INTRODUCTION. The situation in domestic legal science of Russia in the field of research of the subject of principles in international law may be ascertained in general terms as a fairly static picture that inspires a serene belief in the immutability of the existing position and further stable sustainability thereof. Such state of things consists in the illusion of the non-availability of difficulties or problems – a person starts from the point of a binary opposition in the values of principles / norms, as well as the unchangeable existence of the dichotomy of basic and sectoral principles. At the same time, let’s take note, that sectoral principles are alternatively and in most cases equivalently treated as special ones [Chernichenko 2014:101-102]. The implications of the said assumption are ideas relevant to sectoral principles as based on the presumption of their similarity in essence and function, based only on the name and place in the regulatory system (branch of law). Undoubtedly, the general tendencies for the sectoral principles of the International Law (IL) are those, which, firstly, appear like basic ones, objectively, and, secondly, the lists and scope thereof depend from specific relations immune to particular branches of law. At the same time, with due account to the submissions afore-referred, the affected area is in many aspects significantly various, not simple and can give rise to many differing views, discussions, objections, rejection or support, etc., because it is conditioned by the real fact of availability in international law of a greater variety of substances/ other phenomena in the matter of principles. Due to the above, a more meticulous view of the principles in international law shall be required: on the one hand, revealing the rationale for the fact that they are not a chaotic phenomenon within the system of international law, and, on the other hand, providing a substantive analysis of them, taking into account the differentiation and identification of objects that claim to be placed under the head of principles, construing the typology thereof, etc. Such an approach is not only assumed as logical, but prima facie due by time and, therefore, fully justified.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article is based on the provisions of international treaties, materials of codification of international law norms by the UN International Law Commission, judicial decisions, acts of law enforcement of the International Court of Justice or other international courts, and documents embodying the positive international law, as well as the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists in the field of theory and practice of international law. The research operates with various general and particular methods of analysis: dialectical materialism, structural and system analysis, formal logic, deduction and induction, comparative law, historical and retrospective approach, formal legal analysis, legal modeling, “techniques of evidence” (legal reasoning), as well as various methods of legal interpretation, etc., adopted in domestic and expatriate jurisprudence.

RESARCH RESULTS. The purpose of this publication is to endeavor certain clarification of theoretical data related to such a fundamental category as “the principle of international law”, which is deemed to canbe achieved through proper identification of various constructions that operate with the element “principles” or similar terms, by way of systematization and delineation thereof from other phenomena available in the framework of international legal reality. Therefore, it is not occasional that the title of the article operates with such a formula to designate the discourse: “…. on the stricto sensu ‘principles’ in modern international law and beyond...”. To ensure the better links of the scope and objectives of the research in terms of highlighting the system of principles and smooth functioning both of international law itself and the entirety of its principles and norms, as well as to clarify and streamline the basic terminology and conceptual basis of international legal science in the matter of principles, the typology of concepts that form the legal backgrounds for contemporary regulation of interstate relationships has been commissioned herein, since there is heterogeneity of various heads of items that claim to be the principles of international law, even with no normative nature in some of them, etc. The same appears to be quite obvious facts. In witness of the same, there are, on the one hand, diversification of the normative principles expressed in modern international law, which determines the identifying features for each of existing heads of principles, and as an outcome of the latter, the need to build up the respective system, on the other hand. However, the grounds for “stratification”, i.e. the distribution of the principles per separate groups (for example, the subdivision into basic and sectoral principles or differentiation between the system-wide and special principles), are far from being exhaustively revealed as yet, and need in better targeted efforts of scholars. Due to the above, the author held differentiating sectoral and special principles inter se, having substantiated the segregation of the specific head of principles within the latter group – “principles of autonomous (self-contained) legal regimes”.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. It seems that there is a serious substantive distinction between the formula “principles of modern international law” and “principles in modern international law”. The discourse outlined as “principles in international law”, having a broader sense and destination, in the absence of an unambiguous understanding of the term ‘the principle’, is more diligent to reflect the state of things in the field of principles in so far the legal science / international law science is concerned regarding the essence, features, and functional qualities of any particular type of objects, sometimes referred to as ‘principles’. In case, if it comes to “principles of international law”, they are to be identified primarily as the fundamental, guiding, hierarchically high norms within the system of international law, bearing the burden of the most important components of this system, and are classified according to generic and specific characteristics, which depend on their salient features. The formula “principles in international law” assumes a view of of the subject that has a broader and less structured range of options for qualifications.

