Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Зарубежный опыт осуществления Конвенции о юрисдикции, применимом праве, признании, исполнении и сотрудничестве в отношении родительской ответственности и мер по защите детей 1996 г.

Абашидзе А.Х., Солнцев А.М., Конева А.Е., Гугунский Д.А. Зарубежный опыт осуществления Конвенции о юрисдикции, применимом праве, признании, исполнении и сотрудничестве в отношении родительской ответственности и мер по защите детей 1996 г. // Евразийский юридический журнал. - М: Евразийский научно-исследовательский институт проблем права, 2014, №8. - С. 81-87 читать...

Реформа институциональной основы природоохранной деятельности ООН в свете решений конференции ООН по окружающей среде и развитию 2012 г. ("РИО+20")

Солнцев А.М. Реформа институциональной основы природоохранной деятельности ООН в свете решений конференции ООН по окружающей среде и развитию 2012 г. ("РИО+20") // Деполітизація наукового пошуку як основного принципу наукової взаємодії: міжнародна конференція, м. Київ, 28 червня 2014р. - Київ: Центр наукових публікацій, 2014. - С. 67-71 читать...

Panel Discussion on the protection of the family - 13th Meeting 27th Regular Session of Human Rights Council

Human Rights Council holds panel discussion on the protection of the family and its members

