Introduction. The adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court proved to be an important factor that stimulated a radical reform of national laws relating to the prosecution of international crimes. It allowed, on one hand, to considerably improve the mechanism for suppressing most serious violations of human rights the prosecution of which constituted a legitimate interest of both individual States and the international community as a whole, and on the other hand, to adequately implement the obligations of States under the Rome Statute. The Member States of the European Union have an effective experience in ensuring compliance of the national laws with the international treaty provisions concerning genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Among them, the implementation model chosen by the Netherlands deserves particular scrutiny. The authors analyze the all-encompassing nature of this model with the focus on the criminalization of the international crimes, the regulation of matters relating to the criminal jurisdiction, the definition of the general principles of criminal responsibility for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and the interrelationship between the Law on International Crimes and other similar legal acts.

Materials and methods. Materials used for the analysis include international documents, decisions of international judicial bodies, national legislation and judicial practice of Netherlands and other states, as well as the doctrinal positions of various authors. The methodological basis of the research consists of general scientific and special methods.

Research results. The analysis of the substantive implementation of the Rome Statute by individual EU member states, in particular with the example of the national legislation of the Netherlands, has shown that the criminalization of international crimes at the national level makes a significant contribution to the fight against personal impunity for international crimes pertaining to jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Introduction. The main value of legal democratic states is the protection of human and civil rights and freedoms. For this purpose, the state forms specialized bodies – courts, as well as a specialized body – the Human Rights Ombudsman (ombudsman). In this article, the theory of the institution of the Ombudsman for Human Rights is being considered. The study of the emergence of the institution of the human rights ombudsman in the territories of the Republic of Abkhazia and the Russian Federation is primarily due to the proximity of the legal systems of both states and the vast amount of Abkhazia's imposition as provisions of Russian regulatory legal acts, experience in their enforcement, as well as experience in building democratic state authorities. To consider this study as authentic is possible for a number of reasons: First, a comparative plan, in the study of foreign experience of the institution of the Commissioner for Human Rights. Second, given the degree of influence of the Russian experience of building a legal democratic state on Abkhazia, this study also presents some retrospective value in studying the Russian institution of the Ombudsman for Human Rights under conditions of limited funding. Third, taking into account the fact that 90% of the inhabitants of the Republic of Abkhazia are citizens of the Russian Federation – the study of the problems of protecting their rights and freedoms is of great interest for Russian legal science.

Materials and methods. The methodological basis of the research was general scientific (sociological, systemic, etc.) and special (comparative legal, formal-legal, historical-legal etc.) methods of cognition.

Research results. As a result of the retrospective analysis of the establishment of the institution of the authorized person for human rights in the territory of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Abkhazia, it was revealed that the institution of the Commissioner for Human Rights on the territory of the Russian Federation is an important body called to ensure the protection of human and civil rights and freedoms (primarily from administrative arbitrariness); that the institution of the Ombudsman for Human Rights in the territory of the Republic of Abkhazia had previously been only formally declarative, and after the reform, designed to increase the protection of human and civil rights and freedoms, was not able to function for any number of reasons: lack of material and technical support. Unfortunately, the lack of this institution, together with a number of problems of the judiciary, does not allow to fully protect the interests, rights and freedoms of citizens of the Republic of Abkhazia. At the same time, considering the dual citizenship of these citizens, a number of questions and the inactivity of the Russian authorities to protect the citizens living permanently abroad (in this territory) raise a number of questions.

Introduction. The 1969 Report of the UN General Secretary noted that 125 fixed platforms were used in offshore areas for the purpose of oil industry. “The International Law of the Sea” (Vol. 1 and 2) published in UK in 1994 provides that “approximately 6000 fixed platforms have been installed in offshore areas throughout the world”. In 2014 only in the area of the OSPAR Convention, 1992, more than 1300 offshore constructions were installed. As for January 2018, the majority of these constructions are in the North Sea (184), the Gulf of Mexico (175), the Persian Gulf (159), and offshore of Far East Asia (152) and Southeast Asia (152). In the other regions this number varies from 3 to 88, while the Canadian Arctic has the smallest number of offshore constructions limited to just 1 object. Accordingly, the issues of interpretation of UNCLOS articles on legal regime of artificial islands and other fixed structures at sea are becoming more pressing. Moreover, the interstate relations, regarding construction of artificial islands in offshore areas, need relevant legal framework to be in place, taking into account the constant growth of economic and military “competition” among countries, as well as the development of science and technologies applicable to offshore construction.

