'Programmatic Regulation in the Modern International Law' - ' ' - NotaBene.ru
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Online First Pre-Publication > > > >


72 - !
. 72 DOI .
!
>

:

Programmatic Regulation in the Modern International Law





, ,

65029, , , . , . , 13

Babin Borys

Doctor of Law

Head of the Department of Administrative and Criminal Law at Odessa National Maritime Academy

65029, Ukraine, Odesskaya oblast', g. Odessa, ul. Didrikhsona, 13

babinb@ukr.net

 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2306-9899.2013.3.9302

:

18-08-2013


:

1-9-2013


: Article is devoted to the theoretical and practical problems of the phenomenon of the program regulation of the international relations. There proved that the application of the programmatic regulation of international legal relationships became one of the distinguishing features in formation of modern international law. The specialties of the phenomenology of the international legal programming in the historical, axiological and ontological aspects are analyzed. The international programs are looked in a context of the form of controlling norms, in particular, within the framework of bilateral intergovernmental legal relationships, external and internal organizational-legal activity of international organizations of the global and regional measuring; so with distinguishing the regalement acts in the field of the international legal programming. There are investigated the aspects of evolution of the use of programmatic acts, as regulators of international relations, general normative peculiarities of programmatic regulation, specific nature of such international regulation in the conditions of sustainable development and modernization. Also the question of preconditions of input of programmatic regulation in the international law, in the context of problem of sources and forms of international law and program character of international legal norms is looked at. The specifications of the program potential of the international legal relations in the frames of the current international legal doctrine are distinguished at. There is proved that the practice of the international programming can be recognized as supernational in fact it touches upon both aspects of intergovernmental collaboration and questions of actions of internal actors of the states within the framework of their national jurisdiction. A general conclusion is made that the programmatic regulation became important component part of the international legal regulation today. Thats why a thesis about the international programs, as the special source of international law, though requires an additional discussion, but is considered by the author productive enough and perspective.


: intergovermental program, multilateral program, bilateral program, interstate program, programmatic implementation, international program, international law norms, international law forms, international organizations, programatic legal regulation

:

341.1

Abstract: Article is devoted to the theoretical and practical problems of the phenomenon of the program regulation of the international relations. There proved that the application of the programmatic regulation of international legal relationships became one of the distinguishing features in formation of modern international law. The specialties of the phenomenology of the international legal programming in the historical, axiological and ontological aspects are analyzed. The international programs are looked in a context of the form of controlling norms, in particular, within the framework of bilateral intergovernmental legal relationships, external and internal organizational-legal activity of international organizations of the global and regional measuring; so with distinguishing the regalement acts in the field of the international legal programming. There are investigated the aspects of evolution of the use of programmatic acts, as regulators of international relations, general normative peculiarities of programmatic regulation, specific nature of such international regulation in the conditions of sustainable development and modernization. Also the question of preconditions of input of programmatic regulation in the international law, in the context of problem of sources and forms of international law and program character of international legal norms is looked at. The specifications of the program potential of the international legal relations in the frames of the current international legal doctrine are distinguished at. There is proved that the practice of the international programming can be recognized as supernational in fact it touches upon both aspects of intergovernmental collaboration and questions of actions of internal actors of the states within the framework of their national jurisdiction. A general conclusion is made that the programmatic regulation became important component part of the international legal regulation today. That’s why a thesis about the international programs, as the special source of international law, though requires an additional discussion, but is considered by the author productive enough and perspective.



Keywords:

intergovermental program, multilateral program, bilateral program, interstate program, programmatic implementation, international program, international law norms, international law forms, international organizations, programatic legal regulation

Problem point

Peculiarities of programmatic international regulators are indefinite in scientific researches. The international programs have already become the form of controlling norms, in particular, within the framework of bilateral intergovernmental legal relationships, external and internal organizational-legal activity of international organizations of the global and regional measuring; regulation acts appeared in the field of the international programming. This determines actuality of analysis of problem of the international legal programs.

Background

The questions of the international programs were analysed first of all in connection with a national legal doctrine which was worked out with the participation of us and found its development in labours of Ukrainian scientists such as Ivanitskiy O.Y. [1], Klochkov V.O. [2], Krolenko V.O., Tretiyak E.V. [3], Udovenko K.V. [4] etc. Some Ukrainian authors of soviet period, theorists of international law, in particular Buvaylik G.Y. [5], Gaverdovskiy A.S. [6], Lukashuk I.I. [7], Ulyanova N.N. examined the aspects of international programmatic activity, but today these labours are becoming antiquated both empiric, and ideological.

Tasks of research

That is why it is expedient to decide the following scientific tasks: to investigate the aspects of evolution of the use of programmatic acts, as regulators of international relations, general normative peculiarities of programmatic regulation, specific nature of such international regulation in the conditions of development and modernization; to analyse the question of preconditions of input of programmatic regulation in international law, in the context of problem of sources and forms of international law and programmaticness of international legal norms. Also it is expedient to decide the following scientific tasks: to determine the peculiarities of multilateral intergovernmental programs and bilateral intergovernmental, intergovernmental and interdepartmental programs and to investigate the question of the use of the programmatic regulation in activity of international organizations.

Research process

Evolution of International Programmatic Legal Regulation

Application of the programmatic regulation of international legal relationships became one of the distinguishing features in formation of modern international law. Within the framework of the second part of the 20th century such programmatic approach was used by both supercountries – the USSR and the USA – in the conditions of development of the system of international legal relationships in the Cold War Time [8] and global international organizations created in a that period, in particular UN [9]. The appropriate programmatic initiatives of the USA, for example, such programs as lend-lease, programs of help to the European states during some time got both national and international instutialization [10].

Wide use of the USSR of programmatic regulators in the field of organization of relationships with other states took place within the framework of programmatic character of foreign policy of this state. It was conditioned by the planned and programmatic regulation of internal development of the USSR and programming of political life of society from the side of Communist Party of Soviet Union (CPSU) [11]. The appropriate domestic political-legal acts, in particular Program of further fight for peace and international cooperation, for freedom and independence of people, that was consistently approved during ղV – V conferences of CPSU had an influence on the system of the normative regulation of external relations [12].

The activity of created with the aim of co-ordination of economic plans of the socialistic states Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) in January 1949 became the distinctive historical example of the programmatic regulation of intergovernmental relations. Within the framework of activity of CMEA the Complex program of the further development and perfection of collaboration and development of socialistic economic integration of countries-members of CMEA in 1971 [13] and the Complex program of scientific and technical progress of countries-members of CMEA till 2000 were accepted by its participants. Committee of collaboration in the field of planned activity of CMEA was guided by these acts, the norms of the programs were obligatory for both states-participants and the legal doctrine of that time.

The Long-term target programs of collaboration, that were accepted in 1978-1979,and became the other form of programmatic acts of the states of CMEA: in the field of energy, fuel and raw material, in the field of agriculture and food industry, engineer, transport and in producing goods of national consumption [14].

The Complex inter-branch programs became the special form of the programs accepted within the framework of CMEA : Program in the field of protection of the environment; program according to the solving of fuel and energy problems in 1976-1980 till 1990; Program “Basic directions of scientific and technical collaboration of countries-members of CMEA till 1990 and the technical-economic consequences expected on its basis” etc. It is significant that the mentioned acts weren’t recognized in a legal doctrine of that time, as international agreements, at the same time obligation of their implementation wasn’t not denied [15].

At the same time the programmatic acts in the 20th century were used also in regulation of bilateral relations between the states, that weren’t in actual relations of dependence and had not only formal but also real equality. In particular, such programs were created between the USSR and non-socialistic states: in particular, they were approved by the USSR with Austria, Australia, Greece, India, the Netherlands, Federal republic of Germany, by France etc. [16]. In the legal doctrine of that time the appropriate programs were clearly separated by their nature from the bilateral agreements, at the same time the legal character and nature of norms and additions the programs remained the unsettled matter [17]. The USA in a that period used another approach to the programmatic regulation of bilateral relations, approving Program of making the bilateral contracts of the USA in 1982 on the national level, that contained both directions to the interested authorities and project of typical bilateral investment agreement [18].

