On the issue of international legal principles of cooperation between states in the agricultural sector under restrictive measures.

Gordeev Artem Postgraduate student; Faculty of Highly Qualified Personnel Training; Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Business partner for working with commercial functions; Legal Service Center; Rusagro Group of Companies LLC Borovskoe shosse, 46, block 109, 119634, Russia, Moscow gordeev_avia@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

International legal regulation is aimed at solving global problems, and cooperation between States in the field of agriculture, which results in food security, is becoming a point of contact in the relations of all countries that are ready to contribute to the search for answers to global challenges. At the same time, there is currently geopolitical instability in the international arena, caused, it seems, by the desire of individual states, such as the United States, the member States of the European Union (EU), etc., for hegemony in international relations. At the same time, such states, given their established dominance in the financial and other spheres, use measures of political and economic pressure to suppress the political will of their opponents, which, in our opinion, can be described as unilateral restrictive measures (hereinafter referred to as OOM).

In the context of the OOM, it is important to maintain communication channels and joint efforts to preserve global food security and sustainable agricultural development. Political destabilization is seriously damaging global efforts to combat hunger. It is important to strengthen and deepen equal cooperation between States in the field of agriculture based on key international legal principles in force in this area, despite the existence of political differences. At the same time, the practice of state relations in this area in the context of the operation of the OOM seems to show the formation of some new special principles of such cooperation.

It should be noted separately that our state has recently been the destination of numerous OOM from the states of the "collective West". So, in the period from 2014 to the present, more than 28 thousand "sanctions" have been imposed against the Russian Federation as a state, as well as Russian companies and individuals, of which the vast majority have been imposed over the past three years (URL: https://www.mid.ru/ru/detail-material-page/1860586 / (Date of access: 03/15/2025)). Although de jure these OMAS are not aimed at the domestic agricultural sector, their de facto consequences in the financial and logistical spheres, as well as the "overcompensation" of Western counterparties, negatively affect the export of Russian agricultural products, including to countries in need. Given the fact that the Russian Federation is the largest exporter of many types of agricultural products, the current situation causes an imbalance in the existing system of interstate cooperation and food security. Despite this, Russia remains a proponent of a creative approach to world politics and is interested in building equal partnerships with constructively minded countries, while remaining open to dialogue with unfriendly states, which is explicitly provided for in the new Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation 2023 (URL: https://www.mid.ru/ru/detail-material-page/1860586 / (Date of access: 03/15/2025)).

There are studies in the Russian doctrine of international law devoted to the international legal assessment of OOM. In particular, such researchers as G.V. Vaipan, V. A. Vasilenko, K.V. Kritsky, V.V. Voynikov, F.Yu. Panov and others dealt with this problem. Among the foreign researchers whose works the author referred to, one can single out: E. Carnizaro, R.A. Pape, J. Hezazi, S. Emamgolipour and others. In the course of the research, the author also referred to other works by scientists in the field of international law: A.H. Abashidze, A.A. Danelyan, S.A. Egorov, B.I. Nefedov, A. Rahim, I.L. Trunov, G.I. Tunkin, M.V. Shugurov, S.V. Chernichenko and others; criminal law: V.V. Lisauskaite; international relations: O.V. Kamshukova, R.N. Chanysheva, I.E. Isanova and economics: A.S. Lebedeva, V.I. Glotov, Yu.I. Nemtsova. The author also used materials from his own scientific research, regulatory documents, and statistical data. However, it should be noted that there are practically no studies devoted to the identification and analysis of special principles of cooperation between states in the field of agriculture in the context of the OOM. Thus, the identification of such special principles is likely to contribute to the domestic science of international law.

In connection with the above, it seems necessary and relevant to consider the OOM of States in the field of agriculture through the prism of the fundamental principles of public international law, as well as to identify emerging special principles of cooperation between States in the field of agriculture in the context of the OOM.

OOM of States in the field of agriculture: general characteristics through the prism of general principles of international law

The principles of international law are basically, as S.V. Chernichenko rightly notes, "imperative norms of international law (jus cogens) and contain obligations erga omnes (in relation to all participants in interstate communication)" ^{[1, p. 102]}. G.I. Tunkin also considers the basic generally recognized principles of positive international public law as jus cogens ^{[2, P. 140]}. The national doctrine of international law has established the view that the basic principles of international law are reflected in the Charter of the United Nations (UN) and were subsequently specified in the Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) of October 24, 1970 "On Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States in accordance with The UN Charter" (Declaration of 1970), among which the following principles can be distinguished: sovereign equality; non-interference in internal affairs; non-use of force; peaceful settlement of disputes; territorial integrity and inviolability; equal rights and self-determination of peoples; respect for human rights; pacta sunt servanda; the principle of cooperation. ^{[3, P. 46]}. The preamble of the 1970 Declaration also notes that the faithful observance of the principles of international law is essential for the maintenance of international peace and security.

