It is a point of view;!from the point of view of of the majority of the lawyers - международников does not correspond(meet) to the validity, as the state quite often begins military actions without any announcement of war and, nevertheless, both âðàæäóþùèå of country appear in a condition of war.
In soviet « the Diplomatic dictionary » yes ё òñÿ the following definition(determination) of war: « War - struggle between the states and classes by means âîîðóæ ё ííîãî of violence representing continuation of that policy(politics), which these states or the classes conducted before war ».
The agressive war it is indispensable çàõâàòíè÷åñêàÿ war, which âåä ё òñÿàãðåññîðîì to seize a part of territory of the state - victim of aggression or completely to deprive of his(its) independent state existence. The agressive war is accompanied by claims of the state - àãðåññîðà on annexation of a part or whole territory of the state being a victim of aggression. This attribute is inherent just in agressive war, instead of all kinds of aggression. From a formal point of view;!from the point of view of the war as against other âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of the conflicts, as a rule, is connected to break of diplomatic, consular, trade and other normal attitudes(relations) between the struggling states.
Hence, the agressive war is âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ struggle begun by one state against other with the purpose of grab of a part of his(its) territory or deprivation of his(its) independent state existence and accompanying with break of diplomatic, consular, trade and other normal attitudes(relations) between these states.
The agressive war is those irrespective of, has a place the announcement of war whether or not. From it by no means does not follow, that the ìåæäóíàðîäíî-rules of law concerning war have lost force. « For the state beginning war first, the sertificate(act) of the announcement of war does not mean clearing it(him) from the responsibility for ðàçâÿçûâàíèå of aggression » 1. However íà÷àòèå of war without the announcement aggravates this responsibility, as means infringement not only norms about prohibition of agressive war, but also norms concerning management of war.
The largest and typical example of agressive war is the war ãèòëåðîâñêîé of Germany against ÑÑÐ and his(its) allies in the second world(global) war. After the second world(global) war some agressive wars took place which infortunately, have not received such qualification and appropriate condemnation from the party a UN.
Âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ intervention. Other rather dangerous kind of illegal application âîîðóæ ё ííîé of force is frequently meeting in international practice of some states âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ the intervention, that is intrusion âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of forces of one state on territory of other state with the purpose of interference in his(its) internal businesses. Such intrusion frequently is undertaken to interfere in occurring in the foreign state with internal struggle for the benefit of one of the struggling parties, or to force government of the foreign state to undertake îïðåäåë ё ííûå of action on a question which are included in his(its) internal competence. Can be and other purposes âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention, but all of them are usually connected by interference in internal businesses èíòåðâåíèðóåìîãî of the state, instead of with àííåêñèðîâàíèåì by all or part of his(its) territory.
Âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ the intervention can accept rather wide scales, not less, than agressive war.
In the soviet literature the opinions expressed, that between agressive war and âîîðóæ ё ííîé by intervention « there is no difference » 1. It is impossible to agree with this opinion. Undoubtedly, as agressive war, and âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ intervention represent rather dangerous âîîðóæ ё ííóþ aggression. But âñ ё they various kinds âîîðóæ ё ííîé of aggression. Distinctions between them is, that while the agressive war is undertaken to seize a part of territory of other state or at all to deprive of his(its) independent state existence, âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ the intervention usually does not put such purposes. She(it) is undertaken to spread in èíòåðâåíèðóåìîì the state óãîäíûéèíòåðâåíòó a political mode and government, or to impose to government èíòåðâåíèðóåìîãî of the state will èíòåðâåíòà in sphere relating the sovereignty èíòåðâåíèðóåìîãî the states.
The agressive war too can put the purposes of change public and political building other struggling party in a favour àãðåññîðà (such purposes, for example, put Israel in war against the Arabian states in 1967г.), but indispensable attribute of agressive war is the aspiration to grab of territory of other struggling party or termination(discontinuance) of his(its) independent existence, between that âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ the intervention puts before itself the purposes connected extremely in internal businesses èíòåðâåíèðóåìîãî of the state. Besides âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ the intervention can occur and without break of the diplomatic, consular and trade attitudes(relations) between the state èíòåðâåíòîì and èíòåðâåíèðóåìûì by the state, while such break comes(steps) always for want of availability of a condition of war, that is and when has a place agressive war.
After the second world(global) war the interdiction âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention was ïîäòâåðæä ё í widely and in åù ё to the more categorical form. First of all, it(he) directly follows from a number of the articles of the Charter a UN: as from item 4 ст.2 forbidding threat by force or his(its) application against territorial inviolability or political independence of any state, and ст.39, providing application of the international sanctions in case of threat to the world, infringement of the world and sertificates(acts) of aggression, and from ст.51, admitting application âîîðóæ ё ííîé of force by the separate states only in a case âîîðóæ ё ííîãî of an attack and, hence, not admitting it(him) in other cases.
The principle of non-interference in internal businesses of the state, including the interdiction âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention, was formulated in the special article (ст.15) of the Charter of Organization of the American states, in which is spoken: « Any state or group of the states under any by a pretext the rights on direct or indirect interference in internal or external businesses of any other state » have not. The speech èä ё ò both about âîîðóæ ё ííîì interference, and about any other form of interference is further spoken, that. In a 1949 the interdiction by the international law âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention was ïîäòâåðæä ё í INTERNATIONAL court a UN in the decision on business about a strait Êîðôó.