Theoretic Grounds of the Legal Programmatic Regulation

The category of the program is so wide, that even in the context of our research its analysis can be carried out, from the viewpoint of science about a management (to the management) [19]; from the requirements of legal doctrine – national, foreign and international; within the framework of legal practice on the national and international level etc. So the program can be considered to be the algorithm of actions, aggregate of organizational resources, the way of organization and management of projects and also the direct activity, with the increased value of the sentinel and informative component program. The program differs by the idea of providing the clear predicted development and management activity. At the same time the program has an aim that is concrete and useful for society, it has the clearly determined location in time which is original matrix for the program [20]. But the specific position of the programs must be taken into account which are the object of budgetary, administrative, financial, control and law-enforcement legal relationships and inalienable part of control system of public processes at the same time.

The program in its wide, organizationally-administrative comprehension must be distinguished from measures, projects, plans and strategies. At the same time there are programmatic acts in legal practice, in particular, international, which can have the name of not only the program but also plan, strategy, road map etc., but this substantially does not have influence on legal maintenance of their programmatic regulators. Thus the category of plan in the international context sometimes is used instead of the term “program”, first of all when the question is about local and short-term programmatic acts. Strategy on the international level is an original organizational, political and legal process that requires a lot of programmatic measures.

Conception in this context can be examined, as an element or stage of process of the legal programming. Program in the context of regulation of public relations can be examined, as a complex of coordinated in time, aim and performers of measures, as allocated funds on realization of these measures, as an organizational structure, that will act the mentioned measures as a document that contains appropriate additions. In the context of our research undoubtedly the most actual is the nature of the program-document. In the modern legal doctrine such program is determined, as an act (programmatic-administrative, normatively-legal or legal) or as a programmic document of legal character, and actuality of the hermeneutic interpretation of the legal programs and necessity of analysis of them with the categories of legal norm and form of right are recognized. The appropriate analysis must be carried out with the use of methodology of programmatic management and through research of programmatic forms of realization of “ordinary” forms of right, analysis of predicted suggestion (normative prediction).

It is also necessary to take into account that actuality of the use of programmatic normatively-legal measures today is recognized on the local, regional, branch and state levels. Thus global character of programmatic management resulted in the origin of international standards of the programmatic regulation, which become a standard for borrowing in any administrative-regulative system, in particular international-legal. The system of indicators, worked out by Commission of sustainable development of UN, and standards of the programmatic regulation, worked out by International Organization of Standardization, belongs to such standards (in particular, ISO of 9001:2000, ISO of 10005:2005 and ISO of 10006:2003).

Overnational Grounds of the Legal Programmatic Regulation

Determinism of the international programmatic legal phenomena is conditioned by experience of sociological, political science and philosophical doctrine of the present time; in particular those that are conducted in the planes of modern and postmodern, globalization and sustainable development. Within the framework of the systems, foreseen by the theories of modernisation, neomodernisation and late modern [21], during the development of informative (decorated by a pattern) society, there is global distribution of modern forms of political and legislative practice, in particular programmic. Legal doctrine foresaw the specialties of regulation the development on the international level [22] and programness of international law [23] but only in the postmodern civilization those processes became the common phenomenon.

Network principle of organization of administrative structures and principles of the “soft thinking” of a tool of analysis of administrative problems in the context of the non-state world society also intensify a value as a “soft” international law (also, by the way, saturated by programmatic mechanisms) and imperative international legal programmatic regulators. “Soft” international law doctrine have a lot of devoted works [24], so they may be looked as a theoretical ground of such specific modern international regulation.

The aspects of globalization and development are becoming today the important aspects of influence on the programmatic regulation of international. Globalization, as the phenomenon of postmodern society, today has influence on the international relations, the normative systems, by which it is regulated. Thus programmatic regulation and programmatic-administrative activity, programmatic management in the conditions of globalization become irreplaceable public mechanisms. It is conditioned by the fact that the problem of programming in the international law exists in the context of the phenomenon of the international development related to the processes of modernisation and globalization.

The idea of progressive development [25] found itself in aims, principles, structure, functioning of modern international law, and providing right to development is sufficient cause for the use of international-legal measures, in particular, programmatic. It is confirmed by the programmic actions of the states and international organizations in the field of development and their appropriate legal forms, such as UN Declaration about a right to development in 1986, UN Copenhagen declaration about social development in 1995 etc. The appropriate measures of the world community in creation of “new international economic order” are similar to strategies of actions of power from development of the so-called social states by the use of programmatic goal-oriented measures. This thesis also may be declared on grounds of program management theory, researched by law scientists also [26].

A right to development is a collective social right that stipulates the maintenance of category of steady development, incarnate, in particular, in Global Program of actions “Agenda XXI” in 1992. In a legal doctrine the necessity of steady development software is recognized for international-legal and constitutional format. Research of the programmatic legal regulation of international-legal relations requires the analysis of nature of such relations and factors that have influence on the mechanisms of regulation by them. Thus the experience of the legal programmatic regulation of legal relationships on the national level can be critically taken into account, but not adopted mechanically.

The analysis of historical and modern doctrines of international law testifies to the uncertainty of the appropriate key categories of international law. Such contradictory comprehention is represented in the problems of international-legal theory in relation to forms and norms of international law, in particular recommended and programmatic. Free development and separation of the international law stipulate the excellent methodology in its creation, realization, implementation and classification, in particular in the format of programmatic regulation.

Within the framework of analysis of the programmatic international-legal regulation it should be mentioned that the international law is the common used universal legal value, that forms the concrete order of certain association, which appears on the sociological ground and it is the organization of the international relations, that corresponds with the modern level of human civilization [27].

The necessity of settlement of international economic connections and activity of multinational corporations, transmission of the considerable part of plenary powers of the states to the supernational institutes – intergovernmental and international organizations, whose activity is the base for programmatic management, requirement in programmatic providing of the regional (NATO, CSTO, OSCE) or global (UN) systems have influence on programmaticness of the international law.

The use of approach of the systems in the international-legal regulation became actual for the input of the programmatic regulation of intergovernmental relations. Actual inequality among superpowers and their satellites and in the relations of superpowers had a substantial value in the input of the programmatic regulation of intergovernmental relations.

The necessity of accordance of the administrative system to the system of well-regulated relations [28] also explains the distribution of programmatic relations as a result of existence of regulated subjects that had internal programmatic-administrative regulators. Thus the practice of the international programming can be recognized as supernational in fact it touches upon both aspects of intergovernmental collaboration and questions of actions of internal actors of the states within the framework of their national jurisdiction. On the other hand, programmatic regulation is typical for intergovernmental activity, as direct international co-operations among subdivisions of the national states.

Programmaticness of the Norms and Sources of International Law

The processes of reformation of international law also require application of programmatic approach for their own organization. The programmaticness in an international law is summoned as a result of actualization of category of aims in international legal relationships, in particular in relation to the input of achievements of scientific and technical revolution, universalization and dynamism of international relations, achievement of social compromise.

Thus the signs of modern international law and order have a substantial value for programmaticness of international law, as a certain model of functioning of international concord of the states. Distribution of the factors of influence on the international law and order after sentinel modality stipulates the necessity of the use of normative regulators not only with set time of action but also with the increased sentinel load (that contain the category of stage, establishment of the special or intermediate terms etc.), so the regulators of programmatic character.

Today the studies about the sources of the international law substantially depend on the historical stage of development of science and the field of the international law, on the specific nature of the international relations and the national legal doctrine of authors of the appropriate theories. The development of the international law in the 20th century didn’t assist in creation of the only successive theory of its sources, and such vagueness is corrected with pluralism of ideas in relation to the nature of source of right in general.

Actually the category of source of right became the special and conditional, comfortable in application and traditional for world jurisprudence. At the same time the attempts to create general accepted determination of source of the international law and, in particular, to carry the problem of source in the plane of creation of norm resulted the vagueness of the stages of creation of norms. Such correlation, by the way, is the common problem of the modern law science [29].

Division of sources of international law into formal and legal, direct and indirect, basic and additional didn’t result in the agreement in theoretical questions and even determination of exhaustive or open list of these sources. List of sources, set in p. 1 cl. 38 of International Court Statute causes the lively discussions concerning the possibility of its expansion and transformation. There are tendencies of the wide comprehension of international agreements in the modern international law, as international agreements, and position concerning the impossibility of taking of all international legal acts (agreements) to the category of agreements [30].

