free states in other words only the will of truly sovereign and independent parties to the conflict can serve as a foundation for genuine compromise and agreement. 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 the development of the system of international law, but

russian lawyers will adequately continue the glorious traditions of their predecessors in an effort to ensure the rule of law, the protection of national sovereignty and fundamental rights and freedoms. i thank you for your attention and wish you continued interesting discussions on the forum. thanks thanks dmitry anatolyevich i have a question for you. how do you see and how do you see international law in a multipolar world? it’s just that red speeches, of course, always otherwise, are even more dependent on the decision of the un security council. that

is why i listened to the speech from dmitry anatolyevich with great interest, i really agree with her, i must say that all of us countries should unite together in order to fight for what in order for international law to really work, since it must work and only together, and in this way we can resist that anarchy, which is really now beginning to spread everywhere, it is very important for us to unite together in this struggle. and so it is extremely important for us to preserve. this is the unity of the occupation of a single position for all countries and how effectively we must fight for the rule of law. and legal institutions thank you very much. thank you. position on this issue, given the multipolar world. how do you see international law and what is the position within the brix thank you for the

question brix legal platform provides a truly unique space and a unique opportunity to understand the negative implications for financial institutions of global trade in a situation where only powers gain it is important to understand that today is a platform of economic unification. it has its own legal dimension and a legal one. that's the way it is. we are creating a space that is never a democratic regime, but on the contrary a manifestation of

authoritarianism, and i will give my own example as early as 2014. it was then that we prepared the first declaration of our legal forum. and on that at the moment, we developed joint legal concepts with which everyone agreed precisely these concepts. we wanted to include in our declaration. and this declaration of 2014 was very interesting in this regard, and in 2015 we met again already in shanghai and at that time a lot of time had really passed, and we spent a lot of time creating a new declaration for about a day and a half and in this declaration, we wanted to reflect and define the general basis within the framework that we want to work to exist. how exactly do we must promote and protect the concept of the rule of law and human rights in the

end we succeeded and that is why i am very pleased to attend today's legal forum. i want to emphasize once again that the brix legal forum as our single platform is exactly the place where we can and successfully reach a common understanding and can properly distinguish between democratic and autocratic regimes, because it is in the rix with the participation of india south africa brazil we have a legal order, and china is also here. and russia with its vision and its understanding, which we manage to synchronize. that is why we focus on what unites us, what we understand by the rule of law under the protection of human rights, and what we mean when we talk about fairness, fair process and transparent world legal order, therefore, in our understanding, it is important that the efforts

of each state and what each state can do for its people be done if india, china and brazil, within their systems, can and were able to unite hundreds of millions of people, and pull these people out of poverty. i think that's what the rule of law and the protection of human rights come down to. after all, this is the most important thing, since individual rights and i must note that the volume of brix represents about 41% of the world population and, accordingly, a similar percentage of world gdp, and in this regard i would like to emphasize that what exactly is this, the main concept of the coexistence of various regimes, we are trying it is important to divide them into those that protect human rights or somehow infringe on them to focus on what is really important , this is where our efforts come down to, this is what the sustainable development goals are aimed at. the un,

including, of course, the protection of human rights, certainly speaks about this, and in its charter it protects these rights, therefore, no matter what associations are made for ali today, no matter how they exist, when, for example, we even talk about such topics like climate change. we always talk about related goals that in one way or another support the well-being of mankind, it is important, so that we can support emerging economies in this way. and it is important that we all play within the same rules of the game that allow the development of these economies, which are not yet fully developed today, which at a certain stage of development, it is important to give them these powers and support them. and when we only say that there is black and white, there is an international system. and if you do not coexist in it, then you are eliminated more and cease to exist. this is the wrong approach. that is why within the framework of the brix

we have also created a new development bank for the brix countries , which uses an approach that does not issue any prescriptions or instructions, it is aimed specifically at financing sustainable development. that is how. we are learning to co-exist in this mode, to build competent equal relations with the recipients of this funding and assistance, instead of simply dictating conditions to them that they must unquestioningly fulfill. that's it, these are the moments that we are currently working on, and we see that on the one hand, of course, the pandemic coronavirus, these challenges and the current geopolitical situation have largely exacerbated these challenges. in europe, too, it poses another challenge, primarily in terms of food security. instead of trying to find a collective

answer to this fundamental challenge facing all of humanity. now. on the contrary, we are engaged in the fact that we are trying to introduce some principles that only some countries seem immutable and it seems that these states believe that they have such a status quo, and it applies to both global trade and international relations. if you allow him just another 2 minutes of your time mr. medvedev he presented a very interesting vision. and i must say that if we are talking about a system based on the rule of law, it is important that the changes that take place in it be organic and natural, and no external forces, we must first of all act according to the principles of economic development. we must act in the interests of humanity if we remember the 13th-14th century, when venice, if you remember

