Sbornik_Mezhdunarodnogo_mezhdistsiplinarnogo_nauchno-prakticheskogo_kongressa_AKTUAL_NYE_PROBLEMY_MEZhDUNARODNOGO_ChASTNOGO_PRAVA_P

Актуальные проблемы международного права

lists could not bypass the restrictions in any way. In the new world, where almost all western banks refuse to have any deals with individuals of Russian nationality, an example of loophole could be cryptocurrency transactions. In this article, I will try to explain the nature of sanctions against the financial sector imposed by the US and European Union, as well as analyze other precedents regarding law violations of crypto transactions in these jurisdictions. Finally, I will try to reasonably answer the question of whether it is possible for Russia to circumvent sanctions by using cryptocurrency under current conditions.

Starting 24 February, the new Executive Order, (hereinafter EO) signed by the US President on 11 March 2022, introduces new restrictions on import and export to Russia, including the export of U.S. banknotes, as well as any financial transaction by any U.S person, wherever located1. Consequently, the U. S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (hereinafter OFAC) issued a guidance complementing the new EO, with lists of specific individuals subject to sanctions2. Sanctions relating to virtual currency transactions also fall under the guidance of OFAC. FinCEN is a bureau within the Treasury Department that deals with the detection of financial crimes. After the sanctions, one of their new competencies is to identify and punish crypto or P2P exchanges that conduct, according to the sanctions, any virtual currency transactions between the US and Russia. FinCEN’s guidance has a dedicated section on CVC sanctions evasion. FinCEN’s main concern is that a third party or a financial institution located in another jurisdiction may attempt to use CVC and anonymizing tools to circumvent US sanctions and protect its assets around the world, including in the United States. If there are any suspicions or evidence of activities that do not comply with OFAC’s rules, crypto exchangers must complete a special form called Suspicious Activity Report (hereinafter SAR) and send it to FinCEN. Otherwise, the exchanger risks to violate the law and be responsible for its own, sometimes, unconscious actions.

European Union members are also concerned that cryptocurrency could be used to circumvent sanctions. On 9 March a special press release was published by the European Commission, which clarifies that crypto assets fall under the scope of «transferable securities» and further expand the existing financial restrictions by mirroring the measures already in place regarding Russia sanctions3. European parliamentarians discussed on 31 March the possibility of shortening the two-year implementation period of proposed EU rules known as the Markets in Cryptoassets (MiCA) during the first round of talks to finalize it4. Introduced in 2020, MiCA framework is a comprehensive bill on crypto regulation and is one part of a larger digital finance strategy that aims to adapt Europe for the digital age. As a result, there is likely to be a further evolution of crypto regulation in the EU in the coming years.

1URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/03/11/executive-order- on-prohibiting-certain-imports-exports-and-new-investment-with-respect-to-continued-russian- federation-aggression/.

2URL: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0650.

3URL: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_1649.

4URL: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-01/eu-seeks-to-speed-up-crypto-rules- in-push-to-tighten-sanctions.

170

Секция 6. Private international law talks

For example, on 18 April 2019, FinCEN assessed a 35.350$ civil money penalty against Eric Powers, who was conducting P2P exchanges, for willfully violating the Bank Secrecy Act’s (hereinafter BSA)1. Another notorious example is the case of Alexander Vinnik, allegedly the owner of one of the largest cryptoplatform called BTC-e. Despite the fact that BTC-e was organized under the laws of Cyprus and the Seychelles islands, it had been operating in several states, such as Bulgaria, the Seychelles islands and other jurisdictions, including the Norhtern District of California. The United States indicted Vinnik on three counts: failure to register as an MSB; failure to establish AML programs and procedures; and failure to file SAR. According to FinCEN, Vinnik’s platform is suiting under the category «Unregistered Foreign-Located MBS» that operate business in the U. S. He was sentenced to 55 years in prison. FinCEN assessed $ 12 million in penalties against Vinnick and $ 88,596,314 in penalties against BTC-e for BTC-e’s alleged willful violations of BSA2.