At the same time determined by experts tendency of unitization of variety of the modern international legal phenomena of regulative character (in particular, resolutions, declarations, programs) [31] through recognition of their force, as an international custom, actually deprives the international-legal custom of such qualificatory lines, as unwritten and permanent character, stability and traditional character.

Orientation on exceptional character of agreements and custom as sources of international law has the aim which is limitation of real implementation of international law in national practice, it has always been characteristic for many undemocratic modes, in particular, for Soviet one. Obviously it is necessary to support presumption of variety of sources of international law and their presence in open list that develops together with international law.

In general the selection of the special, programmatic right was ambiguously perceived in the general theory of right and in the theory of international law. Thus today programmatic formulations are becoming widespread enough in the intergovernmental agreements of different maintenance and in other forms of international law. Proceeding from legal reality presence of new variety of international acts – programs was recognized by separate scientists in the end of the 20th century, but they did not give the estimation of legal role of such programs and their comparison with other sources of international law.

In order to consider international program the source of international law, it must contain international legal norms and substantially differ on by its own signs from other forms of international law. Thus other forms of international law, in particular, international agreements and resolutions of international organizations, and also the forms of “soft” international law can have programmatic character, legalize the international programs or contain separate programmatic norms.

The theory of international law recognizes possibility of evolution of international norms, that is the base for natural principles and it is related to development of international relations [32]. A norm of international law is legally the obligatory for implementation rule of behavior for international legal subjects; thus the specific character of international law limits possibility of the use of such general criteria of legal norm, as an indefinite circle of subjects and frequent application.

Correlation between the form and the norm of right isn’t always obvious and imperative; such difficult situation exists in relation to an interconnection between the international program and international programmatic norm. That’s why programmatic character, as property of international-legal norms, and the presence of international-legal norms in the international programs must be considered to be different, but correlated by aspects of the international programmatic regulation.

The attempts of input of other effective regulators of international relations, except an international law, didn’t result in creation of others, except legal systems of regulation of international relations. That’s why the norms of programmatic character, approved by international legal subjects in co-operation with themselves with the aim of regulation of international relations, are legal norms.

Natural conception of international law examines the process of international law creation, as similar to opening and formulation by scientists of natural laws, that allows, in particular, to ground borrowing in the international legal norms of mechanisms of programmatic management and programmatic-administrative activity as “natural” administrative laws, invented by mankind.

Classification of international legal norms allows to distinguish such actual for programmatic acts kinds, as “technical”, constituent, auxiliary and scope norms, and norms-commissions. The problem of recommendation and “informal” international norms is closely associated with the problem of “soft” international law in general, but the phenomenon of programmatic international norms and programmatic regulation cannot be erected only to the marked categories.

The examples of modern programmatic acts testify to imperative character of the separate international programs or programmatic norms of their performers, originality of mechanisms of implementation of such programs provides, in particular, the use of regulative international norms. In addition, the norms of “soft” law can be contained in international programmatic acts next to the norms of “hard” law, closely correlating.

Presence of the special type of legal norms – programmatic norms is recognized by many specialists [33]. Programmatic norms can be both imperative and non-mandatory, they generate corresponding right and duties (in particular, derivative or increasing) for participants, and that is why their violation has the same consequences, as violation of other international-legal norms.

Presence of programmatic element is in many other types of legal norms, in particular, international doesn’t reduce actuality of selection of programmatic norms. Division of programmatic norms into general and initial-directive is conditional enough, as programmatic norms can be divided by their form of fixing, imperativeness, circle of subjects, by the presence of approvals and forms of legal defense etc. Programs and other types of legal norms are present in international programs, the presence of programmatic norms is the distinguishing feature of international program.

Programmatic Legal Regulation of the Interstate Relations

Multilateral interstate programs as the legal regulator

The programs accepted on the intergovernmental multilateral level are the widespread form of the programmatic legal regulation. Programmatic activity within the framework of post-soviet international space are realized by the conclusion of the multilateral programs of the states, as a rule, under an aegis of international organizations – the CIS and CSTO, that coordinate corresponding programmatic activity. In general these programs differ shortly – by medium-term, having a special purpose or complex character, by accordance to the standards of programmatic management, by the presence of the special legal acts that regulate the processes of development and realization of corresponding programs.

The special regulative acts in the field of the multilateral international programs, as a rule, are regulation international agreements [34]. As an example it is possible to single out Agreement of the states of the CIS about formation and status of the intergovernmental innovative programs and projects in a scientifically-technological sphere in 1998, Convention concerning formation and status of the intergovernmental scientific and technical programs of the CIS in 1998, Agreement about a collaboration in formation of informative resources and systems, realization of the intergovernmental programs of the states – participants of the CIS in industry of informatization in 1999, Order of development, realization and financing of the intergovernmental program with a special purpose of the CIS in 2004, Statute about the order of development, financing and realization of the intergovernmental programs with a special purpose of CSTO in 2008, Conception of the scientifically-informative providing of the programs and projects of states-participants of the CIS in an innovative sphere in 2009.

Corresponding acts have determination of the multilateral intergovernmental programs, as related by resources, performers and terms of realization of complex of measures, that has a certain orientation, avoiding descriptions of legal nature of the program , as a document. Participation of no less than three states and development of program project under the aegis corresponding international organization (CIS, CSTO) is the necessary sign of such intergovernmental programs.

The attempts of contractual regulation of processes of development and realization of the intergovernmental programs result in the unification of corresponding processes and in certain reduction of amount of such programs that came into force. Thus international organizations under which aegis these programs are worked out, and the states-participants of such programs examine the programs de facto, as a form of obligatory for discharge of orders and norms that are not intergovernmental agreement or decision of international organization.

Practical experience proves [35], that among the multilateral intergovernmental programs those, in which exhaust charts of financing, customers and performers, control forms after implementation of the program are worked out, are realized first of all; in general the problem of expedient forms of financing of such programs from the budget of states-participants and from other sources is undecided.

The multilateral intergovernmental programs are worked out and accepted by legal acts that will be realized for achievement of useful aim for the society, they have a certain term of action and differ by stage; all their norms are of temporal character and have the appearance of international-legal norms or individually-legal orders that touch both international legal subjects and their national structures. Such programs contain the passport of the program, determination of aim and tasks of the program, a list of basic measures of the program, their performers and terms of realization.

The marked string of problems of financing results in effective realization of such intergovernmental programs, which realization of measures requires small additional charges and can be realized within the framework of the ordinary state financing of performers of the program – public organs, establishments and enterprises. Absence of the specialized funds and separate international structures, that would hug the range of problems of development, acceptance of the intergovernmental programs, their financing and control for their realization reduces efficiency of the programmatic regulation responsible national organs, in particular, on post-soviet territory.

Bilateral interstate programs as the legal regulator

Analysis of forms, structure and orientation of bilateral programmatic acts that is approved among the states on the greatest level, prove the wide variety of corresponding legal forms and absence of general legal standards of their development and realization in an international law. In particular, such programs can have different forms of legitimation – they can be accepted by the states separately, they can be confirmed by signing the intergovernmental agreement or be incorporated to the intergovernmental agreements.

A great variety of terms of action of such programs, their tasks and structure is high enough; the bilateral programs approved among the post-soviet states have certain unification. These programs have a preamble, where there is a ground of necessity of their approval aim and task of the program, they are divided into parts (from four to seven). Measures to the program are added to these programs in form of tables with pointing to maintenance of measures, term of their implementation and performers from parts of the program.

In particular, the programs (long-term) of economic collaboration among these states are approved within the framework of formation of bilateral contracts about an economic collaboration on middle or long-term period [36]. At the same time such agreements about a collaboration and programs which are their distinguished part, proceeding from the row of signs are considered to be two separate legal acts. Thus corresponding agreements carry as special (for program-addition) so general (for the next bilateral programs) legitimated functions. Unification of the bilateral programs, formed among the different post-soviet states testifies the existence of certain standards in relation to the structure of the real acts, order of their development, realization and control after implementation as legal custom.

In the marked multilateral programs, there is a sign which points to the legal character of their measures. Parts of these programs consent to consider corresponding programmatic measure by a form that contains the normatively-legal regulators of bilateral intergovernmental relations, so the original form of international law. Most programs take operating under the acceptance of international agreements, acceptance of other (secondary) programmatic acts, in particular, bilateral intergovernmental programs with a special purpose complex programs, and realization of organizational measures from realization of the program to their own tasks. Realization of norms of these multilateral intergovernmental programs foresees active programmatic legal regulative activity both bilateral level and within the framework of national legal systems.

