Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Defence and security / / Articles
Application practice of "double standards" as a factor of conflict in the modern world
Material posted: Publication date: 14-11-2015
The work is devoted to studying issues of the application of double standards. There are various methods of influence, ranging from direct, as a demonstration of military might and indirect. Modern wars often start with the diplomatic struggle in which to achieve the objectives are different methods and techniques. In the practice of international relations was often take place applying the policy of "double standards."

In the XXI-st century global problems and threats which the mankind in the past has faced were aggravated. Since the last ̆ XX-th century quarters, the quantity of acts of terrorism has sharply increased, against crisis socialist ̆ systems the number of international conflicts and the contradiction ̆ has increased, the approach to which decision on given ̆ the moment often occurs on the basis of practice of "double standards». As a result of frequent attempts to resolve conflicts power methods under the pretext of «democracy distribution» that in a greater degree concerns the USA, fundamental laws of the person are trampled, there are ethnic cleanings up to a genocide of the people. Hence, practice application «double standards» is actual in the modern period and demands special attention [1].

The work urgency is caused by distribution width in the modern world of application of a policy of "double standards», covering the major spheres of human relations and making essential impact on interaction of nationalities, the countries and continents.

In work principal causes of application of a policy of double standards are shown. The given policy usually accepts in the international relations the form of charge of objectionable principles in infringement, obligations, conventions, «a violation of rights of the person», «departure from norms of international law» at obvious ignoring of absolutely similar own actions or actions of allies.

The problem of "double standards» already became a subject of studying of some domestic and foreign researchers and has received wide enough reflexion in scientific works [2].

The author draws conclusions that refusal of double standards will allow to make a policy more transparent and predicted that in turn will improve quality of the international relations and world community life as a whole.


Now the majority of the western states is supported by democratic values and freedom where display in relations between the expert states of "double standards» which especially often meets in spheres external and internal policy takes place also.

The given concept up to the end precisely is not defined. The Russian encyclopaedic dictionary makes following definition: «the Standard, in the broad sense of the word - the sample, the standard, the model, accepted for initial for comparison to them of other similar objects [3].

Standards, thus, are certain objective rules, laws which should not possess dual value. But in reality standards are also rules and the norms applied in sphere of relations more often in the subjective form. Similar subjective comparisons can be carried to not realised reasons of occurrence of "double standards». Hence, «double standards» arise in the presence of comparison concerning certain universalii which can be precedent, the conflict similar or a similar case.

The business dictionary offers other definition: «the Double standard - officially denied, but practising and silently recognised as norm, the discrimination approach to an estimation of behaviour, the rights, duties of representatives of different categories of the population, the different countries, races» [4].

Thus, «the double standard - the term, widespread in modern political science, journalism and other humanities, designating the different relation and a different estimation of similar events and situations the same appraisers owing to their preconception, the changed circumstances, personal self-interest, an emotional condition» [5].

In a context of the international relations the subject meaningly initiating «double standards», usually is the state or group of the states. Historically, practice of "double standards» basically is based on social stratification in all its displays. Concept «Double standards» of mutual relations of a human society were consolidated in a slaveholding socioeconomic structure and have reached blossoming during a colonisation epoch.

The politician of "double standards» can be characterised as purposely developed regularly used practice of the selective relation with a view of advancement of strategic state interests on international scene or in other political ends. It is usually realised by means of charge of the "objectionable" countries in infringement of principles, conventions, obligations, at demonstrative ignoring of absolutely similar own actions or actions of allies.

In spite of the fact that at present the developed countries often declare necessity of observance of human rights, the modern world device privately is ierarhichnym, and prosperity of the developed countries is reached by poverty and political instability of periphery. Often the parties operate according to interests, being guided by the principles and laws, instead of norms of the right. Practice of "double standards» is often veiled under democratic ideals that often meets at illumination of events by mass media.

Exist set of examples of display of practice of "double standards». So, the constant representative of the Russian Federation at the United Nations Vitaly Tchurkin has subjected to the sharp criticism of colleagues on the UN Security Council for application of double standards concerning Abkhazia and South Ossetia on the one hand, and in the relation of Kosovo with another. As he said, at Abkhazia and South Ossetia much more the bases for independence, than at Kosovo which has proclaimed independence of Serbia as which recognised 46 member countries of the United Nations from 192. However councillors of Safety on the basis of notorious practice of "double standards» have not supported Russia, and have on the contrary condemned its aspiration to recognise nezavisimostabhazii and South Ossetia on the basis of a children's principle: therefore - that therefore.