, was the center of international trade and then the first concepts were being formed among international companies about how the international trade system itself could work. it was then that the basic norms were laid, including the principles of maritime economy, however. uh, that's when we saw that at some point this status quo was being challenged. and when some restrictions begin to appear, when economic principles are trampled everywhere, and we we see that some countries. it turns out to be limited in its approach, and we see that suddenly international trade is considered altogether. otherwise, it functions according to other rules. and we see that suddenly begins to acquire greater strength of holland then. uh, this

predominance goes to england and suddenly we see that it is english law that begins to spread everywhere, it is it that begins to determine international trade international systems. and why did such a development take place and the transition regarding law to another all this developed in connections with the development of trade that is why i say that it is important that it be an organic development, reinforced by both the economy and the reinforced law. it should be exactly. the natural development of events, and not the way it is now the dominance of the west of the european union we see extreme uneven, but the development of economic growth. somewhere it is positive. where is he anyway? negative how can you maintain this economic stability and current status? these economic impulses are often ignored and instead, attention is given to some external incomprehensible impulse and motives. that is why organizations such as the brix and emerging

economies should combine their efforts in order to create a stable system of architecture of stability. such as the new development bank that create a kind of counterbalance. these are new institutions, but nevertheless they are the ones that can withstand challenges. they can create a new system, reform the existing order precisely in accordance with this organic development. because if this organic development occurs, it will certainly happen. it must take place and be aimed at supporting these developing countries. they are the ones who really need it if we can pull out millions of people. and the poverty line, after all, means an increase in the development of markets , new economic players appear, who are now finally able to buy. something in the commodity markets to sell them in this way. together we support developing economies. it is important to pay attention to all these aspects. if

it can be easy to concentrate on this and understand the other equally important aspects. this is evolutionary development. these are trends that are already beginning to take shape and it is impossible for current events to completely destroy them, and this is how we can ensure this global justice and equality within one system. although sometimes in a practical sense, we see that economic strength becomes conditional. it can weaken and countries begin to cling to its love at a cost, trying to control the financial system while trying to control any others. naked attitudes and that's why i think that now is the time when not only security issues. these are issues that countries should be discussing, but it seems to me that support for emerging economies in africa, asia and latin america is a very important aspect and

now everyone should understand that if today we can support the creation of economic value as much as possible, then it is important to unite with the purpose of reforming existing institutions is to create new institutions that can fill these gaps. in general, this is my vision, and it is this vision that we are trying to communicate. we also work directly with the association of russian lawyers and lawyers. we are working with them to continue this work and contribute to the eventual destruction of conflict, including international commercial disputes. we have already started this process. this happened back in 2014-15, the coronavirus pandemic somewhat slowed down this process, but we continued our work, deliberately continuing it in the future. this is first of all, and the process of resolving commercial disputes that was launched by

the un initially, also this model was presented to the general assembly, is primarily an effort aimed at creating a fair and equal system for resolving international commercial disputes. and i am sure that today we all see and understand that it is still important that the brands that we rely on today are not the only thing that matters in this world. here's a louis vuitton bag or an aberry, we look at everything, it's like some new coin, new raw materials, which we are somehow obsessed with, and yet when we talk about resolving commercial demands, we must understand what is really important. after all, we see that often, and the parties spend about 30% of all their value of all their proceeds to resolve some kind of conflict, some kind of dispute, and that's it from this point of view. it is very important for us to develop the institute

to develop our capacities of competence. we must work together to restore this balance and ensure that the evolutionary development and focus on where exactly the real value is created that matters to the economy if no effort is made to restore economic political stability. what will happen to natural resources, and those countries that have raw materials, have gold and diamonds, and oil and gas are those countries that, by definition, face a lot of difficulties, and often. regime change, which is not caused by some democratic principles, and above all selfish commercial interests. and just then they forget about the right and human rights. and this cannot be allowed. it's just those gaps that are collectively put together. we must

try to fill in because often. we do not see such a priority of the right there at the moment. thanks trade, we'll be back a little later. eh, bakhtiyar ilyevich i have some questions for you. but are the ideas about the legal parameters of application changing in the multipolar world? strength? thanks alexander ivanovna, you know, when we were moving the last meters to this stage, we looked at anatolyevich, checked the notes, and it turned out that in a sense i can present certain academic professorial arguments in support of, uh, those, practical and political uh . hmm, the provisions that he expressed, but i’ll start, you know, and when i was preparing for this form, by the way, a big thank you to the organizers for the opportunity to be here again and speak after 7 years. so