Materials and methods. This paper dwells upon the international treaties and other legal instruments, which rely upon the terms “artificial islands”, “installations”, “structures” at sea for regulating relations among States and between States and other international law subjects. The materials for this paper are also commentaries of the UNCLOS, interpretation of the relevant articles of 1958 Geneva maritime conventions, applicable resolutions of the International Maritime Organization, and also definitions of the conventional terms suggested by scholars. The methodological basis of the research consists of general scientific and specific methods, including comparative method.

Research results. Most specialists in the law of the sea who research similar topics dwell upon their personal definitions of the conventional terms mentioned above. Such specialists correctly note that the absence of such definitions in UNCLOS makes it difficult to interpret and apply relevant articles in a proper way. Meanwhile, the necessity for such interpretation and application is of practical value because such terms of UNCLOS relate firstly to relevant rights and jurisdiction of coastal and other States in maritime areas where artificial islands, installations and structures are used, including the territorial sea, the EEZ and the continental shelf. Nevertheless lots of different definitions of such terms suggested by scholars make it even more difficult to interpret and apply the rules of UNCLOS on artificial islands, installations and structures, including such sensitive areas of interstate relations as safety at sea and protection of the marine environment.

Discussion and conclusions. The authors of this paper do not support any classification or definition of “artificial islands”, “installations” or “structures” or any other definition of other specific words used in UNCLOS for such terms. Instead the authors bring arguments to legal delineation of artificial islands from any other permanent structure at sea independently of the fact which particular word is used in UNCLOS for describing such a structure in a relevant article (“installations”, “structures”, “devices”, “equipment” etc.). It is argued in this paper that such legal delineation is caused by a difficult and comprehensive balance of interests achieved during the III Conference on the Law of the Sea, and such interests relating to economic, military, environmental interests of States, coastal and non-coastal, firstly in the EEZ and on the continental shelf.

Introduction. Despite the international aviation community’s attempts aimed at improvement of safety of air transport and reduction of the number of air accidents, unfortunately, many threats to safety of civil aircraft still exist to date, including armed conflicts and other military activities taking place in different parts of our planet. Malaysian Boeing 777-200 crash of 17 July 2014 in the eastern Ukraine killing 283 passengers and 15 crew members has become the tragedy clearly showing the risks, to which the civil aircraft and passengers on board flying in the airspace over the areas of armed conflicts, are exposed. In light of this accident, the author examines the present international legal regime of safety of civil aircraft flying over the areas of armed conflicts and military exercises, identifies the problems of this regime and proposes the ways of its improvement.

Materials and methods. The present research has been conducted on the basis of international air law treaties, the documents of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), as well as the works of Russian and foreign international law experts. The methodology of the research is based upon general scientific and special methods, including dialectical method, methods of analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, comparative legal method.

Research results. On the basis of his research the author concludes that neither the present-day international legal regime of safety of civil aircraft flying over the areas of armed conflicts and military exercises, nor existing rules of international air law prohibiting use of weapons against civil aircraft can prevent accidents similar to Malaysian airplane crash of 17 July 2014. In view of this conclusion, the author proposes improvement of international legal regime of safety of civil aviation, and in particular, amendment of the Convention on International Civil Aviation of 1944 (“Chicago Convention of 1944”) aimed at enhancement of States’ obligations relating to restriction of flights of civil aircraft within their sovereign airspace during armed conflicts or other military activities.

Discussion and conclusions. The author examines treaty and customary rules of international law governing the issues of safety of civil aircraft flying over the areas of armed conflicts and military exercises as well as ICAO standards and other acts (documents) and concludes that they do not precisely oblige the States to restrict or prohibit flights of civil aircraft in their sovereign airspace during armed conflicts, military exercises or other hazardous military activities. Moreover, the provisions of the Chicago Convention of 1944 and other international treaties prohibiting the use of weapons against civil aircraft are imperfect and do not fully protect civil aviation from different types of weapons. Therefore, the ICAO’s work following Malaysian airplane crash of 17 July 2014 for the purpose of enhancement of protection of civil aviation from the threats arising from armed conflicts and other hazardous military activities appears insufficient and must include more efficient measures, such as adoption of new international treaty rules containing precise States’ obligations.