Measures of such bilateral programs are broken to thematic divisions, divisions – to directions, and directions, in their turn, – to separate measures. Among the performers of measures in the programs there are certain ministries, departments, state enterprises and other subjects of manage program states-participants. The content of the marked programs embraces the separate lines of military, humanitarian, ecological collaboration, they are basic programmatic bilateral acts that regulate corresponding intergovernmental relations. The separate bilateral intergovernmental programs are sent to maximum intensification of bilateral relations, up to formation of the confederative general states [37]. Other intergovernmental bilateral programs have a narrow enough aim concerning the regulation of collaboration of the parts (in particular in relation to a collaboration in the field of space) [38].

The forms of co-ordination and control after realization of the multilateral programs is activity of general intergovernmental bilateral commissions or actions of the specially created organ with determined in their programs powers – co-ordinating committee for realization of the program, and also working groups on the program or its main divisions. Regulation of work of these committees creates certain legal mechanism in relation to implementation of programmatic orders, additional intergovernmental programmatic creation of norms (in form of acceptance of the mentioned annual plans of realization of the program and other). At the same time in the bilateral programs it is not well-regulated to the mechanism of their financing and mechanism to the special control after the expense of financial sources.

The specific character of the bilateral intergovernmental programs [39] is contained in the fact that they are developed and realized first of all by subjects, that are widely used in methodology of programmatic management and programmatic-legal regulation in national practice. Majority of intergovernmental programs are approved by the states without signing the agreement about the program, but, as a rule, in development of the agreements the programmatic form of collaboration can be foreseen in those accepted before. However, it isn’t discovered by us imperative connection between such agreements and intergovernmental programs approved in their development, that shows up in the uncoincidence of terms, names and orientation of the programmatic acts foreseen by agreements and then approved by the states de facto.

For the intergovernmental programs a prediction of programmatic implementation of orders of the bilateral program on the lowest level (in form of secondary intergovernmental programs, government programs and even programs of structures of civil society) and connection of the basic bilateral program with the programs of international organizations are typical. There are both general and specified (with indication of performers and terms) measures in the intergovernmental programs. For the intergovernmental (but interdepartmental) bilateral programs the order concerning out of fixed-term realization of the secondary programs, measures and projects after completion the term of action of the program is typical.

On occasion the intergovernmental programs have the clearly expressed productive-economic character. At the same time some intergovernmental programs concerning procedure of the legitimation and underlying structure are similar in the considered intergovernmental programs.

The features of the bilateral interdepartmental programs in a considerable measure depend on the degree of input of the programmatic regulation in activity of that or other ministry, policy of its guidance at the certain stage etc. However, it is possible to distinguish general tendencies in relation to maintenance, structure, form and aspiration of similar acts. Most interdepartmental programs in this sphere are created among the central organs of executive power of the states in the spheres of culture [40], young people and sport[41], defensive [42], transport [43] and MFA collaboration [44].

The creation of the interdepartmental programs, as a rule, is foreseen in corresponding bilateral agreements, both intergovernmental and interdepartmental, but some interdepartmental programmatic acts were approved by parts without reference to the preliminary agreements. Most interdepartmental programs have mainly short-term or sometimes medium-term kind of action (from two to five years), that it is possible to explain, first of all by the fact that public authority, that conclude such programs, subject to more frequent rotary press, than, in particular, guidance of the states and national governments.

The bilateral interdepartmental programs in the field of culture, as a rule, are non-mandatory and contain indications about measures, which parts will conduct during a term of the actions of the program and for participating in which cultural figures and official representatives of other side are invited. In such programs instead of establishment of responsible performers, terms and volume of financing of measures of the program of side separately regulate the aspects of charges on realization of compatible cultural measures. Procedural norms of such programs approved among the different states are close by a form or even identical, that testifies to the presence of certain standards for the conclusion of the corresponding programs, that, however, have unset and non-unificated character.

Specific character of the interdepartmental programs in the field of sport, transport, foreign-policy and military collaboration also stipulates regulation methodology and structure of the marked acts, that can be both extremely original and maximum close to the technical standards of programmatic management. The separate interdepartmental programs (in particular, approved on the level of the specialized organs of power, public institutions, enterprises, funds) already cannot be examined to a full degree, that public character and value of form of international legal carry.

Programmatic Legal Regulation the Interstate Organizations’ Relations

Programmatic Regulation in the Global Interstate Organizations

Application of the programmatic regulation is general practice of international (intergovernmental and intergovernmental) organizations, as global so regional. Such application stipulates an origin in activity of international organizations of specific legal and organizational mechanisms of programmatic character. The programmatic regulation in activity of international organizations has international-legal character, as accompanied by forming of international legal acts, influences on international norm-creative activity and is oriented on regulation of concrete legal relations.The programmatic regulation in activity of international organizations can be divided into the internal, directed to saving of functioning of apparatus of organization and its development directed to providing, and external, directed to implementation by international organization of its own functions.

Application in international organizations of programmatic approach to forming of budgets of organization simplifies the financial and organizational providing of realization of the corresponding programs.

Principles of the programmatic regulation are mass used in activity of UN from the 70s of the th century [45]. Row of resolutions of UN General Assembly (UNGA) directed to the decision of problems of different character within the framework of international relations, carries programmatic character, in corresponding acts there is a combination of declarative orders and programmatic norms that can have certain addressees [46]. Today in UN there are no general standards of the formal fixing of programmatic norms in integral external programmatic resolutions of UNGA; at the same time there is a tendency of approval of programmatic acts by UNGA that is preceded to signing of convention by UN states on some global question of international relations.Programmatic acts, approved by resolutions by UNGA, as a rule, foresees the programmatic forms of implementation on regional and bilateral international and on national levels.

The internal programmatic regulation in UN has forms of development and reformation of the system of UN, budgetary programming of UN [47] and programmatic-project activity of institutional subdivisions of UN [48]. Key subdivisions of UN, that have a competence in the field of programmatic-regulative activity of this organization, are Committee on programming and coordination of Economic and Social Advice of UN, Advisory commission on administrative and budgetary questions and the Fifth Committee of UNGA, Department of the Incorporated Nations from project services, an Inspection group of UN is incorporated in those processes also. The imperative programming of processes of internal development and budgetary process of UN takes place first of all by approval of the Medium-term plan of UN for four years and approvals on its basis of two-year programmatic budgets.

UN also implemented standards of the programmatic regulation and in organizational development of the system of the Incorporated Nations, creating such structural subdivisions, as programs (UN World food program, UN Program of development, UN Program from an environment, UN Program from settlements and UN Program from international control above drugs etc) [49].

Activity of the global specialized international organizations that operate within the framework of the system of UN, also foresees deployment of the programmatic regulation. WHO, WIPO, ILO, IMO, UNESCO and other similar structures adopt work of UN in the field of the programmatic legal regulation of international relations within the framework of their own mandate, processes of internal development and budgetary processes; at the same time the programmatic regulation in each of these organizations has a certain specific character [50]. In the system of organizations of the World Bank the external programmatic regulation prevails above the internal. Exactly the World Bank and its constituents (first of all IMF) today use the external programmatic regulation on national level as a key form of its own activity; other global organizations (UNESCO) also widely use a corresponding mechanism.

There exist the following features of programmatic regulation in global international organizations :

- development of two-year programmatic budgets on the base of six-year-old strategic position papers;

- creation of the special organs that hug the processes of development and control in the field of the programmatic regulation;

- input of standards of evaluation of the programs in normative acts;

- use of the programs with special purpose of the external regulation for the achievement of tasks and functions of corresponding organization; these programs can have inter-organizational character;

- formation of integral programmatic mechanisms, political-legal structures that have as contractual and resolutive and normatively-legal provision, the distinguished trained, organizational and materially-financial resources on principles of programmatic management with the aim of realization of mandate of corresponding international organization.

