First, it is the already mentioned rather clear division of the world into two socio-political systems that were in a state of permanent "cold war" with each other, mutual threats and an arms race. The split of the world was reflected in the constant strengthening of the military power of the two superpowers - the USA and the USSR, it was institutionalized in two opposing military-political (NATO and Warsaw Pact) and political-economic (EEC and CMEA) alliances and passed not only through the "center" , but on the "periphery" international system.

Secondly, it is the formation of the United Nations and its specialized agencies and increasingly persistent attempts to regulate international relations and improve international law. The formation of the UN responded to the objective need to create a managed world order and became the beginning of the formation of the international community as a subject of its management. At the same time, due to the limitations of its powers, the UN could not fulfill the role assigned to it as an instrument for maintaining peace and security, international stability and cooperation between peoples. As a result, the established world order manifested itself in its main dimensions as contradictory and unstable, causing more and more justified concern in world public opinion.

Based on S. Hoffmann's analysis, let's consider the main dimensions of the post-war world order.

So, horizontal dimension of the post-war world order characterized by the following features.

1. Decentralization (but not reduction) of violence. Stability at the central and global levels, supported by the mutual intimidation of the superpowers, did not exclude instability at the regional and subregional levels (regional conflicts, local wars between "third countries", wars with the open participation of one of the superpowers with more or less indirect support of the other of them, the opposite side etc.).

2. Fragmentation of the global international system and regional subsystems, at the level of which the way out of conflicts each time depends much more on the balance of power in the region and purely internal factors relating to the participants in the conflicts than on the strategic nuclear balance.

3. The impossibility of direct military clashes between the superpowers. However, their place was taken by "crises", the cause of which is either the actions of one of them in the region, considered as a zone of its vital interests ( Caribbean crisis 1962), or regional wars between "third countries" in regions considered strategically important by both superpowers (the Middle East crisis of 1973).

4. The possibility of negotiations between the superpowers and the military blocs headed by them in order to overcome the situation that has arisen, emerging as a result of stability at the strategic level, the common interest of the international community in eliminating the threat of a devastating nuclear conflict and a devastating amount of weapons. At the same time, these negotiations, in the context of the existing world order, could only lead to limited results.

5. The desire of each of the superpowers for unilateral advantages on the periphery of the global balance, while simultaneously mutually agreeing to preserve the division of the world into "spheres of influence" for each of them.

As for the vertical dimension of the world order, then, despite the huge gap that existed between the power of the superpowers and the rest of the world, their pressure on "third countries" had limits, and the global hierarchy did not become larger than before. First, the possibility of counter-pressure on the superpower from its militarily weaker "client" that existed in any bipolar system has always been preserved. Secondly, there was a collapse of colonial empires and the emergence of new states, the sovereignty and rights of which are protected by the UN and regional organizations such as the Arab League, OAU, ASEAN, etc. Thirdly, new moral values ​​of liberal democratic content are being formed and are rapidly spreading in the international community, based on the condemnation of violence, especially in relation to underdeveloped states, a sense of post-imperial guilt (the famous “Vietnamese syndrome" in the USA), etc. Fourthly, the “excessive” pressure of one of the superpowers on “third countries”, interference in their affairs created the threat of increased opposition from the other superpower and negative consequences as a result of the confrontation between the two blocs. Finally, fifthly, the above fragmentation of the international system left the possibility of claims by certain states (their regimes) for the role of regional quasi-superpowers with relatively wide freedom of maneuver (for example, the regime of Indonesia during the reign of Sukarno, the regimes of Syria and Israel in the Middle East, South Africa - in South Africa, etc.).

For functional dimension of the post-war world order characterized by the forefront of the activities of states and governments in the international arena of economic events. The basis for this was the deep economic and social changes in the world and the widespread desire of people for the growth of material well-being, for conditions worthy of the 20th century for human existence. The scientific and technological revolution has made hallmark of the described period, activity on the world stage as equal international actors of non-governmental transnational organizations and associations. Finally, due to the series objective reasons(not the last place among them is occupied by the aspirations of people to improve their standard of living and the promotion of economic goals in the international strategic and diplomatic efforts of states, the achievement of which cannot be ensured by autarky), the interdependence of various parts of the world is noticeably increasing.

However, at the level of the ideological dimension of the world order of the Cold War period, this interdependence is not adequately reflected. The opposition of "socialist values ​​and ideals" to "capitalist", on the one hand, the foundations and way of life of the "free world" of the "evil empire", on the other hand, reached the state of psychological warfare between two socio-political systems, between the USSR and the USA.

Peculiarities modern stage world order. The idea of ​​a new world order takes a variety of conceptual forms, in the variety of which there are two main approaches - political science (with an emphasis on legal aspects) and sociological. Such a division, of course, is rather arbitrary and its significance should not be exaggerated.

Supporters first approach proceed from the objective need to increase the controllability of the world and use existing integration processes for this purpose. In insisting on the need for an international system based on the rule of law, they point to the expansion of the role and scope of international law, which is accelerating before our eyes, and to the increasing importance of international institutions.

Other, considering the creation of world institutions governing international economic and political relations as a path to the formation of a planetary government in the distant future, they point to the role of regional processes as catalysts that can accelerate the creation of such institutions. For example, the Honorary General Director of the Commission European Community K. Leighton put forward a model regional cooperation in the manner of the EEC.

Diverse views of supporters sociological approach to the problem of world order. For example, some of them believe that ( the formation of the world order will go through convergence social structures, the blurring of socio-political differences between the two types of society and the attenuation of class antagonisms. While insisting that it is precisely this path that can ultimately lead to the formation of a single civilization (let us emphasize that some of the provisions of this concept are partly confirmed by further developments in the international arena), they are, at the same time, quite skeptical about the possibility of creating a single control center for all mankind. So, according to A.E. Bovin, the absence of a stable permanent balance of interests does not allow us to speak - in the medium term - about the possibility of delegating to such a center by members of the world community part of their rights, their sovereignty.