Introduction. The problem of the backlog of the normative and legal bases in the field of international space law is widely discussed by Russian and foreign international lawyers. The most vital problem is the non-militarization of space, taking into consideration the lack of bilateral and multilateral banning treaties in this field. The realization of the American program for a missile defense in space forces Russia to react. However, the further participation in the nuclear arms race contradicts our national interests. No less dangerous than space weaponization is the stubborn desire of some states to create benefits for the national private users of outer space. The lack of the effective bans in this field leads to undermining of the regime of the agreements in force on the exploration and use of outer space. The current task is to save the positive provisions of the space agreements as well as to ensure the equal rights for all states in their space activities.

Materials and methods. Materials used for the analysis include legal works of Russian and foreign researches in the field of international space law and international relations as well as multinational treaties in the sphere of space law, bilateral treaties in the sphere of disarmament, national acts in the sphere of the commercial use of outer space. Methodological procedures of the research include general and specific scientific methods of enquiry (dialectical method, methods of analysis and synthesis, deduction, induction, comparative-legal and historical-legal methods).

Research results. Today the main purpose is to bring the rules, concerning the use of outer space in accordance with the today’s requirements. The lag in the legal provisions of our national interests

is unacceptable for Russia and will entail unpredictable consequences. Today the strategic potential of Russia is sufficient to overcome the US antiballistic missile system. However, the competition of defensive and offensive weapons always leads to further arms race. One of the most effective means to avoid it is the use of “soft power” in international relations in general and in international relations in the field of using outer space. The use of “soft power” means for example the participation in long- term mutually beneficial projects in space.

Discussion and conclusions. According to the author the means to avoid the new round of the arms race in space are the use of “soft power” in international projects of the use of outer space and implementation of existing disarmament agreements. Confrontation is a blind alley: that was the main concept during the disarmament era. The common sense must prevail over momentary interests. This statement can also be applied to the attempts concerning the review of the existing agreements in the field of using of outer space. These agreements should be adapted but not cancelled.

Introduction. The article analyzes the issue of mutual responsibility of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. The purpose of this study is to address the issue of the responsibility incurred by specialized agencies and the United Nations for non-fulfillment of mutual obligations. The objective of the author is to highlight the mechanisms of mutual responsibility of specialized agencies and the UN by means of analyzing the constituent documents of organizations in question and agreements made between them.

Materials and methods. The materials for the study were: the UN Charter, agreements between the UN and specialized agencies, “Draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations”, as well as other documents. For the research, the author applies general scientific and specific legal methods of cognition, namely: a dialectical method; a comparative legal method; a method of systematic analysis, as well as methods of analysis, synthesis, deduction, etc.

Research results. As the result of the study, the author draws a conclusion that specialized agencies are subjects of international responsibility and they incur “broad international responsibility”; they are able to bear responsibility in compliance with the general rules of international responsibility for internationally wrongful acts committed by international organizations, as stipulated in the “Draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations” within the scope of their competence. We have determined a fairly high degree of dependence of specialized agencies on the United Nations with regard to the freedom to requests advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice. In our view, the lack of dispute resolution mechanisms makes specialized agencies dependent on the UN and limits their freedom. In addition, a close cooperation of such independent international organizations as the UN and specialized agencies should also include a mechanism for resolving disputes in case such disputes arise. Thus, it would be correct to include articles regulating mutual international responsibility of the UN and specialized agencies in agreements that the UN makes with specialized agencies.

Discussion and conclusions. The article drew attention to the necessity to consolidate the provisions on mutual responsibility of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. This is justified by the fact that close cooperation exists between these organizations, built on a contractual and legal basis, but the provisions on mutual responsibility of these organizations are not fixed anywhere. The peculiarities of mutual responsibility of the United Nations and the specialized agencies of the United Nations have been revealed. It is shown that despite the existence of a sufficiently large number of mechanisms for resolving international legal disputes to which international organizations can participate, to resolve disputes between the UN and specialized agencies, these mechanisms are not applicable, and therefore there is a need to include provisions on mutual responsibility in agreements between the UN and specialized agencies.