INTRODUCTION. The term “rules-based order” is increasingly referred to in speeches within many international forums as well as declared from national political tribunes. The initial question is whether this notion is of purely political nature (since it is not used in the UN Charter or in other universal international conventions and this term is not relied upon by the International Court of Justice or by the UN International Law Commission). On the other hand, with the popularization of such a political discourse, the frequent usage of this term by representatives of some states (not only of Western States, but also of China, for example) can affect international law. The very application of this term definitely provokes a splash of other questions. How does the term “rules-based order” correlate with the universally recognized term “international legal order”? Does the idea to use the term “rules-based order” have substantive legal grounds? Which rules in concreto1 are meant by the term? Who and how creates these rules? What is the nature of these rules – are they rules of national law and if so – national rules of what State? If these are rules of international law – why is it not reflected in the term? Due to the attractive wording the concept gets widespread, but lacking a common understanding of its content, everyone might put a different meaning into the concept. Does it result in the fact that some officials, representing states, become politically entitled with the right to abuse the international legal order as it is established by modern international law? This research examines these theoretic aspects of the concept “rules-based order”, taking into account that in the context of international relations it may be referred to also as “rules-based international order”. An additional question to answer is whether the concept might be regarded as one of the numerous attempts to adapt the current international law to new challenges.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The research paper is based on the analysis of numerous statements of representatives of states, in which their attitude to the “rules-based order” concept is manifested, positive and critical remarks relating to the concept made by international lawyers, as well as other research papers of Russian and foreign international scholars. The methodological instruments include general scientific and special methods, among them the historical method, methods of formal logic, analysis, synthesis, as well as systemic, comparative legal methods.

RESEARCH RESULTS. Although the above-noted questions about the legal meaning of the term “rulesbased order” have arisen only in recent years mainly in the context of the anti-Russian rhetoric of Western politicians, the term has been used much earlier at different levels in a wide variety of topics. The question of inconsistent perceptions of this term is another reflection of a more general problem of weakening or strengthening the universal legally binding international order. One of the appropriate interpretive versions of this concept might be that “rules-based order” means first and foremost the world order which is based on norms of international law (which are mandatory as well known), and on applicable non-binding international rules containing a normative element, such as international rules provided in the documents of intergovernmental organizations and conferences, interstate political arrangements, and other mutually accepted rules, formed in the contemporary practice of international relations. This interpretation allows to bring the concept in line with modern international law. Nevertheless, even within such interpretation, it is necessary to respect the distinction between the norms of international law, which are binding, and other rules, which do not create State’s obligations under international law. Thus, unilateral or “blocking” imposition of values of one State on other States under the guise of rules on which, according to the first State, the world order is based, will not be allowed.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. If another interpretation prevails, the “rules-based order” concept may have a negative impact on the existing international legal order insofar as it “washes out” the established legitimate procedures of international law-making, thus rejecting traditional international values of legal stability and diminishing the role of international law in international relations. Such scenario would not only multiply legal uncertainly and even unreasonable expectations among the participants of the international processes, but also might lead to undermining the very fundamentals of modern international law based on the UN Charter. The latter in its turn will inevitably lead to the global legal instability and will dramatically increase the risks of World War III. At the moment, the frequent abuse of the term “rules-based order” by the representatives of the NATO countries in support of their politically motivated statements, agreed upon only among them, impedes achievement of accepted understanding of the concept at the universal level, that might be consistent with international law.

INTRODUCTION. The article examines various aspects of the international legal qualification of offences committed against internationally protected persons. The analysis of different elements of corpus delicti was laid at the heart of the study: namely, those of actus reus (whether the offence was perpetrate in the situation of an armed conflict), mens rea (whether the perpetrator was moved by a special intent, particularly the terrorist dolus specialis), and the legal status of a perpetrator (whether he or she was a state agent).

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The materials of the study encompass international conventions, rules and principles of customary international law, case law of international courts and tribunals and international legal doctrine. The paper uses the comparative method and those of analysis and synthesis.  

