in conclusion, a few words. uh, even the use of force has the possibility of using force. uh, in the absence of an armed attack 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 gugagrotius, who wrote in 1646. the first reason for a just war. there is something not yet inflicted, but threatening people. their body or property, resentment. however, grots. he stipulated the use of force conditions of direct and instant danger lawyers, especially international lawyers, present in this room, but they know about the carolina incident in 1837, the american schooner, who was on the niagara river under the american flag, assisted insulgents in the north in the british north american

territories to canada and the british, to whom this schooner and supplies , uh, which she carried out rather fed up decided to attack her and did it on the island, which was located on the territory of the united states, after which diplomatic correspondence followed between daniel babster, then secretary of state, and lord ash burton, the english envoy. and in this correspondence, some criteria for the use of force were identified, which later became part of international legal custom, these are the criteria of inevitability, the threat of the magnitude of the threat, and, on the other hand, counteraction based on the principle of proportionality. e in choice. uh, countermeasures. the russian official position does not exclude such a procedure for the use of force. ask again at 200. president putin bluntly stated for a year

i quote if in international practice. if this is to assert the principle of the use of preventive use of force, then russia reserves the right to act in a similar way to protect national interests in the ideal world of the un, the right to use force arises either by sanctions of the security council or in self-defense against an armed attack that has already taken place and brought its harmful consequences to in real life, the expectation of the occurrence of such consequences, that is, the formal adherence to the criterion of an armed attack, when there is no reasonable doubt that a strike is imminent conflicts with the constitutional duties of the head of state and the government to protect the lives and well-being of its citizens. the security of the country. however, even here

dmitry anatolyevich spoke about how difficult it was for us to decide on the start of a special military operation. so, however, the leadership of the state bears a heavy burden. it is one thing to believe in the accuracy of the accuracy of the information about the attack, and quite another traitor to publicity, convincing his people international the community and its institutions in the correctness of the chosen course of action need to have full and reasonable confidence that the armed forces and other instruments of power are prepared, motivated and equipped to deliver a convincing but proportionate blow. c dimension implies not only a reasonable calculation of the strength of means, but also a clear idea of ​​the territorial limits of the duration of the operation in

order to withdraw the personnel employed in it to its territory. however, in any case, the use of force must be secondary to diplomatic and other means of preventing the emergence and maturation of sources of threat, summarizing, of course, that all parties use these diplomatic and political means purposefully and in good faith. thank you dmitry anatolyevich let's continue talking about the un. you have already stated the importance of the need to preserve this organization, but the day before, within the framework of the security council. we heard the speech of the president of ukraine volodymyr zelensky, he said that russia should be excluded, as well as the security councils also from the un general assembly although i measure less. this cannot be done legally. the charter excludes such options. what do you think

kiev is trying to achieve by making such statements? i will not start with kiev, i would like to say that i am very pleased to listen to the discussion that is taking place on our panel, because we are all on such scientific, scientific and practical, but we miss the discussions and it is important that they are still for today pass in such full-time normal variant. they are on tv, as it has been the last 2 years. so i kind of plunged, uh, into the world of reasoning on the legal theme. uh, in this case we are talking mainly about uh, international public law institutions of international law. here and although it may be somewhat less close to me than the honest right. all the same, this is exceptionally interesting . thank you all for such interesting discussions. e as for what you said, but it

is quite obvious that the kiev authorities? they perfectly understand the impossibility of excluding the russian federation as the legal successor of the soviet union, the founding country of the united nations on from uh, context, he is the resignation of a permanent member of the security council due to a completely obvious interpretation of the norms, the un charter, therefore, uh, this is on the one hand. just a self-presentation attempt to attract. uh, attention to one’s own figure to earn additional populist points in one’s own country, but also, uh, unnecessary, so to speak in this case, but a reminder that e ukraine needs some kind of help and support, and from sponsoring states . i don't see any practical sense behind these arguments, how

actually and as i understand it, everyone who took part in the meeting of the council. dangers here but nevertheless, so to speak, such a performance took place. i think that there will be no reactions to it, but simply will not. here is but further propaganda actions. they are quite probable and possible. probably they will be from the ukrainian authorities in this context. it was just very interesting for me to listen to what bakhtiyar raisyche said in relation to. ah, interpretations. uh, the right to self-defense formulation of threat sources. eh, this is really much more more valuable than any zelensky's statements, even on the tribune of the united nations thanks. well, in that case, let's get back to you talking about the state of the state and their ability to agree on the legal limits of the admissibility of the use of force in a multipolar world. so, what do you

think, will the country be able to do it or not? well, i would like to hope, but at the moment it is hard to believe. you see, the destruction of the legal foundations of the international basalt of security did not begin in 2022. that's enough remember the withdrawal of the united states from the open skies treaty after what? on the one hand, due to senselessness, and on the other hand, due to the growing threat to their own security. russia was forced to do the same, and now let 's think about it. what is the role of the open skies treaty, uh with an extensive system of air inspections. could play to prevent the current crisis. so it turns out that the united states essentially buried the treaty?