Let us emphasize once again that the distinction between these two approaches is conditional. The difference between them cannot be absolutized, it is relative: supporters of the political science approach do not reject the role social factors in the formation of a new world order, just as the supporters of the sociological approach do not ignore the influence of political factors. The point is only that some proceed from predominantly interstate, political relations and, on this basis, comprehend social and other processes, while others build an analysis of political processes and structures of international relations on the study of social trends.

It is from the standpoint of the sociological approach that one can see the ways to solve the problem of the world order, which is unsolvable within the framework of a “purely” political science, the question of the relationship between national-state sovereignty and universal global responsibility. The “sacred” principle of sovereignty looks completely different from this perspective, which allows us to notice that “the unrestrained exercise of national sovereignties too often comes down to the violent shock of struggling egoisms, means the unreasonable exploitation of nature without concern for future generations and an economic system that is not capable of realizing the “natural justice” in relations between the rich of the “diversity” and the millions of hungry people in the “third world”.

The sociological approach, integrating political science analysis, as noted above, provides an opportunity for a broad and holistic view of the problem of the world order, which allows us to present its foundations in the form of a certain system of factors, and an important place in which belongs to factors of a sociocultural nature. The elements of such a system are relations of dominance, interest and consent international actors, as well as the availability of relevant mechanisms , ensuring the functioning of the world order and the regulation of tensions and crises that arise within its framework. In this case, the role of the first element (relationship of dominance) , which is expressed in the military-power relations of states on the world stage and the international hierarchy built on them, today is significantly changing, partly decreasing, although not disappearing.

The second element of the world order, connected with the interests of actors, is also undergoing noticeable changes.. Firstly , transformations take place in the structure national interests state actors of international relations: interests related to ensuring economic prosperity and material well-being are coming to the fore. Secondly , the strengthening of the role of non-state actors is accompanied by a decrease in government control over world economic life and the distribution of resources, much of which is carried out by transnational corporations.

As regards the third element of the world order, the relations of consent,it means that any order can take place only if the actors voluntarily adhere to the norms and principles underlying it. In turn, this is possible only if they coincide in a certain way with those common values ​​that force actors to act within certain boundaries..

Finally, with regard to the fourth element of the world order - mechanisms , ensuring its functioning, allowing the settlement of tensions and crises arising within its framework, then, in addition to the moral and legal regulators already discussed above, it should be noted the growing role of international exchanges and communications. Each of the communication channels designed to help maintain stability and improve the world order is capable of causing the opposite effect: provoking its crisis, increasing the dissatisfaction of certain influential actors in international relations.

As history shows, the collapse of one type of world order and its replacement by another occurs as a result of large-scale wars or revolutions. The peculiarity of the modern period lies in the fact that the collapse of the international order that took shape after 1945 occurred in peacetime. At the same time, the peaceful nature of the outgoing world order, as we have seen, was rather relative: firstly, it did not exclude numerous regional armed conflicts and wars, and secondly, constant tension in relations between the two opposing blocs, acting as a state of "cold wars." The consequences of its end are in many ways similar to the consequences of past world wars, which marked the transition to a new world order: large-scale geopolitical shifts; temporary disorientation resulting from the loss of the main enemy of both the winners and the vanquished; regrouping of forces, coalitions and alliances; the displacement of a number of former ideological stereotypes; change of political regimes; the emergence of new states, etc.

Conclusion

Today's world is far from such a state. The former world order and the principles of international relations, built on force and intimidation, although undermined on a global scale, but at the same time, its rules and norms still continue to operate (especially at the regional levels), which does not give grounds for conclusions about the irreversibility of certain or other trends. The decline of the post-war world order opens up a transitional period for humanity, full of dangers and threats to the social and political foundations of public life.

In many countries there was hope that World War 1914 -1918 gg. will be the last military clash of this magnitude, that peoples and governments will no longer succumb to military psychosis, and will be able to peacefully resolve emerging conflicts. The peace, however, turned out to be short-lived, more like a peaceful respite. Internal problems and conflicts in many countries in the postwar years were combined with the growth of contradictions in the international arena, which led to the Second World War.

§ 14. PROBLEMS OF WAR AND PEACE IN THE 1920s, MILITARISM AND PACIFISM

The defeat of the bloc of the Central Powers did not resolve the contradictions in the international arena. The situation at the end of 1918, when the victors had to determine the foundations of the new world order, was extremely complex and ambiguous.

During the war years, the Entente countries assumed a number of mutual obligations, in particular not to conclude a separate peace and not to put forward peace conditions that were not agreed with the allies. In a preliminary plan, agreements were reached on the redistribution of spheres of influence, territorial changes. However, the full implementation of the preliminary agreements, many of which were secret and contradictory, was practically impossible.

Entente and Soviet Russia. One of the problems was related to Russia, whose withdrawal from the war meant a violation of obligations to the allies. This step removed the issue of transferring control over the Black Sea straits to it, especially since the Soviet government renounced all agreements concluded by the previous regimes. At a time when the Allies were working out the terms for a post-war peace settlement, Russia's political future was still undecided. Dozens of unrecognized self-proclaimed states arose on its territory. Each of the leaders of the anti-Bolshevik movement claimed the role of the savior of the country.

The emergence in March 1919 of the Soviet Republic in Hungary, which lasted 133 days, the rise of the revolutionary movement in Germany gave rise to fears among the ruling circles of the Entente powers that the countries of Europe, engulfed in post-war devastation and chaos, would fall before Bolshevism. All this, as well as hopes for the possibility of dividing Russia itself into spheres of influence, encouraged the allies to support anti-Bolshevik movements. The Entente countries ignored the Soviet government, which controlled only a few central provinces.

As a result, the foundations of the post-war world order were laid without Russia, its interests were not taken into account, which, regardless of the ideology of Bolshevism, laid the seeds for a future conflict between the USSR and the victorious countries in the world war. It is significant that most of the leaders of the white movement (generals A.I. Denikin, P.N. Wrangel, Admiral A.V. Kolchak) advocated the preservation of a “united and indivisible” Russia. They denied the right to independence of the countries that seceded from the empire - Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia.