15 September 2014
The Human Rights Council this morning held a panel discussion on the protection of the family and its members.
Jane Connors, Director, Research and Right to Development Division, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in an introductory statement said the family and the rights of its members were addressed in provisions in a range of international human rights treaties. Despite these international legal obligations, women continued to experience, in varying degrees, discrimination within the family. Violence and exploitation within the family were also serious human rights concerns, as was the situation of single-parent families, which were often headed by women.
Moderating the discussion was Yvette Stevens, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva. The Panelists were Aslan Khuseinovich Abashidze, Member of the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; Hiranti Wijemanne, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child; Zitha Mokomane, Chief Research Specialist, Human and Social Development Research Programme, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa; Karen Bogenschneider, Rothermel Bascom Professor of Human Ecology, University of Wisconsin; and Rosa Inés Floriano Carrera, Coordinator, Department of Life, Justice and Peace, Caritas, Colombia.
Ms. Stevens said that the discussion today would guide the Council on the road forward in addressing the issue of protecting the family. However, this panel discussion was not about defining a family; the definition of the family in each State was different and it was up to States themselves to decide what groups were considered a family.
Mr. Abashidze said the protection of families by States and societies was an important principle in international human rights law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also defined obligations of States to provide assistance and protection to the family. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its general comment on Article 19, recognized that the definition of the family was different from State to State.
Ms. Wijemanne said the family was an integral part of human life. The Convention on the Right of the Child contained various provisions related to families, and obliged States to ensure and respect the right of every child and not to discriminate against children on any ground, including on the ground of the family environment they were growing in 
Ms. Bogenschneider heartily endorsed the recommendation to undertake concerted actions to strengthen family-centred policies and programmes. They had convened over 190 Family Impact Seminars for State policy-makers in 25 states and the District of Columbia. In a contentious environment, they had been able to move beyond family rhetoric to enhancing the reality of families’ lives by building better public policies. 
Ms. Floriano Carrera said that the unity and cohesion of the family unit was one of the first things affected when a family had to face the adversity that went hand in hand with conflict. If a response did not reflect the complexity of the drama and did not consider the family, it could do more harm than good. Humanitarian aid to the family had to be organized in order to guarantee the core links and cohesion of the family. 
Ms. Mokomane said that the family had been completely left out from the Millennium Development Goals and was not being considered in the sustainable development goals or the post-2015 development agenda. The protection of the family should be included as a stand-alone goal, and this could be one action point for the Human Rights Council following this panel. 
In the discussion that followed, speakers noted that family diversity was important and different forms of families required the tailored protection of the State. Even though the family unit itself was not a right holder, States still had the obligation and responsibility to protect the family and its members. Family units witnessed growing challenges such as the economic situation, lack of social protection, migration or armed conflict; research demonstrated that well protected families contributed positively to the rights of their members, particularly women and children. The gravity of violence within families, such as sexual violence or violence against children, was underlined. What were the best ways to support families in this ever evolving context? How could specific measures and policies ensure that indigenous families were protected?
Speaking in the discussion were Chile, Egypt on behalf of the main sponsors, Russia on behalf of a like-minded group, Australia on behalf of a group of States, United Kingdom on behalf of a group of States, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, United States on behalf of a group of States, Finland in a joint Nordic statement, Uruguay on behalf of a group of countries, European Union, Slovenia on behalf of a group of States, Costa Rica on behalf of Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, Ethiopia on behalf of the African Group, United Arab Emirates on behalf of the Arab Group, Iran on behalf of a group of States, Estonia, Czech Republic, Syria, Norway, Egypt, Russia, Namibia, Sierra Leone, Germany, Sudan, Ireland, and Qatar. 
Allied Rainbow Communities International, on behalf of several NGOs1, Plan International, Inc., on behalf of several NGOs2, Howard Centre for Family, Religion and Society, Group of Non-Governmental Organizations for the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Caritas Internationalis International Confederation of Catholic Charities, on behalf of several NGOs3, also took the floor.
The Human Rights Council during its noon meeting will continue its general debate on thematic reports by the Secretary-General, the High Commissioner and her Office. During its afternoon meeting the Council will hold its annual discussion on the integration of a gender perspective. 
Opening Statements
BAUDELAIRE NDONG ELLA, President of the Human Rights Council, said that they would be holding this morning a round table on the protection of the family and its members. The Human Rights Council recognized that the family was the natural and fundamental group unit of society, entitled to protection afforded to it by society and the State. The aim of the discussion was to strengthen cooperation at all levels, and take agreed measures to strengthen policies and programmes devoted to the family in the context of an integrated overall approach to human rights. 
JANE CONNORS, Director, Research and Right to Development Division, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in an introductory statement said that the family and the rights of its members were addressed in provisions in a range of international human rights treaties. These provisions encompassed civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights; enshrined women’s right to equality within the family; and provided protection for children, persons with disabilities and older persons as members of families. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights proclaimed the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, providing it with entitlements to protection by society and the State. Families assumed diverse forms and functions among and within countries. The principle of equality between women and men within the family was recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reflected as a legally binding obligation on States parties in Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Despite these international legal obligations, women continued to experience, in varying degrees, discrimination within the family. This was largely a result of stereotypical notions of gender roles which envisaged women as care-givers and men as breadwinners. Violence and exploitation within the family were also serious human rights concerns. The situation of single-parent families, which were often headed by women, raised specific human rights concerns. The Convention on the Rights of the Child underscored the importance of a family environment for the child’s growth and well-being. It provided for the protection of children in situations where they had been separated from their parents and where children had been deprived of a family environment. It also referred to family reunification. The obligations were especially relevant to migration, where children were often separated from their families against their will. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities made clear that persons with disabilities and their family members should receive the necessary protection and assistance. Although no universal human rights instrument made explicit provision regarding care for older persons in the family, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights indicated in its General Comment Number 5 that protection of the family should include establishment of social services to support the family when there were elderly people at home, especially where the family was of low-income. 
Statements by the Panellists
YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva and Panel Moderator, in her opening remarks said that the discussion today would guide the Council on the road forward in addressing the issue of protecting the family. However, this panel discussion was not about defining a family; the definition of the family in each State was different and it was up to States themselves to decide what groups were considered a family. Turning to Mr. Abashidze, Ms. Stevens asked about the perspectives of international human rights law on the obligations of States to protect the family.
ASLAN KHUSEINOVICH ABASHIDZE, Member of the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, said that the protection of families by States and societies was an important principle in international human rights law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in its Article 10 also defined the obligations of States to provide assistance and protection to the family. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had not yet prepared a general comment on Article 10, but in its general comment on Article 19, the Committee recognized that the definition of the family was different from State to State and also requested States to provide information in their periodic reports about assistance accorded to all forms of families, and all members in groups considered a family. The obligations of States under Article 10 prohibited regressive measures and required States to adopt national plans for the implementation of the Covenant, which would include measures such as protection from domestic violence, sexual violence, illegal separation of children from parents, illegal forms of punishment in families and kindergarten, separation of families during migration, problem of child soldiers, protection of mothers and especially working mothers, legal age of entry into marriage, protection of the elderly, and others.
Introducing Ms. Wijemanne, YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva and Panel Moderator, asked about her views on how the protection of the family and its members positively contributed to the rights of children.
HIRANTI WIJEMANNE, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, said that the family was an integral part of human life and was of particular significance and importance to children as it influenced how the child grew and developed and what type of adult he or she became. The Convention on the Rights of the Child contained various provisions related to families and recognized children as right-holders, and did not refer to a unique form of family; the definition of the family varied in each State. The Convention obliged States to ensure and respect the rights of every child and not to discriminate against children on any ground, including on the ground of the family environment they were growing in. States had the responsibility to support and assist families and this related to the critical role of families in the promotion and protection of human rights. Article 9 stated that a child should not be separated from their parents, unless such separation was necessary for the best interest of the child; in reality, children were often separated from their parents because of poverty, migration, stigma or other reasons and in such situations States had the obligation to provide families with protection and support in order to prevent separation. States also had the obligation to protect children within the family, including from homicide, physical and non-physical punishment, sexual violence by family members, and harmful practices which had devastating consequences such as female genital mutilation, early and child marriage, or honour killings. 
YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva and Panel Moderator, turning to Ms. Bogenschneider, said the essence of the panel was to listen to best practices. Ms. Bogenschneider was in a good position to highlight pro-family solutions and policies. Could these be shared?
KAREN BOGENSCHNEIDER, Rothermel Bascom Professor of Human Ecology, University of Wisconsin, heartily endorsed the recommendation to undertake concerted actions to strengthen family-centred policies and programmes. This had been the focus of her work for over two decades. Since 1993, Ms. Bogenschneider and her colleagues had convened over 190 Family Impact Seminars for state policy-makers in 25 states and the District of Columbia. These seminars were occurring in a political environment so divisive that it was mathematically impossible for the United States Congress to get much more polarized. Not every seminar ended up influencing a policy decision, but some did. Policy-makers reported that the seminars influenced policy decision that could help lift families out of poverty by informing laws that ensured access to nutritious food and to health care. They had also influenced policies that could support work/family balance by informing laws on the funding of child care. Objective information and a range of policy options were provided, which had earned them a solid, non-partisan reputation. Careful attention was paid to the issues focused on. There was no focus on issues where policy-makers had already made up their minds. One way to build consensus was by focusing on family well-being. It was found that policy-makers wanted access to research on the effectiveness of various policy options so they could invest in policies that worked and cut those that did not. In a contentious environment, they had been able to move beyond family rhetoric to enhancing the reality of families’ lives by building better public policies. 
YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva and Panel Moderator, then introduced Ms. Floriano Carrera. 
ROSA INES FLORIANO CARRERA, Coordinator, Department of Life, Justice and Peace, Caritas, Colombia, said the unity and cohesion of the family unit was one of the first things affected when a family had to face the adversity that went hand in hand with conflict. If a response did not reflect the complexity of the drama and did not consider the family, it could do more harm than good. If the family and the community were not considered as a whole, then there could be a re-victimization of the family. This may result in just reducing families to figures for humanitarian aid. Another risk was that if the response was not organized, the family would be disintegrated. The dignity of persons was at the heart of the humanitarian approach. The person, however vulnerable, was a subject of rights and was still able to act. Humanitarian aid to the family had to be organized in order to guarantee the core links and cohesion of the family. On what could be done, it was important to provide help that fuelled hope and the family’s ability to face the difficult context they were in. The response had to lay down clear procedures to help the family overcome the crisis and to ensure that members of families could be the drivers of their own projects. The institutional backbone of public policies that dealt with the families had to provide a clear articulate response and strategy.
YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva and Panel Moderator, said that on many occasions the potential of the family was scarcely explored in the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and asked about the relation of the family to sustainable development and the sustainable development goals.
ZITHA MOKOMANE, Chief Research Specialist, Human and Social Development Research Programme, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, said that the family had been completely left out from the Millennium Development Goals and was not being considered in the sustainable development goals or the post-2015 development agenda. The protection of the family should be included as a stand-alone goal, and this could be one action point for the Human Rights Council following this panel. There was a need for more family-focused programmes in poverty reduction programmes, including through livelihood protection, income support, universal pensions and others; many countries already had some of those measures in place, but they were focused on individuals. States should capitalize on the resilience of families and support them through stressful situations.
Discussion 
GLORIA MARIA VARGAS, Vice-Minister of the National Chilean Service for Women, said that traditional roles of women and men were changing; 30 per cent of families today were single-parent families and most children were born in non-marriage unions; Chile was considering legal reforms to account for the new reality and guarantee the rights of each member of the family. Ms. Vargas urged the Human Rights Council to protect the diverse reality and composition of families, to ensure that each family member had his or her rights respected. 
Egypt, speaking on behalf of the main sponsors, said that even though the family unit itself was not a right-holder, States still had the obligation and responsibility to protect the family and its members. Russia, speaking on behalf of a Like-minded Group of 24 States, said family units witnessed growing challenges such as the economic situation, lack of social protection, migration and armed conflict; research demonstrated that well protected families contributed positively to the rights of their members, particularly women and children. The post-2015 development agenda should not ignore the potential of the family. Australia, speaking on behalf of a Group of States, said that States should review their obligations towards their most vulnerable populations, namely indigenous peoples, whose intricate kinship systems did not fall into the definition of the family. How could specific measures and policies ensure that indigenous families were protected? 