The European Union and some other world organisations have supported dispersal of the demonstrators supporting carrying over of a monument to soldiers to liberators of Baltic in the Great Patriotic War - "the Bronze soldier", and also named these actions by a domestic concern of Estonia. However at the same time the same organisations repeatedly condemned power measures in relation to dispersal "the March not consent".

Proceeding from an estimation of last world events, to one of the brightest representatives of application of practice of double standards are the USA. So, opposing the Iranian program on uranium enrichment, the United States do not interfere with increase in nuclear potential in Pakistan, thereby pursuing a policy of double standards.

Concerning the international terrorism at the West countries, the dual relation to terrorist groupings is shown. Terrorism - very difficult and inconsistent phenomenon getting religious, ethnic and other forms. The countries start to estimate a situation depending on the geopolitical interests. In case of coincidence of a political policy, action of terrorists by means of mass-media will be presented in a foreshortening as much as possible far from concept terrorism, and in case of discrepancy, on the contrary. As consequence, concepts "separatism" and «national-liberation movement» [6] are substituted.

The international terrorism makes powerful negative impact not only on safety of the separate states, but also on system of the international safety as a whole. Therefore struggle with given ugrozojstala one of priority problems of the international community. The uniform approach is necessary for successful struggle to the phenomenon terrorism, wide international cooperation through which it would be possible to carry out condemnation of certificates of terrorism as human norms contradicting basic principles.

However now quite often the states use «the double approach» to fight against terrorism for advancement of own interests on international scene. Complexity of development of the uniform approach consists in a terrorism estimation and that till now there is no uniform definition of concept "terrorism". It conducts to that we cannot often define at all, it is necessary to consider what actions "terrorist" and what are not present. Such defects in conceptual sphere and absence of the international legislation leave possibilities for interpretation of acts of terrorism according to especially personal interests. For example, in March, 2004 of the USA have declared the resolute counteraction to attempt of Mexico to instal the United Nations mechanism on a protection of human rights during fight against terrorism.

The policy of "double standards», applied in fight against terrorism sphere, is often given reasons by the right to antiterrorist measures. According to Marcello Daskalja, antiterrorist operations justify a right to self-defence. As an example of display of a policy of "double standards» the United States of America can serve in the given sphere and their allies who after attacks to the World Shopping centre in New York have declared global war to terrorism. The American president George Bush younger insisted that all countries should support fight against terrorism; those countries which will not make anything, will pay for the inactivity. However, as it was found out later, the given statements had a selective application. One foreign states USA asked not reagirovatna terrorism, av other foreign states SsHanastaivali on declaration of war, for example, in Afghanistan because of terrorist attacks. Thus, it is possible to consider that the United States, proceeding from sphere of the interests, defined and define, whom to consider as terrorists and who is not present, using the slogan of "fight against terrorism" for unapproved realisation of military operations [7].

Besides it, after acts of terrorism in New York and Washington the government of the USA has entered new approaches and methods on the fight against terrorism, allowing in large quantities to deport from the country of immigrants, to conduct interrogations, to listen to telephone conversations. According to Bush's administration the inhabitants harbouring terrorists, are guilty of the same degree, as terrorists. Though the United States continued to lend support to the Albanian extremists. According to Alexander Jakovenko, the representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the relation to the Albanian extremists and a position in relation to struggle of Russia against the Chechen terrorists radically different that clearly specifies in "double standards" Washington in a fight against terrorism question.

As to Great Britain, a vivid example is refusal in delivery of the emissary of the Chechen insurgents of Ahmed Zakaeva - on which to the account of thousand ruined lives to which the government of London has given a political asylum. Such actions have been regarded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation as display of "double standards» in approaches to terrorism. However from a position of Great Britain similar charges are unreasonable. The Russian politicians and mass-media have presented Ahmed Zakaeva as «the international terrorist» in spite of the fact that that yet did not appear at court. And this with the fact that the Russian legal system, theoretically, the same as British, is based on a principle of a presumption of innocence.

The United Nations device pays attention for a long time to danger of application in this area of "double standards» which carry the same kind of terrorism in one case to a crime, and in other - to the form of political opposition and struggle for human rights. Such approach is based on ideological criteria and the rests of the concept of cold war. With the international terrorism it is impossible to struggle effectively if the international legislation is interpreted unilaterally according to narrow egoistical interests.