The peace plan of V. Wilson. A certain problem for Great Britain and France was also created by the conditions of peace, which were defended by US President W. Wilson. Wilson is considered to be one of the founders of the so-called "political idealism". His approach to international affairs, without denying that they are decided on the basis of balances of power and power confrontation, proceeded from the need to establish a universal international order based on legal principles.

The world war, according to Wilson, was the last lesson proving the need to introduce order into international relationships. For this war to be the last, the conditions of peace, as Wilson believed, should not humiliate the dignity of the defeated states. Back in early 1918, he formulated the “14 Basic Principles” of the post-war world, which included, in particular, ensuring freedom of trade and navigation, taking into account the interests of the peoples of the colonial countries, and collectively resolving disputes, which undermined the prospects for the expansion of the British and French colonial empires.

The US delegation insisted that a new international organization, the League of Nations, should guarantee peace for the future. In the event of disputes between states, it was called upon to play the role of an arbitrator, and in the event of a military conflict, to take collective action to stop aggression. The Charter of the League allowed for the possibility of imposing international sanctions against the aggressor country, ranging from an economic blockade to, after appropriate consultations, the use of military force. At the same time, the US delegation insisted that the Charter of the League of Nations be included as an integral part of the peace treaty with Germany.

Results of the First World War. A compromise between the winners was found with great difficulty. France's aspirations to weaken Germany as much as possible were only partially satisfied. According to the decisions of the Paris Conference of 1919, she regained Alsace and Lorraine, annexed to Germany after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. The Saar region, rich in coal, was withdrawn from German jurisdiction, its fate was to be decided by a referendum. The territory of Germany on the left bank of the Rhine was proclaimed a demilitarized zone, Germany itself was obliged to pay reparations, which were supposed to weaken its economy. The borders of the new states were recognized in Eastern Europe, while Poland was given the eastern lands of Germany, Romania - Transylvania, formerly part of Austria-Hungary, where a significant part of the population were Hungarians, part of the territory bordering Bulgaria. The greatest benefits were received by Serbia, which became the core of the new state - Yugoslavia (the kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes).

Not all European states were satisfied with the terms of the peace. In Germany, Hungary and Bulgaria, the issue of the return of territorial losses has become one of the main ones in their domestic politics, the basis for the consolidation of militaristic, revanchist forces. The obligations that the Allies had previously given to Italy, both in terms of the division of the colonies and the increment of the territory, were not fulfilled.

The creation of the League of Nations enabled the ruling circles of England and France to find a solution to the problem of the colonies seized from Germany. Formally, they were placed under the control of the League of Nations, which, until the time when the colonies were ready for independence, transferred mandates to manage them to the Entente countries.

The idea of ​​creating a universal international organization capable of considering emerging disputable issues from an impartial position, taking measures to curb aggression, in other words, acting as a guarantor of peace, was undoubtedly promising. However, the League of Nations did not universal organization. Initially, it did not include the covered civil war Russia. The US Congress, despite the fact that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and the Charter of the League of Nations were developed with the participation of the President of this country, V. Wilson, did not approve these documents. In the highest legislative body of the United States, there was a strong influence of supporters of isolationism, non-intervention in conflicts outside the American continent. As a result, the United States did not enter the League of Nations, in which the colonial powers, Great Britain and France, thus acquired the predominant influence. With Germany, the United States signed a separate peace treaty in 1921.

Was not satisfied with its position in the international arena and Japan. During the war, she managed, taking advantage of the distraction of competitors and the weakening of Russia, to impose on China a treaty known as the “21 conditions”, which effectively turned it into a protectorate. At the Washington Conference of 1921-1922, faced with a united front of the other powers, Japan was forced to abandon the "21 conditions" to China, to return to him the captured former German port of Qingdao. As part of the agreement to limit naval armaments Japan failed to achieve recognition of equality with the United States and Great Britain. The only concession made to her was the obligation of the United States to refrain from military development on its islands in the Western Pacific and the Philippines.

Pacifism in the 1920s 1920s went down in history as the "decade of pacifism". The peoples of Europe were tired of the war, which contributed to the growth of pacifist, anti-war sentiments, which were taken into account by political leaders. Countries dissatisfied with the conditions of peace were too weakened and disunited to attempt revenge. The powers that gained the most strength as a result of the war - Great Britain and France, were more interested in maintaining and strengthening the conquered positions than in new conquests. In order to prevent the growth of revanchist sentiments in defeated countries, they were ready for certain compromises, including with Germany. The terms for paying reparations to her were increased (in 1931, in the conditions of a world economic crisis payments were stopped altogether). American capital contributed to the restoration of the German economy (the Dawes plan of 1924). In 1925, in the city of Locarno, Germany and its western neighbors signed the Rhine Guarantee Pact, which provided for the inviolability of the western borders of Germany, which became a member of the League of Nations. In 1928, on the initiative of French Foreign Minister Briand and US Secretary of State Kellogg, most of the world's states signed a pact renouncing war as a means of politics. Negotiations on the limitation of armaments also continued, which allowed the powers that possessed the largest naval forces(USA, Great Britain, Japan, France, Italy), in 1930-1931. agree on limiting the maximum tonnage of cruisers, destroyers and submarines.

The most difficult problems arose in connection with the peculiarities of the policy of the USSR, the difficulties of normalizing relations between it and the victorious countries in the world war, however, in this area in the 1920s. there has been some progress.

BIOGRAPHIC APPENDIX

Thomas Woodrow Wilson(1856-1924) - US President from the Democratic Party (1913-1921). Born in the state of Georgia to a religious family, his father was a doctor of divinity, a pastor in the city of Augusta and preparing his son for a religious career. However, after graduating from one of the most prestigious colleges in the United States, Princeton, and having received a law degree from the University of Virginia, V. Wilson decided to devote himself to scientific and teaching activities. He wrote a number of fundamental scientific works and became one of the founders of political science and theory government controlled. In 1902, Mr.. was elected rector of Princeton, which received university status. In 1910, due to a conflict with the professorship, he resigned, but this did not spoil his career: V. Wilson was elected governor of New Jersey, and in 1912 he became a candidate for US President from the Democratic Party and won.