United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of a Group of States, reiterated that various forms of the family existed, including single-parent families, child-headed households, extended families, same gender and heterosexual families, as well as recomposed families. Family diversity was important and different forms of families required the tailored protection of the State to ensure the protection of its members. The panellists were asked about the best ways to support families in this ever evolving context. Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, endorsed the view that all States had the obligation to provide protection for the family as a fundamental unit of society. Islam highly valued the family. The Organization had established a department of family affairs and called on States to ensure that the protection of families be included in the post-2015 agenda. United States, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, underlined the gravity of violence within families, such as sexual violence or violence against children. All countries had the obligation to protect and assist families against such violence. The group asked how to promote strong families while ensuring the protection of human rights of persons. 
Finland, speaking on behalf of Nordic countries, said that same-sex couples had the right to create a family. Domestic violence was discriminating towards women and girls, and it was crucial to tackle stereotypes against women and girls. Uruguay, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, said that families were entitled to protection by States. It was unfortunate that violence occurred in the context of the family, often against women, girls or the elderly. Uruguay was concerned that in some countries, rapists could escape justice if they married their victims. Uruguay also expressed concerns about harmful traditional practices such as forced and early marriage and female genital mutilation. European Union said that the diversity of families had to be recognized. States had the primarily responsibility to protect the equal rights of family members. 
Slovenia, speaking on behalf of a group of States, said that no one should be forced to create a family and condemned the practice of early or forced marriage. States had the responsibility to ensure equal rights for family members. Different forms of families, including single parents and same-sex partners, had to be respected. Costa Rica, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, said that family members had to be entitled to the protection of States to be able to participate in society and fulfil their parent responsibilities. States also had to ensure the protection of women and children as well as of disabled family members. 
Allied Rainbow Communities International said that families came de facto in a diversity of forms. A right-based approach towards the protection of families was crucial to ensure the effective protection of those that were more vulnerable. Marital rape, domestic violence and child abuse remained unfortunately rife in all regions of the world, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons continued to face abuse and violence. Plan International, speaking in a joint statement, recalled the legal obligations for States to respect and protect children’s rights and recognized all forms of families to ensure that children were not discriminated against. It urged States to reaffirm that States were all rights holders, recognize all forms of families and ensure the rights of all family members. Howard Centre for Family, Religion and Society, said that the family was the natural and fundamental group unit of society entitled to comprehensive protection and support by the society and the State. The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family. 
YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva and Panel Moderator, said that some of the major questions had related to how they could protect against violence within families, how States could promote strong families while protecting the human rights of all individuals, and how family protection could be included in the post-2015 development agenda, among others.
ZITHA MOKOMANE, Chief Research Specialist, Human and Social Development Research Programme, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, said on how to involve the family in the post-2015 development agenda that it was very important to have a stand-alone goal on the family; something that could be measurable. An example from the area of HIV from Botswana could be used. At the peak of the epidemic, there had been Ministerial Coordinators. On child rearing responsibilities, one of the major things that had happened was increased labour force participation of women but despite this, there was still a structure around the model of a male breadwinner and women as caregivers. There had to be family-friendly policies. These had to be context-specific and evidence-based. 
ROSA INES FLORIANO CARRERA, Coordinator, Department of Life, Justice and Peace, Caritas, Colombia, on working against violence against women said that one of the elements that had been crucial in Colombia was what had happened to former combatants that were now being reintegrated into society. All of these former combatants were from dysfunctional families that had faced violence within the family. As an option for a country that was trying to overcome many forms of violence, there had to be particular care in looking at relationships within the family, and the use of violence in the family. There had to be work on relationships between the family so that these became fair and balanced ones. In so-doing it had been possible to tackle gender-based violence. On looking at how to include the whole family in providing solutions to ensure that members were more resilient to overcome a difficult context, when this happened, they were more equipped to overcome adversity. If public policies took into account the potential for violence in the family, changed this and set aside resources to counter it, then the society had a better chance of overcoming violence in society as a whole. 
KAREN BOGENSCHNEIDER, Rothermel Bascom Professor of Human Ecology, University of Wisconsin, said that the challenge was turning family rhetoric to family reality; one approach could be to include the family as a stand-alone sustainable development goal, and another was to apply family impact analysis to each one of the sustainable development goals. This should be a subject of discussion. Another way to turn rhetoric to reality was to apply family impact analysis on policies in order to address inequalities. States should decide whether to focus on issues they agreed on and take them forward and in this research evidence could help, for example in how to get children on to a good start, or how to prepare youth for workforce success.
HIRANTI WIJEMANNE, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, recalled that disadvantaged and vulnerable families were often invisible and said that family programmes in most countries, which were mainly top-down, often did not reach the most vulnerable ones. There was a need to turn those policies around and promote more family-friendly interventions which would identify those families most in need, which often did not reach out for assistance but remained entrenched in their cycles of violence or poverty. Secondly, with regard to violence, children learned about violence in their families and it was important that from a very young age children needed to be taught that there were non-violent resolutions to conflict. Families which suffered from violence needed to be identified, because many remained silent although they needed to be helped. Finally, psycho-social services needed to be made available to victims, particularly through outreach.
ASLAN KHUSEINOVICH ABASHIDZE, Member of the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, said that article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was the main human right disposition relating to the family as it was aimed to ensure the broadest protection and support by States to the family. Immediate measures had to be adopted regardless of the availability of resources, including criminal legislation on domestic violence and the creation of rehabilitation centres. With regards to nomadic persons and indigenous people, the Human Rights Committee usually suggested best practices and the way forward to States. 
Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the role of the family was underscored within the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and that the African Union Plan of Action on the Family in Africa was adopted in 2004 to address challenges faced by families in Africa. The African Group called on all States and other stakeholders to put the family at the core of their agendas. United Arab Emirates, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that the family was the basic unit of a community, and called on States to make every effort to put an end to violence within the family, particularly against women and children. The Arab Group underlined the situation of Palestinian families living under occupation. Iran, speaking on behalf of a group of States, said that economic sanctions had a negative impact on families and their members, including women and children. Iran was concerned that the United Nations tried to impose views on forms of families, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the sovereignty of States. 
Estonia said that families were diverse and could include single parents or same-sex partners. Estonia was not in favour of holding this panel as the organizers omitted to refer to the variety of families and the rights of family members. Czech Republic recalled that particular attention had to be given to vulnerable families, such as single parents, same-sex partners, families with elder persons, and families with a history of domestic violence. The Czech Republic recalled also that States had the obligation to protect all families, including the new forms of families. 
Russia said that the family was a complex social and cultural phenomenon. The object of the family was not the simple reproduction of the population but the continuation of the human race in the broadest understanding of the term. Russia was developing a State focused on the well-being of families. Egypt was convinced that the family was an instrumental social unit that contributed to social cohesion, development and human rights, as well as to the preservation of identify, culture and traditional values through its profound role in forging solidified intergenerational linkages. Namibia fully supported the need to strengthen the protection of families through a legal framework. It acknowledged that the family unit came in many shapes and sizes and changed, as social practices and traditions were dynamic and ever-changing. It supported the protection of all family units, not just the nuclear family or families married under civil law. Norway said States should not fail to promote and protect the rights of persons because they belonged to particular forms of family. Norway recalled all States’ obligation to protect the human rights of each individual family member against human rights violations or abuses occurring in family contexts. 
Syria said that it had taken great strides to protect the family and strengthen its role in development through the adoption of legislation and taking steps to ensure the cohesion of the Syrian family. Now the acts of terrorist groups were endangering families in Syria. Qatar said that the family had to be considered as the fundamental unit of society. Qatar had looked at its society very carefully and followed policies and measures to promote the family. It had an institute for the family that carried out research and also raised awareness about relevant issues. Sudan said that its Constitution reaffirmed that the family was the natural and fundamental group unit of the society and was entitled to protection of the law. Many policies had been designed and implemented to achieve the best attainable protection for the family and its members. Sierra Leone said that children within a family unit were protected and considered as right-holders within the family unit. The rights of children were protected in the various provisions of national law as well as by the national Constitution. It was up to each country to determine the definition of the family and how best to address the issues relating thereof.
Germany said families today came in many forms. It had to be taken into account that sometimes individuals had to be protected against violence within the family itself. The panel was asked about best practices in ensuring that the human rights of all persons in diverse forms of family were promoted. Ireland was strongly of the view that, in conformity with international human rights law, it was the members of the family to which human rights protections applied, rather than viewing the family unit itself as a rights-holder. This was a clear legal principle, but it also had important legal consequences, particularly where a family member or members may be abused by others. 
Group of Non-Governmental Organizations for the Convention on the Rights of the Child said that today’s topic was of direct importance to children’s rights. Without safe family based care, children were at risk of various forms of exploitation. A State’s international obligations towards families were to support and assist them to ensure the protection of the rights of all their members. Caritas International said that it was true that today’s families were burdened with many social and cultural challenges. Many States had failed to fulfil their responsibilities to adequately protect families, particularly in the case of those families that faced serious difficulties. 
YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva and Panel Moderator, asked the panellists to comment on the question asked by many: the diversity of families and how to avoid discrimination against families that did not conform to the majority of family forms.
ASLAN KHUSEINOVICH ABASHIDZE, Member of the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, said that the current international treaties and the practices of treaty bodies were based on the fact that families were defined by States and also on broad provisions on protection and assistance provided to families by States. Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights covered very broad provisions related to the protection of the family and focused on some specific aspects such as the protection of mothers and children. The definition of the family was up to each State and if it broadened that definition, then its responsibilities also broadened; States were obliged to inform the Committee in their periodic report on what definition of the family was in that particular State.
HIRANTI WIJEMANNE, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, expressed her gratitude that the delegations had highlighted the issue of children and the issue of violence, including corporal punishment, and the need to address it. Ms. Wijemanne stressed again the value of outreach and community-based family services in order to work better with the families, and ensure that the rights of family members were protected.
KAREN BOGENSCHNEIDER, Rothermel Bascom Professor of Human Ecology, University of Wisconsin, said that all agreed on the importance of the family as a building block of society and said she had heard a lot of commitment from the States. Hopefully, the States would succeed to areas of agreement and act on empowering families. Families needed a voice in policy making, and research was available to guide those efforts.
ROSA INES FLORIANO CARRERA, Coordinator, Department of Life, Justice and Peace, Caritas, Colombia, said that the recognition of the diversity of families had to be recognized, and underlined the importance for civil society organizations to identify loopholes and gaps in domestic legislation, in order to move public policies forward and offer greater guarantees to family members. 
ZITHA MOKOMANE, Chief Research Specialist, Human and Social Development Research Programme, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, said that the diversity of families had to be recognized in order to ensure the protection of human rights for all without discrimination, as well as the prevention of maternal mortality. Single parents were vulnerable.
YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva, acknowledged the valuable roles played by families in society. She also said that although families were not rights holders per se, States had to protect families in order to protect the rights of family members. States had to protect disadvantaged families and address domestic violence. Diversity should be recognized and there should be no discrimination between families. She also underlined States’ obligations to report to the United Nations treaty monitoring bodies. 
__________ 
1 Joint statement: Amnesty International; Article 19: International Centre Against Censorship; International Service for Human Rights; International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission; and International Lesbian and Gay Association.
2 Joint statement: SOS Children's Villages International; Defence for Children International; International Federation Terre des Hommes; Groupe des ONG pour la Convention relative aux droits de l'enfant; International Federation of Social Workers; Save the Children International; and World Vision International.
3 Joint statement: Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII; Company of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul; Edmund Rice International Limited; Association internationale des charites - International association of charities (AIC); International Catholic Child Bureau; International Institute of Mary Our Help of the Salesians of Don Bosco (IIMA); New Humanity; Pax Romana (International Catholic Movement for Intellectual and Cultural Affairs and International Movement of Catholic Students); International Volunteerism Organization for Women, Education and Development – VIDES; and World Union of Catholic Women’s Organizations.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
- See more at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15027&LangID=E#sthash.EtEQ7FgJ.8UvcY48W.dpuf