CBOs, or as they are often called "sanctions", are one of the types of restrictive measures that take place in international law. However, they should not be equated with sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council within its competence on a state violating international law and order, in accordance with the procedure established by the UN Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security (Articles 24, 39, 41 of the UN Charter) ^{[4, p. 39]}. By their legal nature, the UN Security Council sanctions are collective and reflect the will of the majority of the world community. At the same time, according to the author, the OOM of States should be understood as measures taken in accordance with the national law of the State of their initiator in relation to another State or group of States and aimed at limiting or prohibiting certain actions or relations between States.

The OOM of States, including those affecting cooperation in the field of agriculture and food security, seem to violate, first of all, the principles of public international law. In the modern Russian doctrine of international law, there is a general consensus on the contradiction of international law. Researchers such as K.V. Kritsky, V.V. Voynikov, F.Y. Panov note that OOMs are instruments of political pressure and contradict the principles of international law ^{[5, p. 12; 6, P. 138; 7, P. 14]}. A.S. Lebedev ^{[8, P. 54]}, V.I. Glotov, Yu.I. Nemtsov ^{[9, P. 10]}, R.A. Pape ^{[10, P. 93]} interpret the imposed economic sanctions as an element of hybrid warfare, however, not because these restrictive economic measures are aimed at the military economy, but because economic restrictions pursue the same goals as military aggression. Clause 4, clause 23 of the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation also contains a provision on Russia's perception of unfriendly states as violating the principles of international law.

Quite interesting and objective are the materials based on the results of scientific research on the topic of OOM, carried out by the International Legal Council at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and published in the Journal International Life back in 2012 (URL:https://interaffairs.ru/jauthor/material/720 (Accessed:15.03.2025)). More than 20 leading experts in the field of international law participated in the study. The findings of the study remain relevant at the present time. In particular, among other things, the following was noted: international law does not explicitly prohibit States from imposing GMS against other States, and their legitimacy should be viewed through the prism of special (sectoral) norms of international law; GMS, especially if the initiator State justifies their introduction by the unlawful behavior of the destination State, the criteria apply legality applied to countermeasures in international law, etc.

The author believes that state actions, especially affecting the agricultural sector of the Russian Federation, in most cases cannot be considered as countermeasures (retorsions, reprisals, self-defense), in the sense in which they are understood in the Draft Articles on State Responsibility for Violations of International Law (approved by UNGA Resolution No. 56/83 of December 12, 2001). It should be noted that countermeasures are the only legitimate form of unilateral coercion in international law and are imposed by States in order to restore a pre-existing situation or influence other States that have violated their obligations towards them. In the example of the Russian Federation, our state has not violated its international legal obligations towards the states that initiated the OOM, for example, the United States. It seems that in the case under consideration, the OOM was adopted for the purpose of political pressure, a kind of punishment for objectionable behavior. Article 26 of the Draft also specifically states that if an act of a State, i.e., for example, the introduction of a public order for the purpose of political pressure, contradicts a peremptory norm of general international law (principles of international law), then it is a priori illegal.

The contradiction between the principles of international cooperation of states, including those affecting cooperation in the field of agriculture and food security, is regularly emphasized on the UN platform, for example: in UNGA Resolution No. A/RES/70/5 of October 27, 2015 on the need to end the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba.; in the 2011 Report of the UN Secretary-General on unilateral economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries; in the Report of the UNGA Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur 2023 on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights.

Let's look at some specific examples of how States' OOMs affecting the agricultural sector and threatening food security contradict the principles of international law. For example, the principle of State cooperation is aimed at implementing all other principles of international law, and States that impose compulsory trade agreements on other States affecting interstate cooperation in the agricultural sphere violate this principle by refusing to contribute to ensuring economic stability in interstate relations, endangering international food security (paragraphs 3 of Articles 1 and art. 55 of the UN Charter).

The introduction of GMS that contradict the international obligations of the initiating States (for example, free trade agreements or WTO agreements) violates the principle of good faith fulfillment of international legal obligations (pacta sunt servanda, Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). In particular, the US imposition of trade restrictions on Russia, despite existing trade agreements, casts doubt on the good faith of the US fulfilling its international obligations under the WTO.