As President of the United States, Wilson considered himself called upon to give a new look to America and the whole world. In his opinion, his election to this post was a sign of a higher will. W. Wilson believed that America's policy should be the embodiment of high moral and ethical ideals that the United States is called upon to bring to the world. In domestic policy, V. Wilson defended the idea of ​​social harmony. During his presidency, progressive income tax rates were introduced, the Federal Reserve System was created, which ensured state control over the circulation of money in the country. In foreign policy Wilson was a supporter of the United States' exit from self-isolation, America's active role in world affairs, and the intensification of its foreign trade expansion. He advocated the establishment of an international organization capable of playing the role of a teacher, punishing pugnacious students and resolving their disputes. Even before the outbreak of the First World War, on his initiative, negotiations began on the creation of an alliance of Nordic, Protestant nations - the USA, Great Britain and Germany, a coalition of European peoples to respond to the future "challenge" of Asia.

The end of the First World War seemed to create a chance for the implementation of the ideas of the new world order by W. Wilson, who personally took part in the Paris Peace Conference. However, in determining the specific conditions of the Treaty of Versailles the last word remained with Great Britain and France. Adopted by them, at the insistence of Wilson, the project of establishing the League of Nations did not receive support in the USA, where the Congress considered that it was unprofitable for America to take on too large external obligations. The refusal of the Congress to ratify the Treaty of Versailles was a serious blow to W. Wilson, who fell seriously ill. For the last 17 months of his presidency, he was paralyzed, his wife was in charge of the White House apparatus. W. Wilson went down in history as the founder of the course of political idealism in foreign policy (the restructuring of the world according to speculative schemes).

DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS

"Article 8. The Members of the League recognize that the preservation of peace requires the limitation of national armaments to the minimum compatible with national security and with the fulfillment of the international obligations imposed by the general action. advice given geographical position and the special conditions of each state, prepares plans for this limitation for the consideration and decision of the various governments.

These plans should be subject to a new review and, if necessary, revision at least every ten years. After they have been adopted by the various governments, the armaments limit so fixed may not be exceeded without the consent of the Council.<...>

Article 10. The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve, against any external attack, the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League. In the event of an attack, threat or danger of attack, the Council shall indicate the measures to ensure the fulfillment of this obligation. Article 11. It is expressly declared that every war or threat of war, whether directly or not directly affecting any of the members of the League, is of interest to the League as a whole, and that the latter must take measures capable of effectively protecting the peace of nations. In such a case General Secretary immediately convenes the Council at the request of any member of the League<...>Every member of the League has the right to draw the attention of the Assembly or Council in a friendly manner to any circumstance capable of affecting international relations and, therefore, threatening to shake the peace or the good harmony between the nations on which the world depends. Article 12. All members of the League agree that if a dispute arises between them, which may lead to a rupture, they will submit it either to arbitration or to the consideration of the Council. They also agree that in no case should they resort to war before the expiration of a period of three months after the decision of the arbitrators or the report of the Council<...>

Article 16. If a member of the League resorts to war contrary to obligations<...>then he<...>regarded as having committed an act of war against all other members of the League. The latter undertake to immediately break off all commercial or financial relations with it, to prohibit all communication between their own citizens and the citizens of the state that has violated the Statute, and to stop all financial, commercial or personal relations between the citizens of this state and the citizens of any other state, whether it is a member of the League or no.

In this case, the Council is obliged to propose to the various governments concerned that strength military, naval or air force whereby the members of the League shall, by affiliation, participate in the armed forces intended to maintain respect for the duties of the League<...>Any member found guilty of violating one of the obligations arising from the Statute may be expelled from the League. The exception is made by the votes of all other members of the League represented in the Council.

Article 17 In the event of a dispute between two States, of which only one is a member of the League or of which neither is a member of it, the State or States outside the League shall be invited to submit to the obligations incumbent on its members for the purpose of settling the dispute, on the terms recognized by the Council as fair<...>

If the invited state, refusing to assume the duties of a member of the League for the purpose of settling a dispute, resorts to war against a member of the League, then the provisions of Article 16 shall apply to it.

“Article 1. The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare on behalf of their peoples that they condemn the method of resorting to war to settle international conflicts and renounce war as an instrument of national policy in their mutual relations.

Article 2 The High Contracting Parties recognize that the settlement or resolution of all disagreements or conflicts, regardless of the nature of their origin, which may arise between them, must be carried out only by peaceful means.

Article 3. This treaty will be ratified by the High Contracting Parties<...>and it shall enter into force between them as soon as all instruments of ratification have been deposited in Washington.

The present treaty, as soon as it comes into force, as provided for in the preceding paragraph, shall remain open for as long as it is necessary for the other powers of the world to accede to it.”

QUESTIONS AND TASKS

1. Under what international conditions did the foundations of the post-war world develop?

2. On what ideas were Wilson's "14 Basic Principles" based? What new things did they bring to the approaches to international affairs?

3. Describe the Versailles-Washington system. Who and why did not suit her?

4. When and for what purpose was the League of Nations created? Did she achieve her goals, what did it matter?

5. Prepare a presentation: "A decade of pacifism: processes and problems."

Search Reset

MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

2.3 Protocol Fourth Additional to the European Convention on Extradition of 20 September 2012;

3. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10, 1958;

4.1. Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of March 17, 1978;

7. Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents, October 5, 1961;

8. Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of November 15, 1965;

7. Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters of March 18, 1970;

10. Protocol amending the European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism of 27 January 1977 of 15 May 2003;

11. Convention on the Transfer of Persons Sentenced to Deprivation of Liberty to Serve the Sentence in the State of Which They Are Citizens of May 19, 1978;

12. Agreement on the procedure for resolving disputes related to the implementation of economic activities, March 20, 1992;

13. Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of January 22, 1993;

13.1. Protocol to the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of 22 January 1993;

14. Convention on the Transfer of Persons Sentenced to Deprivation of Liberty for Further Serving of the Sentence of March 6, 1998;