Monday, September 29, 2014

Prof. Aslan Abashidze took part in discussion organized by Human Rights Council

Human Rights Council holds panel discussion on the protection of the family and its members - 15 September 2014

In accordance with international human rights law, States are under obligation to provide the widest possible support and protection for the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society and allow it to fully assume its role in the community and provide conducive environment for the growth and well-being of its members. Several internationally agreed documents reaffirmed the central and vital role of the family in society, acknowledged its key role in fostering social development, its strong force for social cohesion and integration, and underscored its primary responsibility for the nurturing, guidance, and protection of children—that that children, for the full and harmonious development of their personality, should grow up in a family environment and in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.
The family unit can be sensitive to strains induced by social and economic changes. Thus, it is essential to direct particular assistance to families facing challenges and difficulties. Conditions have worsened for many families around the world owing to lack of gainful and decent employment and measures taken to balance budget deficits by reducing social expenditures. Among the most vulnerable to these strains are single-parent families headed by women, poor families with elderly members or those with disabilities, refugee and displaced families, migrant families, and families with members affected by AIDS or other terminal diseases, substance dependence, child abuse and domestic violence. In many urban environments, as family ties break down, millions of children and youth are left to their own devices and are increasingly exposed to risks such as dropping out of school, labour exploitation, sexual exploitation and sexually transmitted diseases.                             
To this effect, States committed to continue to enact policies and measures to provide the necessary comprehensive support for the family and its members including through designing, implementing and promoting family-friendly policies and services, such as affordable, accessible and quality care services for children and other dependents, parental and other leave schemes, campaigns to sensitize public opinion and  other  relevant actors on equal sharing of employment and family responsibilities between women and men, as well as formulating family-sensitive policies in the field of housing, work, health, social security and education in order to create an environment supportive of the family and developing the capacity to monitor the impact of social and economic decisions and actions on the well-being of families, on the status of women within families, and on the ability of families to meet the basic needs of their members.
Moderating the discussion was Yvette Stevens, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva. The Panelists were Aslan Khuseinovich Abashidze, Member of the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; Hiranti Wijemanne, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child; Zitha Mokomane, Chief Research Specialist, Human and Social Development Research Programme, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa; Karen Bogenschneider, Rothermel Bascom Professor of Human Ecology, University of Wisconsin; and Rosa Inés Floriano Carrera, Coordinator, Department of Life, Justice and Peace, Caritas, Colombia.
Mr. Abashidze said the protection of families by States and societies was an important principle in international human rights law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also defined obligations of States to provide assistance and protection to the family. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its general comment on Article 19, recognized that the definition of the family was different from State to State.
YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva and Panel Moderator, in her opening remarks said that the discussion today would guide the Council on the road forward in addressing the issue of protecting the family. However, this panel discussion was not about defining a family; the definition of the family in each State was different and it was up to States themselves to decide what groups were considered a family. Turning to Mr. Abashidze, Ms. Stevens asked about the perspectives of international human rights law on the obligations of States to protect the family.
ASLAN KHUSEINOVICH ABASHIDZE, Member of the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, said that the protection of families by States and societies was an important principle in international human rights law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in its Article 10 also defined the obligations of States to provide assistance and protection to the family. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had not yet prepared a general comment on Article 10, but in its general comment on Article 19, the Committee recognized that the definition of the family was different from State to State and also requested States to provide information in their periodic reports about assistance accorded to all forms of families, and all members in groups considered a family. The obligations of States under Article 10 prohibited regressive measures and required States to adopt national plans for the implementation of the Covenant, which would include measures such as protection from domestic violence, sexual violence, illegal separation of children from parents, illegal forms of punishment in families and kindergarten, separation of families during migration, problem of child soldiers, protection of mothers and especially working mothers, legal age of entry into marriage, protection of the elderly, and others. 
ASLAN KHUSEINOVICH ABASHIDZEMember of the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, said that the current international treaties and the practices of treaty bodies were based on the fact that families were defined by States and also on broad provisions on protection and assistance provided to families by States. Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights covered very broad provisions related to the protection of the family and focused on some specific aspects such as the protection of mothers and children. The definition of the family was up to each State and if it broadened that definition, then its responsibilities also broadened; States were obliged to inform the Committee in their periodic report on what definition of the family was in that particular State. Press releaze

