注释,注释: В статье рассмотрена специфика этнического самоосознания в контексте проблемы субъектности народов в современном праве. Вопросы коллективного сознания исследуются в юридических науках крайне ограниченно; в то же время проблематика коллективных субъектов, как носителей прав и обязанностей, ставит вопрос о правовых механизмах реализации таких прав и обязанностей. Данная реализация в формате коллективных действий либо бездействий обусловливает необходимость исследования ее субъективной составляющей, а именно – осознания коллективным носителем прав и обязанностей своей общей и единой субъектности, отражения в таком сознании коллективных мер реализации и защиты коллективных прав, имеющих правовое значение. Кроме того, осознание субъектности часто является в праве необходимым признаком таковой субъектности.
Указанное подтверждает, что проблема коллективного сознания, в частности, в контексте коллективного самоосознания, становится актуальной; среди прочего, это важно при определении правового статуса народов. В свою очередь, исследование самоосознания народов, как фактора их правовой субъектности, (являющееся целью этой статьи) нуждается в анализе соответствующей научной доктрины в сферах психологии, социологии и этнологии, в использовании философских наработок, учитывающих развитие общества в условиях второго модерна, в определении специфики текущей национальной и международной нормативной базы, отразившей аспекты правосубъектности народов и ее субъективных составляющих. В статье использованы сравнительный, формально-юридический, герменевтический методы, автор исследовал позиции современных исследователей, нормы международных договоров, резолюций международных организаций, нормы национальных законодательств Обоснована перспектива постепенного признания свободы самоосознания народов мировым сообществом. Показана роль этнического самоосознания в качестве необходимого признаком народа, как субъекта международных и национальных правоотношений. Доказано, что право народа на самоосознание (свобода самоосознания народа) является первичным коллективным естественным правом, поскольку его реализация предшествует возникновению у народа всех прав, в частности, и права на самоопределение. Указано, что свобода самоосознания является ключевой в естественно-правовом понимании характера института народов, как этносов, участвующих в политике. Ее ограничение в условиях стремлений государств самостоятельно определять, какие социальные группы являются народами, а какие - нет, нивелирует все признанные права народов, такие как право на самоопределение, право на сопротивление, право на развитие, право на мир и др. Этническое самоосознание является ключевым субъективным критерием квалификации этнической группы как народа, при условии наличия таких объективных признаков, как культурная и языковая идентичность и общность в длительном периоде истории развития группы.

Abstract: In article specifics of ethnic self-understanding in the context of a problem of subjectivity of the people in the modern right are considered. Questions of collective consciousness are investigated in jurisprudence extremely restrictedly; at the same time a perspective of collective subjects as carriers of the rights and duties, raises a question of legal mechanisms of realization of such rights and duties. This realization in a format of collective actions or inactivity causes need of research of its subjective component, namely – understanding by the collective carrier of the rights and duties of the general and uniform subjectivity, reflection in such consciousness of collective measures of realization and protection of the collective rights having legal value. Besides, understanding of subjectivity often is a necessary sign of that subjectivity in the right. The specified confirms that the problem of collective consciousness, in particular, in the context of collective self-understanding, becomes actual; among other things, it is important at determination of legal status of the people. In turn, research of self-understanding of the people as factor of their legal subjectivity, (being the purpose of this article) needs the analysis of the corresponding scientific doctrine in spheres of psychology, sociology and ethnology, in use of the philosophical practices considering development of society in the conditions of the second modernist style in determination of specifics of the current national and international regulatory base which reflected aspects of right subjectivity of the people and its subjective components. In article comparative, legal, hermeneutic methods are used, the author investigated positions of modern researchers, standards of international treaties, resolutions of the international organizations, standard of national legislations the prospect of gradual recognition of freedom of self-understanding of the people Is proved by the world community. The role of ethnic self-understanding as necessary by a sign of the people, as subject of the international and national legal relationship is shown. It is proved that the right of the people for self-understanding (freedom of self-understanding of the people) is primary collective natural right as its realization precedes emergence at the people of all rights, in particular, and the rights for self-determination. It is specified that freedom of self-understanding is key in natural and legal understanding of character of institute of the people, as the ethnoses participating in policy. Independently to define its restriction in the conditions of aspirations of the states, what social groups are the people and what - No, levels all recognized rights of the people, such as the right for self-determination, the right for resistance, the right for development, the right for the world, etc. Ethnic self-understanding is key subjective criterion of qualification of an ethnic group as people, on condition of existence of such objective signs, as cultural and language identity and a community in the long period of history of development of group.

