As long as international law – a collection and a system of norms, it is necessary to establish what exactly do the terms “rule of law” in general and the rule of international law in particular.

The rule of law, according to the national general theory of law is a legally binding rule of conduct under its recipients whose behavior it regulates, and which are referred to as subjects of law. Legally binding rules of law is that prescribed in its conduct of an entity is provided, if necessary, coercion. Domestic law norms of behavior of entities established or authorized by the state and they also meet the need for coercion to enforce them.

Norms of international law, respectively, are legally binding rules of conduct prescribed by these rules subjects of international relations that are protected in case of need for forced compliance.

In accordance with the method of international legal norms of international law established by mutual consent and agreement among the subjects of international relations, and they themselves are protected through the use of coercion, where necessary, to comply with them.

According to the general theory of law, rule of law (national and international) include three elements that have a three-term structure: a hypothesis that indicates the condition of the established rules of conduct, disposition, sets forth this rule, and sanctions, pointing to the adverse legal consequences, which occur for an entity violating this rule.

Rights and / or obligations arising for an entity of the established rules of conduct, it is his subjective rights and duties. In theory, international law and international legal instruments to replace the term “duty”, the term “obligation”, again in accordance with the method of international legal regulation.

The collection of the same system and the rule of law referred to the right in an objective sense or objective right and what is international law in general.

The above tripartite structure of the law shall not be interpreted literally. In international law, taken separately, its norm is contained, as a rule, only the disposition of setting out this rule of conduct and legal fact, giving effect to this rule (the hypothesis), is contained in another norm of the system (subsystem) standards.

We illustrate this with an example of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 which regulates the appropriate relationships between states. Legal fact (hypothesis), giving effect to the rules of this Convention sets out in her art. 2, which states: “The establishment of diplomatic relations between states and the establishment of permanent diplomatic missions, takes place by mutual consent.” Namely the establishment of permanent diplomatic missions, represents the condition of the Convention’s rules of conduct of the States.

As for the sanctions of international law, they provided a special system (subsystem) of the rules on international responsibility of subjects of international relations, more specifically – on the International Responsibility of States for their internationally wrongful acts.

Norms of international law differ on the recipients – the subjects, the relationship between which they regulate. Therefore, they are structurally divided into general international law, established by the international community of States and addressed to all entities or all of the main subjects of international law – the state and local standards, addressed to two or more of its subjects, by agreement between which they are installed. More specifically – is the norm of bilateral or multilateral treaties.

Among the local norms can be distinguished as individual rules that govern the behavior of subjects in particular, an isolated case. This, for example, decisions of international courts or arbitration binding on the parties to the dispute only in the case.

Relation between the norms of general international law and norms of local is that the latter should not contradict the essence of general international law, ie must comply with them basically. Thus, according to Art. 103 UN Charter (the main instrument of general international law), when the obligations of members of the Organization for the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter.

The core of general international law are its basic rules – guidelines. This subsystem is the source and associated norms of general international law, establishing the basic rights and obligations of States, thereby defining the essential content of modern international law and its focus.

Now the basic principles of international law and its normative content contained in the unanimously adopted UN General Assembly in 1970, the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (hereinafter the Declaration on Principles of International Law in 1970 ).

Essential in this regard has also declaration of principles that States Parties will be guided in their relationship contained in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975 (now the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe). *

* Next – The Declaration of Principles of the CSCE.

In recent decades, following the adoption in 1969 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in the body of rules of general international law have been providing mandatory rules having the character of jus cogens (compulsory license). According to the article. 53 of the Convention, as well as similar articles of other common (universal) international treaties, “a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which unacceptable and that can be changed only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character. ”

Allocation of peremptory norms was an outstanding event in the development of modern international law. Its value is hard to overestimate.

International law does not contain any list of peremptory norms. But clearly the basic principles of contemporary general international law are peremptory norms – the principles, otherwise they would lose their meaning of fundamental rules.

However, the overwhelming number of rules of general international law norms are dispositive, ie, those on which states and other subjects of international law may to some extent, to retreat into their local relationships. Here refers to bilateral and multilateral treaties concluded by States and international organizations.

The question of the discretionary general international law, unfortunately, practically raised in the doctrine of international law, including domestic ones. Nevertheless, it should clearly state the following.

First, if a local agreement has been concluded, one way or “otherwise deviate from a dispositive norm of general international law, the act certainly the last.

Secondly, the above provisions of Art. 103 UN Charter concerning the obligations of States under general international law in general, since the time of adoption of the Charter of the concept of the existence of peremptory norms have not yet crystallized to its logical conclusion. Now, however, these provisions, I think, relate only to discretionary rules as deviations from the mandatory rules in general are not allowed.

Third, the deviation of the local rules of the discretionary general international law is likely to be admissible if the local rule does not become incompatible with the essence and purpose of the universal norm.

Finally, among the norms of general international law distinguish between regulative rules, also called primary, ie rules governing the behavior of states and other subjects of international law during their “friendly relations and cooperation” (see the title of the Declaration on Principles of International Law, 1970), and standards enforcement, also referred to as secondary. Recent secondary in the sense that come into effect in case of violation of the primary subject, regulations, and establishes the legal consequences (sanctions), which come to him in case of an internationally wrongful act. In particular, the rules on international responsibility of States, which is engaged in the codification of the International Law Commission United Nations.

Norms of international law to be, of course, interpretation. To do this they must be expressed in writing, which takes place in the event of an international treaty.

The subjects of interpretation are, of course, parties to the treaty or in the case of multilateral treaties as the contracting parties and stakeholders involved in the negotiation of the treaty, ie in the adoption of the text.

The basic rule of treaty interpretation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 and the Vienna Convention on Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations, 1986, * is a rule: “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in light of its object and purpose “.

* Next – The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1986

Relation to the general international law, establish an international community of states, we are talking in particular about the interpretation of the prisoners in the order of the codification of modern international law of general (universal) international conventions, including the aforementioned.

In principle, the common interpretation of international treaties should be implemented by the international community of states. A classic example of such an interpretation is the Declaration on Principles of International Law, 1970, containing the official interpretation of the basic principles of modern international law.

At the same time interpret international treaties to which the State is, by necessity, and he has to identify those international obligations that should be reflected in its domestic law. In this case, such an interpretation rests with the competent authorities of the foreign relations of the state, primarily in his ministry (department) of Foreign Affairs. In some cases, to interpret international treaties have the justice of the state. Usually this is done taking into account the conclusions of the competent authorities of External Relations of the State, as well as taking into account relevant international practices.

Much more difficult to interpret customary norm of general international law, particularly those that are not codified in the respective conventions, the official text, which therefore does not exist. In this case, the interpretation by the competent (international institutions – UN agencies, including the International Court of Justice, the bodies of other international organizations, other international courts and arbitration. As an aid in the interpretation of international custom may be used, inter alia, the views of the most highly qualified in the field international law (Article 38 Statute of the International Court), that the doctrinal interpretation of the relevant international – legal norms.

So basically the case with international law.