Introduction. The article examines the legal status of honorary consuls, the procedure for their appointment and performance of consular functions. The scope of functions performed by honorary consuls and the volume of privileges and immunities accorded to honorary consuls for unhindered fulfillment of their official duties are separately disclosed. Particular attention deserves an overview of the history of the formation and development of the institution of honorary consuls since antiquity to the present time. Special attention is given to the context of historical excursion to the establishment of the Institute of Honorary Consuls in the Russian Empire, the USSR and the Russian Federation.

Materials and methods. The materials for the study were the works of leading Russian and foreign specialists in the field of international law and diplomacy. The preparation of this article took into account the works of not only modern authors, but also classics whose works have not lost their relevance for the purposes of this article. The methodological basis of scientific research was made up of general and special methods of cognition (dialectical method, methods of analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, comparative legal and historical legal methods).

Research results. Based on the results of the study, the article analyzes in detail historical aspects of the establishment and development of the institute of honorary consuls. The provisions of the national legislation of the Russian Federation and of other foreign states regulating the appointment of honorary consuls, the scope of their functions, establishing separate requirements for candidacies for the post of honorary consuls, and other issues directly related to the activities of honorary consuls are analyzed.

Discussion and conclusions. In the article the author comes to the conclusion that the main role in determining the legal status of the honorary consul, the procedure for his appointment, his functions, is assigned to the national legislation of the states and bilateral consular conventions, which provide for the possibility of performing consular functions by honorary consuls.

Introduction. The area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) is one of the most dynamic areas of EU policy. The migration crisis, as well as the activation of terrorist organizations in the EU MS, had a significant impact on the Union's policy, which forced the EU to revise the EU AFSJ policy. At the moment we can identify the significant changes in the EU policy on AFSJ, which emphasize the particular relevance of this study.

Materials and methods. This research is based on the scientific works of Russian and foreign researchers in the field of European integration and European law, as well as on the analysis of EU legal acts. The methodological basis of the research includes a variety of methods of scientific knowledge – philosophical, general scientific and special legal.

Research results. The development of the legal component of the AFSJ is the result of the migration crisis and the increase in the terrorist threat, which had some "remedial" effect on the AFSJ. A common feature for all components of the AFSJ is the expansion the cooperation within Union and strengthening of the EU competence.

Discussion and conclusions. There are two debated issues within this study. First, is there a risk of the collapse of the AFSJ, is there a danger that the EU will have to give up some of the achievements of the AFSJ? The authors of this article believe that, despite of current difficulties, the EU has a sufficient margin of safety in order to maintain and strengthen the main components of the AFSJ. Secondly, to what extent the EU experience in the field of AFSJ could be used within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)? The development of the integration organizations shows that in the future the EAEU will face the need to harmonize migration and law enforcement policies. In this case the positive experience of the EU can be useful for the Eurasian integration.

Introduction. In this article the authors examine in detail the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in the EU. Regulation of this area called “Dublin system”, which is one of the directions of building the Common European Asylum System in the EU.

Materials and methods. The materials for the article were the works of Russian and foreign researchers in the field of international law and European law on forced migration in the EU. The methodological basis of the research consists of general scientific and special methods: dialectical method, methods of analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, comparative legal and historical legal methods.

Research results. As a result of the study the authors outline that Dublin system is part of the Common European Asylum System, which in turn is an integral part of the EU's goal of building the Area for Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). The authors systematize the definitions and legal acts which form the basis of the Dublin system. On the basis of the current acts of EU, aspects of the Dublin system are analyzed, such as the criteria on the basis of which the Member State responsible are determined, the mechanism for early warning and the role of EU’s institutions in this field.

Discussion and conclusions. The authors point out that the EU continues its policy of developing the Dublin system. The criticism of the Dublin system is an integral part of the deepening of integration processes in the EU. This process will be implemented by expanding the range of regulated issues and strengthening the role of supranational regulation in this field.