Programmatic Regulation in the Regional Interstate Organizations

Programmatic regulation in activity of such European and Euro Atlantic structures, as CE, OSCE and NATO are extremely important for providing of permanent intergovernmental relations on European space, in particular, for Ukraine. To the general features of such programming the external programs above organizational can be referred to, formation of programmatic subdivisions, structures from development and realization of programmatic acts, absence of found out the normative providing of processes of external program of these organizations development, active use of the general programs (in a format CE-OSCE or CE-OSCE-UN or OSCE-NATO).

The programmatic regulation in activity of CE is divided into external and internal-organizational, external programmatic acts have as general character (programs of development, such as Plan of actions, from May, 17 in 2005) is specialized (having a special purpose). These programs can contain concrete orders in relation to realization of them by CE, by its organs and states-members, and also foresee the row of programmatic and other legal mechanisms of their own realization, with bringing in OSCE and European Union. The measures of the external programs of CE come true by interdisciplinary co-ordinations within the framework of CE and in states-members they can be oriented to the close collaboration and general projects with other international organizations. Within the framework of Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly of CE the special subdivisions are formed from the external programming of activity of CE (DSP), from the internal programming (DGA) and control in the field of programming (DIO).

Certain vagueness of status and legal role of international programmatic acts in general in case of OSCE corrects the general vagueness of status of this international formation. In programming of activity of OSCE correlation of global and local programmatic-administrative activity is typical, internal programming finds the expression in the Annual budgetary program of OSCE and it is attributed to the competence of the Advisory commission on a management and finances of Secretariat of OSCE. The processes of the internal programmatic regulation got in OSCE normative regulation in the decisions of Permanent Committee. Plans of actions of OSCE, which are recognized by Permanent Committee of OSCE can be considered to be the main feature of the programmatic acts of OSCE. The programmatic regulation in OSCE provides bringing in of budgetary facilities of this organization and money of states-members, other states and international non-governmental organizations [51].

In activity of NATO there are forms of the strategic programmatic regulation, having a special purpose programmatic regulation and internal programs (budgetary and programs of development). The basic programmatic act of NATO today is Strategy of reacting of alliance to calls and possibilities of the 21st century. The partnerships in particular foreseen by a scope document (by the program) “Partnership for Peace” must be considered to be the Specific programmatic acts of NATO. The important forms of programmatic activity of this organization are the Investment program of safety of NATO and Scientific program of NATO. Other important programmatic acts of NATO today are corresponding plans of actions, such as Plan of actions in relation to NATO membership, Partner plan of actions in relation to a fight against terrorism and Partner plan of actions in relation to development of safety institutes. A few committees operate on the management of this organization (of project offices of NATO) within the framework of activity of NATO [52].

Summary

Thus, it is possible to come to a general conclusion that the programmatic regulation became important component part of the international legal regulation today. It is assisted by an acceptance and realization of international law subjects – by the states and international organizations of programmatic acts (documents), that contain the aggregate of declarative orders, individual directions and general (as far as it maybe on international level) norms of non-mandatory and imperative character. The programmatic regulation of international relations provides, except approval of corresponding acts by the special procedure, formation of organizational structures in the field of the programmatic regulation, forming of special programmatic mechanisms.

The programmatic character today is peculiar for various acts that are approved among the states, within the framework of activity of international organizations and in the format of soft right. At the same time the programmatic character of separate international-legal norms, positions of international agreements and resolutions of international organizations does not solve the question of legal nature of the special acts of programmatic character, that is approved by international legal subjects. That’s why a thesis about the international programs, as the special source of international law, though requires an additional discussion, but is considered by the author productive enough and perspective.