15. Convention on the Transfer of Persons with Mental Disorders for Compulsory Treatment of March 28, 1997;

16. Agreement on the formation of the Council of Heads of Prison Services of the Member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States dated October 16, 2015;

17. United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime of November 15, 2000;

17.1 Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air of 15 November 2000;

17.2 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children of 15 November 2000;

19. Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of December 17, 1997;

20. Agreement on the formation of the Interstate Council for Combating Corruption of October 25, 2013

CURRENT BILATERAL TREATIES

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

1. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Abkhazia on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters of May 28, 2015;

2. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Abkhazia on the transfer to serve a sentence of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty, dated May 28, 2015;

3. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Austria on matters of civil procedure of March 11, 1970;

4. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Azerbaijan on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases of December 22, 1992;

5. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the transfer of convicts to serve their sentences of May 26, 1994;

6. Treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and People's Republic Albania on the provision of legal assistance in civil, family, marriage and criminal cases of June 30, 1958;

7. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Algerian People's Democratic Republic on mutual legal assistance of February 23, 1982;

8. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Angola on the transfer to serve a sentence of persons sentenced to imprisonment of October 31, 2006;

10. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Argentine Republic on cooperation and legal assistance in civil, commercial, labor and administrative matters of November 20, 2000;

11. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Argentine Republic on extradition of July 12, 2014;

12. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Argentine Republic on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters of July 12, 2014;

13. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Argentine Republic on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment of July 12, 2014;

14. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Bahrain on the transfer of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty, December 15, 2015;

15. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Bahrain on extradition dated May 27, 2016;

16. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment of November 12, 2013;

17. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on the transfer to serve a sentence of persons sentenced to imprisonment of March 23, 2005;

18. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus on the procedure for the mutual execution of judicial acts of arbitration courts Russian Federation and economic courts of the Republic of Belarus dated January 17, 2001;

19. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's Republic of Bulgaria on legal assistance in civil, family and criminal cases of February 19, 1975;

20. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Federative Republic of Brazil on extradition of January 14, 2002;

21. Treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's Republic of Hungary on the provision of legal assistance in civil, family and criminal cases of July 15, 1958 with the Protocol on amendments and additions to the Treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Hungarian People's Republic on the provision of legal assistance on civil, family and criminal cases, signed in Moscow on July 15, 1958, on October 19, 1971;

22. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal cases of August 25, 1998;

23. Treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Hellenic Republic on legal assistance in civil and criminal cases of May 21, 1981;

24. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Arab Republic of Egypt on mutual legal assistance and legal relations in civil, commercial and family matters of September 23, 1997;

25. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Arab Republic of Egypt on the transfer to serve a sentence of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty, June 23, 2009;

27. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of India on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters of December 21, 1998;

28. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of India on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and commercial matters of October 3, 2000;

29. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of India on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment of October 21, 2013;

30. Agreement on mutual legal assistance between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Iraq of June 22, 1973;

31. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal cases of March 5, 1996;

32. Treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Kingdom of Spain on legal assistance in civil affairs October 26, 1990;

33. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Spain on the transfer to serve a sentence of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty, of January 16, 1998;

34. Convention between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Italian Republic on legal assistance in civil matters of January 25, 1979;

35. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen on legal assistance in civil and criminal cases of December 6, 1985;

36. Treaty between the Russian Federation and Canada on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters of October 20, 1997;

37. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Cyprus on legal assistance in civil and criminal cases of January 19, 1984;

38. Convention between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Cameroon on the transfer to serve a sentence of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty, of May 28, 2015;

40. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China on legal assistance in civil and criminal cases of June 19, 1992;

41. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China on extradition of June 26, 1995;

42. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China on the transfer of convicts of December 2, 2002;

43. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Cyprus on the transfer to serve a sentence of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty, November 8, 1996;

44. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Colombia on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters of April 6, 2010;

45. Treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on the provision of legal assistance in civil, family and criminal cases of December 16, 1957;

46. ​​Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters of May 28, 1999;

47. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters of November 17, 2015;

48. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on extradition of November 17, 2015;

49. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Cuba on legal assistance in civil, family and criminal cases of November 28, 1984;

50. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Cuba on the transfer to serve a sentence of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty, December 13, 2016;

51. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kyrgyzstan on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases of September 14, 1992;

52. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Latvia on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases of February 3, 1993;

53. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Latvia on the transfer of convicts to serve their sentences of March 4, 1993;

54. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Lao People's Democratic Republic on extradition of May 28, 2015;

55. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Lebanon on the transfer of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty, December 16, 2014;

56. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Lithuania on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases of July 21, 1992;

57. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Lithuania on the transfer to serve a sentence of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty, June 25, 2001;

58. Convention between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Morocco on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment of September 7, 2006;

59. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United Mexican States on the transfer to serve a sentence of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty of June 7, 2004;

60. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United Mexican States on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, June 21, 2005;

61. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Moldova on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases of February 25, 1993;

62. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Mongolian People's Republic on the mutual provision of legal assistance in civil, family and criminal cases of September 23, 1988;

63. Agreement between the Russian Federation and Mongolia on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal cases of April 20, 1999;

64. Protocol of 12 September 2002 to the Treaty between the Russian Federation and Mongolia on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal cases of 20 April 1999;

65. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United United Arab Emirates on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters of November 25, 2014;

66. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United Arab Emirates on extradition of November 25, 2014;

67. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Panama on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters of April 30, 2009;

69. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Poland on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal cases of September 16, 1996;

70. Agreement between the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Poland on the procedure for communication in civil cases of May 17, 2012 within the framework of the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Poland on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal cases of September 16, 1996 .;

71. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Romanian People's Republic on the provision of legal assistance in civil, family and criminal cases of April 3, 1958;

72. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America on the procedure for the execution of letters of request of November 22, 1935;

73. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters of June 17, 1999;

74. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and on Extradition, December 1, 2014;

75. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Tunisia on legal assistance in civil and criminal cases of June 26, 1984;