While the whole world is concerned that the Russian elite and those under sanctions will circumvent the taken measures by converting money into cryptocurrency, within Russia, various legal bodies have expressed conflicting positions regarding cryptocurrency. On 21st of February, the ministry of finances sent to the government of the Russian Federation a draft federal law «On digital currency», which legally prescribes the norms of the concept of regulation of the cryptocurrency market. The bill prescribes requirements for cryptocurrency exchanges and exchangers. Under the proposed regulation, digital currencies are considered solely as an investment tool, rather than means of paying, since the use of digital currencies as a means of payment on the territory of the Russian Federation will continue to be prohibited3. In contrary, despite sanctions the Central Bank of Russia leaves unchanged its position regarding a complete ban on the circulation and mining of cryptocurrencies4.

Legally it would be possible to circumvent restrictions through by exchanging money intro crypto and use them in transactions in jurisdictions, but there still are some issues. Firstly, legitimate crypto intermediaries will comply with sanctions obligations, and indeed some of the largest crypto exchanges have indicated they are doing so, an example is binance.com5. This creates impediments to fiat-to-cryptocurrency exchanges, as legitimate exchangers must immediately freeze and report suspicious transactions, and they have already blocked the accounts of businesses, entities and individuals that have fallen under sanctions. Secondly, it will be almost impossible to operate with colossal amounts of money, because it will hardly be possible not to detect the mystical appearance on the blockchain servers of several millions. Even if one of the principles of cryptocurrency is anonymity, all the transactions can be

1URL: https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-penalizes-peer-peer-virtual-currency- exchanger-violations-anti-money.

2URL: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/united-states-files-100-million-civil-complaint-against- digital-currency-exchange-btc-e.

3URL: https://www.interfax.ru/digital/823332.

4URL: https://www.interfax.ru/business/826014.

5URL: https://www.binance.com/en/blog/leadership/ukraine-russia-sanctions-and-crypto-42149 9824684903532.

171

Актуальные проблемы международного права

followed in live regime, with special instruments it is possible to trace a transaction or another, in order to identify it’s IP address for example. The third problem, Russia does not have proper crypto infrastructure, which meanslegal regulation, atm crypto machines, etc.

Regarding digital methods of payment, I consider that Russia should focus on creating and investing on its own digital currency. There is already information, that digital Ruble is being tested, and probably soon will be launched1. Since new crises create new opportunities, digital Ruble could provide possibilities for both citizens and businesses within the country, as well as for international investors and buyers. It could serve as a simplified procedure for international partners to purchase natural resources, services and goods from Russia under the conditions of sanctions.

Жолоб Д. В., Ваулин Ф. Ю.,

студенты Университет имени О.Е. Кутафина (МГЮА)

Москва

Zholob D. V., Vaulin F. Y., students

Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL) Moscow

Applicable law to the insurance contracts issues

Speaking about the applicable law to the insurance contract, as a general rule, insurers themselves include in the contract provisions on the subordination of this contract to the national law of the country of insurance. However, there are situations when the provision on applicable law is not contained in the insurance contract. There are a couple of ways to deal with this problem: Firstly, in foreign practice, the doctrine of the implied choice of the applicable law by the parties2 is widespread. The second way is to choose the applicable law, the law that is more closely related to the contract3.

In the European Union, when considering the issue of applicable law to an insurance contract, one cannot do without the Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome 1)4. This Regulation resolves the issue of applicable law in the absence of a relevant provision in the contract in the following ways: firstly, if the insurance contract covers major risks, it is necessary to apply the law of the country of residence of the insurer. The second method is connected with the calculation to which law the contract has the closest connection. Having determined what law it is, it is recognized as necessary for application.

1URL: https://www.cbr.ru/press/event/?id=12685.

2[1984]AC50, [1983] 2 A11 E.R. 884, HL.

3[1986] 2 A11 E.R. 488.

4Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).

172

Секция 6. Private international law talks

Great Britain’s legislation on the definition of applicable law also deserves attention. Under the UK Insurance Companies Act 1982. the insurance contract shall be governed by the law with which the contract is most closely connected. However, there is a rebuttable presumption that the treaty is most closely linked to the State in whose territory the risk occurs.