210 лет Казанского (Приволжского) Федерального университета

С 25 по 26 сентября 2014 г. прошла международная научно-практическая конференция «Юридическая наука и образование в XXI веке (к 210-летию Казанского университета)». В первый день на открытии конференции выступили: Ректор Казанского (Приволжского) федерального университета Гафуров И.Р., Премьер-министр Республики Татарстан Халиков И.Ш., Мэр г.Казани, Председатель Попечительского Совета юридического факультета Казанского (Приволжского) федерального университета Метшин И.Р., Депутат Государственной Думы Российской Федерации, профессор, доктор юридических наук Лихачев В.Н., Президент Европейской ассоциации юридических факультетов, профессор, декан юридического факультета Университета Едитепе (Стамбул, Турция) Халюк Кабаалыолгу, Председатель Конституционного суда Республики Татарстан Демидов В.Н., Председатель Верховного суда Республики Татарстан Гилазов И.И., Председатель Федерального арбитражного суда Поволжского округа Глазов Ю.В., Президент Адвокатской палаты Республики Татарстан  Дмитриевская Л. М., Прокурор Республики Татарстан Нафиков И.С., Председатель Арбитражного суда Республики Татарстан Новиков Н.А. 
Заведующий кафедрой международного права РУДН, д.ю.н., проф., член Комитета ООН по экономическим, социальным и культурным правам А.Х. Абашидзе выступил на открытии конференции с докладом «Новые вызовы современному международному праву», а во второй день в качестве модератора секции «Казанская школа международного права: новые подходы к решению проблем правосубъектности». В рамках секции зам. заведующего кафедрой международного права РУДН, доц., к.ю.н. А.М. Солнцев представил доклад «Разрешение международных экологических споров в международных  квазисудебных органах». 
Конференция закончилась торжественным приемом у Председателя Попечительского Совета юридического факультета Мэра г. Казани И.Р. Метшина, где также присутствовал Премьер-министр Республики Татарстан И.Ш. Халиков.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Доц. Е.С. Алисиевич получила сертификат об успешном завершении обучения по программе HELP Совета Европы

Кафедра международного права поздравляет доц. Е.С. Алисиевич с успешным завершением обучения по Европейской программе образования в области прав человека для юристов - HELP, реализуемой Целевым фондом по правам человека (HRTF) Совет Европы. HRTF действует в соответствии с рекомендацией Комитета министров (2004) 4, Брайтонской декларацией 2012 г. и резолюцией Парламентской Ассамблеи Совета Европы 1982 (2014). Программа HELP направлена на содействие развитию практики применения Европейской конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод 1950 г. и case-law Европейского суда по правам человека в государствах-участниках ЕКПЧ. В 2013 году впервые в России в рамках программы HELP был реализован курс для юристов и адвокатов, практикующих подачу жалоб в ЕСПЧ – по теме «Admissibility criteria in applications submitted to the European Court of Human Rights». По итогам годичного обучения, на основании результатов тестов и выполнения слушателями комплекса практических заданий, включая подготовку жалобы в ЕСПЧ по модельному делу, из числа слушателей курса были отобраны 13 юристов, в том числе доц. Е.С. Алисиевич, которым 17 сентября 2014 г. в Федеральной Палате Адвокатов были вручены сертификаты об успешном завершении обучения. В торжественной церемонии вручения сертификатов приняли участие первый вице-президент Федеральной палаты адвокатов РФ Ю.С. Пилипенко, менеджер программы HELP Совета Европы Роберто Ривелло, тьюторы курсов – Галина Арапова и Наталья Кравчук, а также юрист Европейского суда по правам человека Кржиштоф Коссович.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

International Conference on Human Rights

October 20, 2014 Department of International Law, PFUR holds II-nd International Conference on Human Rights: "Improvement of the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations in the XXI century". The conference is held with the support of OHCHR and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. Keynote speaker Jennifer Welsh Special Adviser at the Assistant Secretary-General level on the Responsibility to Protect will speak at the plenary session of the report dedicated to the responsibility to protect.
Ms. Jennifer Welsh was appointed in July 2013 by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as his Special Adviser at the Assistant Secretary-General level on the Responsibility to Protect.
Ms. Welsh works under the overall guidance of Adama Dieng, the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, to further the conceptual, political, institutional and operational development of the responsibility to protect concept, as set out by the General Assembly in paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome document.
Currently, a Professor and Chair in International Relations at the European University Institute in Florence, Ms. Welsh’s research projects include the evolution of the “responsibility to protect” in international society, the ethics of post-conflict reconstruction, the authority of the United Nations Security Council and the notion of sovereignty.
Ms. Welsh was previously Professor of International Relations and Co-Director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict at the University of Oxford, Associate Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Programme at the University of Toronto, Cadieux Research Fellow on the policy planning staff of Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Jean Monnet Fellow of the European University Institute. She has also taught international relations at McGill University and at the Central European University, in addition to having published widely on the responsibility to protect and atrocity prevention. She has worked as a consultant to the Government of Canada on international policy and has been a frequent commentator in the Canadian media on foreign policy and international relations.
Holding a master’s degree and a doctorate from the University of Oxford, where she studied as a Rhodes Scholar, Ms. Welsh also has a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) degree from the University of Saskatchewan in Canada.
Born in Regina, Saskatchewan, she is married and has two children.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Lecture by Professor A. Mezyaev