76. Agreement between the Russian Federation and Turkmenistan on the transfer to serve a sentence of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty, May 18, 1995;

77. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Finland on legal protection and legal assistance in civil, family and criminal cases of August 11, 1978 with a Protocol of August 11, 1978;

78. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Finland on the mutual transfer for serving sentences of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty, November 8, 1990;

79. Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and France on the transfer of judicial and notarial documents and the execution of court orders in civil and commercial cases of August 11, 1936;

80. Convention between the Russian Federation and the French Republic on the Transfer of Persons Sentenced to Deprivation of Liberty, February 11, 2003;

81. Treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases of August 12, 1982;

82. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters of May 28, 2015;

83. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on the transfer of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty, May 28, 2015;

84. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on extradition of May 28, 2015;

84. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Estonia on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases of January 26, 1993;

85. Treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia on legal assistance in civil, family and criminal cases of February 24, 1962;

86. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of South Ossetia on the transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment of October 14, 2014;

87. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of South Ossetia on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters of October 14, 2014;

88. Treaty between the Russian Federation and Japan on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters of May 12, 2009

BILATERAL AGREEMENTS,

NOT IN FORCE FOR THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

1. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Albania on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal cases of October 30, 1995 (the Agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on October 30, 1995, has not been ratified, has not entered into force).

2. Convention between the Russian Federation and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters of October 10, 2017 (the Convention was signed by the Russian Federation
October 10, 2017, ratified by Federal Law No. 343-FZ of October 2, 2018 “On Ratification of the Convention between the Russian Federation and the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters”, did not enter into force);

3. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Angola on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters dated October 31, 2006 (the Agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on October 31, 2006, ratified by Federal Law No. 158-FZ of July 17, 2009 "On ratification of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Angola on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters”, did not enter into force);

4. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Zimbabwe on extradition dated January 15, 2019 (the Agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on January 15, 2018, has not been ratified, has not entered into force);

5. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran on the transfer of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty dated March 28, 2017 (The Agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on March 28, 2017, ratified by Federal Law No. 7-FZ dated February 5, 2018 "On ratification of the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran on the transfer of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty”, did not enter into force);

6. Protocol on amendments to the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal cases of March 5, 1996 (The protocol was signed by the Russian Federation on March 28, 2017, ratified by the Federal Law of February 5, 2018 No. 4-FZ “On Ratification of the Protocol on Amendments to the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil and Criminal Matters
March 5, 1996, did not enter into force);

7. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Spain on the provision of legal assistance in criminal matters of March 25, 1996 (the Agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on March 25, 1996, ratified by Federal Law of the Russian Federation of October 8, 2000 No. 127-FZ “On ratification of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Spain on the provision of legal assistance in criminal matters”, did not enter into force);

8. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Cambodia on the extradition of February 1, 2017 (the Treaty was signed by the Russian Federation on March 28, 2017, ratified by Federal Law No. 125-FZ of June 4, 2018 "On Ratification of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Cambodia on extradition”, has not entered into force);

9. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on the transfer to serve a sentence of persons sentenced to imprisonment of December 5, 2017 (the Agreement was signed
Russian Federation on December 5, 2017, ratified by the Federal Law of March 6, 2019 No. 15-FZ "On Ratification of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on the transfer to serve a sentence of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty", did not enter into force);

10. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Cuba on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and criminal cases of December 14, 2000 (the Agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on December 14, 2000, has not been ratified, has not entered into force);

11. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Lao People's Democratic Republic on the transfer of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty, September 26, 2017 (the Agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on September 26, 2017, ratified by Federal Law No. 344-FZ of October 2, 2018 "On the ratification of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Lao People's Democratic Republic on the transfer of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty", did not enter into force);

12. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Mali on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases of August 31, 2000 (the Agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on August 31, 2000, has not been ratified, has not entered into force.);

13. Convention between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Morocco on extradition of March 15, 2016 (the Convention was signed by the Russian Federation on March 15, 2016, ratified by Federal Law of July 26, 2017 No. 180-FZ “On Ratification of the Convention between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Morocco on extradition”, has not entered into force);

14. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Namibia on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters of October 8, 2018 (the Agreement was signed in Windhoek on October 8, 2018, not ratified, did not enter into force);

15. Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Nigeria on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters dated November 26, 2018 (the Agreement was signed in Moscow on November 26, 2018, not ratified, not entered into force).

16. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the transfer to serve a sentence of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty, dated June 24, 2009 (The agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on June 24, 2009, ratified by Federal Law No. 277 dated August 3, 2018 "On the ratification of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the transfer to serve a sentence of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty", did not enter into force);

17. Agreement between the USSR and the Syrian Arab Republic on legal assistance in civil and criminal cases of November 15, 1984. The agreement was signed by the USSR on November 15, 1984, not ratified, not entered into
by virtue of);

18. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of the Philippines on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters dated November 13, 2017 (the Agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on November 13, 2017 in Manila, ratified by Federal Law No. 276-FZ dated August 3, 2018 “On Ratification of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of the Philippines on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters”, did not enter into force);

19. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of the Philippines on extradition dated November 13, 2017 (the Agreement was signed by the Russian Federation on November 13, 2017 in Manila, ratified by Federal Law No. Federation and the Republic of the Philippines on extradition”, has not entered into force).

The First World War led to fundamental changes in the international political situation. The two major world powers - Germany and Russia - were defeated and found themselves in a difficult situation. The countries of the Entente and the United States together won the war, but ended up in an unequal position after it ended. AT economic terms The United States has grown enormously during the war years. They provided large loans to England and France. The growth of economic power allowed the United States to

aspire to world leadership. These trends were reflected in the American initiative to end the war, set out in the so-called "14 points" by W. Wilson.

Great Britain during the war finally lost its position as the first world power. She achieved the weakening of Germany, but sought to prevent the growth of French military power. England saw Germany as a force capable of resisting the growth of French influence in Europe.

France achieved the military defeat of Germany, but the victory was not easy for her. Her economic and human resources were weaker than the Germans, so she sought to create guarantees against a possible revenge on the part of Germany.