Shifting attention to the legislation of the Russian Federation, it is worth referring to the Сivil code of the Russian Federation on this issue. Based on the provisions of paragraph 2 of Art. 1211, if there was no agreement on the applicable law, the law of the country of the insurer shall apply1. It should be noted that a similar provision regarding marine insurance is enshrined in the Merchant Shipping Code.

The rule on the application of the right of the insurer also applies to the reinsurance contract, since in accordance with Article 967 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the rules on insurance of entrepreneurial risk are applied to the reinsurance contract. So, the insurer under the insurance contract, which is the main one, is considered to be insured in the reinsurance contract.

A necessary element for choosing the applicable law in an insurance contract is the presence of a foreign element. As a rule, foreign elements are directly one of the parties to the insurance contract — in cases where the insured or insurer belongs to different countries. But this is far from the only variation of the foreign element. Thus, there is a dispute in which, even though both parties were organizations from Russia, the dispute was complicated by a foreign element, due to the fact that the ship of one of the parties was sunk in the waters of Norway2.

It is also worth mentioning the transition to the insurer that paid the insurance compensation, the right of the insured to claim the responsible person — subrogation. Turn to practice: the ICAC at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, while determining the applicable law to the relations that arose from subrogation, did not refer to the conflict rules as usual, but applied the law governing the relationship between the seller and the buyer3. Concluding the topic of subrogation in Russian law, it is worth noting that the above conclusion is confirmed by the provisions of Art. 1220. 1. Civil Code of the Russian Federation: the law governing the insurance contract determines the possibility of presenting a claim for compensation of harm to the victims directly to the insurer.

The institution of subrogation is characteristic not only for Russian law: subrogation is allowed by the laws of France, Netherlands, Germany, and the United States (if provided for by the contract)4. Under subrogation, a foreign insurer, based on foreign law, has the right to bring a claim against the responsible person. There is a necessary condition for exercising such a right in subrogation: an insurance contract concluded with a foreign insurer must not violate the laws of Russia, for example, if the object of insurance is not located in Russia.

There is a scientific discussion, the subject of which is the misunderstanding of collision bindings. One of the positions is that in Russia there is a widespread judicial practice that

111.02.2010 on case 2/2009.

2Решение от 22.07.2010 по делу 1/2010.

312.11.1998 по делу 311/1997.

4Гражданское и торговое право зарубежных государств / отв. ред.: Е. А. Васильев, А. С. Комаров.

173

Актуальные проблемы международного права

applies the provisions of Article 965 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation to situations where citizens of the Russian Federation and foreign legal entities are responsible for the occurrence of an insured event under foreign insurance contracts, and in this case, foreign insurers present claims against them for damages. This position proceeds from the opinion that the closest connection between the claim for the recovery of damages is with the law of the defendant1.

However, this position is not entirely correct: the fact is that the fact is missed that if a foreign insurance contract allows subrogation, then when making a claim, the reference should not be to Art. 965 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, but on the corresponding foreign law. Moreover, subrogation in this case directly depends on the insurance contract because if there is no insurance contract, there is no subrogation. That is why it is worth considering that subrogation has a close connection with the law applicable to the insurance contract. It is not worth in this case to dismiss the properties of national law, because while the application of the law of the country of the defendant is more characteristic of the country of Anglo-American law, for Russia it is only one of several evidences of the close connection of the contract, which individually means nothing.

Taking into account the stated legal positions, it is impossible not to note the significant differences between jurisdictions on the issue of applicable law to an insurance contract. I consider it necessary in this topic not to unify approaches, but to approach each case individually, because the differences between legal approaches are too strong. Complicating the situation is the variety of ways in which the case can be complicated by a foreign element. I consider the scientific discussion around the institution of subrogation no less important and would like to once again mention the importance of the secondary nature of subrogation in relation to the insurance contract.

Звонарев А. А.,

студент Университет имени О.Е. Кутафина (МГЮА)

Москва

Zvonarev A. A., student

Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL) Moscow

New AML guidance by the FATF.

Should Russia consider NFT and DeFi as VA and VASP?