September 24, 2014 16.30 room 347 Department of International Law, PFUR holds lecture by Prof. Alexander Mezyaev «New Trends in the Development of International Criminal Justice».
Alexander Mezyaev was born on January 18, 1971 in Moscow region. From 1989 to 1991 served in the Soviet army. In 1997 graduated from the Law Faculty of Kazan Federal University. Specialty "International law". Since 1997 has working at University of Management "TISBI".
In 2001 defended PhD thesis on specialty "International Law. European law " - "The Death Penalty and the contemporary international law".
In 2013 defended Doctoral thesis on the topic «Defence of the Rights of the Accused in international criminal procedure»
Alexander Mezyaev took part in the defence team of former President of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (2003-2006). Now – he is taking part in defence teams of other defendants of this tribunal - Professor Vojislav Seselj and General Ratko Mladic.
Member of the International Association of Defence Counsel Practicing before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ADC-ICTY).
Assistant-to-Counsel before International Criminal Court.
Editor-in-Chief of "Kazan Journal of International Law and International Relations" (since 2007).
Main topics of research – International Courts and Tribunals; Rights of the Accused in International Criminal Procedure, Africa and Modern International Law
Alexander Mezyaev was engaged in research projects at the University of Leuven, Belgium (1997), University of Fribourg, Switzerland (in 2000 and 2007), Institute of Comparative Law, Lausanne, Switzerland (2001), Institute of International Public and Private Law, T.M.C. Asser Institute, The Hague, Netherlands (2003), Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg, Germany (2007). In 2014 read lectures at University of Johannesburg, South Africa.
Member of the International Law Association (Member of the International Human Rights Law Committee); Russian Association of International Law; Association of Foreign Policy of Russian Federation; Russian Association of International Studies; Russian Association of African Studies; Russian Academy of Geopolitics.
Мероприятие проводится в рамках гранта РГНФ (проект №12-33-01428) и второго этапа Блищенковских чтений 2014.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Лекция Елены Юркиной

23 сентября 2014 г. с 11.00 до 14.00 в Межвузовском ресурсном центре по правам человека на тему «Основные принципы работы ЕСПЧ и их применение к российским делам» выступит юрист Европейского суда по права человека, к.ю.н. Елена Юркина биография...
Лекции будут прочтены на русском языке, будут сопровождаться демонстрацией презентаций и включат интерактивную часть. Выступление Е. Юркиной организованы в рамках проекта по реализации межвузовской магистерской программы «Международная защита прав человека» Консорциумом ВУЗов при поддержке УВКПЧ ООН http://rma-hr.org/.

Lectures by Daniel Rietiker

September 22, 2014 12.30-15.30 in Interuniversity resource center for human rights Department of International Law, PFUR holds lectures by Daniel Rietiker «The European Court of Human Rights, its Dynamic Interpretation of the ECHR and its Role in Modern Society» more about Daniel Rietiker...
The European Court of Human Rights, its Dynamic Interpretation of the ECHR and its Role in Modern Society Daniel Rietiker, Dr.jur., Strasbourg
The proposed lecture addresses the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter: Court) and the European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter: ECHR).
The first part consists of a general introduction to the Court and the ECHR. The observations will include the individual right of petition (Article 34 ECHR), the rights protected by the ECHR, the binding nature of the rights and the execution of final judgments under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers (Articles 1 and 46 ECHR), the concept of interim measures (Article 39 of the Rules of Court), the admissibility criteria (Article 35 ECHR), as well as issues of just satisfaction (Article 41 ECHR). A statistical overview on the pending applications and the amount of cases decided in 2013 will also be provided.
The second part is dedicated to the interpretation of the ECHR. The ECHR is an international treaty within the meaning of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and follows its rules on interpretation. The Court has nevertheless established certain methods of interpretation that take into account the special nature of the ECHR as an instrument for the protection of the human being. One of the most significant principle commands to interpret the rights under the ECHR in a manner that protects the individual “effectively”. But the most prominent principle is the so-called “dynamic” or “evolutive” interpretation of the ECHR that enables the Court to take into account new developments of modern society.
The third part analyzes certain examples of cases in which the Court, in particular in the light of this “dynamic interpretation”, responded to problems raised by phenomena of modern society. The new areas and developments dealt with by the Court are very divers. It is suggested to present examples in the field of internet, bioethics, assisted suicide, globalization creating new challenges, such as the integration of religious minorities, as well as measures taken against individuals following Resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations. These domains concern, in particular, the right to respect for private life (Article 8 ECHR), freedom of religion (Article 9) and freedom of expression (Article 10).

Monday, September 15, 2014

Сборник материалов конференции по РКД

Кодолова А.В., Солнцев А.М. Перспективы международного сотрудничества государств СНГ в области исследования и освоения космического пространства // Сборник материалов Первой Всероссийской научно-практической конференции "Проблемы и перспективы экономического развития ракетно-космической отрасли промышленности на период до 2030 года и ее ресурсное обеспечение" (РУДН),21-23 ноября 2013 года). - М: Издательство "МАКД", 2014. - С. 187-190 читать...
Лазарев Н.Д. Перспективы развития частной космической деятельности в России в связи с принятием Берлинского протокола о международных гарантиях в отношении космического имущества 2012 года // Сборник материалов Первой Всероссийской научно-практической конференции "Проблемы и перспективы экономического развития ракетно-космической отрасли промышленности на период до 2030 года и ее ресурсное обеспечение" (РУДН),21-23 ноября 2013 года). - М: Издательство "МАКД", 2014. - С. 228-231 читать...
Черных И.А. Преимущества постоянной палаты третейского суда как экономически выгодного средства мирного разрешения споров в области космической деятельности // Сборник материалов Первой Всероссийской научно-практической конференции "Проблемы и перспективы экономического развития ракетно-космической отрасли промышленности на период до 2030 года и ее ресурсное обеспечение" (РУДН),21-23 ноября 2013 года). - М: Издательство "МАКД", 2014. - С. 277-279 читать...

А.Х. Абашидзе на 27-ой сессии Совета ООН по правам человека

15 сентября 2014 г. член Комитета ООН по экономическим, социальным и культурным правам, профессор, д.ю.н. А.Х. Абашидзе с докладом «Elaboration of States obligations under international human rights law concerning family protection» принял участие в круглом столе «Защита семьи», проводимом в рамках 27-ой сессии Совета ООН по правам человека.

Проблемы международно-правовой квалификации нарушений прав человека фармацевтическими компаниями

Абашидзе А.Х., Маличенко В.С. Проблемы международно-правовой квалификации нарушений прав человека фармацевтическими компаниями // Московский журнал международного права. - М: Некоммерческое партнерство "Содействие редакционной деятельности "МЖМП", 2014, №2. - С. 4-18 читать...

Права человека в контексте межконфессионального диалога

Факультет международного права Дипломатической академии МИД России совместно с Российской ассоциацией международного права и Международно-правовым клубом приглашают Вас 9 октября 2014 г. в 14.30 принять участие в заседании «круглого стола» на тему:
Права человека в контексте межконфессионального диалога
Ориентировочные вопросы для обсуждения:
– Свобода убеждений и ответственность личности;
– Свобода мысли, совести, религии и проблема сект;
– Принуждение в праве и религии.
Заседание состоится по адресу: г.Москва, Большой Козловский переулок дом 4, зал № 4, м.«Красные ворота».
Просим подтвердить Ваше участие до 1 октября 2014 г. по электронной почте Оргкомитета «круглого стола»:ilaw@dipacademy.ru

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

X Ежегодная конференция Европейского сообщества международного права (ESIL)

4-6 сентября на базе Венского университета состоялась X юбилейная ежегодная конференция Европейского сообщества международного права (ESIL) "Границы международного права и мосты к другим областям и дисциплинам". В работе мероприятия принял участие заведующий кафедрой международного права РУДН, д.ю.н., профессор А.Х. Абашидзе. Мероприятие посетили сотни выдающихся юристов-международников со всей Европы, которые затронули наиболее актуальные темы их профессиональной деятельности: международное право и национальное право, международное право и литература, международное право и лингвистика, международное право и теология, международное право и спорт, международное право и новые технологии, международное право и внутренние суды, международное право, культурное наследие и искусство.