However terrorism far not unique area where double standards practise. Still in a greater degree it is inherent in sphere of international trade in the weapon. Here, besides economic and defenßÑ factors, the big role is played by political factor. So, Russia taking the second place in the world after the USA on sales of the weapon, is criticised by the last for arms supplies to Syria and maintenance of a dictatorial regime of the president of Syria Bashara Asada. The Russian party considers that delivers the weapon under absolutely legal contracts. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Russia S.V.laurels repeatedly declared that Russia cannot be accused of arms supplies of Syria because in it is not present nikakihnarusheny: neither international law, nor UN Security Council resolutions, own national legislation in sphere of export control which is one of the most rigid in the world. According to representatives of "the Antirussian front», the delivered weapon is used for murders of civilians or passes to such terrorist organisations, as HAMAS and Hezbollah. And that the NATO sponsors the Syrian opposition, delivering it the weapon and mercenaries, in the West it is estimated positively, as the help in an establishment of a democratic mode. Russia and China from its part condemn the given actions.

Other example is purchase of the Russian arms by Iran. It also is exposed to a negative estimation from the USA, which else about 1970th have certain negative attitude to this country, naming its not democratic and supporting the international terrorism. Russia, in their opinion, supplies the tyrant and terrorists with the weapon. Thus the United States easy deliver the weapon to Saudi Arabia to which mode they are loyal [8].

Not less actively the USA condemn Russia for arms supplies to Syria. At the same time the USA declare that expansion of the American system of the ABM in the different countries «comes true in interests of the general blessing» [9].

Application of double standards in questions of world power is extended enough. Speaking about the Iranian theme, it is possible to note condemnation from the USA of the researches conducted by Iran in the field of nuclear power. The American experts and politicians oppose similar workings out because, in their opinion, besides «peace atom», there is a working out of the nuclear weapon. At the same time the USA do not bring for discussion of world community a question of an existence of nuclear weapons at Israel, and, of course, do not accuse itself upon a use of nuclear weapons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Addressing to sessions of General Assembly of the United Nations, Barack Obama in particular has noticed that many in the world began to concern America with scepticism believing that on some key questions America operated unilaterally, without reckoning with interests and opinions of other countries and the states. However from told Obama does a correct conclusion, speaking that any country cannot and should not try to dominate over another and to enjoy confidence of others in the mercenary purposes. The US president has specified that it occurred because of aversion world community of certain political decisions. No world order ennobling one country or group of people over another, will crown success. Democracy cannot be imposed from the outside to any state. Each society should search for an own way for perfect ways do not happen. Each country will go on the way which roots in culture and traditions of its people.

Long time the European countries showed discontent that the Russian Federation carries out oil sale to the Post-Soviet states at cut price. According to opponents of similar practice, it contradicts market laws. After «Orange revolution» in Ukraine which has led to reorientation of its foreign policy towards the West, Russia has risen in the price for energy carriers. Right after its this action began to be considered as blackmail and attempt to undermine the Ukrainian economy. Also Russia is exposed to criticism from the western countries that ostensibly disturbs to a lining of the Transcaspian pipeline between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, thereby interfering with affairs of other states.

Bright display of "double standards” can be seen practice application on an example of gas conflicts between Russia and Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. Specificity of double standards during the periods of gas conflicts has been caused by prosecution of concrete pragmatical economic targets, also political interests of the involved parties. Ethical principles had no obviously expressed paramount value, as, for example, in fight against terrorism sphere that has strengthened necessity to consider sequence of positions of subjects. The position of mass-media on the given conflicts is interesting. So, in the west, rise in prices for gas for Ukraine is treated as the negative decision of the Kremlin connected with a policy. At the same time increase of tariffs for Belarus is approved as a timely positive course [10]. Practice of double standards according to gas conflicts was expressed by means of tone of publications, and also by means of various technologies and receptions among which the technology "refrejminga" is most often marked. So reception of "substitution of concepts» at selection of gas from a gas pipe Ukraine without payment for it was used at the description by the majority of the Russian mass-media as "larceny", and the western press applied the softened lexicon, applying, for example, a word combination «unapproved selection of gas owing to rise in prices for gas» [11].