, getting ready for the forum. i came across one publication. e, which said that for the period from the fiftieth to 1950 to 2018, the state addressed the security council 433 times with letters in which they formulated, as it seemed to them, the prerequisites for the emergence. moreover, statistics and dynamics show that the number of such appeals became denser already after the eighty- ninth year, the geography of states that applied such letters to the security council expanded, and the intensity of the conflict of conflicts that the state sought to submit to the site for consideration increased. security. you see, i don't know the tools of the tools, but political science, but uh, it's quite possible that this dynamic is seen. uh, well, first of all, uh, well, definitely

definitely. the erosion of what once existed could be a very prosperous stable pre-polar world that had its own systems of checks and balances. ah, not the ability to replace this system of checks and balances with something called a unipolar world. well, um what will happen in the multipolar system, the return of the letter of the charter, uh, or uh, more broad referring to different options? you're not not interpreting, the un charter, well, you know, rather, uh, rather the second one here. here is what else i have to say, and at the beginning of this month, a euro-european-asian legal congress was held in yekaterinburg. this is not advertising to competitors in

any way, but even there one colleague in the international legal workshop, uh, doctor of law, but who, recently, has mainly popularized his view through social networks, but said literally the following. in patriotic war i mean the current russian and the soviet doctrine of international law that preceded it. ah, there is the sacred. this is a quote, a sacred attitude to the principle of non-use of force by a colleague. well, as far as it was possible to understand him, uh, he meant that our patriotic doctrine closed on the letter black and white on the letter of the charter of the united nations organization and does not come out in its reflections. uh, beyond it, beyond that letter. well, i had to object, colleagues, although you know the format. oh microphone. uh, in the hall or a remark from the hall, he did not allow somehow

expand your own argument, but here, firstly, we heard words of support, and the russian science of international law, e, both in the welcome speech of the president and in the speech for the main speech of dmitry anatolyevich, but, uh, i must say that a colleague, o which i have already told you, he is decidedly wrong. well, let's start with azov dmitry anatolyevich do you remember what textbook you used to study international law? which one? well, okay, and if under the editorship of tonkin, of course, er, mostly in universities in law departments, and hmm international law was studied from textbooks edited by such masters as tonkin and ignatenko and hmm later kuznetsov kozhevnikova certainly. i

studied international law in a tanner's textbook. there, of course, it was, first of all, the letter of the letter that all members of the united nations organization refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force, as against territorial integrity. or the political independence of any state, or any otherwise incompatible joint organization. so, here are the three elements of territorial integrity, political independence and the charter of goals. the lawful cases of the use of force in accordance with the joint are the collective coercive actions of the sanction of the security council and under its leadership or the exercise by the state or states, and individually or collectively the right to

self-defense, and in a separate case and just in tonkin's textbook this is said in a separate chance lawful use of force. there may be an armed struggle waged by national liberation movements representing nations, peoples striving for independence, that is, for the formation of an independent state. moreover, our doctrine, including grigory ivanovichan in his descriptions, said that such a struggle is the implementation of the use of force in order to exercise the right to self-defense, that is, the subject. which is formalized in the form of a state can already exercise the right to self-defense, here, please. are there any parallels here with what happened over the past 8 years in the donbass, then again i return to grigory ivanovich tonkin in the specific political and historical conditions of the formation of the people

's republic of china, the official soviet doctrine, and grigory ivanovich tonkin can be ranked exactly as a representative of the official soviet doctrine, so she defended the right of the prc to restore jurisdiction over the melting with the use of force. at the same time, our doctrine was precisely the shaft of the action of external forces that were picked up. uh, hmm gomin mode. dana in taiwan with acts of aggression. well, the question comes up again. eh, isn't there a parallel to the events of today? but i said that i would be professorial academically speaking. but somehow it didn't hold back. now it is somewhat forgotten that the charter allows the use of force against enemy states in quotes are closed, that is, all states that were responsible for unleashing. ah, world

war ii. well, i bet. no, of course, these states now occupy, uh, an equal place international community, however, all the formalities necessary to eliminate the term enemy state and outpost. he is not satisfied. now let's try to read between the lines, since the letter black on white letters of international law may not answer all questions, for example. do the provisions in the un charter that allow the use of force in self-defence establish an inalienable right of the state, or do they provide for exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force? here is from my point of view. that part of the statute which speaks of abstaining from the use of force establishes prohibitions and their limits, and the provision defining the parameters of self-defense have the nature of permission, you understand the right to self-defense. after all, it was formed long