That is not a great secret that blockchain is a great opportunity for money-laundering due to the anonymity and decentralization of the algorithms. Speaking about traditional

1 Островский А. Е. Сфера применения суброгации в страховании.

174

Секция 6. Private international law talks

virtual assets (VA), Russia and other countries have a clear anti-money-laundering (AML) laws to receive information about owners of these assets. Basically, government regulators receive such information from virtual assets service providers (VASP). Until recently, that was not clear if we can consider crypto assets as virtual assets. Even more ambiguous was the question of DeFi and NFT regulation as VA and VASP.

The DeFi market is valued at $ 171 billion due to the Coinmarketcap Research1. Defi’s potential market size is estimated to be a hundred times larger. The NFT market in 2021 was almost caught up with the global art market in terms of volume. Currently NFT market is valued at $ 40 billion2. According to Morgan Stanley, the NFT market could reach $ 300 billion by 20303. It is obvious that such large markets with almost unlimited growth potential and almost complete anonymity could not fail to attract the attention of the AML regulator.

On October 28th, 2021 Financial Action Task Force (FAFT), a global AML standard-setting authority, finalized the updated guidance for a risk-based approach to virtual assets and virtual assets service providers4. If adopted in countries following FATF Standards5 (including Russia since 2003), the new guidance may affect regulations on VAs and VASPs in those countries. This may include NFTs, stablecoin providers and decentralized platforms (DeFi) falling under AML obligations in some cases.

First of all, we have to admit that as with other FATF documents, the guidance is not legally binding. It’s on national regulators to decide whether to implement it or not. But it should be mentioned that the regulator has a very high authority so one-sided cancellation of their recommendations by any country will lead to an association with money laundering. We already have the pioneer to change its legislation in compliance with the guidance. On December 23rd, the Estonian government approved a draft law which amended its Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act6 according to the FATF’s approach to DeFi.

Further, we have to clarify the definitions of VAs and VASPs under the FATF. The FATF defines a virtual asset as a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded or transferred and can be used for payment or investment purposes7. VASP means any

1The DeFi crypto market cap is: // URL: https://coinmarketcap.com/view/defi/.

2How NFTs became a $ 40bn market in 2021 // URL: The NFT market in 2021 almost caught up with the global art market in terms of volume.

3Morgan Stanley Research // URL: https://www.thehungrybull.com/nfts-to-be-worth-300- billion-dollars-in-2030/.

4Guidance for a risk-based approach for a risk-based approach to virtual assets and virtual assets service providers // URL: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/recommendations/ Updated-Guidance-VA-VASP.pdf.

5FAFTMembersandObservers//URL:https://www.fatf-gafi.org/about/membersandobservers/#d. en.3147.

6Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act // URL: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ en/eli/ee/530062021006/consolide.

7The FAFT Recommendations // URL: www.fatf-gafi.org/recommendations.

175

Актуальные проблемы международного права

natural or legal person who is not covered elsewhere under the Recommendations, and as a business, conducts one or more of the fifth mentioned in document activities or operations for or on behalf of another natural or legal person1.

The FATF has clarified in their guidance that the approach to consider DeFi or NFT as VAs and VASPs should be based on the basic characteristics of the asset and underlying financial services — not on the entity’s operational model, technological tools, ledger design, or any other operating feature2.

The stablecoins have the clearest regulation. According to the opinion of the FATF they are covered by the Standards3 as either a VA or a financial asset (e.g., a security) according to the same criteria used for any other kind of digital asset, depending on its exact nature and the regulatory regime in a given country.

The FATF also clarifies that stablecoin arrangements may be covered by the FATF Standards either as a FI or a VASP, if they have a governance body. Such a body consists of one or more natural or legal persons who establish or participate in the establishment of the rules governing the stablecoin arrangement4.

The governance body of stablecoin arrangement may be covered by AML obligations. But the definition of the governance body doesn’t refer to software code developers of stablecoin arrangements. This paragraph of the document is quite logical. Therefore, we move on.