注释,注释: Article researches the situation, connected with providing the access to justice for indigenous peoples that have the historic native land in the Crimea. Politic and legal processes that let this problem to become actual in conditions of interstate conflict are watched at. Legal and organizational mechanisms of realizing the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples in Crimea are determined at. The positions of interested states are compared at, grounds of international organizations’ and global structures’ approaches are lighted in. Components of right of indigenous peoples on justice are detailed; their realization for indigenous peoples of Crimea becomes too actual now. Author uses the formal legal, comparative and hermeneutic approaches for analysis the normative basis in a complex; political science, sociologic and statistic methods are used also. Problem of access for indigenous peoples to justice in conditions of the interstate conflict in researched in a world practice in first time. Author develops the propositions addressed to UN connecting to the providing of the right of indigenous peoples to justice in the Crimea. He proved the duty of the international monitoring of those processes. Role of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is determined; the duty for both states to implement it for providing access to justice in Crimea is proved at. Materials of article were used by author in his report to the UN Expert Mechanisms on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on its 7th session, 2014.

Abstract: Article researches the situation, connected with providing the access to justice for indigenous peoples that have the historic native land in the Crimea. Politic and legal processes that let this problem to become actual in conditions of interstate conflict are watched at. Legal and organizational mechanisms of realizing the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples in Crimea are determined at. The positions of interested states are compared at, grounds of international organizations’ and global structures’ approaches are lighted in. Components of right of indigenous peoples on justice are detailed; their realization for indigenous peoples of Crimea becomes too actual now. Author uses the formal legal, comparative and hermeneutic approaches for analysis the normative basis in a complex; political science, sociologic and statistic methods are used also. Problem of access for indigenous peoples to justice in conditions of the interstate conflict in researched in a world practice in first time. Author develops the propositions addressed to UN connecting to the providing of the right of indigenous peoples to justice in the Crimea. He proved the duty of the international monitoring of those processes. Role of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is determined; the duty for both states to implement it for providing access to justice in Crimea is proved at. Materials of article were used by author in his report to the UN Expert Mechanisms on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on its 7th session, 2014.

注释,注释: Целью статьи является установление содержания права собственности народов и разработка механизмов совершенствования соответствующих международных и национальных правовых механизмов. Основной задачей для ее достижения определен критический и сравнительный анализ соответствующей правовой базы, а также доктринальных наработок. Доказывается, что международное право признает возможность права собственности народов, как коллективного публичного права, имеющего и публичные, и частноправовые механизмы реализации, однако критериев разграничения государственной (а также иной публичной) и народной собственности не содержит. Такое право признается на уровне национальным правовых систем в формате политико-идеологических деклараций, поскольку слабо корелирует с общепринятой в государствах моделью распределения публичной (государственной) и частной собственности. Понимание нарушения природных прав народов путем огосударствления всех публичных ресурсов приводит к поиску правотворцем разнообразных компромиссных форм, практическая эффективность большинства из них является сомнительной. По мнению автора собственность народа должна распространятся на все публичные ресурсы, не имеющие индивидуально установленного собственника или выгодоприобретателя и представляющие значение для реализации иных коллективных прав народов. Обосновывается, что реализация права народа на владение, пользование и распоряжение такой собственностью должно осуществляться им непосредственно; публичные власти правомочны лишь создавать механизмы такой реализации, не становясь выгодоприобретателями. Утверждается, что публичная власть не может обращать собственность народа в государственную, муниципальную либо частную без надлежащего волеизъявления и эффективных компенсаций; народ не разделяет своей собственностью риски частного хозяйствования и властной деятельности, в том числе внешнюю задолженность государства.

