my colleagues, dear friends i, in turn , am sincerely glad to welcome all the participants, of course, the organizers of our st. petersburg international legal forum. our forum, it really has an absolutely unique character, there is nothing like it in the world, but, unfortunately, due to the pandemic, which was on our planet remains within certain boundaries. still. we were forced to communicate with you on different sides of the screen, and i must admit, through normal communication. we all miss you very much, so i'm very glad that anniversary tenth forum. we are already carrying out all the restrictions in the normal mode, finally retreated. now we can enjoy the usual course of discussions just to chat with each other with colleagues. well, personally participate in a very

rich official and cultural program of the forum. the weather, fantastic ah even it's a pity that we are all sitting in the hall now, they did n't go far somewhere on the coast of the gulf of finland, but i hope that this face-to-face format will really contribute to full-fledged constructive work. those who participated in the forum in previous years probably remember that i spoke on various, sometimes quite special, our legal issues of russian law, international law, and public and private issues. but today i will act a little differently and you understand why i want to immediately move on to the issues of the forum, uh, and i will outline seven positions that, in my opinion, are important in the context of

modern discussions, they are at the junction between politics and law and, uh, the president’s opening remarks. that's exactly what this is about a few words testify to the relevance of the topic of our forum, indeed the world has changed radically. we are all fine with you, we understand, whether someone likes it or not, but there will be no return to the past. on the ruins of the old configuration of maintaining international security, a new one will arise, and it is already emerging and being reflected in both international and national law, i will say that not all of these changes that are now taking place are also just mentioned, the head of state. they are reasonable and some of these changes are needed. they are just harmful. but we, as lawyers, cannot and must not ignore the tectonic shifts that are

caused by the global change in the zones of influence, the rapid socio-economic development of a number of regions of the planet and the violation of the global balance of power, led to the formation of a new multipolar system of the world order, none of the spheres of public life remains on the sidelines, and politics, economics, and, of course, everything is right. these areas are undergoing significant change. well, in such conditions and issues of the multipolar world and the relevance of the key idea of ​​the forum to stay. it seems right. the undeniable main message will surely stretch like a red thread through numerous events and business programs. well , i hope it will be really interesting. now a few words about the crisis of international law. the real or imaginary growing chaos in

international relations, the aggravated legal nihilism and the unrestrained increase in the degree of idle talk masked by good intentions have made our world and system in recent years social relations, unstable and much less legal political processes have deeply penetrated into the plane of law, the plane of jurisprudence, introducing double standards for the interpretation of basic rules of law, including the imperative norms of general international law of the so-called juskogens, but, fullfilling the desire of individual states to subordinate rights to the selfish interests of western well, let's face it, first of all, the anglo-saxon ideology is the aggressive promotion of the global scenario of a unipolar world. inevitably, accompanied by a dismissive trampling on the mind. traditional legal postulates and legal dogmas, therefore, has become quite a

commonplace to talk about the crisis of international law, is it? moreover, today there is a lot of talk not only about the crisis of international law, but also about the need to reform key supranational institutions to maintain the global world order up to replacing the united nations with some kind of surrogates . countries, there were just data assessment of the so-called crisis of international law. hmm, it is obvious that this is still a far-fetched construction and talk about the fading of international law as the foundation for the stability of international relations is clearly exaggerated. although understandable. and the fact that certain adjustments, both in public and in private law, will be required, but not previously required. eh, and they can't be. and this is probably the most important thing, they are subordinated to the interests of

one side or even a group of leading countries. it can only be a one-size-fits-all solution. international community. otherwise, this will only exacerbate the tectonic rift in understanding the future. now a few words about the importance of maintaining the united nations organization of the basic principles of the activity of this structure most sharply, as i have already said. now the question is being raised about a fundamental reform of the united nations organization, a reform that, according to the plan of very many uh countries and, in any case, the politicians of these countries, undermines the very essence of the organization, its authority and work on coordinated countermeasures. a global threat to the ideas of a radical revision, its statute and the established principles of the functioning of the security council, they are not you, this is true, but