uh decided international opportunity community use such an important technical tool. these are not political bodies, but these are technical bodies for the collection of important data that would strengthen the feeling of confidence, but you understand, the fourteenth year has begun, the fourteenth year has begun. uh, getting out of various measures in russian terminology, these measures are called confidence building measures, if we borrow uh english french terms, we find that it says confidence building measures, that is, we apply some kind of military-technical measures, and thus we we are becoming stronger in the belief that the other side does not have any intentions hostile towards us, so for the fourteenth year the exit from the cash desk from the joint counter-direction exercises, well, it’s good that the so-called syrian

chemical transit survived when the russian specialists and the armed forces convoys, transported components of the syrian-chemical program, and then to the coast under the escort of the russian navy. uh, these elements were delivered to the edge of the territorial waters and then reloaded to others on other ships. other offshore platforms. but it was originally planned that the russian fleet would deliver these components to the american mother ship. and there to transfer them there for destruction. that would be the measure too. it would be a joint effort to eliminate the chemical threat. she also turned out to be, well. not completely crushed, she still survived, but nonetheless. well, nevertheless. although i expressed a certain pessimism. i think that someday you still have to start not

from scratch. one of the first measures, here is trust or else building confidence a was the establishment of a direct link between washington and moscow in 1963 after the cuban missile crisis. uh, this measure was followed by other contractual measures, well, you can remember being in seaside city in seaside city. uh, the treaty was first an agreement to forgive the soviet-american to prevent an incident, on the high seas and in the airspace above it , followed by other similar agreements, that is, there is a foundation and this foundation of these building blocks can still can. to serve as a basis for and a prototype for future measures. thank you. thank you. dmitry anatolyevich moldova and ukraine received the status of candidates for

joining the european union. what do you think about the current geopolitical situation, how realistic is it today? what is the consensus between the countries and the members of the union itself? it is difficult for me to speak for the european union, our forum is devoted to completely different issues. by the way, here in the development of what i would now say hmm firstly agree that the foundation is still there, but this foundation is really prone to erosion. and this is a solid international legal framework that has been formed by mankind. well, let's just say for the last 150 years, and it continues to collapse. uh, and let's face it, no matter how much we are accused of something through absolutely no fault of ours, because in the overwhelming majority of cases, the initiators of the termination of certain international agreements, both large-scale and such

political and technical ones, were either the united states of america or representatives, some other countries related primarily to nato and therefore, well, either you need to change your mind or this very foundation will have to be built anew, and then , despite what i said, here is a big platform. there will be a full-fledged crisis of international law now in relation to the eu since you asked, but it seems to me that these are all some kind of operetta actions that the participants in this production themselves do not take seriously. uh, it means the desire is very simple, uh, to somehow hook russia, the desire to show us. various possibilities, that exist in the european union hmm desire to do

what is called so, maybe in something more painful i don’t know, although this goal does not reach, as for the very prospects of these states. it is difficult for me to talk about this, because we do not make these decisions. we have always been quite calm about them. i even remember my discussions with the leadership of these states on this topic with the former leadership, of course. here, and since the eu is not the north atlantic alliance, however, i will say a few points, i will note a few moments, but first, mmm. it so happened that in recent years our partners have understood this as well. the path to the european union, surprisingly, lies through nato. most of the candidate countries that did gain membership status in recent years have had to do so

in parallel. that is, so neatly hinted. yes, we will admit you to the european union, but at the same time you must submit an application to nato will it be different for some other countries that today are on the verge of eu membership i don’t know, second, about what can i say it's clear that the leaders are talking about it. the european union say openly without any hesitation that this path is very long and may take decades. i even had to say that it is not known, so to speak, what will happen in a few decades, the european structure of the european union itself, whether it will survive these years or not, because there are also very different forecasts. that's why i don't

know what will happen, but for now it all looks quite funny and complete. i can't help but remember. i haven't been for so long i remembered this, but it hurts, a good phrase. i will quote it again. i just like her. hmm, this phrase was once said by the ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the russian federation to ukraine, viktor stepanovich, to the chernomyrdins. regarding membership in the european union . here journalists caught him somewhere and asked viktor stepanovich when ukraine will join the european union, he immediately answered completely, without thinking after turkey and when turkey never. well, it seems to me that this is still relevant since. thank you let's continue talking dmitry anatolievich about the eu breakdown point of view. here, how

do you assess those actions on the transit blockade of e-e kaliningrad by lithuania. you see, there may be assessments here, both in the field of law. oh, and in the field of practical politics. and these assessments do not always coincide. all colleagues here, present in the hall, as lawyers, as practicing lawyers, as lawyers who are engaged in science, understand the differences for me, uh, it's hard to give. e, legal analysis of compliance with lithuanian decisions to block e transit from the point of view of the law of the european community of the european union. uh, they claim that this is entirely consistent with previous decisions. i have certain doubts about this, because let's face it. after all, no one pushed lithuania