RESEARCH RESULTS. The key result of the study consists in the assumption that offences against internationally protected persons can be considered as either a conventional crime within the meaning of the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents (including, if a terrorist dolus specialis is established, as a crime of terrorism), or (in case of armed conflict) a violation of laws and customs of war, for this category of persons falls within the definition of protected persons by implication of Article 4 of the 1949 IV Geneva Convention, which gives grounds for the application of Article 146 of the 1949 IV Geneva Convention for purposes of the their criminal prosecution.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Given the result of the study, it is states that the following test can be applied for purposes of international legal qualification of offences against internationally protected persons: first, it is necessary to establish whether the offence of committed in a situation of armed conflict; second, it is highly important to enquire about the intent of the delinquent. If there is a terrorist dolus specialis, the offence can be qualified as terrorism-related. Moreover, it is necessary to establish the status of the delinquent and whether the one is a state agent or a private person, or, even if the person is a state agent, whether the one is a person acting sua sponte; additionally, the status of a delinquent and its relation with the belligerent state in regard to the situation of armed conflict is also significant for the qualification of respective offences in light of international law

INTRODUCTION. The research analyzes the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (Basic Principles and Guidelines) of December 16, 2005. The Article examines the stages of the adoption of this document, the concept, structure, basic provisions, as well as the importance for the development of modern international law, particularly in the field of human rights protection and international humanitarian law. Consequently, the Article provides a detailed analysis of the approach to the central subject of this document, that is, the right to a remedy and reparation, which is expressed in practical application by universal and regional bodies on human rights and in the field of humanitarian law. In this regard, the position of the right to a remedy and reparation in the complex of human rights is determined, as well as their interconnection and relation to each other.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The theoretical researches of the Russian and foreign experts in the field of international law have been analyzed in this very Article as well as the normative documents, recommendations, and decisions of the treaty bodies on human rights within the UN system, the law enforcement practice of universal and regional judicial and quasi-judicial bodies for the protection of human rights and in the field of international humanitarian law have also been studied. Such methods of scientific cognition as analysis and synthesis, the generalization method, the system-structural method, as well as the historical-legal and legal-technical methods have also been applied in this research.

RESEARCH RESULTS. The Article reveals the significance and impact of the mechanism developed in the Basic Principles and Guidelines, in general, on the international human rights system. The Basic Principles and Guidelines are an international document, developed with the best practice of existing legal systems. It was adopted unanimously through the consensus reached by all parties concerned. The Basic Principles and Guidelines are aimed at codifying the provisions on the right to a remedy and reparation enshrined in various international treaties and as well as at developing a unified approach to these rights. Thus, the said international instrument does not create any new rules but classifies and uniforms the set of provisions on the right to a remedy and reparation. This nature of the Basic Principles and Guidelines makes them an attractive tool for international bodies in their law enforcement practice related to ensuring the right to a remedy and reparation. DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSSIONS. The Basic Principles and Guidelines enshrine the responsibility of States in the field of human rights protection, when the second party to the conflict is individual, or individuals whose rights have been or may be violated. Therefore, the Basic Principles are focused on the interests of the victim of a violation of human rights, that is, they are deliberately humanistic and human rights oriented. The document provides a classification of victims to more adequately cover human rights mechanisms that ensure the protection of persons, individually or collectively. Further, it pays special attention to the protection of victims of gross violations of human rights. In addition, the Basic Principles and Guidelines list and describe forms of reparation for the victims of human rights violations.

INTRODUCTION. The individual's right to health is a set of natural and positive legal frameworks that govern a person’s life activity, individual and family wellbeing, enforcement of health guarantees by the statesparticipants of universal and regional treaties of the field under question. The formation of this right stems from biological characteristics of each person, socio-economic conditions, environment, access to health and sanitation services, national health-care system progress, existence of vulnerable groups of population. Goals of the UN Sustainable Development Agenda 2030 (UN General Assembly resolution 70/1) include such essential aspects of the right to health as ending poverty and hunger in all its forms everywhere; promote food security and healthy lifestyle; the well-being of all individuals at any age; ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all; protection and restoration of water-related ecosystems; enhancement of the States capacity to prevent and reduce national and global health risks. According to the position of the World Health Organization (WHO) the right to health imposes on the States a legal obligation to ensure timely access to adequate levels of high-quality health care, clean and safe drinking water, sanitation, adequate nutrition, shelter, health-related information and education, gender equality. As a result, the considerable amount of attention is paid to the analysis of the content of general and specific international instruments at the universal level and the international legal specificities of enshrining and maintaining an individual's right to health. The text also places the emphasis on its normative framing in the law of the Council of Europe and the European Union, reflecting the decisions and rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The legal framework of the study is based on universal international treaties of the UN system, regional regulations of the Council of Europe and the EU, legal position of the UN specialized agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the ECHR. The scientific works of domestic and foreign authors related to the study of the right to health are used as a theoretical foundation. The research uses general scientific and special cognitive techniques wherein legal analysis and synthesis, systemic, formal-legal, comparative-legal, historical-legal and dialectical methods are applied.