now these calls are heard most loudly. to a large extent today they have been held together by an anti-russian orientation. the idea of ​​depriving the status of a permanent member of the security council haunts many of our friends. in quotation marks there are also ideas for a general revision of the institution of membership in the security council and a number of other proposals, but i will express our attitude towards these approaches, but, firstly, the various united nations surrogates will only make things worse with all sorts of global summits for democracy, the community of democratic states in an order based on the rules of which the president of our country has just said. this is not the path to unification. but as a division of mankind. we, like a number of other large countries, will not go there, which means the

dividing line. in this case, it will expand. secondly, in principle, it is unacceptable and not agreed upon by the entire international community, breaking the charter united nations organization yes, the system is not without flaws and it is impossible to argue with that, however, despite all the problems and crises that the organization and the member states have faced over the past years. it is impossible not to agree that, largely thanks to the international legal and political mechanism laid down in the charter, it was possible not to slide into the abyss of the third world war. to resolve many acute issues of the post-war structure on the planet to create civilized rules for international cooperation. no other international organizations, especially military alliances, cannot shake the monopoly of the statutory bodies of the united nations organization on the expression of the will of the world

community. and this is an indisputable fact. not because it's perfect, but because we have nothing like it. the erosion of responsibility for global security is an attempt by various organizations of individual countries. let even the most influential decide the fate of the world will inevitably throw us back decades. moreover, such, for example, a military alliance like nato yesterday directly declared our country the main security threat in his new strategy and called for a solution to the ukrainian crisis. exclusively by military means. let's think. what is the future of international law? or the prototype of the organization that expresses the will of the world community, the answer is obvious, therefore, the preservation of the unique architecture of the un, taking into account the interests and respect for

each other's national characteristics, is more necessary today than ever, with only a sincere desire for cooperation and mutual assistance. solidarity of approaches will contribute to the achievement of the goals provided for in the charter of the united nations now a few words about the problems of other international organizations, it is obvious that the rational grain of international organizations. it is still present, for example, we are talking about a crisis of confidence in individual supranational institutions, which is far beyond the scope of its own competence. and not of their own free will, but under direct pressure from individual states. you and i are well aware that international organizations for their nature are so-called secondary. they are created by objects of international law to fulfill specific goals enshrined in their constituent documents. today, it becomes obvious that some supranational bodies are not coping with their tasks.

moreover, they are used in the political interests of individual countries to hang colorful labels on other peoples and push through the cynical commercial and ideological interests of a group of states that have usurped power in these structures. now even individual un bodies, which is regrettable, of course, as well as the osce council of europe and other politically biased platforms, forgetting about the key provisions of their documents, provide legitimization of the will of the dominant countries, and by no means contribute to the resolution of international problems. what is called bonafides and the development of friendly relations between nations. let's take at least hmm the human rights council, which has obviously lost its original functions laid down during the transformation of the powers of the commission on

moreover, the very essence of the council was trampled on the united nations human rights organization, which was supposed to serve as a truly equal platform of cooperation on which states can exchange views on various issues and jointly seek ways to resolve differences in the field of human rights. absolutely unacceptable is the attempt to demonstratively punish russia as a permanent member of the security council, carrying out a sovereign domestic and foreign policy, such unlawful politically motivated steps undermine any trust in his future activities. for us , this body no longer exists. the question is what did those who called for the exclusion of russia achieve, this platform is closed to us, and communication in other

places. so far it's unrealistic. well, that's what is called get. the same applies to the council of europe we are generally relieved to leave this very strange institution. where, thoughtlessly, the development of modern russian statehood entered in childhood, the question arises. what will they do without us? i don't know the questions are that new european platforms also did not appear. and we, as you know, remain the largest european country and will not go anywhere, where now to discuss the new configuration of the security system in europe there are other examples of such an irrational attitude towards international organizations. it also makes no sense to attempt to create tribunals or courts to investigate the circumstances of certain events on the platforms of individual supranational bodies. and i will emphasize this specifically in the absence of jurisdiction and