Friday, September 5, 2014

Участие в международном семинаре

4 сентября 2014 года Министерство образования и науки Российской Федерации провело международный семинар на тему «Практика применения Конвенции о гражданско-правовых аспектах международного похищения детей от 25 октября 1980 г. и Конвенции о юрисдикции, применимом праве, признании, исполнении и сотрудничестве в отношении родительской ответственности и мер по защите детей от 19 октября 1996 г.». С приветственным словом к участникам семинара обратился Сильянов Евгений Александрович, директор Департамента государственной политики в сфере защиты прав детей Минобрнауки России. 
С докладами выступили представители Минобрнауки России; Постоянного Бюро Гаагской конференции по международному частному праву; Департамента Государственно-правового управления Президента Российской Федерации; Министерства юстиции Финляндии; Министерства юстиции Государства Израиль; МИД Японии; Федеральной службы судебных приставов России; Института законодательства и сравнительного правоведения при Правительстве Российской Федерации и НОУ ВПО «Московский психолого-социальный университет».
От кафедры международного права РУДН международный семинар посетили: к.ю.н., доцент, зам. зав. кафедрой Солнцев А.М., ассистент кафедры международного права РУДН Конева А.Е., соискатель кафедры международного права РУДН Гугунский Д.А., аспирант кафедры международного права РУДН Кебурия К.О.

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

"Крымское" золото скифов: доцент А.М. Солнцев дал интервью


«Русская планета» разбиралась, кому достанется «золото скифов», задержавшееся в Амстердаме
В начале июня археологический музей Алларда Пирсона в Амстердаме неожиданно оказался вовлечен в российско-украинский конфликт. В феврале этого года музей открыл выставку «Крым: золото и секреты Черного моря». На ней были представлены более двух тысяч экспонатов из пяти украинских музеев. Четыре из них находятся на территории Крыма. Но если в феврале Крым принадлежал Украине, то в июне, когда выставка закрылась, эта территория уже считалась российской. Причем Нидерланды, как и большинство европейских государств, отказались признать референдум Крыма законным, а соответственно, по-прежнему считают его украинским.
Таким образом, археологический музей оказался перед сложным выбором: кому теперь возвращать золото? Украинская сторона сразу заявила свои претензии на раритеты, называя их государственной собственностью. Но четыре крымских музея возразили, что договоры Нидерланды подписывали непосредственно с ними, а значит, им же и должны вернуть экспонаты.
«Это сложный вопрос. Музей Алларда Пирсона заинтересован, чтобы это дело было тщательно изучено», — говорится в заявлении голландского музея. Выставка тем временем была продлена до конца августа. Обширные юридические консультации не смогли дать однозначного ответа, и музей так и не сделал выбор. Было решено отдать этот вопрос на решение суда. «Спорные объекты будут надежно храниться, пока ситуация не прояснится», — заверил голландский музей и заявил, что до постановления судьи воздерживается от каких-либо комментариев.
Замминистра культуры Украины Светлана Фоменко в последнем комментарии заявила, что Украина готова отстаивать право собственности в суде: «Наша позиция в этом вопросе является твердой и убедительной. Все экспонаты выставки "Крым: золото и секреты Черного моря" принадлежат к государственной части музейного фонда Украины, а следовательно, являются собственностью украинского государства и должны быть возвращены в Украину», — сказала она. По ее словам, Украина рассчитывает на возвращение экспонатов в сентябре.
Часть Великого шелкового пути
Выставка охватывает период с начала греческой колонизации Крыма (VI век до н. э.) до раннего Средневековья (VI—VII века н. э.). Как отмечает министерство культуры Украины, основная часть материалов из крымских музеев была найдена в ходе археологических исследований в 2000-е годы.
Однако наибольшую ценность представляют самые древние артефакты. С VII века до новой эры территорию Крыма населяли переселенцы из Греции и Рима, принесшие с собой античную культуру. С ними соседствовали и варвары. Эти племена занимались как земледелием и скотоводством, так и торговлей. Поселения варваров в Крыму были частью Великого шелкового пути. Их культура объединяла в себе скифские, сарматские, греческие, фракийские и кельтские элементы.
Как правило, археологи находят древние драгоценности в курганах, так называемых усыпальницах. Именно такой способ захоронения для знати использовало население Крыма в начале тысячелетия. Самыми богатыми были, конечно, могилы царей и воинов. В гробницу к умершему родственники клали предметы, которыми тот пользовался при жизни, в том числе и украшения. Аристократов хоронили не только с золотом, но и с умерщвленными женами, наложницами, слугами и лошадьми. Скифы верили, что в загробном мире человек продолжает жить так же, как и раньше: ест, пьет, ездит на лошади. Позднее были распространены семейные склепы для многократных погребений.
В отдельных курганах археологи находили до 20 килограммов золота, несмотря на то, что захоронения скифов нередко становились объектами грабителей. Одним из самых знаменитых является курган Алтын-Оба, или Золотой курган, обнаруженный вблизи города Керчь. Там же был найден курган Куль-Оба (Пепельный курган). В пригороде Керчи удалось сохраниться и Царскому кургану, имевшему самую огромную насыпь над могилой высотой почти 17 метров и 250 метров в окружности.
Исчезновение скифов датируется серединой III века новой эры. Историки связывают это с вторжением на полуостров Крым германских племен. Они почти полностью уничтожили государство поздних скифов и его население. В тот же период на полуострове появились аланы, которые тоже имели свои могильники. В V веке под влиянием Византийской империи население Крыма приняло христианство.
Драгоценная коллекция
По информации министерства культуры Украины и Керченского историко-культурного заповедника, сейчас в музее Алларда Пирсона находится около двух тысяч предметов. Помимо Керченского, свои претензии на золото выдвигают Бахчисарайский и Херсонесский заповедники и Центральный музей Тавриды. Пятым музеем, принявшим участие в выставке, стал киевский Музей исторических драгоценностей Украины.
В Амстердаме выставлены самые известные экспонаты коллекций. Например, золотой церемониальный шлем IV века до новой эры. Во время раскопок он раскололся надвое, но был восстановлен реставраторами. Другая находка — железный меч с золотой рукояткой и ножнами. Археологи обнаружили его в скифском кургане «Толстая могила», вблизи города Орджоникидзе Днепропетровской области.
Крым был и остается важной точкой на пути из Европы в Азию и обратно. Великим шелковым путем из Китая на полуостров были доставлены лакированные шкатулки. Обнаружили их в Усть-Альминском могильнике. Эта находка стала сенсацией, так как никогда ранее китайские предметы не находили западнее Афганистана. В музее Амстердама они были впервые выставлены для широкой публики после реставрации в Японии.
В Нидерландах также осталась застежка из золота и горного хрусталя в форме дельфина, датированная I веком до новой эры, похоронный венок и серьги из могильника Джург-Оба и другое.
Юридические баталии
Юристы, как правило, затрудняются ответить, кому все-таки должно принадлежать «золото скифов». С одной стороны, крымские музеи заявляют, что договор о предоставлении экспонатов подписывался именно с ними и, соответственно, они выступают в этом вопросе как юридические лица. Но с другой стороны, предметы вывозились через украинскую таможню, гарантии их возвращения получало украинское правительство. Об этом, в частности, рассказывал директор Эрмитажа Михаил Пиотровский. «У амстердамского музея есть гарантии возвращения не только перед музеями Крыма, которые теперь принадлежат России, но и перед музейным фондом Украины. И поэтому возникает юридическая коллизия», — приводил ИТАР-ТАСС слова президента России по международному культурному сотрудничеству Михаила Швыдкого.