An important element of the international situation was the emergence as a result of the national liberation movement of new independent states in Europe - Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Baltic states. The victorious powers could not ignore the will of the peoples of these countries.

The results of the First World War were enshrined in peace treaties developed at the Paris Peace Conference, which opened on January 18, 1919. At the conference, which was attended by 27 states, the so-called "Big Three" - British Prime Minister D. Lloyd George, set the tone. French Prime Minister J. Clemenceau, US President W. Wilson. It is significant that the defeated countries and Soviet Russia were not invited to the conference.

The Versailles Peace Treaty with Germany, signed on June 28, 1919, occupied a central place in the decisions of the Paris Conference. According to it, Germany was recognized as the culprit of the war and, together with its allies, bore full responsibility for its results. Germany undertook to carry out the demilitarization of the Rhine zone, and the left bank of the Rhine was occupied by the occupation troops of the Entente. The region of Alsace-Lorraine returned to French sovereignty. Germany also ceded to France the coal mines of the Saar basin, which for 15 years came under the control of the League of Nations. After this period, the question of the future of this region was supposed to be decided by a plebiscite among its population.

Germany also pledged to respect the independence of Austria within the borders that were established by the Saint-Germain Peace Treaty of 1919. She recognized the independence

Czechoslovakia, whose border ran along the line of the former border between Austria-Hungary and Germany. Recognizing the complete independence of Poland, Germany renounced in its favor from part of Upper Silesia and Pomerania, from the rights to the city of Danzig (Gdansk), included in the customs border of Poland. Germany renounced all rights to the territory of Memel (now Klaipeda), which in 1923 was transferred to Lithuania. Germany recognized "the independence of all territories that were part of the former Russian Empire by August 1, 1914, i.e. by the beginning of the First World War. She also pledged to cancel the Brest Treaty of 1918 and other agreements concluded with the Soviet government.

Germany lost all its colonies. Based on the recognition of Germany's guilt in unleashing the war, a number of provisions were included in the treaty providing for the demilitarization of Germany, including the reduction of the army to 100 thousand people, a ban on the latest types of weapons and their production. Germany was charged with paying reparations.

The Versailles Peace Treaty, in conjunction with other treaties: Saint-Germain (1919), Neuilly (1919), Tri-announcement (1919) and Sevres (1923), constituted the system of peace treaties known as the Versailles Treaty.

The Saint-Germain Peace Treaty, concluded between the Entente countries and Austria, in fact, officially legalized the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and the formation on its ruins of Austria itself and a number of new independent states - Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which in 1929 was transformed into Yugoslavia.

The Treaty of Neuilly, signed by the Entente countries and Bulgaria in November 1919, provided for territorial concessions from Bulgaria in favor of Romania and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The treaty obliged Bulgaria to reduce its armed forces to 20,000 men and imposed rather onerous reparations on it. She also lost access to the Aegean Sea.

The Trianon Treaty (by the name of the Trianon Palace of Versailles) was intended to streamline the relations of the victorious countries with Hungary.

The Treaty of Sevres, concluded between the victorious countries and Turkey, legalized the disintegration and division of the Ottoman Empire.

One of the most important results of the conference was the formation of the League of Nations. According to the charter, it was supposed to promote the development of cooperation between all peoples, to guarantee peace and security. The creation of the League of Nations was the first step in the formation of an international legal space, the formation of a fundamentally new philosophy of international relations. At the same time, under the auspices of the League of Nations, a world order was formed that met the interests of the victorious countries. This was primarily expressed in the actual redistribution of the colonies between the victorious countries. The so-called mandate system was introduced, under which individual states, primarily Great Britain and France, were given mandates to manage the territories that previously belonged to Germany and the Ottoman Empire, which were defeated.

Fixing the division of the world into colonial systems did not meet the interests of American diplomacy. The United States did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles and did not enter the Council of the League of Nations. At the same time, the United States could not remain aloof from the formation of a new world political space. To reconcile their positions with the former allies was a new conference, held in the US capital Washington in late 1921 - early 1922.

At the Washington Conference, a number of decisions were adopted that revised or clarified the provisions of previously concluded treaties. In particular, restrictions were imposed on the navies of five powers - the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan. The United States managed to achieve the conclusion of an agreement between four countries - the United States, England, France and Japan - on the joint defense of their island possessions in pacific ocean. A nine-country treaty on China was signed, according to which the American principle of "open doors" extended to this country. It also provided for the return of the Shandong Peninsula by Japan to China.

The system of treaties created in Versailles and Washington fixed the balance of power between the great powers that had developed as a result of the world war. The Treaty of Versailles proclaimed the beginning of a new era without wars and violence. However, the subsequent course of events demonstrated all the precariousness, fragility and fragility of the system that consolidated the split of the world into winners and losers.

1920s went down in history as the "decade of pacifism". The peoples of Europe were tired of the war, which contributed to the growth of pacifist, anti-war sentiments, which were taken into account by political leaders. Countries dissatisfied with the conditions of peace were too weakened and disunited to attempt revenge. The powers that gained the most strength as a result of the war, Great Britain and France, were more interested in maintaining and strengthening the conquered positions than in new conquests. In order to prevent the growth of revanchist sentiment in the defeated countries, they were ready for certain compromises, including with Germany. The terms for paying reparations to her were increased (in 1931, in the conditions of the world economic crisis, payments were generally stopped). American capital contributed to the restoration of the German economy (the Dawes plan of 1924). In 1925, in the city of Locarno, Germany and its western neighbors signed the Rhine Guarantee Pact, which provided for the inviolability of the western borders of Germany, which became a member of the League of Nations. In 1928, on the initiative of French Foreign Minister Briand and US Secretary of State Kellogg, most of the world's states signed a pact renouncing war as a means of politics. Negotiations on the limitation of armaments also continued, which allowed the powers that possessed the largest naval forces (USA, Great Britain, Japan, France, Italy) in 1930-1931. agree on limiting the maximum tonnage of cruisers, destroyers and submarines.

