2.3. The problem of correlation of international and national law

Very debatable in science is the problem of correlation of international and national law. The analysis of this specific problem requires proper consideration of related scientific notions of fundamental character. As a theoretical problem, the relationship between national and international law arose together with the origin of the latter. However, for a long time it was not the Central issue of science and practice, which is explained primarily by the nature of domestic law and international relations of the state of pre-capitalist formations: then, in the person of the sovereign (monarch) focused and legislative power, and the right to conclude international treaties. It was substantially eliminated the possibility of collisions between law and dogovorom. The first special work on the issue of the famous German lawyer, Triple was published in 1899 g Theoretical elaboration of the problems also took place Century Kaufmann, A. Petrocom and some other. Western science of international law in the issue of the relationship between international and national law has developed three main directions: dualistic and two monistic. Representatives dualistic direction (German lawyer, Tribal, Italian lawyer D. Anzilotti, English lawyer L. Oppenheim) examined the international and national law as an independent legal system related to various legal orders, not in the chain of command. The approach of the Soviet and post-Soviet doctrine of international law has been and remains essentially dualistic, as international and domestic law are treated as independent legal system. The Soviet concept of international law substantiated the possibility and need for consistency between the two systems of law, emphasized their interaction. The results of the studies of the Soviet lawyers got its generalization in the monograph by I. P. Blishchenko "International and domestic law"40. Soviet international lawyers, as well as scientists of the socialist countries and many Western countries, noted that "dualistic theory contains a number of positive moments, because the proceeds from the recognition of the sovereignty of States and reflects the General character of international relations"41. The essence of the monistic concept is the recognition of the unity of these legal systems. International and domestic law are considered as parts of a single legal system. Supporters of monistic trends also lacked unity of views. Some came from the primacy of national law, others - on the supremacy of international law. Currently, the vast majority of supporters of the theory of monism of the opinion on the supremacy of international law over domestic. Moreover, supporters of radical monism (German scholar H. Kelsen) originate from the existence of one system of law with "the highest order" (international law) and "subordinates" national legal orders. Kelsen believed that the norms of this unified system of law are in hierarchical dependence. Any rule of national law which is contrary to international law, is void in international legal terms, no sushestvuyet. In contemporary international relations (since the end of world war II) recognition by a number of scientists of the supremacy of international law over domestic connected with promotion of their ideas complete renunciation of national sovereignty and the creation of the world States and international law. So, American scientists M. Mcdougal and M. Reisman write that as a result of scientific-technical progress of the mankind is moving towards closer and more intensive relations. States still remain on the world stage, but growing role and influence of governmental and non-governmental organizations. While the major actors in the international arena become individuals. In these conditions, according to American scientists, it is necessary to create a world state, which will be two-fold purpose: education General legal rules for the protection of human rights and suppression of attempts of creation of the world totalitarian gosudarstva. These and some other scholars, in General, correctly noted tendencies of development of the world community. However, creating a world of law and state absolutely impossible in modern international relations as a result of political, economic and other reasons. It should be noted that many States of the world still absolutetimeout state sovereignty and the importance of the principle of non-interference. Supporters of another course in monistic theory - moderate monism is also give priority to international law. But they do not consider that the rule of national law which is contrary to international law, is void. The role of the state they see is to facilitate the transformation of international law into national law. Moderate monists closer to practical actions. In their opinion, the recognition of the priority of international law means for the state as a submission to international law and its principles, and to bring national law into line with international. Noteworthy is also the point of view of some Russian scientists, still adhering to the dualistic concept. For Example, E. T. Usenko writes that the opposition to the independence of the two legal systems scientifically unfounded. They are based on the following arguments: it is impossible to tear off one legal system to the other, erected between them "Chinese wall"not to notice the integration process, erasing edges between them, etc., E. T. Usenko proves that "attitude" as a scientific category necessarily implies the existence of independent units. If the question about the correlation of international and national law, it is inherently means the recognition of their independence. Where there is no independence of objects, considers E. T. Usenko, there are no relations between them, and there is only the state of syncretism, of unity, of verschiedenste. No one (including the author of this paper) is no doubt the fact that today, the principle of the prevalence values of international law in the process of interaction of existing legal norms of different countries is one of the legal guarantees of maintenance of peace, normal cooperation between States. However, following this principle does not mean the recognition of the unity of the national and international law, i.e. the recognition of the monistic concept. Under the correlation between international and domestic law in the theory of international law is usually understood, first, the ratio of the forces of international and domestic standards and, second, the interaction of international and national law in the process of creating norms of international law and norms of the national Zakonodatelstva. By this definition, I would like to add: "...and in the process of their implementation". I. I. Lukashuk under the implementation of international law understands the overall process of conducting international law in jizni. In conclusion of this section we would like to note that the spread in our science understanding of the legal system as a category, which includes the immediate right as a set of legal norms, and legal awareness, and folding on the basis of norms of legal relations, and law enforcement process in Selom, in no way prevents the penetration of international legal principles and norms in the legal system of any state. In other words, today is widely recognized an opportunity and a real participation of international legal norms in the regulation of certain domestic relations, in domestic law enforcement. In turn regularities of development of international law in principle correspond to the patterns of international relations. Being formed under the influence of international relations, international law itself has an active effect.

CONCLUSION

In today's interdependent and integrated world's impossible not to appreciate the role of international law in international relations. In different periods of history it has played an ambiguous role in foreign policy and diplomacy. Impossible it seems the role of international law in a break from foreign policy, diplomacy in the system of international relations. Their relationship and mutual influence on each other so strong that it is impossible to underestimate the role of any of them in this system. For a long time in the West in the international legal and political literature of international law played a supporting role in politics. This approach was justified by the fact that "national" or "state" interests are above international law that States in its foreign policy should be guided by these principles, and international law played a secondary role, which is very often led to his grave violations, war, escalating the nuclear arms race and confrontation of the military-political unions and States, confrontation on a global scale. We can assume that after the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations and its institutions in a new era in the history of international law. The defeat of Nazi Germany in the second world war showed that to ignore the international law not as it plays a special role in the world order is the role of a stabilizing and balancing factor in world politics that any action by States violate the norms and principles of international law from the point of view of protection of its national and state interests insolvent, therefore the state must uphold the primacy of international law in foreign policy and conscientiously fulfil its obligations.

LIST OF LITERATURE

1.Anzilotti D. the Course of international law. M: Aliens. lit., 1961. So 1. 2.Baskin YA, Feldman DI History of international law. M., 1990. 3.The blishchenko I. P. International and domestic law. M., 1960. 4.Butkevich Century, the Ratio of national and international law. Kiev, 1981. 5.Heffter A.V. European international law, - SPb., 1881. 6.Grabar WE materials for the history of the literature of international law in Russia (1647-1917).-M: Izd-vo an SSSR, 1958. 7.Grabar BE the Initial value of the Roman term jus gentium // scientific notes of the University of Tartu. Tartu, 1964. Vyp. 8.Gurvich GD Introduction to the General theory of international law. The abstract of lectures. Issue 1. Prague, 1923. 9.Report of the international law Commission on the work of its forty-first session. New York. 1989.