At last, the interdiction of the armed intervention was categorically ïîäòâåðæä ё í GENERAL Assembly a UN on å ё XX sessions in the declaration on inadmissibility of interference in internal businesses of the states, about a protection of their independence and sovereignty, according to which « is condemned not only âîîðóæ ё ííîå interference, but also all other forms of interference ». In the Resolution ХХI sessions № 2225 from December 19, 1996 by General Assembly about a course of fulfilment of this declaration the Assembly again has found by the responsibility urgently to offer to all states to abstain from âîîðóæ ё ííîãî of interference, no less than from the various forms of indirect interference.
Âîîðóæ ё ííûå the agressive shares. Alongside with agressive war and âîîðóæ ё ííîé by intervention, these most dangerous kinds âîîðóæ ё ííîé of aggression, it is necessary to stay and on other å ё kinds, sometimes is rather close them contiguous. It, first of all âîîðóæ ё ííûå the agressive shares, that is âîîðóæ ё ííûå of an attack which are not having attributes inherent agressive war or âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention, inherent in agressive war âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of forces of one state on territory of other state, attack âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of forces of one state on separate items of territory of other state or on marine and air court outside of his(its) territory. They can carry both individual, and systematic character. Distinctive feature of this kind âîîðóæ ё ííîé of aggression in comparison with agressive war and âîîðóæ ё ííîé by intervention is that such attacks are usually undertaken not for grab of territory of the state or interference in his(its) internal businesses, and for other purposes. More often they are undertaken that ïóò ё ìâîîðóæ ё ííîãî of pressure to force the state to execute that or other his(its) requests àãðåññîðà.
The most significant examples of agressive such sertificates(acts) are the systematic bombardments from air and artillery bombardment from the military ships âîîðóæ ё ííûìè by forces of USA against cities and íàñåë ё ííûõ of items of Democratic Republic Vietnam.
By other not less significant example âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of the agressive shares of large scale was the intrusion âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of forces of USA on territory of neutral Cambodia in May, 1970.
In a number of cases âîîðóæ ё ííûå the agressive shares are undertaken by some states under a pretext âîçìåçäèÿ for the valid or seeming offences, that is under a pretext репрессалий1.
Input âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of forces on territory of the foreign state and preservation them on it(her) for interference in his(its) internal businesses. One of kinds of illegal application âîîðóæ ё ííîé of force close contiguous to âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention, is the input âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of forces on territory of the foreign state contrary to his(its) will and for interference in his(its) internal businesses. As the practice of some states, in particular(personally) facts of landing American âîéñê in Lebanon and British âîéñê in Jordan in July, 1958 serving with a subject of consideration III extreme sessions of General Assembly a UN shows, such input âîéñê sometimes masks by the request of dependent government. However and in these cases it(he) is rough infringement of the international law, what the intervention «by agreement» or « at the request » èíòåðâåíèðóåìîãî of the state is, mentioned above, âîîðóæ ё ííàÿ.
To âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention the contents âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of forces on territory of other states, contrary to will of this state rather closely adjoins. Quite often states keeping âîîðóæ ё ííûå the forces on territory of other states, ignore requests of governments of these states, and sometimes and resolution of bodies a UN concerning a conclusion âîéñê. So, for example, Great Britain and France entering during the second world(global) war âîéñêà in Syria and Lebanon, continued to keep them and on termination(ending) war (down to April, 1946) contrary to a request of governments of Syria and Lebanon. Great Britain, France and Israel, ïðåäïðèíÿâøèå in a 1956 agressive war against Egypt, continued to keep âîéñêà on territory of Egypt and upon termination of military actions (Great Britain and France till December 22, 1956, Israel - till March 7, 1957.), despite of a number of the resolutions about an immediate conclusion âîéñê, I of Extreme special session of General Assembly a UN and XI General Assemblies a UN.
The experience shows, that presence âîîðóæ ё ííûõ of forces on territory of other states contrary to will last, as we saw, in a number of cases was direct continuation of agressive war (stay Israeli âîéñê in ÎÀÐ, Syria and Jordan) or âîîðóæ ё ííîé of intervention (stay belgium âîéñê in Êîíãî, American âîéñê in Äîìèíèêàíñêîé to Republic), is directed against territorial integrity and political independence of these states. Therefore it, undoubtedly, is illegal application of force infringing by item 4 ст.2 of the Charter a UN.
Marine blockade in peace time. A kind of illegal application âîîðóæ ё ííîé of force is so-called « the peace blockade », that is blockade by naval forces one or several states in peace time. Å ё as difference from blockade made during war, it is accepted to consider(count) that she(it) is accompanied not by confiscation, and only by temporary detention on period of blockade of courts of the third states trying å ё to tear. As the history of the international attitudes(relations) testifies, « the peace blockade » is usually applied large äåðæàâàìè as the instrument âîîðóæ ё ííîãî of pressure on weaker государства1. Some lawyers -международники try to prove « legitimacy of peace blockade » as to a version âîîðóæ ё ííûõðåïðåññàëèé, ostensibly admitted international правом2. Actually so-called « the peace blockade » is the sertificate(act) âîîðóæ ё ííîé of aggression - in such quality she(it) and appears in the London conventions of a 1933 - and certainly is forbidden under the Charter a UN both by virtue of item 4 ст.2, and by virtue of ст.39.