In revised guidance the FAFT introduces the term DeFi for the first time. DeFi described as the decentralized apps (DApps) which offer financial services, such as those offered by VASPs5. It also explains that creators, owners and operators or some other persons who maintain control or sufficient influence on DApps may fall under the FATF definition of a VASP where they are providing or actively facilitating VASP services. Regulator focuses on the existence of an ongoing business relationship between themselves and users, even if it is exercised through a smart contract or in some cases voting protocols.

The first problem here is that The FATF cannot explain who and how should register the data of participants in automated networks, which are the majority of DeFi applications.

1The FAFT Recommendations // URL: www.fatf-gafi.org/recommendations.

2Paragraph 47 of guidance for a risk-based approach for a risk-based approach to virtual assets and virtual assets service providers // URL: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/ recommendations/Updated-Guidance-VA-VASP.pdf.

3Paragraph 54 of guidance for a risk-based approach for a risk-based approach to virtual assets and virtual assets service providers // URL: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/ recommendations/Updated-Guidance-VA-VASP.pdf.

4Paragraph 86 of guidance for a risk-based approach for a risk-based approach to virtual assets and virtual assets service providers // URL: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/ recommendations/Updated-Guidance-VA-VASP.pdf.

5Paragraph 66 of guidance for a risk-based approach for a risk-based approach to virtual assets and virtual assets service providers // URL: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/ recommendations/Updated-Guidance-VA-VASP.pdf.

176

Секция 6. Private international law talks

Such applications work without any external support. Liquidity pools are formed with the help of users, and the operation of the blockchain is supported by miners. Neither one nor the other has the necessary information about other members.

The second problem arises from the term «sufficient», because the regulator didn’t explain what exactly the sufficiency is. Can we describe the person, who uses the platform for personal purposes, having a great number of assets, as the sufficient influencer on this platform? As it was already mentioned, its influence on the system is extremely limited. If we are talking about the creators of the application, then they also may not have such information.

Moving forward, we see that even NFT may fall under the AML-regulation now. According to the guidance, non-fungible tokens (NFT) are digital assets that are unique, rather than interchangeable, and that are in practice used as collectibles rather than as payment or investment instruments1. NFTs are generally not considered to be VAs under the FATF definition. However, they may fall under the VA definition «if they are used for payment or investment purposes».

The question arises regarding the proof of the fact that in concrete situation NFT was used for payment or investment purpose. Of course, the FATF did not provide clear boundaries of this definition.

The FATF also explained how to apply so-called travel rule while adjusting new instruments2. Travel rule obligates VASPs to obtain, hold, and transmit required originator and beneficiary information in order to identify and report suspicious transactions, monitor the availability of information, take freezing actions, and prohibit transactions with designated persons and entities. This statement is very reminiscent to the one which contained in the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) rule [31 CFR 103.33(g)3.

The FATF confirms that the Travel Rule should apply to three types of transfers involving VASPs on both sides of the transfer: traditional wire transfers; transfers between a VASP and a regulated entity (another VASP or a financial institution); transfers between VASPs and non-regulated entities (e.g., unhosted wallets).

Also, the FATF confirms the Travel Rule limitations for the transfers between VASPs and non-regulated entities. For inbound transfers, VASPs must obtain information about the sender and recipient from the customer. For outbound transfers, VASPs must also obtain information about the sender and recipient from the customer. However, VASPs aren’t required to send the information about their customer to the non-regulated counterpart.

The idea is tenable, except the fact that in the majority of cases, as we have already seen, there will be nothing to transfer.

1Paragraph 53 of guidance for a risk-based approach for a risk-based approach to virtual assets and virtual assets service providers // URL: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/ recommendations/Updated-Guidance-VA-VASP.pdf.

2Overview of R.16 and its application to VAs and VASPs // URL: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/ fatf/documents/recommendations/Updated-Guidance-VA-VASP.pdf.

3Travel regulation // URL: https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/aml2007/fincen-advissu7.pdf.

177

Актуальные проблемы международного права

The revised guidance also confirms the minimum threshold of USD/EUR 1000 for the Travel Rule, which can now be adopted by jurisdictions1. For VA transfers under this threshold, countries should require that VASPs collect the name of the sender and recipient as well as the VA wallet address for each, or a unique transaction reference number.