delegated by states. permissions explicit the exit of international organizations beyond the scope of their responsibility is accompanied by cynical accusations addressed to us, let me remind you. once again, russia is the country that stood at the origins of building the current world order and forming the legal foundation for the establishment of just such international organizations. well, i'm not talking about the practical benefits of such steps. it's just nonsense , let's just say, they really are these states separate politicians that really believe in the possibility of criminal tribunals against the country, with the largest nuclear potential. somehow i can’t remember a single successful attempt to arrange such trials for the numerous military campaigns carried out by the united states

of america in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries for their, to put it mildly, illegal actions of entire anglo-saxon-style democracy building on the bones of the civilian population of korea, vietnam, yugoslavia, iraq or afghanistan now a few words about the current state of affairs and our actions. the examples i have cited clearly reveal the failure of any anti-russian rhetoric in regarding our actions within the framework of the special military operation to protect donbass, in strict accordance with the basic values, he was tired, according to article 51 of the charters of the organization, russia implemented the inalienable right to self-defense, the relevant notification was sent to the secretary general and the un security council was adopted and necessary inside state decisions the purpose of the special operation is the protection

of people who for years have been subjected to inhuman treatment and mockery by the kiev of a regime that violates all possible standards and norms, it is obvious that no country in the world can feel safe next to a direct and constant threat emanating from a neighbor and previously quite. of this state a state with which russia quite recently represented a single whole state that is being dragged into a military bloc in our hostile country a state that does not recognize the prevailing territorial realities a state that claims to return possession of nuclear weapons, a state, politics which is supported by a military potential growing by leaps and bounds thanks to generous handouts from individual states of individual western countries.

speaking about the threat from the north atlantic alliance, we should once again remind you that we are talking about this all the time, however, that for 30 years we have persistently and patiently tried to agree on the principles of equal and indivisible security in europe, just now the president spoke about this in response there were only tricks of pressure deceit and blackmail. i personally know that i have repeatedly negotiated with the american and european leaders on this topic. it is useless, no one heard us at the same time, the north atlantic alliance was steadily expanding, coming closer and closer to our borders. in such circumstances, russia had no other choice, this is obvious. the special resolution operation is difficult, not at all simple, but that is why it was balanced and deliberate, when all the means of a peaceful settlement were exhausted, when we did

everything possible to resolve the situation by diplomatic methods. do it, otherwise it was no longer possible for ukrainian officials to refuse from previously announced intentions and their recognition that the minsk agreements were just a pretext to play for time and build up the power of the armed forces, this is directly confirmed. now i want to pay special attention. give the so-called sanctions and the inadmissibility of sanctions, which are taken contrary to the decisions of the united nations, in addition to the problems of supranational institutions. illegal ex-territorial application of national laws continues to complicate the established geopolitical landscape massive unilateral sanctions adopted in contravention of un decisions to ensure collective security by non-military

methods. this is a vivid example of the degradation of international legal regulation and the inability to fit one's political ambitions into the procrustean, lodge, existing legal model. sanctions and all this is understood by its legal nature. they are called simply cannot because within the meaning of article forty. the first statute refers to such actions only as coercive measures taken by the security council in relation to the state of the offender, we have them in this capacity we do not recognize. and the current boorish and cynical practice of unilateral restrictive measures against russia is illegal, which has been repeatedly emphasized at all levels. as our opponents themselves say, it is akin to declaring an economic war of war, the victims of which are large sections of the population of the whole world who are deprived of access to the satisfaction of basic needs. i would like to point out again. i already

talked about this once, under certain circumstances. such hostile measures can also be qualified as an act of international aggression and even as belli's incident, in response to them, the state has the right to individual and collective self-defense. it is also absolutely odious that the imposition of sanctions has created different legal regimes on a national basis, while the lack of verified evidence, far-fetched arguments about their influence on the adoption of government decisions, does not stop unfriendly, let's say, directly openly hostile countries from seizing assets of limiting transactions and blocking accounts. of what innocent russian citizens and organizations. everyone here, it is clear, for example, that the ban on the use of international payment systems by russian citizens. this is, in our legal

