplomacy comes to the fore. Preventing conflicts and eliminating threats to peace and security is the most effective way to ensure peace.

One of the main means of ensuring international security is peaceful means of resolving disputes. The first general Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes was adopted in 1899 at the Hague Peace Conference. There is a corresponding chapter in the UN Charter. Since then, acts devoted to this problem have been adopted several times.

The desire of states to ensure stable peace on earth depends primarily on foreign policy and from the unconditional implementation of the principles and norms of modern international law. The objective need for cooperation between states in matters of ensuring peace determined the process of formation and functioning of a new branch of general international law - the law of international security

Be aware of changes to the object legal regulation that happened in last years. Today, along with the continuing danger of conflicts between states, the threat to security emanating from intrastate conflicts generated by interethnic, interethnic, interreligious contradictions and clashes is becoming increasingly serious.

International security law represents the system special principles and norms regulating military-political relations of states and other subjects of international law in order to prevent the use military force in international relations, arms limitations and reductions.

Like any branch of international law, international security law is based on general principles modern international law, among which the principle of non-use of force or threat of force, the principle of peaceful resolution of disputes, principles territorial integrity and inviolability of borders, as well as a number of sectoral principles, such as the principle of disarmament, the principle of equal security, the principle of no harm, the security of states, the principle of equality and equal security. Taken together, they constitute the legal basis of international security law.

The principle of disarmament. The modern concept of international security arose in the situation of an arms race between two superpowers - the USSR and the USA. If in the 19th century ensuring security through the improvement of weapons and their build-up was the norm for states, then in the second half of the twentieth century. it became clear that such an armed potential had been accumulated that could destroy all of humanity, so arose current problem– how to get rid of it while maintaining parity. The principle of disarmament means the progressive movement of states along the path of reducing their own armed potential to the necessary minimum. Such a reduction is possible only on a reciprocal basis.

The principle of equal security. The main content of this principle is the right of every state (without any exceptions) to security. Security is ensured for everyone equally, taking into account the interests of all subjects without any discrimination.

The principle of not harming the security of states. This principle states that one cannot strengthen one’s own security at the expense of the security of others and that it is inadmissible to obtain unilateral advantages in ensuring security. States must refrain from any actions that may harm the security of another state.

The principle of equality and equal security. The meaning of this principle is that states and their military associations, between which there is a strategic balance, are obliged not to upset this balance, while striving for the lowest possible level of weapons and armed forces. This can be considered using the example of relations between the USSR (now Russia) and the USA. During the existence of the USSR, parity was achieved through the creation of two military groups - organizations collective security(NATO and Warsaw Pact Organization). Equal confrontation at that time was perhaps the only means of ensuring security. Then, starting in 1991, this confrontation changes: NATO expands its presence in Eastern Europe, the USSR ceases to exist, and the Russian Federation appears in the political arena instead. Has parity been maintained? At present, if we can talk about confrontation as ensuring equality and equal security, then it exists between the United States and Russia. We can talk, first of all, about parity in strategic nuclear forces. This parity was confirmed by two treaties on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms (START-1, START-2). But it should be taken into account that this principle should acquire a global character and, according to S. A. Malinin, will mean the obligation of sovereign entities to maintain the limits of reasonable sufficiency, however, at an increasingly lower level of military potential.

The main source regulating international legal methods and means of ensuring peace is the UN Charter (Chapters I, VI, VII). Maintaining international peace and security and taking effective collective measures for this are the main purposes of the United Nations (Article 1).

Resolutions of the General Assembly adopted within the UN, containing fundamentally new normative provisions and focused on concretizing the requirements of the Charter, can also be classified as sources of international security law. For example, “On the non-use of force in international relations and the eternal prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons” (1972) or “The Definition of Aggression” (1974).

Important place In the complex of sources of international security law, interrelated multilateral and bilateral treaties regulating the legal aspects of ensuring peace are occupied. These agreements can be divided into four groups.

I. Race Restraining Treaties nuclear weapons in spatial terms. These include - Agreement on
Antarctica (1959), Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1968), Treaty on Principles for the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon, and others celestial bodies(1967), Treaty Prohibiting the Placement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Types of Weapons on the Bottom of the Seas and Oceans and in Their Subsoils mass destruction(1971), Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America(Treaty of Tlatelolco, 1967), Treaty on the Southern Nuclear Free Zone Pacific Ocean(Treaty of Raratonga, 1985), etc.

II. Treaties limiting the buildup of arms in
quantitative and qualitative relations. This is the Treaty
Banning Tests of Nuclear Weapons in the Atmosphere, Outer Space and Underwater (1963), Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1996), Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Means of Influence on natural environment(1977), Agreement between Russian Federation and the United States of America on further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive weapons (1993).

III. Treaties prohibiting the production of certain
types of weapons and ordering their destruction. These are: the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (1972), the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Use of Chemical Weapons and Their Destruction (1993), the Treaty between The USSR and the USA on the elimination of their medium-range and shorter missiles
range (1987).

IV. Treaties designed to prevent the accidental (unauthorized) outbreak of war. This is the Agreement on Direct Communication Lines between the USSR and the USA (1963, 1971 rr.) (similar agreements were concluded by the USSR with Great Britain in 1967, France in 1966, Germany in 1986), Agreement on Measures to Reduce Risk emergence nuclear war between the USSR and the USA (1971), Exchange of letters between the USSR and France on the prevention of accidental or
unauthorized use of nuclear weapons (1976),
Agreement between the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the prevention of the accidental outbreak of nuclear war (1977), Agreement between the USSR and the USA on notification of the launch of intercontinental submarine-launched missiles (1988) and some others.

Among the sources of international security law special attention deserve documents adopted within the framework of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), up to the Code of Conduct concerning the military-political aspects of security, adopted at the Budapest meeting at top level CSCE participating States December 5-6, 1994

As a new branch of modern international law, international security law has one important feature, which is that its principles and norms in the process of regulating international relations are closely intertwined with the principles and norms of all other branches of international law, thus forming a secondary legal structure , serving essentially the entire system of modern international law. This feature gives reason to say that international security law is a complex branch of modern international law.