1.
.. : . . . . , 2010. 205 .
2.
.. // 2009. 1. . 93-103.
3.
.. , (- ) : . . . . , 2009. 229 .
4.
. . : . . . . ., 2010. 236 c.
5.
: / .. , .. , .. . : . , 1980. 304 .
6.
. . . . : , 1980. 318 .
7.
. . . . : - , 1966. 127 .
8.
/ . , . // . 1956. 4. . 79-85.
9.
.. . . : , 1952. . 308.
10.
Gann P.B. The US Bilateral Investment Treaties Program // Standford Journal of International Law. 1986. 373. Vol. 21. P. 324.
11.
.. . . . 99.
12.
/ .. , .. . . : . , 1975. . 76.
13.
- 1971 . // . ., 1972. . 29-103.
14.
- / .. , .. , .. . . : . , 1990. . 81.
15.
.. . : LAP LAMBERT AP, 2011. .
16.
(, 17 1990 .) : http://www.ru.spinform.ru/ru_bases.html
17.
.. // : . . 1978. . 8-9.
18.
Vandevelde K.J. The Bilateral Investment Treaty Program of the United States // Cornell International Law Journal. 1998. Vol. 21. P. 201-276.
19.
Gower Handbook of Programme Management / Reiss G., Malcolm A., Chapman J., G. Leigh, A. Pyne, P. Rayner. Aldershot : Gower, 2006. 738 p.
20.
- / .. , .. . : , 2006. C. 8-11.
21.
Giddens A. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford : GDgroup, 1990. P. 31.
22.
. / , . . : , 1960. C. 16.
23.
Meurer C. The program of the freedom of the sea: a political study in the international law. Washington : Government printing office, 1919. 104 p.; uza L. The Trend of Development of International Law // Questions of International Law, 1964. Budapest, 1964. P. 5-10.
24.
dAspremont J. Softness in International Law: A Self-Serving Quest for New Legal Materials // European Journal of International Law. 2008. Vol. 19. 5. P. 1075-1093; Boyle A.E. Some Reflections on the Relationship of Treaties and Soft Law // International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 1999. Vol. 48. P. 901-913; Hillgenberg H.A fresh look at soft law // European Journal of International Law. 1999. Vol. 10. 3. P. 499-515; Koskenniemi M. Sources of International Law : The Library of Essays in International Law. B. 5. Dartmouth : Ashgate, 2000. 600 p.
25.
.. : . . . . . , 2003. 18 c.
26.
Bertrand Maurice. Planning, programming, budgeting, and evaluation in the United Nations. NY : UNA-USA; 1987. 57 p.; Novick D. Program budgeting; program analysis and the Federal budget. Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1967. 382 p.
27.
Herczeefh G. General Principles of Law and International Legal Order. Budapest : Akademiai Kiado, 1969. P 40-49; Kumm M. The Legitimacy of International Law: A Constitutionalist Framework of Analysis // European Journal of International Law. 2004. Vol. 15. 5. P. 908-920; Pronto A.N. Some Thoughts on the Making of International Law // The European Journal of International Law. 2008. Vol. 19. . 3. P. 470-481.
28.
Krisch N. International Law in Times of Hegemony: Unequal Power and the Shaping of the International Legal Order // European Journal of International Law. 2005. Vol. 16. 3 P. 378 etc.
29.
.. () // . 2004. 12. . 14.
30.
.. . . : - , 1966. C. 65; .. . .-.- : - . -, 1960. C. 82.
31.
. . : / . . . . : , 2007. C. 412.
32.
. . . : - . -, 1990. C. 88; - / . . , . . , . . . . : . , 1990. C. 92.
33.
. . . . . 67; . . . . . 9.
34.
- 25 1998 ., - - : 13 2009 ., , : 16 2004 . Ū : Ū 27 2004 . 159 .. http://cis.minsk.by
35.
O , 2007 . : http://www.cismission.mid.ru/v12.html; 2008 , : http://www.cismission.mid.ru/v22.html
36.
1999-2008 11 1998 .; 1999-2009 i 17 1999 .; 2003-2012 9 2003 .; 2000-2009 i 16 2000 .; 糺 1999-2008 16 1999 . .: http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi
37.
: 2 2 1997 .: http://www.ru.spinform.ru/ru_bases.html
38.
1998-2007 27 1998 . // . . : ., 1998. . 54-56.
39.
1995-1996 i 28 1995 .; , 1997-1998-1999 . i 30 1997 .; 2004-2006 . ̳ ͳ i 19 2004 .; ̳ , , , , , 2004-2006 (1383-1385 . ) i 22 2004 . : http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi
40.
̳ ̳ 1997 1998 12 1997 ., 2000 2002 8 2000 .; ̳ ̳ , ³ 2000 2002 i 23 1999 ., 2008-2012 i 30 2008 .; ̳ ̳ 2004-2006 i 21 2003 ., 2008-2010 i 8 2008 ., ̳ ̳ 2005-2007 i 27 2005 .; ̳ ̳ 2009-2011 . i 7 2009 .; ̳ ̳ 2010-2014 3 2010 . : http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi
41.
̳ ', i 27 2006 ., ̳ ', ̳ 2008-2009 i 22 2008 . : http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi
42.
̳ ̳ 2005-2007 i 23 2005 . // . . . 2006. 21. . 1595.
43.
̳ ̳ 2004 2010 . i 20 2004 . : http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi
44.
̳ ̳ i 3 2003 .; ̳ ̳ i 2 2004 .; ̳ ̳ 2004 4 2004 . : http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi
45.
Bertrand M. Planning, programming, budgeting, and evaluation in the UN. NY : UNA; 1987. 57 p.; Fomerand J. Strengthening the UN economic and social programs: a documentary essay. Hanover : AC UNS; 1990. 29 p.
46.
: 4 2002 . A/CONF.199/20. - : , 2002. 89 .; i 3 1982 . : http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi
47.
Programme planning : United Nations General Assembly Resolution of 21 December 1982 A/RES/37/234 // Key resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, 1946-1996. Gottingen, 1997. P. 486-498.
48.
20042005 : 20 2006 . /61/64 61- , . 117, . - : , 2006. 332 .
49.
. , ; : 29 2005 . - : , 2005. 12 .
50.
2008-2013 . : WHA60.11. : , 2007. 125 .; Revised Program and Budget for the 2008/09 Biennium : Approved by the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO on December 12, 2008. Geneve : WIPO, 2009. 196 p.; Approved Programme and Budget 20102011 : United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 35 C/5. Paris : UNESCO, 2010. Official Doc. 309 p.; . : GB.285/PFA/10, 2002 . / , 285- . : , 2002. 11 .; Hight-Level Action Plan of the Organization and Priorities for the 2008-2009 biennium: Resolution of IMO A.990 (25) adopted on 29 November 2007 / IMO, Assembly A 25/Res.990, 25th session 21 December 2007 / IMO. L. : IMO, 2007. Official Doc. 17 p.; Integrated technical co-operation programme (ITCP) for 2008-2009 : IMO Technical Co-operation Committee TC 57/3/1, 12 April 2007. L. : IMO, 2007. Official Doc. 64 p.
51.
OSCE Action Plan to combat trafficking in human beings : Permanent Council Decision PC.DEC/557 24 July 2003, Annex 462nd Plenary Meeting PC Journal . 462. Vienna : OSCE, 2003. Official doc. 27 p.
52.
: , [ ] / .. , .. , .. . . : , 2008. C. 88-92. . ., . . // /International law and international organizations, 1, 2011.
53.
. . // /International law and international organizations, 2, 2011.
54.
. . - : // /International law and international organizations, 3, 2011. . 24-39
55.
. . // /International law and international organizations, 4, 2011. . 131-136
56.
. . // /International law and international organizations, 1, 2012. . 65-71
57.
. . - // /International law and international organizations, 2, 2012. . 34-43
58.
. . : // /International law and international organizations, 2, 2012. . 6-15
59.
. . : , // /International law and international organizations, 3, 2012. . 116-123
60.
.. : // NB: .-2013.-10.-C. 12-34. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/lr/article_9469.html
61.
. . // / International Law and International Organizations.-2012.-3.-C. 129-131.
62.
.. , .. : - // .-2012.-11.-C. 1907-1917.
63.
.. // NB: .-2013.-8.-C. 1-25. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/lr/article_9327.html
64.
.. . // NB: .-2013.-5.-C. 181-200. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/lr/article_817.htm
References (transliterated)
1.
vanits'kii O.Yu. Pravove zabezpechennya programnogo regulyuvannya rozvitku Avtonomno Respublki Krim : disertatsya na zdobuttya nauk. stupenya kand. yurid. nauk. Dnpropetrovs'k, 2010. 205 s.
2.
Klochkov V.O. Rozumnnya pravovikh program u vtchiznyanomu prav // Problemi pravoznavstva ta pravookhoronno dyal'nost 2009. 1. S. 93-103.
3.
Tret'yak E.V. Pravookhoronn programi, yak forma derzhavnogo upravlnnya (admnstrativno-pravove dosldzhennya) : dissertatsya na zdobuttya nauk. stupenya kand. yurid. nauk. Dnpropetrovs'k, 2009. 229 s.
4.
Udovenko K. V. Pravove zabezpechennya muntsipal'no programno dyal'nost v Ukran : disertatsya na zdobuttya nauk. stupenya kand. yurid. nauk. Kh., 2010. 236 c.
5.
Programma bor'by za mir i svobodu narodov : pravovye problemy / G.E. Buvainik, A.F. Vysotskii, N.N. Ul'yanova. K : Nauk. dumka, 1980. 304 s.
6.
Gaverdovskii A. S. Implementatsiya norm mezhdunarodnogo prava. K. : Vishcha shkola, 1980. 318 s.
7.
Lukashuk I. I. Istochniki sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo prava. K. : Izd-vo KGU, 1966. 127 s.