Thus, practice of use of double standards in the international relations testifies that it is far not the most correct from the moral point of view in the way of conducting a policy West developed countries use, as a rule, and the brightest representative are the USA which, entering contradictions with the countries, actively use the leading position and successfully operate in achievement especially personal interests. It justifies a political reality in which struggle of all against all is conducted. And in this struggle all means are good. Nikkolo Makiavelli adhered to such principle still, approving that in the politician there is no place to a sentimentality, and the good politician can go on a deceit for the sake of the state blessing. But, unfortunately, that for one people the blessing, for another a trouble. After all the policy of double standards puts essential pressure upon a society. It is widely applied as means of pressure for opponents through public opinion that finally can lead to change of a foreign policy of the state not in the best for the people the party. And mutual recriminations and criticism of actions each other negatively affect possibilities of achievement of understanding between the countries in sphere of the international safety and other areas.

The policy of double standards in the international relations usually takes the form of charge of objectionable principles in infringement, obligations, conventions, «a violation of rights of the person», «departure from norms of international law» at obvious ignoring of absolutely similar own actions or actions of allies. Refusal of double standards will allow to make a policy more transparent and predicted that in turn will improve quality of the international relations and world community life as a whole.


Events in Ukraine, chaos of civil war, approach of the block of the NATO to borders of Russia, threat and appeals of some politicians of Ukraine about declaration of war of Russia, force our state in the shortest terms sharply to raise and consolidate fighting capability of the Armed forces.

Cardinal changes occurring today in the world in geopolitical, social and economic, spiritually-moral spheres have made a problem of maintenance of national safety of the Russian Federation especially sharp. Disorder of Soviet Union, unilateral dissolution of the Organization of the Warsaw contract, the termination of "cold war» have not approached the world to stability. The world did not become more safe and the potential of military force is still considered as the most effective factor in world politics.

Potential military danger and real military threats to Russia have extremely various forms. Attempts of our political elite to put on the foreground «universal values» to present the country in an environment of "allies" and "friends" success have not crowned, but have led to weakening of positions of Russia in the world and to reduction of spheres of its influence. Last years were marked by change of sights of the political country leaders. Certainly, it was influenced by events of last years [12].

Expansion of a zone of operative responsibility of the NATO for limits of borders originally defined by the North Atlantic contract to the Baltic States, the Eastern Europe and the Balkans can represent special danger to Rossi. As a result of practical realisation of similar plans time of the strategic prevention, namely the beginning of application will considerably be reduced by the countries of the NATO of nuclear or other weapon that will essentially limit possibilities on acceptance of adequate measures in case of sudden aggression.

Moreover, now expansion of an alliance and its other various actions represent not only expansion political, economic, military, but also expansion cultural-tsivilizatsionnuju, directed on liquidation of historical and cultural identity of Russia. Latest developments in Ukraine show that the Russian-speaking population does not suit the Ukrainian society. A vivid example javljajutsjalozungi at mass actions in capital of Ukraine Kiev: «Moskoljaku on giljaku; who does not skip that moskal». And all it is frequent proishoditpri to support of the western states and the USA that speaks orazzhiganii to hatred and hostility to Russian culture and its way of life.

It is impossible to exclude completely and that the extremely reactionary circles of the USA and the North Atlantic alliance, owing to the various reasons (aspiration definitively to finish with the geopolitical contender, an aggravation of a resource problem, political short-sightedness etc.) already run now business provoking Russia to rupture of relations with the West and its self-isolation.

The situation in Ukraine is especially intense. Drama events in Ukraine actively influence force arrangement in world space. An overall objective of this organised geopolitical action - attempt of a definitive separation of Ukraine from Russia, destruction of pravoslavno-slavic unity, use of the Ukrainian territory for placing of military contingents and infrastrukturynato.zdes not lishne once again napomnito to the instruction of National Security council of the USA from August, 18th 1948года № 20/1, being the strategic plan on shaking and destruction SSSR.Takim by image of the USA have the accurate plan on destruction of the USSR and its continuer - Russia. And this plan is successfully carried out. To Ukraine in this terrible destructive dejstviibylo it is given particular attention. Votpochemu present «battle for Ukraine» differs such bitterness.

Zbignev Bzhezinsky in the program book «Great chessboard», as one of the main tasks facing the euro-Atlantic civilisation, has designated a separation of Ukraine from Russia at any cost then last from great Euroasian power will turn to the regional Asian country. Accordingly, today's events in Ukraine cannot be considered as any casual action which has become possible thanks to coincidence of circumstances. It is the long-term policy of the West concerning Ukraine and the slavic people, creation of conditions for collision narodovsssr on the Euroasian space for the purpose of their mutual and all-round easing so that in the subsequent to transform them into a manageable ethnographic material [13].