Introduction. Maritime boundary disputes and exercising sovereignty in the Arctic are of great current interest in the International Law since there is no uniform understanding of the limits of applicability of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 to the Arctic Ocean taking into account the international customary law and historic rights of the coastal states. One of such disputes is the US-Canada Beaufort Sea maritime boundary dispute which is of vast importance due to the hydrocarbon exploration of these states in the outlined area as well as due to the conclusion and entry into force of the Treaty between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean 2010.

Materials and methods. The theoretical background of this research consists of works of distinguished Russian and foreign scholars and specialists in International Law. The analytical framework includes the treaties between Arctic coastal states concerning maritime delimitation (the Convention Concerning the Limits of Their Respective Possessions on the Northwest Coast of America and the Navigation of the Pacific Ocean 1825, Treaty concerning the Cession of the Russian Possessions in North America by his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russia to the United States of America 1867, Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the maritime boundary 1990), national legislation of the US and Canada, diplomatic notes. The research is based on methods such as formal logic, including analysis, synthesis, analogy and modeling historical research, as well as systematic, historical and comparative methods.

Research results. Based on the results of the study, the author notes that there are considerable differences in the US and Canada’s legal stances concerning the disputed area of the Beaufort Sea, including in particular the opposing views of these states on the applicability of the Convention 1825 to their relations (according to Canada, it applies to maritime areas, whereas the US favours its literal construction which limits its scope to land areas).  The US and Canada also base their claims on the rules on special circumstances and the doctrine of estoppel which are reflected in their national legislation. The legal analysis of the different approaches to the resolution of the dispute in question allows making the conclusion on the perspective and necessity of its settlement, particularly, in the context of the Russian Arctic claims.

Discussion and conclusions. Based on the legal analysis of the international treaties on the Arctic delimitation, US and Canada national legislation and doctrinal views, the author comes to the conclusion that sustaining the status-quo is beneficial for both parties since it does not affect the legal positions of other states in similar disputes, nor does it hinder the international cooperation in the Arctic.

Introduction. Currently, the surviving spouse is a legal heir in the majority of the states of Romano-Germanic legal family, but the conditions for granting and the scope and types of rights of the surviving spouse in intestate succession simultaneously with the relatives of the testator and in their absence in Russian law and foreign laws vary significantly. In addition, in foreign countries, there is a tendency to change the understanding of marriage and family relations: a more important role was assigned not only to their formal securing, but also to the actual nature of the relationship between the spouses, which also affected the rights of the surviving spouse in intestate succession. These differences in the regulation of the intestate succession rights of the surviving spouse in Russia and foreign countries and the trends in the development of foreign legislation justify the relevance and need for a comparative legal analysis of the intestate succession rights of the surviving spouse in Russia and in other countries related to the Romano-Germanic legal family, which include, in particular, France and Spain. The purpose of this study was to find ways to improve current Russian law on inheritance (in particular, the surviving spouse’s intestate succession rights) on the basis of the comparative legal analysis of the statutory regulation of intestate succession in Russia, France and Spain. The study had the following objectives: to identify differences in the termination of marriage as an impediment for surviving spouse’s intestate succession in Russia, France and Spain; to determine the order of heirs which the surviving spouse occupies and his right to inheritance share in Russia, France and Spain, including his right to compulsory share; to identify the intestate succession rights of surviving spouse, other than his right to inheritance share, in French and Spanish laws for their further consideration as potential novels of Russian legislation on inheritance.

Materials and methods. The material for this study was the legislation of Russia, France and Spain (in particular, the rules of inheritance, family and housing law), as well as scientific works of Russian and foreign experts in the field of inheritance law. The methodological basis of the research is represented by a complex of general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction), as well as special methods used in legal science, such as historical-legal, formal-legal and comparative-legal methods.

Research results. As a result of a comparative legal study, similarities and differences in the legal regulation of Russia, France and Spain were defined in such aspects of inheritance by law as the obstacles to surviving spouse intestate succession, the right of the surviving spouse to the inheritance share, including a compulsory share in the inheritance, as well as other rights that have complex nature and often differ from the rights to inheritance share (right to housing where the surviving spouse usually lived with the testator, right to receive allowance and right to home furnishings and belongings).

Discussion and conclusions. As the main conclusions of the comparative legal analysis of intestate succession rights of surviving spouse in Russia, France and Spain the author proposes some amendments to Russian legislation on intestate succession.