IOM seems to have a negative impact on human rights, in our case it is about the right to food. In situations where restrictive measures endanger the provision of basic living needs to the population, as was the case with the US blockade of Cuba, the imposition of restrictions violates the principle of respect for human rights enshrined in the UN Charter. The negative impact on human rights of CSOs affecting agriculture and food security is also highlighted in the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights "Unilateral coercive measures: concept, types and qualifications" 2021.

The principle of peaceful dispute resolution suggests that States should seek to resolve disputes by peaceful means, without resorting to unilateral actions such as economic restrictions that could exacerbate conflicts. R.N. Chanyshev and I.E. Isanov rightly point out that the impact of OOM on the destination countries is close in essence to aggressive acts, albeit not of a military, but of an economic nature, and therefore such measures come into complete contradiction with the principle of peaceful dispute resolution ^{[11, p. 27]}. Practice shows that the introduction and operation of OOM can only increase tension, hindering dialogue and the peaceful settlement of international conflicts.

In the context of the principle of sovereign equality of States, attention should be paid to paragraph 2 of the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, on the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty (Adopted by resolution 2131 (XX) of the UN General Assembly on December 21, 1965), which states that: "no State has the right to apply economic and other measures to force another State to subordinate the exercise of its sovereign rights or to obtain any advantages from it." In the example of the US blockade of Cuba, the US OOM aimed at just such coercion.

We have to state the fact that, despite the objective contradiction of the OOM, especially in the field of agriculture, to the fundamental principles of international law, in modern conditions they have become an objective reality. According to the author, this fact is a product of the concept of the "rules based order" promoted by the United States and its satellites, which seems to have been developed as a means of justifying violations of international law by the United States and its allies (for example, the armed invasion of Iraq). It is appropriate here to cite as an example the position of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who rightly stressed that the purpose of this "order" is "to replace universally agreed international legal instruments and mechanisms with narrow formats where alternative, non-consensual methods of resolving certain international problems are being developed, bypassing legitimate multilateral frameworks" ^[12]. Al Ali Nasser Abdel Rahim puts forward the thesis that the concept of a "rules-based order" is a vivid example of international legal nihilism ^{[13, p.217]}. B.I. Nefedov believes that supporters of this concept, proposing to develop new rules of the global world order, actually call for the abolition or modification of existing fundamental norms of jus cogens or the norms of the UN Charter ^{[14, P. 18]}.

At the same time, cooperation between States in all areas, including agriculture and ensuring global food security, continues, even in the face of geopolitical turbulence, armed conflicts and restrictive measures. The practice of interstate cooperation in such conditions seems to have allowed the development of several special international legal principles of such cooperation, which include: the principle of commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) The United Nations (the principle of commitment to the SDGs), the principle of non-proliferation of restrictive measures on agricultural products (the principle of non-proliferation), the principle of humanitarian exceptions to restrictive measures (the principle of humanitarian exceptions), the principle of proportionality of restrictive measures in agriculture (the principle of proportionality).

2. Formation of some special principles of cooperation between states in the field of agriculture in the context of restrictive measures

2.1 The principle of commitment to the SDGs

The seventeen UN Sustainable Development Goals and 169 tasks developing them were adopted by UNGA Resolution No. 70/1 of September 25, 2015, which approved the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The UN SDGs replaced the Millennium Development Goals, which were set out in the UN Millennium Declaration, adopted by UNGA Resolution No. 55/2 of September 8, 2000. As a number of Russian researchers rightly point out, "the SDGs reaffirmed the commitments of the world community regarding global partnership for sustainable universal development" ^{[15, p. 65]}.

Within the framework of this study, we are most interested in one of the most important and even basic sustainable development Goals, SDG No. 2 (Eliminating hunger), since its achievement directly depends on ensuring global food security by States. Within the framework of the goal of eradicating hunger, a number of tasks need to be solved, including the development of interstate cooperation in the agricultural sector, as well as the elimination and suppression of restrictions in this area. At the same time, the UN Report on the implementation of the SDGs for 2023 provides data that in 2022 more than 730 million people faced chronic hunger, while almost 30% of the world's population faced a shortage of sufficient food, which indicates the growing food crisis and the global community's distance from achieving SDGs on hunger eradication. (URL: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2023/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2023_Russian.pdf (Date of request: 03/15/2025)). The problems in the field of food security and achieving the goal of eliminating hunger against the background of restrictive measures are also discussed in the report of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) on the state of food security for 2024. (https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/c962eb81-ce37-441c-b321-66f02ce54f4f/content/cd1254ru.html#gsc.tab=0 (Date of reference: 03/15/2025)). In paragraph 10 of the Kazan Declaration adopted at the end of the XVI BRICS Summit (Kazan, 10/23/2024) among other things, the illegitimate OOM has a negative impact on the achievement of the SDGs (http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/ru/MUCfWDg0QRs3xfMUiCAmF3LEh02OL3Hk.pdf (Date of request: 03/15/2025)).