Abstract: The goal of this article is to define international legal contents of the proprietary right of peoples and to find mechanisms for improvement of relevant national and international institutions. These goals may be achieved thanks to critical and comparative analysis of  legal sources, as well as the doctrines. It is being proven that international law recognizes the possibility for the proprietary rights of the peoples, as collective public rights, having both public and private law implementation mechanisms. Then, it does not provide the criteria for distinguishing state (and other public) property from the property of the people.  Such a right is being recognized in the national systems through political and legal declaration, and its correlation with the generally accepted system of distinguishing between public (state) and private property is weak.  Understanding the violations of the natural rights of nations by making all public resources belong to the state, the law-makers search for various compromises, and most of such compromises are not practically proven to be efficient.   In the opinion of the author  property of the people should apply to any public resources, having no individual owner or beneficiary, and being valuable for the implementation of collective rights of the people. It is established, that implementation of the right of the people to own, use and dispose of such property should be implemented by it directly, and the public government is only empowered to form the mechanisms for such implementation, but not to gain profit from it. It is also stated, that the public government may not make property of the people become state, municipal or private property without due expression of will and efficient compensations. The people also do not bear the risks of private economy and state administration activities, including the foreign debt of the state.
 

注释,注释: В статье рассмотрена специфика этнического самоосознания в контексте проблемы субъектности народов в современном праве. Обоснована перспектива постепенного признания свободы самоосознания народов мировым сообществом. Доказано, что право народа на самоосознание (свобода самоосознания народа) является первичным коллективным естественным правом, поскольку его реализация предшествует возникновению у народа всех прав, в частности, и права на самоопределение. Доказано, что свобода самоосознания является ключевой в естественно-правовом понимании характера института народов: ее ограничение в условиях стремлений государств самостоятельно определять, какие социальные группы являются народами, а какие - нет, нивелирует все признанные права народов, такие как права собственности, право на сопротивление, право на мир и др. Учитывая естественный характер фактора самоосознания народов, автор ожидает постепенного признания такой свободы мировым сообществом.
Показано, что реализация свободы самоосознания свидетельствует о возникновении (существовании) субъекта международных правоотношений: народа (в т.ч. коренного народа), который в дальнейшем может реализовывать признанные в международном праве свободы (право на развитие, на самоопределение и т.д.)

Abstract: The article concerns specific features of ethnical self-awareness within the context of the problem of peoples as subjects of modern law.  The author provides grounds for the perspectives of gradual recognition of the right of self-awareness of the peoples by the global community.  It is proven that the right of the people for self-awareness (the freedom of self-awareness of the people) is a primary collective natural right, since its implementation precedes appearance of rights of the people, including the right of self-determination of the people.  It is also proven that the freedom of self-awareness is key within the natural law approach to the institution of peoples, and its limitation due to the will of the state to define which social groups are peoples and which are not levels down the recognized rights of peoples, such as proprietary rights, right for counteraction, right to peace, etc.  In the opinion of the author due to the natural character of the factor of self-awareness of the peoples it should be gradually recognized by the global community.  It is shown that implementation of the freedom of self-awareness proves the presence (existence) of the people (including indigenous people) as a subject of international legal relations, and this subject may in future implement the rights (such as right to development, right to self-determination), which are recognized by the international community.

注释,注释: В статье рассмотрены проблемы правового регулирования порядка эксплуатации в Украине морских млекопитающих. На примере китообразных показано применение и взаимодействие международных природоохранных актов и национального законодательства, ведомственных актов по данной проблематике. Доказано, что задачи природоохранного и хозяйственно-правового регулирования в данной сфере корректируются в рамках принципа гуманизации отношения к животным. Показано противоречивое значение Правил и норм содержания дельфинов в условиях неволи, принятых в 2012 г. приказом Министерства экологии и природных ресурсов Украины.
Показано, что правовое реагирование на развитие дельфинариев в Украине обусловлено рядом факторов. Указано, что, учитывая коммерческий успех дельфинариев, вряд ли следует ожидать в Украине в ближайшее время запрет либо существенное ограничение их деятельности, вытекающие из необходимости обеспечить дельфинам комфортные условия пребывания. Доказано, что перспективы практической имплементации Правил и норм содержания дельфинов в условиях неволи 2012 г. до 2015 г. неоднозначны, учитывая фактическую бесконтрольность деятельности дельфинариев и развития их сети в Украине до принятия этих правил. Таковые Правила формально не нарушают нормы Соглашения о сохранении китообразных Черного моря, Средиземного моря и Атлантического океана 1996 г., но противоречат его требованиям в их целостном комплексе, поскольку легализуют коммерческую деятельность дельфинариев и способствуют росту коммерческого спроса на их вылов.