Considering the fact that NFT and DeFi are extremely costly pursuits, virtually every transaction will require compliance with the travel rule. And since we have millions of transactions out of the market it is not possible to avoid breaking the «chain of travelling».

The author strongly believes that currently the FAFT proposals are extremely underdeveloped. The mechanism for tracking transactions is not specified, and the regulation conditions are almost impossible to enforce in some cases. The SEC in USA also made an attempt to regulate DeFi and NFT’s2, but both lawyers and the creators of DApps expressed a consolidated opinion on the impossibility of fulfilling the relevant requirements3.

To sum up, it would be more correct to postpone the introduction of recommendations of the FATF into legislation pending clarification of the enforcement mechanisms.

Мамаева Е. А.,

студент Университет имени О.Е. Кутафина (МГЮА)

Москва

Mamaeva E. A., student

Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL) Moscow

The application of the law of unrecognized States in private international law

The relevance of this issue is explained by the great amount of unrecognised states. The existence of unrecognized states is a big obstacle in the settlement of many disputes. The status of such political entities cannot be identified by public international law and because of that there are a lot of unsolved problems in private international law. The main of them is the question of implementation of the law of unrecognised countries.

1Paragraph 149 of guidance for a risk-based approach for a risk-based approach to virtual assets and virtual assets service providers // URL: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/ recommendations/Updated-Guidance-VA-VASP.pdf.

2Securities and Exchange Commission 17 CFR Parts 232, 240, 242, 249 [Release No 34-94062; File No. S7-02-22] // URL: https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2022/34-94062.pdf.

3Dissenting Statement on the Proposal to Amend Regulation ATS by Commissioner Hester M. Pierce // URL: https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/peirce-ats-20220126.

178

Секция 6. Private international law talks

Therefore, we should consider these political entities in accordance with Montevideo Convention1. On this side, unrecognised states meet the requirements of this Convention. The issue of their denial connected to the negative attitude to such countries from the global community.

I cannot but mention the position of the International Court of Justice. The court highlighted that the appearance of this countries do not contradict the international norms and the further existence of these entities should be accompanied by processes for the development of a full-fledged states2. Unfortunately, the states exist only at the level of court’s interpretations and international law doctrines.

The application of the law of unrecognized States should not be based on the form of recognition, instead, this application should be based on the form of acceptance by the judicial body of the existence of this unrecognized State without political consequences.

It is widely known, there is no accurate methods of the law-using in unrecognised states. Thus, the only one way is judgement on the topic of the international doctrines and the attitude to the entities from some countries.

The private international law in the XIX the century originally had a position according to the constitutive theory3 of recognition in the application of the law of unrecognized states. In other words, States applied the rights of only those States that they recognized de-jure. That is, the judge does not have the authority to apply the law of a foreign state that is not a subject of public international law. In the second half of the XX century, the opposite position developed according to the declarative theory of recognition. This means that the rights of unrecognized States may cause conflicts of norms of international private law. According to this position, the judge must proceed from the very fact of the existence of this state, despite the fact that it is not recognized by the government courts. Politicization should not interfere with the resolution of disputes of a private legal nature.

The Jordanian Court follows an exceptionally second approach. In the case of Ottoman Bank v. Jabaji, the Jordanian courts noted that they should not recognize the laws of unrecognized authorities that are contrary to public order or national interests4. Belgian judicial practice also began with the non-application of the law of unrecognized States. In the Digmeloff case and civil status of St. Josse ten-Noode, the court noted that Belgium does not recognize the Soviet government by law or in fact, and the Belgian authorities can also authorize any measures emanating from this government5. Proceeding from this, in Belgium, tsarist laws were applied to Russian

1The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, December 26, 1993.

2Advisory Opinion of the ICJ UN of July 22, 2010.

3Khasanov A. A. Contemporary approaches to the theories of recognition of new states in international law // Журнал зарубежного законодательства и сравнительного прaвоведения 2016. № 3.

4Jordan’s Supreme Court, decision of July 4, 1954.

5Civil Court of Brussels, decision of June 16, 1928.

179