The problem consists in that, chtoukrainu as the uniform large state do not want to see in the European Union, fields of the USA. It is necessary to them as territory for their farmland, mining operations, the cheap labour, shattered and conflicting among themselves. Such scenario has been planned and carried out votnoshenii Yugoslavia within the limits of so-called «operations on stabilisation», and actually - wars of new type. The concept of this sort of carrying out of operations has laid down in a basis of the Field charter of land forces of the USA - FM 3-07 Stability Operations «Operations on stabilisation», developed amerikantsamisovmestno with partners on NATOi approved in 2008. In it the main accent becomes on complex interdepartmental character of carrying out of operations on stabilisation in which should be involved all zainteresovannyeministerstva and departments of the USA. In the charter into circulation such concept as «the fragile state» - «fragilestate», that is institutsionalno weak, not capable independently to provide bezopasnosti normal ability to live of a society for the first time is put, and also it is reliable to control own territory. For the western strategists the government of such state is illegitimate, as, for example, in Ukraine, against it it is possible izbiratljubye levers, ignoring thus international law which and without that is astable enough recently. In the charter possibility is fixed not simply, and objazannostssha «as bulwark of democracy and freedom» to interfere in sovereign delapodobnyh the states.

For this purpose already there is chetkajametodologija, set up, including in the known manual «Otdiktatury to democracy. Strategy itaktika clearings» J. SHarpa, the head of Institute A.Einstein. As a matter of fact, this manual dljakazhdogo the expert «on revolutions and revolutions». If attentively to read two mentioned documents - the field charter and work of Sharpa there is clear a mechanism of actions of euroatlantism concerning Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, now - Ukraine. As to Ukraine, the purpose of operation of Westerners is obvious: the subject most interested in its realisation, - a political class of the USA and world financial oligarhat.

Organizers of events in Ukraine successfully realised the first stage of an operation - creation nestabilnostii a conflict situation in the country. The second stage assumed formation of "the state suffering from institutional weakness», according to charter FM 3-07 Stability Operations, «the fragile state», that is formation incapacitated organovvlasti against the civil conflict that would become an occasion for vvodasil the NATO and the Forwarding case of civil experts. For some reason has not received an extended coverage that fact that else in апреле2004 year Ukraine has signed the agreement from the NATO about granting of the territory for actions of forces of an alliance [14]. So the NATO will enter to Ukraine navpolne the "lawful" bases and will take place, first of all, on jugo-vostokestrany - at the Russian borders. The plan successfully came true. Ostavalosstolknut in armed konflikterossiju and Ukraine. The West authorities tried to blacken a sacred victory of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War, successes of the multinational state in restoration of a national economy destroyed by war, to erect the nation to nedochelovekov.

However nobleness of the people of the winner is invincible, staunch and sacred. Also happens unforeseen - the population of Crimea and Sevastopol, storing in genetic pamjativse horrors German-fashistskojokkupatsii, has not wished to recognise the gangster power of the Maidan and the more so it to obey. The people of Crimea and Sevastopol have declared the option sobstvennojsudby, has elected time government bodies and declared a referendum where the attention to the question on reunification with the historical native land - Russia has been brought. The president of the Russian Federation has requested of the Federation Council of Federal Meeting of the Russian Federation the sanction on application of armed forces in territory of Ukraine and nemedlennoee has received. Not only rukovodstvostrany, but also the Russian public have actively supported intention krymchan. V.V.Putin proizvelproverku battle readinesses of troops and silflota, than has shown to the West sereznostsvoih intentions.

In the world there was in own way a revolutionary geopolitical situation: Moscow has received podderzhkumezhdunarodnoj the public in the name of China, India, Latin America, Iran, Turkey, a considerable unit of the Islamic world, Africa. Behind the back of Russia - the Shanghai organisation of cooperation (SHOS), BRIKS, the Organization of the Contract on collective safety (ODKB).

Latin America, the Islamic world, India, South East Asia tries to be liberated from under rigid American control. In tomzhe a direction Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkey move. Iran and Syria have stood, them in Washington have hurried objavitstranami «harm axes», thereby kakby having signed a sentence. Have not brought neither political, nor military dividends long military campaigns of the USA and the NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq. Russia, with arrival for V.V.Putin's third presidential term, has ceased to look back at Washington, has stopped aggression against Syria, increases military potential, declares protection of the interests in Arctic regions, smooths out a political field from pro-American «the fifth column» in the country.