Abstract: The article discusses the problems regarding procedural regulation of use of marine mammals in Ukraine.  Taking the Cetaceans (Whales) as an example, the author shows use and interaction of international acts on environmental protection and national legislation, and bylaws in this sphere.  It is proven that the goals of environmental protection and economic legal regulation in this sphere are being corrected within the framework of the principle of humane treatment of animals.  The authors shows contradictory meaning of the Rules and norms on treatment of dolphins in captivity, which were adopted in 2012 by an Order of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of Ukraine.  It is shown that legal reaction to the development of dolphinariums in Ukraine is due to a number of factors.  It is shown that due to commercial success of dolphinariums it is unlikely that there shall be a prohibition or considerable limitation of their activities due to the need to guarantee comfortable captivity conditions for dolphins.   It is also proven that the perspectives of practical implementation of the Rules and norms on treatment of dolphins in captivity of 2012 till 2015 are ambiguous, taking into account factual lack of control over the activities of dolphinariums and their development in Ukraine before these Rules were adopted.  The Rules as such are formally in conformity with the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area of 1996, however, the Rules contradict the requirements viewed as a complex, since they legalize commercial activities of dolphinariums and support the growth of commercial demand for the capture. 
The article discusses the problems regarding procedural regulation of use of marine mammals in Ukraine.  Taking the Cetacea (Whales) as an example, the author shows use and interaction of international acts on environmental protection and national legislation, and bylaws in this sphere.  It is proven that the goals of environmental protection and economic legal regulation in thi s sphere are being corrected within the framework of the principle of humane treatment of animals.  The authors shows contradictory meaning of the Rules and norms on treatment of dolphines in captivity, which were adopted in 2012 by an Order of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of Ukraine.  It is shown that legal reaction to the development of dolphinariums in Ukraine is due to a number of factors.  It is shown that due to commercial success of dolphinariums it is unlikely that there shall be a prohibition or considerable limitation of their activities due to the need to guarantee comfortable captivity conditions for dolphines.   It is also proven that the perspectives of practical implementation of the Rules and norms on treatment of dolphines in captivity of 2012 till 2015 are ambiguous, taking into account factual lack of control over the activities of dolphinariums and their development in Ukraine before these Rules were adopted.  The Rules as such are formally in conformity withthe Agreement on the Concervation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area of 1996, however, the Rules contradic the requirements viewed as a complex, since they legalize commercial activities of delphinariums and support the growth of commercial demand for the capture. 

注释,注释: В статье рассмотрено право на сопротивление (jus resistendi) как коллективное глобальное естественное право, признанное позитивным правом на национальных и международном уровнях. Исследованы исторические истоки и доктринальные концепции данного права, его отображение в действующих конституционных актах и резолюциях ООН. Подчеркнуто значение такого права для зарождения конституционализма, показана вариативность его конституционного закрепления. Отмечена роль реализации права на сопротивление в процессах построения украинского государства. Определены особенности вовлечения субъектов международного права в обеспечение права на сопротивление. Указано, что субъектом права на сопротивление является прежде всего народ, как носитель иных глобальных прав: права на развитие, права на мир и на самоопределение. Определена цель права на сопротивление, доказана невозможность отображения механизмов его реализации в позитивном праве. Доказано наличие правовых последствий реализации права на сопротивление конституционного и международного характера.

Abstract: The article concerns the right to resist (jus resistendi) as a collective global natural right, recognized by positive law at the national and international levels. The author studies historical sources and doctrinal concepts of this right, its reflection in current constitutional acts and the UN Resolutions. The value of this right for the formation constitutionalism is shown, the author also shows variations of its constitutional enshrinement.   The author also notes the role of implementation of the right to resist in the processes of the Ukrainian statehood formation, he defines the specific features of involvement of subjects of international law into guarantees of the right to resist. It is noted that the subject of the right to resist is the people as the bearer of other global rights, such as the right for development, the right to peace, the right to self-determination.  The author establishes the goal of the right to resist, and he proves the impossibility of reflecting the mechanisms of its implementation within the framework of positive law. The author also proves the presence of legal consequences of implementation of the right to resist on constitutional and international levels.