The most difficult problems arose in connection with the peculiarities of the policy of the USSR, the difficulties of normalizing relations between it and the victorious countries in the world war, however, in this area in the 1920s. there has been some progress.

BIOGRAPHIC APPENDIX

Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) - President of the United States from the Democratic Party (1913-1921). Born in the state of Georgia to a religious family, his father was a doctor of divinity, a pastor in the city of Augusta and preparing his son for a religious career. However, after graduating from one of the most prestigious colleges in the US, Princeton, and having received a law degree from the University of Virginia, V. Wilson decided to devote himself to research and teaching. He wrote a number of fundamental scientific works and became one of the founders of political science and the theory of public administration. In 1902, Mr.. was elected rector of Princeton, which received university status. In 1910, due to a conflict with the professorship, he resigned, but this did not spoil his career: V. Wilson was elected governor of New Jersey, and in 1912 he became a candidate for US President from the Democratic Party and won.

As President of the United States, Wilson considered himself called upon to give a new look to America and the whole world. In his opinion, his election to this post was a sign of a higher will. W. Wilson believed that America's policy should be the embodiment of high moral and ethical ideals that the United States is called upon to bring to the world. In domestic policy, V. Wilson defended the idea of ​​social harmony. During his presidency, progressive income tax rates were introduced, the Federal Reserve System was created, which ensured state control over the circulation of money in the country. In foreign policy, Wilson was a supporter of the US exit from self-isolation, America's active role in world affairs, and the intensification of its foreign trade expansion. He advocated the establishment of an international organization capable of playing the role of a teacher, punishing pugnacious students and resolving their disputes. Even before the start of the First World War, on his initiative, negotiations began on the creation of an alliance of Nordic, Protestant nations - the USA, Great Britain and Germany, a coalition of European peoples to respond to the future "challenge" of Asia.

The end of the First World War seemed to create a chance for the implementation of the ideas of the new world order by W. Wilson, who personally took part in the Paris Peace Conference. However, in determining the specific conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, the last word was left to Great Britain and France. Adopted by them, at the insistence of Wilson, the project of establishing the League of Nations did not receive support in the USA, where the Congress considered that it was unprofitable for America to take on too large external obligations. The refusal of the Congress to ratify the Treaty of Versailles was a serious blow to W. Wilson, who fell seriously ill. For the last 17 months of his presidency, he was paralyzed, his wife was in charge of the White House apparatus. W. Wilson went down in history as the founder of the course of political idealism in foreign policy (the restructuring of the world according to speculative schemes).

DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS

“Article 8. The members of the League recognize that the preservation of peace requires the limitation of national armaments to the minimum compatible with national security and with the fulfillment of international obligations imposed by a common action. The Council, taking into account the geographical position and special conditions of each state, prepares plans for this restriction for the consideration and decision of the various governments.

These plans should be subject to a new review and, if necessary, revision at least every ten years. After they have been adopted by the various governments, the armaments limit so fixed may not be exceeded without the consent of the Council.<...>

Article 10. The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve, against any external attack, the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League. In the event of an attack, threat or danger of attack, the Council shall indicate the measures to ensure the fulfillment of this obligation. Article 11. It is expressly declared that every war or threat of war, whether directly or not directly affecting any of the members of the League, is of interest to the League as a whole, and that the latter must take measures capable of effectively protecting the peace of nations. In such a case, the Secretary General shall immediately convene the Council at the request of any member of the League.<...>Every member of the League has the right to draw the attention of the Assembly or Council in a friendly manner to any circumstance capable of affecting international relations and, therefore, threatening to shake the peace or the good harmony between the nations on which the world depends. Article 12. All members of the League agree that if a dispute arises between them, which may lead to a rupture, they will submit it either to arbitration or to the consideration of the Council. They also agree that in no case should they resort to war before the expiration of a period of three months after the decision of the arbitrators or the report of the Council<...>

Article 16. If a member of the League resorts to war contrary to obligations<...>then he<...>regarded as having committed an act of war against all other members of the League. The latter undertake to immediately break off all commercial or financial relations with it, to prohibit all communication between their own citizens and the citizens of the state that has violated the Statute, and to stop all financial, commercial or personal relations between the citizens of this state and the citizens of any other state, whether it is a member of the League or no.

In this case, the Council is obliged to propose to the various governments concerned the strength of the military, sea or air force, whereby the members of the League will, according to their affiliation, participate in the armed forces intended to maintain respect for the duties of the League.<... >Any member found guilty of violating one of the obligations arising from the Statute may be expelled from the League. The exception is made by the votes of all other members of the League represented in the Council.

Article 17 In the event of a dispute between two States, of which only one is a member of the League or of which neither is a member of it, the State or States outside the League shall be invited to submit to the obligations incumbent on its members for the purpose of settling the dispute, on the terms recognized by the Council as fair<... >

If the invited state, refusing to assume the duties of a member of the League for the purpose of settling a dispute, resorts to war against a member of the League, then the provisions of Article 16 shall apply to it.

“Article 1. The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare on behalf of their peoples that they condemn the method of resorting to war to settle international conflicts and renounce war as an instrument of national policy in their mutual relations.

Article 2 The High Contracting Parties recognize that the settlement or resolution of all disagreements or conflicts, regardless of the nature of their origin, which may arise between them, must be carried out only by peaceful means.

Article 3. This treaty will be ratified by the High Contracting Parties<... >and it shall enter into force between them as soon as all instruments of ratification have been deposited in Washington.

The present treaty, as soon as it comes into force, as provided for in the preceding paragraph, shall remain open for as long as it is necessary for the other powers of the world to accede to it.”

QUESTIONS AND TASKS

• 1. Under what international conditions did the foundations of the post-war world develop?
• 2. On what ideas were Wilson's "14 Basic Principles" based? What new things did they bring to the approaches to international affairs?
• 3. Describe the Versailles-Washington system. Who and why did not suit her?
• 4. When and for what purpose was the League of Nations created? Did she achieve her goals, what did it matter?
• 5. Prepare a presentation: "A decade of pacifism: processes and problems."