RESEARCH RESULTS. The research indicates that the modern international legal concept of the right to health is being developed at the universal and regional level. Furthermore, specific international legal guarantees for the protection of this right are emerging for special groups such as women and children, refugees, stateless persons and migrant workers, protected persons, the wounded and the sick – all persons affected by international armed conflicts. There is a certain trend in Council of Europe and EU law towards an extended interpretation of the human right to health responding to new challenges to the realization that right, concerning bioethics, human genome editing, and the effects of nuclear testing and environmental pollution.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Following a review of the content and implementation of the right to health in the universal and regional international legal systems for the human rights and freedoms protection, the authors suggest its incorporation in a group of personal rights, social benefits provided by the state, and simultaneously in a collective right to development pertaining to the population as a whole. The universal international legal institutions establishing special rights for vulnerable groups will continue to be applied by member states in the context of a situational response to the global needs of families, women and children, international migration, armed conflicts, environmental conditions, and bioethical issues. The authors encourage the complement of the European system of human rights protection with an additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, involving the right to health security.

INTRODUCTION. The purpose of this work is to identify the main problems of modern international legal protection of animals and the theoretical justification of the need to change their legal status (regime). The main task of the research is to study modern concepts that have already become the basis of international legal acts for the protection of various categories of animals, as well as ideas that have sufficient potential to lay the foundation for a more conscious attitude to other biological species. Furthermore, the research highlights significant shortcomings of the global legal policy on animal protection, which hinder the achievement of the main goals of international cooperation in this area. The research also suggests new approaches that can solve both ethical and environmental problems of human-animal relationships in the very near future. In addition, this scientific work provides various philosophical and legal arguments that confirm the need to assign a special legal status to animals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The research examines the doctrinal positions of mainly foreign researchers and legal experts dealing with the problems of international legal protection of animals. This study uses the norms of some international legal agreements of a global and regional nature, as well as the provisions of recommendation documents. The research used general theoretical (analysis, synthesis, comparison, induction, deduction, abstraction, generalization, idealization, analogy, modeling, concretization, logical, systematic and comparative approaches) and special legal methods (historical-legal, formal-legal and the method of legal forecasting).

RESEARCH RESULTS. Based on the results of the study, the author identifies the main problems of international legal regulation of relations on the conservation of biodiversity in the framework of the implementation of the concepts of environmental protection and sustainable development. In addition, the study highlights the most important achievements and significant gaps in the EU's legal policy on animal welfare. Through the synthesis and generalization of the main provisions of the concept of well-being and the concept of animal rights, this scientific work forms an idea of the most successful model of international legal protection of animals. Based on the obtained result, the study predicts the inevitable change in their legal status (regime) and the revision of the existing anthropocentric paradigm of modern legal science.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The vast majority of existing international legal agreements on the protection and use of animals protect the secondary interests of modern consumer society, where animals have a rank based on their usefulness, without taking into account their immanent value. If the trends of recent decades continue, the environmental goals set by international environmental law will remain unattainable. In order to solve a layer of ethical and environmental problems, it is necessary to abandon the anthropocentric approach, which permeates the entire system of international law, in favor of a more perfect organization of human relations with nature (for example, in favor of anthropocosmocentrism, cosmocentrism, biocentrism, etc.). In addition, the identification of animals with property does not correspond to modern ideas about them as sentient beings. It is unacceptable to treat them as «things» within the framework of national legal systems and international law. Regardless of whether they will have legal capacity or will lead a new, specific category of persons, animals must have a certain set of international legal guarantees.