注释,注释: Article is devoted to the theoretical and practical problems of the phenomenon of the program regulation of the international relations. There proved that the application of the programmatic regulation of international legal relationships became one of the distinguishing features in formation of modern international law. The specialties of the phenomenology of the international legal programming in the historical, axiological and ontological aspects are analyzed. The international programs are looked in a context of the form of controlling norms, in particular, within the framework of bilateral intergovernmental legal relationships, external and internal organizational-legal activity of international organizations of the global and regional measuring; so with distinguishing the regalement acts in the field of the international legal programming.
There are investigated the aspects of evolution of the use of programmatic acts, as regulators of international relations, general normative peculiarities of programmatic regulation, specific nature of such international regulation in the conditions of sustainable development and modernization. Also the question of preconditions of input of programmatic regulation in the international law, in the context of problem of sources and forms of international law and program character of international legal norms is looked at. The specifications of the program potential of the international legal relations in the frames of the current international legal doctrine are distinguished at. There is proved that the practice of the international programming can be recognized as supernational in fact it touches upon both aspects of intergovernmental collaboration and questions of actions of internal actors of the states within the framework of their national jurisdiction.
A general conclusion is made that the programmatic regulation became important component part of the international legal regulation today. That’s why a thesis about the international programs, as the special source of international law, though requires an additional discussion, but is considered by the author productive enough and perspective.

Abstract: Article is devoted to the theoretical and practical problems of the phenomenon of the program regulation of the international relations. There proved that the application of the programmatic regulation of international legal relationships became one of the distinguishing features in formation of modern international law. The specialties of the phenomenology of the international legal programming in the historical, axiological and ontological aspects are analyzed. The international programs are looked in a context of the form of controlling norms, in particular, within the framework of bilateral intergovernmental legal relationships, external and internal organizational-legal activity of international organizations of the global and regional measuring; so with distinguishing the regalement acts in the field of the international legal programming. There are investigated the aspects of evolution of the use of programmatic acts, as regulators of international relations, general normative peculiarities of programmatic regulation, specific nature of such international regulation in the conditions of sustainable development and modernization. Also the question of preconditions of input of programmatic regulation in the international law, in the context of problem of sources and forms of international law and program character of international legal norms is looked at. The specifications of the program potential of the international legal relations in the frames of the current international legal doctrine are distinguished at. There is proved that the practice of the international programming can be recognized as supernational in fact it touches upon both aspects of intergovernmental collaboration and questions of actions of internal actors of the states within the framework of their national jurisdiction. A general conclusion is made that the programmatic regulation became important component part of the international legal regulation today. That’s why a thesis about the international programs, as the special source of international law, though requires an additional discussion, but is considered by the author productive enough and perspective.

注释,注释: В статье проанализированы категории развития, права на развитие и устойчивого развития в контексте международных отношений. Сравнение соответствующих категорий с международными программными актами и регуляторами позволило утверждать о связанности данных феноменов. В статье указано на регулятивную поддержку развития, устойчивого развития и права на развитие в международных договорах, декларативных и программных актах ООН. Подчеркнуто, что право на развитие является составной частью как прав человека, так и прав народов, что это право нуждается в коллективном носителе (субъекте). Доказано, что народы, участвующее в международных отношениях (как и коренные народы) являются носителями права на развитие. Указано, что реализация прав на развитие и на устойчивое развитие требует не только международного сотрудничества, но и имплементации международных программных регуляторов в национальные правовые системы. Признано, что возложение ответственности за реализацию права на развитие на государства обуславливает потребность в программном регулировании устойчивого развития в международном праве и в конституционном формате, показаны недостатки такой практики.

Abstract: The article includes analysis of the categories of development, right to development and sustainable development within the framework of international relations. The comparison between the said categoreis and international program acts and regulators allows one to state that these phenomena are interconnected.  The article contains references to regulatory support of development, right to development and sustainable development in the international treaties, declarations and program acts of the UN.  It is pointed out that the right to development is an integral part of both human rights and the rights of peoples, and it requires a collective bearer (subject).  It is proven that the nations taking part in international relations (as well as indigenous nations) are bearers of the right to development. It is pointed out that implementation of rights to development and sustainable development requires both the international cooperation and implementation of international program regulators in the national legal systems.  It is recognized that responsibility of states for the implementation of right to development presupposes the need for program regulation of sustainable development in international law and constitutional law, the author also shows the negative features of existing practice.