before the un charter and the charter in some way. this right was codified and thereby limited, and in part it continued in the usual legal form, where the charter did not interfere and the charter directly already says that it does not in any way affect the inalienable right a to individual or collective. to baron em as regards the prohibition of the threat of force or application, then let me remind you that by the charter this prohibition applies to three elements of territorial integrity, political independence, and finally the general goals of the un. this means that it also turns out if force is used outside of these three listed elements. so she's legal. this is how we slightly push apart, in my opinion, quite certain spirits. eh, he chartered his

position. i mentioned the term territorial e, inviolability, it is interesting that in english in the french and spanish texts of the statute o on authentic texts this term in russian authentic text corresponds to the term, rather, cited as territorial e, integrity. here, feel the difference between inviolability and integrity. integrity means that the territory cannot be touched integrity, it means that the territory can be touched, but it cannot be torn away, the practically practical situation is far away, not hypothetical, but on the adjacent territory, a terrorist association has dug in. we are entering this area. we do not take away the territory, we violate its inviolability, but surgically we extract from there, for example, the leadership of this theoretical organization. well, maybe they made a little

noise a little bit, but repeating the integrity of the territorial integrity. forgive this state. we have not violated. uh, another consideration related to the limits of the statutory use of force. uh, power, i repeat once again the power or threat, it is forbidden against the above three elements. uh, that means beyond. i want to stress this beyond those three elements. the issue is controversial and it is quite possible that it is possible to authoritatively, of course, with the involvement of a solid legal argument to interpret it in such a way that, uh, that force is possible, perhaps, can be applied outside of those very strict parameters of the letter, the statute in general practice. practice often brings doctrine to a standstill and makes one think about the

need to adapt legal principles to the real international situation, but adapt them in such a way as to avoid their radical breakage, and in the first half of the century, not even at the beginning of the 2000s. e, in relation to the use of force and with and to self-defense in the russian federation a sufficiently flexible position was formed and formulated, which was reflected in the position documents that were being prepared for the sessions of the un general assembly over the past few years, these positions have not been reproduced, but let's proceed from the fact that since they were announced position documents. well , at least for three sessions by jews, sixties sixty-first up to 60 65 we will assume that they uh remain valid, that means in accordance with these documents. russia proceeds from the fact that

the parameters of self-defense and the use of force in self-defense are clearly outlined in the un charter and they are adequate to modern conditions and do not need to be revised, the right to self-defense arises for the state when it has already been attacked by an armed force, but in order to exercise the right to self-defense, the state does not necessarily have to wait the onset of the negative detrimental catastrophic consequences of an armed attack and in accordance with the russian position committing an attack. and it is precisely from this moment, and not at the beginning of the action of harmful effects , that the right to self-defense begins to operate. e, dmitry anatolyevich remembered kant e in the 18th century. uh, hmm emeric devatel. e, the classic of international

law wrote, i quote, it is most reliable to prevent evil when possible, the nation has the right to resist the evil that they want to inflict on it, the right to use force and use all local means against force that are acting against it at that moment and even get ahead of its intrigues, beware, however. on the mouth itself on the basis of unclear and unverified suspicions, so as not to expose yourself as an aggressor, as you will agree with the modern one. here, here i will return, so to speak, i will enter again into the professor's galoshes. uh, and in the development of these ideas. i would like to propose the following options for the implementation of the modality, so to speak , the exercise of the right to self-defense is statutory, that is, based on a literal reading of the un charter. if we consider the moment the attack begins, the final formation of the source of the threat, then

the impact on it can be proactive, that is, precede the beginning of the active phase of the attack. it can be prohibitive when the threat has become obvious and imminent, and intercepting when it is necessary to minimize the consequences of an attack. in these situations, obtaining a un security council sanction is impossible, yes, and it is not required, because the situation can develop in a fun way, but it does not matter to the state resorting to the use of force. ah. here in such scenarios. this state remains under the obligation to inform promptly the security councils on for what reasons for what purposes did the state decide to resort to the use of force? in conclusion, a

few words about the use of force, the possibility of using force in the absence of an armed attack in order to prevent it. well, here you can turn to the classics again. i mentioned. uh, at the hotel. kant should have already been mentioned by dmitry anatolyevich. here we also recall the classic of international law guga grotse, who in 1646 wrote the first reason for a just war there is an insult not yet inflicted, but threatening people with their body or property. however, grotius stipulated the use of force under conditions of immediate and instantaneous danger to lawyers, especially international lawyers present in this room, and they know about the carolina incident in 1837, the american schoo, who was on the niagara river under the american flag, assisted the insulgents to the north.