The big role in the modern world igraetpodgotovlennyj decades of internal reforms economic and political-military break of China in sphere of global economy and geopolitics. China has managed to master forward world technologies, quickly to increase modern industrial production, to become «a world workshop» and to impose its production to the whole world, is boundless to expand external economic and commercial relations on all continents, to consolidate and equip with modern technics national armed forces. To the world China carries out the expansion in all important directions.

The geopolitical picture of the modern world would be incomplete if in it such phenomena and processes as separatism growth, resuscitation of a sea piracy and consecutive escalating of scales of terrorism have not been reflected. Within last 25 years the terrorism became for mankind the present damnation which carried away lives of thousand and thousand of innocent people and has provoked even more bloody events. The terrorism became presence display in the world of the serious centres and zones of sharp rivalry and struggle for territories, the power, resources and imposing of the ideals and representations how the world and life in it should be arranged. It very often proves in territories, podvergshihsja aggressions from other countries. Acts of terrorism often accompany opposition on international and mezhkonfessionalnoj to soil [15].

Thus, the world community has left from the bipolar opposition based on nuclear parity and a strategic balance of forces, was quickly enough convinced of danger of the unipolar scheme of a peace arrangement led by the USA and the NATO and tends politsentrichnoj to the scheme of a world order. However movement on this vector while slow and zigzag. Washington aspires not only to keep, but also to assign to itself of a position of a uniform pole of force in the world.

In a difficult situation there are Arabian countries. In the Near East there are centres of three world religions - Christianities, a Judaism and Islam. Crossing of their interests often generates intensity and conflicts. But in this region of the world interests not only regional, but also the big world powers are crossed. 2010-2012 became for a number of the Arabian countries of the Near East and the North Africa (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Tunis, Libya) the period of rough internal political shocks and confrontations. It were the events which have received on an information field the name of "the Arabian spring».

The western countries, first of all the USA and the NATO countries, pursued the aims of discharge from the power objectionable it and to Israel the Arabian national leaders which policy did not suit for a long time Washington and its allies in the Near East. During directly supported France, Great Britain and other countries of the NATO, and also Saudi Arabia and Qatar of armed rebellion in Libya had been killed the head of the state and one of leaders of the Arabian world of Muammar Kaddafi. Then the question has been solved with Saddam Hussein. Till now remains to Bashara Asada not resolved fate. Reduction to the power in the Near-Eastern countries of more operated modes, ready to transfer under complete control of the countries of the West resources of the countries (oil, gas, etc.) was other important purposes of the western countries The military policy and to curtail programs of political, economic and military-technical cooperation with Russia, China and Iran. Regions Near and Middle East, and also many regions of Africa contain huge stocks of oil, gas and other strategic resources for which a second century there is a serious struggle between the leading countries of the world in the bowels.

On the Earth gradually comes global tsivilizatsionnyj crisis. To prevent crises and wars, it is necessary to stabilise an economic condition of the most financially unstable states, to localise internal conflicts in the countries and not to admit outside intervention. Besides, enormous efforts to eliminate one of principal causes of oppositions in the modern world - racial hatred are necessary.

Probably unique that the countries can make today - world leaders are to try very carefully, with attraction of the maximum quantity of the parties, to develop new world rules and principles, simultaneously consolidating the states in the economic and military plan. And not to do at all sharp steps, provoking local wars and revolutions. It is possible to allocate the basic ways of prevention of crises and intergovernmental conflicts, proceeding from principles of democratic development of the world.

Internationalisation of life of the world community in economic-economic, political and cultural spheres.

Strict observance by all countries and the people of principle of peaceful coexistence. A recognition all subjects of the international relations of the right of each people on a free choice of a path of development and inadmissibility of its imposing to any state and a society, and also a recognition of objectively existing variety of social development.

Decrease in level of military opposition - continuous, consecutive and uniform reduction of armaments, first of all weapons of mass destruction. This one of the major directions in prevention of conflicts to application of armed forces, decrease in their destructive consequences. Disarmament can become a basis of more intensive social and economic progress which will lift the international safety on higher level, will improve living conditions of people, having reduced, thus, and danger of internal political conflicts. First, disarmament should be mutual, uniform and equivalent for all competing parties. Secondly, inadmissibility of monopoly of one of the parties in working out of the new weapon, including having defensive character. Thirdly, in modern conditions when absolute control over processes of disarmament and working out of the new weapon is impossible, development of trust and cooperation in these areas is necessary

Strengthening of a role of the international intergovernmental organisations, such, as the United Nations and others, in the field of legal regulation of mutual relations between the countries. The main task of these organisations in a context of a considered problem - to head building of system of the international regional and general safety. An important role in prevention of intergovernmental conflicts incorporated armed forces of the United Nations can play. The history shows that collective efforts of the states even concerning various social-political systems, almost always were fruitful. A vivid example - an Antihitlerite coalition in days of the Second World War. Joint efforts of the states on fulfilment of the decision of the United Nations have allowed to block aggressive actions of Iraq in relation to Kuwait.