as a state and individual politicians against this baltic state to take such measures , no one told them from the european union that this should be done, in any case, there was no publication on this topic, most likely, or it flew in due to ocean. either they themselves some such russophobic attack came up with this additional opportunity, therefore, from a legal point of view. i will not give an assessment of this decision, but from a political point of view, all assessments have been given. uh, it's a full blown crisis. this is simply a threat to our country, and we will be forced to respond to this threat if it continues. the answer is primarily in the economic plane, but let's wait for their qualifications, because they are now consulting with each other , trying to find some solutions, so to speak. and

where is it, so to speak. as a result, e will come up, we don’t understand, maybe after all. it will be possible to cool this ardor and these decisions will be removed. if they are not removed, the answer will be given means to open it. we will not now, although approximately, so to speak, that everything can be done perfectly, i mean that we are neighboring countries. we have a turnover. we have on communication, and so on and so forth. naturally, this answer can be considered. eh, in that direction. there are, of course, asymmetrical response. but this is beyond economic cooperation - this is already a very complicated story. hmm, which i just talked about. e, bakhtiyar raisovich, when he spoke about the right to self-defense. thank you, but, all the more literally the day before, reuters, citing

its two sources, said that there is the possibility of resuming transit on the same conditions that were before. let's continue talking to you about the topic of sanctions. a large block of questions is devoted, of course, to this very topic. and we see how lately from those news which were the day before and apparently a ban on the export of us gold and very active discussions are going on in the west to ban russian energy resources. here in these conditions, how do the russian economy feel foreign economy, well, the prospects. what about this, and my colleagues, uh, have repeatedly spoken and the president has spoken at, including at the site of our st. petersburg economic forum, a very large number of unprecedented sanctions. and it is obvious that these sanctions have been adopted, and i only also spoke about this precisely for the purpose of

cause maximum economic harm to our country, this is not hidden by the state that imposed them as if it were for us. it is quite obvious that these quasi-sanctions, if considered from the point of view of the charter of the united nations, since they are not international legal sanctions, recognized sanctions, nevertheless less. they have been adopted for a very long time, and the entire future policy of our country should proceed from this. here are the sanctions that were in effect against serbia. a certain time ago, it means that they are great know what it is. and if you recall the sanctions imposed against the soviet union, then they acted for decades. some of them means continued their action after the collapse of the soviet union and they were not collected. cancel,

so we proceed from the assumption that these sanctions were imposed for an absolutely long period in terms of historical perspectives. a very long time . that is why our economy must adapt to the new conditions. government is a difficult task. let's say it straight. there are no linear recipes here, there are areas in which we have achieved quite good success in recent years in terms of independence from the world economy. and there are places where we need cooperation and where we need to get additional competencies, what we usually call import substitution. and of course , work should be launched in all these areas, but, probably, this is still not quite the topic of our

conversation today, but i am sure, in any case, that as a result of the introduction of this kind. a large number of restrictions we will come out of this situation simply stronger. thank you mr. kumar let's still continue talking about sanctions and trade relations in these conditions from the point of view of law, if today the legal and regulatory framework in india has been prepared in order to expand trade, including with russia, we have developed a trade policy, and international trade. it is formulated at the country level and uh also 21 regulations that change

interaction of india with border states. and if we talk about exceptions, then yes, in terms of wto rules. yes, we are expanding the rules in order to expand the development of our economy. now india is also developing an import substitution policy and a rather powerful project is being implemented, it is called do we make in india, this is a local national production that is developing for the purpose of economic growth, and on the other hand, this is a global trend, because we see that this leads to an expansion in the creation of workers places. and this

on the global agenda. and and also we see that this is what accelerates, uh, development, and now it's an important topic for russia, but india has been doing this for a long time, india despite all the pressure and pressure. we believe that it is imperative to maintain energy security, and our country and a we will purchase energy resources depending on economic feasibility and, in this case, oil from russia supports e, economic growth, and we follow this logic, and therefore we didn't uh joined uh sanctions because we have an inalienable right to

act in our own interests. if we talk about the situation, if we look at the situation as a whole, india continues to import oil and fertilizer resources from russia and uh, coal also. everything, this is regulated by market forces, at the same time there is some kind of transition, and we know that payment systems, for example, cannot now make payments, and we have returned to trading in hands and rubles. and we hope that all this will contribute to the trade balance and probably need to how to balance this with exports, and goods from

india to russia by natural development and that's it. this is based on our independent decisions and also on the confidence and trust in economic development for our people and therefore we do not need to create any special regime and any policy, we act in a peculiar way to market forces. thank you, really. our time is gradually running out, vetryantovich noted in his speech that there may be changes in international law. and now i have the question is, a blitz to all the participants in our discussion. what could be these changes , some trends? today you see mrs. popovich . let's get you started.