8.
Programma vzaimnogo obespecheniya bezopasnosti / E. Kurganov, E. Nikolaev // Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn'. 1956. 4. S. 79-85.
9.
Vyshinskii A.Ya. Voprosy mezhdunarodnogo prava i mezhdunarodnoi politiki. M. : Gosyurizdat, 1952. S. 308.
10.
Gann P.B. The US Bilateral Investment Treaties Program // Standford Journal of International Law. 1986. 373. Vol. 21. P. 324.
11.
Buvainik G.E. Ukaz. rabota. S. 99.
12.
Sovetskaya Programma mira i mezhdunarodnoe pravo / G.P. Zhukov, S.V. Chernichenko. M. : Mezhd. otnosheniya, 1975. S. 76.
13.
Kompleksnaya programma dal'neishego uglubleniya i sovershenstvovaniya sotrudnichestva i razvitiya sotsialisticheskoi ekonomicheskoi integratsii stran-chlenov SEV 1971 g. // Mnogostoronnee ekonomicheskoe sotrudnichestvo sotsialisticheskikh gosudarstv. M., 1972. S. 29-103.
14.
Nauchno-tekhnicheskii progress i aktual'nye voprosy mezhdunarodnogo prava / N.N. Ul'yanova, A.A. Shishko, E.T. Run'ko i dr. K. : Nauk. dumka, 1990. S. 81.
15.
Babin B.V. Programmnost' mezhdunarodnogo ekonomicheskogo prava. Saarbryuken : LAP LAMBERT AP, 2011. S.
16.
Dolgosrochnaya programma razvitiya ekonomicheskogo i promyshlennogo sotrudnichestva mezhdu SSSR i Korolevstvom Norvegiya (Oslo, 17 oktyabrya 1990 g.) : http://www.ru.spinform.ru/ru_bases.html
17.
Ignatenko G.V. Problema programmnykh norm v sisteme dogovornogo regulirovaniya razvitiya sotsialisticheskoi ekonomicheskoi integratsii // Rol' mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov i institutsional'nykh mekhanizmov v razvitii sotsialisticheskoi integratsii : tezisy dokladov. M. 1978. S. 8-9.
18.
Vandevelde K.J. The Bilateral Investment Treaty Program of the United States // Cornell International Law Journal. 1998. Vol. 21. P. 201-276.
19.
Gower Handbook of Programme Management / Reiss G., Malcolm A., Chapman J., G. Leigh, A. Pyne, P. Rayner. Aldershot : Gower, 2006. 738 p.
20.
Osnovi programno-upravlns'ko dyal'nost v Ukran / B.V. Babn, V.O. Krolenko. Donets'k : Kashtan, 2006. C. 8-11.
21.
Giddens A. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford : GDgroup, 1990. P. 31.
22.
Vattel' E. de / Pravo narodov ili printsipy estestvennogo prava, primenyaemye k povedeniyu i delam natsii i suverenov. M. : Gosyurizdat, 1960. C. 16.
23.
Meurer C. The program of the freedom of the sea: a political study in the international law. Washington : Government printing office, 1919. 104 p.; Vuza L. The Trend of Development of International Law // Questions of International Law, 1964. Budapest, 1964. P. 5-10.
24.
dAspremont J. Softness in International Law: A Self-Serving Quest for New Legal Materials // European Journal of International Law. 2008. Vol. 19. 5. P. 1075-1093; Boyle A.E. Some Reflections on the Relationship of Treaties and Soft Law // International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 1999. Vol. 48. P. 901-913; Hillgenberg H.A fresh look at soft law // European Journal of International Law. 1999. Vol. 10. 3. P. 499-515; Koskenniemi M. Sources of International Law : The Library of Essays in International Law. B. 5. Dartmouth : Ashgate, 2000. 600 p.
25.
Maslova S.V. Printsip prava na razvitie v sovremennom mezhdunarodnom prave : avtoreferat diss. na soiskanie nauch. stepeni kand. yurid. nauk. SPb, 2003. 18 c.
26.
Bertrand Maurice. Planning, programming, budgeting, and evaluation in the United Nations. NY : UNA-USA; 1987. 57 p.; Novick D. Program budgeting; program analysis and the Federal budget. Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1967. 382 p.
27.
Herczeefh G. General Principles of Law and International Legal Order. Budapest : Akademiai Kiado, 1969. P 40-49; Kumm M. The Legitimacy of International Law: A Constitutionalist Framework of Analysis // European Journal of International Law. 2004. Vol. 15. 5. P. 908-920; Pronto A.N. Some Thoughts on the Making of International Law // The European Journal of International Law. 2008. Vol. 19. . 3. P. 470-481.
28.
Krisch N. International Law in Times of Hegemony: Unequal Power and the Shaping of the International Legal Order // European Journal of International Law. 2005. Vol. 16. 3 P. 378 etc.
29.
Kananykina E.S. Filosofskie traditsii analiza istochnikov (form) prava // Pravo i politika. 2004. 12. S. 14.
30.
Lukashuk I.I. Istochniki sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo prava. K. : Izd-vo KGU, 1966. C. 65; Minasyan N.M. Istochniki sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo prava. R.-n.-Donu : Izd-vo Rostov. un-ta, 1960. C. 82.
31.
Baimuratov M. A. Mezhdunarodnoe publichnoe pravo : uchebnik / M. O. Baimuratov. Kh. : OOO Odissei, 2007. C. 412.
32.
Mingazov L. Kh. Effektivnost' norm mezhdunarodnogo prava. Kazan' : Izd-vo Kazan. un-ta, 1990. C. 88; Nauchno-tekhnicheskii progress i aktual'nye voprosy mezhdunarodnogo prava / N. N. Ul'yanova, A. A. Shishko, E. T. Run'ko i dr. K. : Nauk. dumka, 1990. C. 92.
33.
Gaverdovskii A. S. Ukaz. rabota. S. 67; Ignatenko G. V. Ukaz. rabota. S. 9.
34.
Konventsiya o formirovanii i statuse mezhgosudarstvennykh nauchno-tekhnicheskikh programm gosudarstv uchastnikov SNG ot 25 noyabrya 1998 g., O Kontseptsii nauchno-informatsionnogo obespecheniya programm i proektov gosudarstv-uchastnikov SNG v innovatsionnoi sfere : reshenie Ekonomicheskogo soveta SNG ot 13 marta 2009 g., O Poryadke razrabotki, realizatsii i finansirovanii mezhgosudarstvennykh tselevykh programm SNG: reshenie Soveta glav pravitel'stv SNG ot 16 aprelya 2004 g. O Poryadke razrabotki i realizatsii mezhgosudarstvennykh tselevykh programm ES : reshenie Mezhgosudarstvennogo Soveta ES ot 27 fevralya 2004 g. 159 i t.d. http://cis.minsk.by
35.
O khode realizatsii programm, prinyatykh v ramkakh SNG v 2007 g. : analiticheskie materialy Postoyannogo predstavitel'stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii pri SNG http://www.cismission.mid.ru/v12.html; O khode vypolneniya v 2008 godu programm sotrudnichestva gosudarstv uchastnikov SNG v bor'be s prestupnost'yu, terrorizmom i nezakonnym oborotom narkotikov : analiticheskie materialy Postoyannogo predstavitel'stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii pri SNG http://www.cismission.mid.ru/v22.html
36.
Dogovr mzh Ukranoyu Respublkoyu Blorus' pro ekonomchne spvrobtnitstvo na 1999-2008 roki vd 11 grudnya 1998 r.; Dogovr mzh Ukranoyu Respublkoyu Kazakhstan pro ekonomchne spvrobtnitstvo na 1999-2009 roki vid 17 veresnya 1999 r.; Dogovr mzh Ukranoyu Respublkoyu Tadzhikistan pro dovgostrokove ekonomchne spvrobtnitstvo na 2003-2012 roki vd 9 kvtnya 2003 r.; Dogovr mzh Ukranoyu ta Azerbaidzhans'koyu Respublkoyu pro ekonomchne spvrobtnitstvo na 2000-2009 roki vid 16 bereznya 2000 r.; Dogovr mzh Ukranoyu ta Gruzyu pro ekonomchne spvrobtnitstvo na 1999-2008 roki vd 16 kvtnya 1999 r. i dr.: http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi
37.
O programme sinkhronizatsii i edinoi napravlennosti ekonomicheskikh reform v Respublike Belarus' i Rossiiskoi Federatsii: Reshenie 2 Vysshego Soveta Soobshchestva Belarusi i Rossii ot 2 aprelya 1997 g.: http://www.ru.spinform.ru/ru_bases.html
38.
Programa spvrobtnitstva Ukrani ta Rosis'ko Federats v galuz dosldzhennya ta vikoristannya kosmchnogo prostoru v mirnikh tslyakh na 1998-2007 roki vd 27 lyutogo 1998 r. // Kosmchne pravo Ukrani. K. : n Yure., 1998. S. 54-56.
39.
Programa realzats Poperedn'o ugodi mzh Uryadom Ukrani Uryadom Respublki Pol'shcha v galuz kul'turnogo ta naukovogo spvrobtnitstva na 1995-1996 roki vid 28 kvtnya 1995 r.; Programa kul'turnogo, naukovogo tekhnchnogo spvrobtnitstva mzh Uryadom Ukrani ta Uryadom Frantsuz'ko Respublki na 1997-1998-1999 rr. vid 30 schnya 1997 r.; Programa spl'nikh di na 2004-2006 rr. mzh Kabnetom Mnstrv Ukrani ta Uryadom Korolvstva Nderlandv vid 19 kvtnya 2004 r.; Programa spvrobtnitstva mzh Kabnetom Mnstrv Ukrani ta Uryadom slams'ko Respublki ran u sfer kul'turi, osvti, nauki, sportu, turizmu, zasobv masovo nformats ta molodzhnogo obmnu na 2004-2006 roki (1383-1385 rr. sonyachno khdzhri) vid 22 kvtnya 2004 r. : http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi
40.