Преподаватель кафедры международного права МГИМО Илья Рачков считает, что если музей Алларда Пирсона действительно заключал договор непосредственно с музеями Крыма, то именно им он должен вернуть сокровища, поскольку в данном случае они выступают как самостоятельные юридические лица. Впрочем, решение голландского музея дождаться вердикта суда юрист находит разумным. «По большому счету, Россия и Украина должны были бы договориться о том, куда это культурное достояние отправить, — сказал он "Русской планете". — А если они не могут договориться, то нужно обратиться в арбитражный суд с просьбой определить дальнейшую судьбу этой коллекции. Как суд решит, так оно и будет. Но перед арбитражем сложная задача, потому что непонятно, кому возвращать эту коллекцию».
Рачков пояснил, что данный спор является уникальным, так как обычно такие вопросы регулируются двусторонними международными договорами. В частности, Венской конвенцией о правопреемстве государств в отношении государственной собственности, государственных архивов и государственных долгов. Россия не ратифицировала эту конвенцию, но зато ее подписала Украина. Поэтому ее можно рассматривать как возможное решение проблемы. «Про культуру в конвенции говорится, что соглашения, заключенные между государством-предшественником и новым независимым государством в отношении государственных архивов не должны наносить ущерба праву народа на развитие, на информацию об их истории, на их культурное достояние, — сказал юрист. — Переход собственности проходит без какой-либо компенсации. По идее, собственность должна возвращаться туда, откуда она происходит».
Заместитель заведующего кафедрой международного права РУДН Александр Солнцев считает, что данный случай лежит исключительно в юридической плоскости и не нужно навешивать на него «геополитическое ярмо». По его мнению, Россия имеет все основания прибегнуть к международному правосудию.
Как отметил юрист, позиция России относительно «золота скифов» поддерживается принципом происхождения ценностей и принципом единства коллекции. «Относительно первого принципа напомним, что эти ценности были извлечены путем археологических раскопок именно с полуострова Крым, — сказал Солнцев "Русской планете". — Раскрывая второй принцип, отметим, что изъятие этих объектов из коллекций крымских музеев нанесет существенный ущерб целостности таких коллекций; систематизированные, научно обработанные и представляющие законченное целое собрания, являющиеся основой сокровищниц мирового культурного значения, не должны подлежать разрушению. Действительно, скифские коллекции крымских музеев — неотъемлемая часть духовного, культурного и исторического наследия Крыма. Влияние на спор оказывает и тот факт, что собрание в Нидерландах находится в рамках частных договоров между музеями».
Храмовый комплекс Прэахвихеа с выставленными камбоджийскими охранниками во время рассмотрения дела о его принадлежности в Международном суде ООН, 2011 год. Фото: Mak Remissa / EPA / ИТАР-ТАСС
По мнению эксперта, споры о принадлежности культурных ценностей в истории международных отношений довольно распространены. «К сожалению, универсального международного договора, который четко прописывал бы права и обязанности всех государств в отношении культурных ценностей, нет, — сказал он. — Есть прецеденты исторического характера, однако каждый из них следует толковать ограничительно, поскольку решение вопроса о возврате культурных ценностей определяется конкретными политическими, историческими, военными и иными обстоятельствами. Чего стоит только камбоджийско-тайский спор о принадлежности храмового комплекса Прэахвихеа, который дважды рассматривался в Международном суде ООН (в 1962 году суд признал право владения за Камбоджей, но столкновения между странами длились вплоть до весны 2011 года. — РП)».
Доцент кафедры международного права Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета Александр Циммерман отметил, что любое решение, которое вынесет суд, придется выполнить. «И то решение, которое выносит международный коммерческий арбитражный суд, является окончательным и обжалованию не подлежит. Я думаю, процесс будет долгим и сложным», — сказал он «Русской планете».
Юрист затруднился ответить, какое решение, на его взгляд, следует принять суду. «У меня всегда возникает вопрос в последнее время, какова вообще судьба собственности, которая принадлежала Украине и находится в Крыму, — признался он. — Я все время задаю этот вопрос, и никто на него толком ответить не может. Второй вопрос: какова юридическая судьба вообще всей собственности в Крыму. Ответить на эти вопросы я не могу».
Циммерман отметил, что не слышал об актах национализации собственности в Крыму. «Возможно, в отношении "золота скифов" возникнет первый прецедент. В международном праве существует такое понятие, как "иммунитет собственности государства", и он распространяется на все, — рассказал юрист. — Я не говорю сейчас о вопросе признания перехода Крыма под российскую юрисдикцию. Хорошо, пусть признаем. А вот собственность Украины? Первоначально, когда были задержаны корабли и военное имущество украинских вооруженных сил, все это, насколько я понимаю, было возвращено Украине. Танки, бронетранспортеры, вооружение, военная техника, корабли. Лишить государство принадлежащей ему собственности в международном праве считается неправомерным. А вот какое суд примет решение, не знаю. Я думаю, что и Россия будет выдвигать здесь серьезные аргументы». По словам эксперта, международная практика показывает, что в конечном итоге, рано или поздно, собственность возвращают правообладателю. «Другое дело, что бывают революции и перевороты. После революции 1917 года имущество многих иностранных компаний и банков было национализировано. Но в конце концов претензии, допустим, Франции были удовлетворены только в девяностые годы», — напомнил он.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Закон и право №7, 2014

Пардамеан Р.Д. Декларация об основах дружественных и партнерских отношений между республикой Индонезией и Российской Федерацией в XXI веке как основа российско-индонезийского сотрудничества // Закон и право. - М: ЮНИТИ-ДАНА, 2014, №7. - С. 111-113 читать...
Завгородний В.С. Консультативная юрисдикция Межамериканского суда по правам человека // Закон и право. - М: ЮНИТИ-ДАНА, 2014, №7. - С. 108-110 читать...
Кажаева О.С. Становление сотрудничества государств - участников содружества независимых государств по вопросу о реадмиссии // Закон и право. - М: ЮНИТИ-ДАНА, 2014, №7. - С. 114-118 читать...

Закон и право №6, 2014

Киселева Е.В. Место миграции в целях развития тысячелетия // Закон и право. - М: ЮНИТИ-ДАНА, 2014, №6. - С. 99-101 читать...
Жавгурян К.В. Агентство по основным правам как независимый институт Европейского союза // Закон и право. - М: ЮНИТИ-ДАНА, 2014, №6. - С. 102-105 читать...
Ганенков Е.О. Позиции государств в отношении использования пространства геостационарной орбиты // Закон и право. - М: ЮНИТИ-ДАНА, 2014, №6. - С. 106-108 читать...
Ильяшевич М.В. Алисиевич Е.С. О роли Верховного комиссара ООН по правам человека в защите представителей ЛГБТ-сообщества от дискриминации // Закон и право. - М: ЮНИТИ-ДАНА, 2014, №6. - С. 96-98 читать...