The conclusion

Rivalry in political, economic and military spheres between the existing and arising centres of force, potential seats of tension, confrontations at regional level, presence in a peace time urjada the states of powerful armed forces, and also the nuclear weapon, will make still serious threat, including military, for safety of our country. Besides, the overwhelming military superiority of the USA allows to change a military confrontation essence qualitatively. Actually it is a question not about "contactless", and of "unilateral" war. During its USA had an opportunity, without meeting adequate rebuff, to destroy military, economic and political objects of other party and to reach war political ends.

Unfortunately, any more the first century the world faces extremely dangerous attempts of the USA self-appointedly incurring a role «missionarys of freedom and democracy», to impose the will and the representations about the most rational state system and a public order to all other countries and the people on a planet. Thus they operate «by the right of strong», not too standing on ceremony in a choice of means and often resorting to arms and military technology use.

Hiding the ekspansionistskie aspirations reasonings on «the general blessing», on aspiration to do much good for all other world, having reorganised it on own to "democratic standards», the USA aspire to expand sphere of the military, political, economic and ideological influence on other countries and, first of all, to grasp control over their natural resources.

Most a vivid example now is Ukraine. Considering that the Ukrainian events are supported by the western countries, and Russia is exposed by separate politicians in this situation as an aggressor, analyzing behaviour of the countries of the NATO on delivery to Ukraine of the weapon and planning of creation of the bases in Europe arises a conclusion that the escalation of war can lead very much to serious consequences.

The most comprehensible form of settlement of the international conflict is an achievement of balance of interests of its parties that will allow, finally to eliminate the reason of the conflict. In a case if similar balance it was not possible to reach, besides, interests of one of the parties owing to military defeat are suppressed, the conflict passes in the latent form which at any moment can to revive again under favorable internal and international conditions the conflict.

At the decision of the international problems the same basic rules of law should be applied: a violence exception, a consideration for the interests of the parties, collective condemnation of illegal actions and acceptance of corresponding sanctions. And for this purpose, on the one hand, it is necessary to achieve civilised public consciousness, condemnation of all forms of violence and destruction of people, and the corpus of corresponding laws, on the other hand, should be developed, the consistent system of international law allowing by a civilised way to solve the international problems is created. Imperfection of a system of international law leads to a problem of double standards which is especially brightly shown at the decision of questions of territorial integrity of the states.

In international law two inconsistent principles are put on equal terms at once: a principle of territorial integrity of the state and the right of the nations to self-determination. This contradiction also does possible application of a policy of double standards.

In the international relations application of a policy of double standards usually takes the form of charge of objectionable principles in infringement, conventions, obligations, departure from norms of international law at demonstrative ignoring of absolutely similar own actions or actions of allies. The given policy is widely applied as means of pressure for opponents through public opinion.

Practice of use of double standards in the international relations testifies that it is far not the most correct from the moral point of view in the way of conducting a policy the countries of the West and the USA use, as a rule. It justifies a political reality in which struggle of all against all is conducted. And in this struggle all means are good. But, unfortunately, that for one people the blessing, for another a trouble. After all the policy of double standards puts essential pressure upon a society that finally can lead to change of a foreign policy of the state not in the best for the people the party. And mutual recriminations and criticism of actions each other negatively affect possibilities of achievement of understanding between the countries in sphere of the international safety and other areas. Refusal of double standards will allow to make a policy more transparent and predicted that in turn will improve quality of the international relations and world community life as a whole. 

References to sources

[1] Tuzova A.F. «Double standards» in massmedijnoj to practice (the social-political analysis). - SPb., 2010. - With. 2

[2] Grebennikova L, Radkevich S «Double standards» modern policy. - M, 2005. - 153с.; mezhuev B. «Double standards» and «struggle of civilisations». Russian magazine. - M, 2009.-32s.; Svanidze N, Yerofeev V «Double standards of national history». Echo Moscow. - M, 2009.-53s.