language, intentional harm to an ordinary russian citizen, and the goal of these sanctions is simply to make a large number of citizens of our country as painful as possible. emphasize precisely ordinary citizens, and not the leadership of the state or business or business, apparently, the basic legal postulate of the universal declaration of human rights equality, according to some countries , it is now applied with a reservation with the exception of citizens under sanctions states. it is quite possible to assume that soon the property of objectionable countries of the company and an unlimited circle of other persons will be seized extrajudicially, based on political considerations or selfish motives western countries do not give a damn about state immunity, violation of the basic principles of private law, the inviolability of property rights, the principle of the senservande pact, disproportionate restriction of rights and human freedoms,

as i said, pursues a single goal. yet since i want to say this, the infliction of maximum non-selective damage to non-loyal countries and their citizens. it seems that the radical nature of the sanctions policy is limited only by the neurotic fantasy of its authors, as well as a sense of their own impunity. in such circumstances, no one person no company. what can i say, not a single state can feel truly protected, let's say, just the rest of the world. now open with bated breath. mouths, looks to see what will happen where the sanctions policy of the countries of the western world will start, and who next in this ugly parade? restrictions china india countries of the asia-pacific region africa or latin america today, no one is

sure of anything. the unlawfulness of unilateral restrictive measures follows not only from their legal nature, but also from the pretexts on which they were introduced earlier in justification. these so -called sanctions were looked for in the slightest degree, a plausible pretext, the protection of human rights, the provision of democracy. even if in the western manner at worst, as in the situation with the northern flow. energy security. now everything is directly called by its proper name. nobody is smart anymore. what is called and does not stand on ceremony is the main task of punishing the russian people by reducing economic activity in the country of hyperinflation and unwinding prices for essential goods. legal models that are applied by western countries have changed. apparently they decided to recall the roman law so, beloved, by many of

those present in the hall by me too. let me remind you that full citizens of rome enjoyed privileged tveritsky law, and the conquered peoples yuzgentsev or the right of peoples, and indeed now at the legislative level in western countries discrimination and collective responsibility of citizens and organizations on a national basis are enshrined, special legal regimes have been created for the treatment of subjects included in the sanctions lists, and the application of such illegal restrictions to persons which simply have nothing to do with big politics is covered with a beautiful picture of the protection of global security. well, the last thing i'm talking about i wanted to say that there are certainly other no less detrimental consequences of the policy of

the west that contradict the very idea of ​​law in a high sense, ignoring the most important universal values ​​of freedom, justice, equality of people. this is the so-called culture. cancellation that goes against the basic values ​​of human rights and total domestic discrimination based on nationality and aggravation of the global problems facing humanity. of course hope, definitely remain hope is known to die last this is nadezhda, a weak hope that our former western partners have. enough courage to admit their strategic miscalculations, which, according to the estimates of the same un, have affected more than one and a half billion people and provoked a surge in global inflation, food shortages and growing poverty, to reject the vicious practice of

illegal extraterritorial application of legislation and discriminatory treatment of everything that has russian roots. just repent of your own stupidity. if this does not happen, we will live without them as it was in xx century for decades, especially since the world today is not at all reduced to the borders of western countries, on the contrary, most of it lives by its own independent rules. in this context, i would like to recall the arguments that were contained in the immortal works of immanuel kant he considered international law. as the most important condition for establishing true peace between states, he wrote that international law should be based on federalism. i would like to emphasize the following words of free states by others

in other words, only the will of truly sovereign and independent parties to a conflict can serve as a foundation for genuine compromise and accord. only an open dialogue between equal public entities is able to provide the necessary results in building a just world order and, on the contrary, attempts to achieve peace with politically non-independent puppets are doomed to failure. despite the current crisis in international relations, our country continues to stand for equal and indivisible global security. and the russian people have repeatedly demonstrated unparalleled feats of self-sacrifice. sympathy and mutual assistance in the struggle for common prosperity. russia will certainly continue to play a crucial role in development.