Programi spvrobtnitstva mzh Mnsterstvom kul'turi mistetstv Ukrani Mnsterstvom kul'turi Respublki Blorus' na 1997 1998 roki vd 12 travnya 1997 r., na 2000 2002 roki vd 8 lipnya 2000 r.; Programi kul'turnogo spvrobtnitstva mzh Mnsterstvom kul'turi mistetstv Ukrani ta Mnsterstvom kul'turi, u spravakh molod sportu Respublki Vrmenya na 2000 2002 roki vid 23 grudnya 1999 r., na 2008-2012 roki vid 30 listopada 2008 r.; Programi kul'turnogo spvrobtnitstva mzh Mnsterstvom kul'turi mistetstv Ukrani ta Mnsterstvom kul'turi Respublki Khorvatya na 2004-2006 roki vid 21 zhovtnya 2003 r., na 2008-2010 roki vid 8 veresnya 2008 r., Programa zakhodv u galuz kul'turnogo spvrobtnitstva mzh Mnsterstvom kul'turi mistetstv Ukrani ta Mnsterstvom kul'turi Khashimts'kogo Korolvstva Iordanya na 2005-2007 roki vid 27 travnya 2005 r.; Programa spvrobtnitstva v galuz kul'turi mzh Mnsterstvom kul'turi turizmu Ukrani ta Mnsterstvom kul'turi Respublki Serbya na 2009-2011 rr. vid 7 kvtnya 2009 r.; Programa spvrobtnitstva mzh Mnsterstvom kul'turi turizmu Ukrani ta Mnsterstvom kul'turi Respublki Makedonya na 2010-2014 roki vd 3 listopada 2010 r. : http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi
41.
Programa sportivnogo spvrobtnitstva mzh Mnsterstvom Ukrani u spravakh sm', molod ta sportu Verkhovnoyu Radoyu u spravakh sportu span vid 27 listopada 2006 r., Programa spvrobtnitstva v galuz molodzhno poltiki sportu mzh Mnsterstvom Ukrani u spravakh sm', molod ta sportu Mnsterstvom molod ta sportu Azerbaidzhans'ko Respublki na 2008-2009 roki vid 22 travnya 2008 r. : http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi
42.
Programa spvrobtnitstva mzh Mnsterstvom oboroni Ukrani Mnsterstvom oboroni Turkmenstanu na 2005-2007 roki vid 23 bereznya 2005 r. // Oftsinii vsnik Ukrani. Ofts. vid. 2006. 21. St. 1595.
43.
Programa spvrobtnitstva mzh Mnsterstvom transportu Ukrani ta Mnsterstvom transportu komunkatsi Litovs'ko Respublki na 2004 2010 rr. vid 20 travnya 2004 r. : http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi
44.
Programa spvrobtnitstva mzh Mnsterstvom zakordonnikh sprav Ukrani ta Mnsterstvom zakordonnikh sprav Respublki Uzbekistan vid 3 listopada 2003 r.; Programa spvrobtnitstva mzh Mnsterstvom zakordonnikh sprav Ukrani Mnsterstvom zakordonnikh sprav Respublki Tadzhikistan vid 2 kvtnya 2004 r.; Programa spvrobtnitstva mzh Mnsterstvom zakordonnikh sprav Ukrani Mnsterstvom zakordonnikh sprav Perekhdno slams'ko Derzhavi Afganstan na 2004 rk vd 4 kvtnya 2004 r. : http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi
45.
Bertrand M. Planning, programming, budgeting, and evaluation in the UN. NY : UNA; 1987. 57 p.; Fomerand J. Strengthening the UN economic and social programs: a documentary essay. Hanover' : AC UNS; 1990. 29 p.
46.
Plan vypolneniya reshenii Vsemirnoi vstrechi na vysshem urovne po ustoichivomu razvitiyu : prinyat rezolyutsiei GA OON ot 4 sentyabrya 2002 g. A/CONF.199/20. N'yu-Iork : OON, 2002. 89 s.; Vsesvtnya programa di OON stosovno nvaldv vid 3 grudnya 1982 r. : http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi
47.
Programme planning : United Nations General Assembly Resolution of 21 December 1982 A/RES/37/234 // Key resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, 1946-1996. Gottingen, 1997. P. 486-498.
48.
Ispolnenie programm OON v dvukhgodichnyi period 20042005 godov : Doklad ot 20 aprelya 2006 g. A/61/64 na 61-i sessii GA OON, p. 117, Planirovanie po programmam. N'yu-Iork : OON, 2006. 332 s.
49.
Normy otsenki v sisteme OON. Na puti k sisteme OON, luchshe otvechayushchei potrebnostyam narodov vsego mira; preodolenie nedostatkov i razvitie preimushchestv na osnove ubeditel'noi dokazatel'noi bazy : dokument Gruppy OON po otsenke ot 29 aprelya 2005 g. N'yu-Iork : OON, 2005. 12 s.
50.
Srednesrochnyi strategicheskii plan na 2008-2013 gg. s popravkami : odobren Assambleei zdravookhraneniya v rezolyutsii WHA60.11. Zheneva : VOZ, 2007. 125 s.; Revised Program and Budget for the 2008/09 Biennium : Approved by the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO on December 12, 2008. Geneve : WIPO, 2009. 196 p.; Approved Programme and Budget 20102011 : United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 35 C/5. Paris : UNESCO, 2010. Official Doc. 309 p.; Struktura analiticheskikh otsenok MOT. Otsenka v kontekste strategicheskogo byudzheta : dokument GB.285/PFA/10, noyabr' 2002 g. / Administrativnyi sovet MOT, 285-ya sessiya. Zheneva : MOT, 2002. 11 s.; Hight-Level Action Plan of the Organization and Priorities for the 2008-2009 biennium: Resolution of IMO A.990 (25) adopted on 29 November 2007 / IMO, Assembly A 25/Res.990, 25th session 21 December 2007 / IMO. L. : IMO, 2007. Official Doc. 17 p.; Integrated technical co-operation programme (ITCP) for 2008-2009 : IMO Technical Co-operation Committee TC 57/3/1, 12 April 2007. L. : IMO, 2007. Official Doc. 64 p.
51.
OSCE Action Plan to combat trafficking in human beings : Permanent Council Decision PC.DEC/557 24 July 2003, Annex 462nd Plenary Meeting PC Journal . 462. Vienna : OSCE, 2003. Official doc. 27 p.
52.
Ukrana NATO : organi derzhavno vladi, sudovo ta pravookhoronno sistemi yak provdn uchasniki protsesu vropeis'ko ta vroatlantichno ntegrats [kolektivna monografya] / V.M. Beschastnii, .Ya. Todorov, B.V. Babn ta n. K. : Chetverta khvilya, 2008. C. 88-92. Bodrov V. A., Rednikov A. G. Novye zakonodatel'nye mery profilaktiki narusheniya prava grazhdan na sudoproizvodstvo i ispolnenie sudebnogo akta v razumnyi srok v sootvetstvii s sudebnoi praktikoi Evropeiskogo suda po pravam cheloveka//Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii/International law and international organizations, 1, 2011.
53.
Erpyleva N. Yu. Normativnyi sostav mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo prava i ego sootnoshenie s vnutrigosudarstvennym i mezhdunarodnym publichnym pravom//Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii/International law and international organizations, 2, 2011.
54.
Yastrebova A. Yu. Mezhdunarodno-pravovye instrumenty predotvrashcheniya prinuditel'nogo truda i torgovli lyud'mi: prioritety i osobennosti//Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii/International law and international organizations, 3, 2011. str. 24-39
55.
Smbatyan A. S. Organy pravosudiya v sisteme mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii//Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii/International law and international organizations, 4, 2011. str. 131-136
56.
Oganesyan V. A. Resheniya mezhdunarodnykh sudov po pravam cheloveka kak osobyi istochnik razvitiya i soblyudeniya printsipov ugolovnogo pravosudiya//Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii/International law and international organizations, 1, 2012. str. 65-71
57.
Yastrebova A. Yu. Mezhdunarodno-pravovye osnovy i napravleniya mezhgosudarstvennogo sotrudnichestva po zashchite detei//Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii/International law and international organizations, 2, 2012. str. 34-43
58.
Izhikov M. Yu. Konventsionnye organy v sisteme zashchity prav cheloveka: nekotorye problemy i puti ikh resheniya//Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii/International law and international organizations, 2, 2012. str. 6-15
59.
Danel'yan A. A. Rol' mezhdunarodnykh organizatsii v regulirovanii mezhdunarodnykh ekonomicheskikh otnoshenii: opyt, sovremennye problemy i tendentsii//Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii/International law and international organizations, 3, 2012. str. 116-123
60.
Babin B.V. Pravo sobstvennosti narodov: mezhdunarodnoe i natsional'noe izmereniya // NB: Voprosy prava i politiki.-2013.-10.-C. 12-34. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/lr/article_9469.html
61.
Sintsov G. V. Mezhdunarodnoe programmnoe regulirovanie kak fenomen sovremennosti // Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii / International Law and International Organizations.-2012.-3.-C. 129-131.
62.
M.B. Napso, M.D. Napso Prava narodov i prava individa: sotsial'no-filosofskie i pravovye aspekty sootnosheniya individual'nykh i kollektivnykh prav // Pravo i politika.-2012.-11.-C. 1907-1917.
63.
Babin B.V. Predposylki priznaniya prava na samoosoznanie sovremennym mezhdunarodnym pravom // NB: Voprosy prava i politiki.-2013.-8.-C. 1-25. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/lr/article_9327.html
64.
Babin B.V. Pravo na soprotivlenie kak global'noe pravo. // NB: Voprosy prava i politiki.-2013.-5.-C. 181-200. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/lr/article_817.htm

.


:
NotaBene / Aurora Group s.r.o.
"History Illustrated"