[3] Scientific publishing house "Big Russian Encyclopedia". Publishing house: RMG. The big Russian encyclopaedic dictionary. - M, 2003. - With. 132.

[4] T.Garbuzova. The dictionary of economic terms for businessmen. - M, 2013. - With. 332.

[5] Double standards: a site. URL: < (äàòà> references: 10/26/2015)

[6] Nozdrin. A.V. A policy of double standards in the international relations. - M, 2012. - With. 15.

[7] Tuzova A.F. «Double standards» in massmedijnoj to practice (the social-political analysis). - SPb., 2010. - With. 13.

[8] Nozdrin. A.V. A policy of double standards in the international relations. - M, 2012. - With. 13.

[9] USA have condemned deliveries of the Russian weapon to Venezuela: a site. URL: (äàòà  references: 10/23/2015)

[10] Russian-Belarus energy conflicts: a site. URL: <> (reference date: 10/22/2015)

[11] Gas conflicts between Russia and Ukraine: a site. URL: <> (reference date: 10/23/2015)

[12] Basic threats of military safety of the Russian Federation: a site. URL: (äàòà  references: 10/15/2015)

[13] Bzhezinsky Zbignev. A great chessboard. - Washington, district of Columbia, 1997. - With. 258.

[14] Geopolitical situation in world space in connection with events in Ukraine: a site. URL: < (äàòà> references: 10/26/2015)

[15] Geopolitical picture of the modern world. URL: < (äàòà> references: 10/22/2015)

The list of references

1. Conflictology bases / Under the editorship of V.N.Kudryavtsev. - M, 2003.

2. J. Friedman: the Next 100 years: the Forecast of events of 21 centuries. - M: eksmo, 2010.

3. Nikolay Starikov: Ukraine. Chaos and revolution - oruzhiedollara. - SPb., 2014.

4. O.Spengler: Godyresheny. - M: an U-trading station, 2007.

5. Z.Bzhezinsky: Velikajashahmatnajadoska. - M: nuclear heating plant, 2014.

6. A.J.Antsupov, A.I.Shipilov. Conflictology: the Textbook for high schools. 3 izd. - SPb: Peter, 2008.

7. O.Ryzhkov: Political conflicts. - M, 2003.

8. E.A.Utkin: Conflictology. The theory and practice. - M: Ekmos, 2001.

9. Kazantsev V. N. A policy of application of "double standards» in a modern society. - M, 2008.

10. Tuzova A.F. «Double standards» in massmedijnoj to practice (the social-political analysis). - SPb., 2010.

11. Grebennikova L, Radkevich S «Double standards» modern policy. - M, 2005.

12. mezhuev B. «Double standards» and «struggle of civilisations». Russian magazine. - M, 2009.

13. Svanidze N, Yerofeev V «Double standards of national history». Echo Moscow. - M, 2009.

14. Scientific publishing house "Big Russian Encyclopedia". Publishing house: RMG. The big Russian encyclopaedic dictionary. - M, 2003.

15. The big Oxford dictionary. Oxford English dictionary. - L., 1972.

16. Nozdrin. A.V. A policy of double standards in the international relations. - M, 2012.

17. Bzhezinsky Zbignev. A great chessboard. - Washington, district of Columbia, 1997.

18. Post-Soviet continent. Scientifically-analytical magazine. Crisis influence in Ukraine on geopolitical conditions in the world. - TH., 2014.

19. Double standards. - an access mode: <>

20. The USA have condemned deliveries of the Russian weapon to Venezuela. - an access mode: <>

21. Gas conflicts between Russia and Ukraine. - an access mode: <>

22. The Russian-Belarus energy conflicts. - an access mode: <>

23. The basic threats of military safety of the Russian Federation. - an access Mode: <>

24. A geopolitical picture of the modern world. Estimations and forecasts: a site. - a mode доступа:

25. A geopolitical situation in world space in connection with events in Ukraine. - a mode доступа:

26. A policy of double standards. - an access mode: <>

27. Hodorovsky And. Double standards in struggle against world terrorism: to counteract harm or to "lure and use? - An access mode: <>

28. Examples of double standards in a world policy. - an access mode: <>

29. Yugoslavia and the Chechen Republic: double standards of the western propagation. - an access mode: <>

30. Laurels: for arms supplies of Syria to justify in front of the USA we do not collect. - an access mode: <>

31. A geopolitical picture of Russia. - an access mode: <>

Vasileva K.V.

RELATED MATERIALS: Defence and security
Возрастное ограничение