Analyzing the overall content of the UN SDGs, it becomes obvious that they are based on the fundamental principles of international law. Moreover, paragraph 10 of the Agenda explicitly states that it is committed to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, including respect for international law. The SDGs are based on the requirement to mobilize the common efforts of all States, sovereign equality, and respect for human rights, and therefore we can say that the SDGs are a kind of practical embodiment of the fundamental principles of international law as part of the universal legal regulation of interstate relations. Special attention should be paid to the content of item 30 of the Agenda, which declares the need for States to abandon trade barriers and introduce unilateral restrictive measures of an economic and financial nature that contradict international law and the UN Charter. Consequently, the international community recognizes that politically motivated economic OM is a negative factor in international relations, making it difficult for States to peacefully coexist and achieve a comprehensive partnership for sustainable development.

Russia has always remained committed to global efforts to achieve sustainable development and has achieved good results in meeting most of the SDGs. Despite this, the Russian Federation is the destination of an unprecedented number of OOM from the United States and its allies, under whose control, due to their high political influence, are global logistics chains and the banking system, as a result of which there is a significant difficulty in exporting Russian food to world markets. This circumstance cannot but affect the level of food security in the world and contradicts global efforts to achieve the SDGs, which, in turn, are based on the principles of international law and in themselves form the fundamental basis for cooperation between States in the field of agriculture. Commitment to the SDGs is thus one of the principles of cooperation between States in various fields, including agriculture, and is, in turn, the embodiment of the principle of international cooperation between States.

One should also agree with researcher M.V. Shugurov, who, analyzing the general theoretical justification of the concept of sustainable development, comes to the conclusion that the SDGs are based on the awareness of "common, albeit different responsibilities" by all countries ^{[16, p. 177]}. Such an idea of State cooperation in the agricultural sector seems to be a guarantee of the common participation of all countries in maintaining the stability of the world food system. However, not all states are aware of their responsibility to achieve the SDGs, putting their geopolitical ambitions first, unreasonably imposing politically motivated economic measures against other states, which poses a threat to sustainable development and international security, including food security. Thus, the principle of commitment to the SDGs, in the author's opinion, implies the need to reject the adoption of politically motivated CSOs in the field of agricultural cooperation, since they hinder global sustainable development. This principle, as it seems, is based on unconditional respect for international law, and directly relates to the modern system of cooperation between States in the field of agriculture and ensuring global food security in the context of geopolitical instability and restrictive measures.

2.2 The principle of exclusion of food supplies from the regime of restrictive measures

It seems that at the moment we can also talk about the formation of the principle of excluding food supplies from any economic restrictions. In the spring of 2022, against the background of the concern of the world community about the impact of restrictive measures against Russia imposed during this period on global food security, at the Twelfth Session of the WTO Ministerial Conference, which was held in June 2022 in Geneva, a joint decision of WTO ministers was adopted on 06/17/2022."On Food Purchases under the UN World Food Program and Exemption from Export Bans or Restrictions" (https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/MIN22/29.pdf&Open=True (Date of request: 03/15/2025)).

As part of this decision, food purchases under the United Nations World Food Program for non-commercial humanitarian purposes have been granted the official status of exclusion from any export or trade restrictions of all WTO member countries. The decision was made in accordance with the rules of Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement on the Establishment of the WTO in 1994. At the same time, the decision contains a reference to Article 12 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture of 1994, which requires taking into account the consequences for food security when WTO member States impose restrictions on agricultural exports.

Consistent with the principle of excluding supplies necessary to ensure global food security, agricultural products are often excluded from the scope of the OOM in order to prevent a food security crisis. Usually, such exceptions should be provided for directly by the national legislation of the States initiating the restrictions. At the same time, it should be noted that even the initiating states themselves de jure recognize the need to lift restrictions related to the supply of food and fertilizers in order not to destabilize markets and supply chains. For example, in a letter addressed to the UN Secretary-General on May 12, 2022 by the Permanent Representative of the United States to the UN, the problems of grain, fertilizers and oils are identified as the main ones in the field of global agriculture, and the representative himself is aware of the importance of the role of Russia and Belarus in ensuring global food security and considers it obvious that cooperation is needed. resume despite restrictions (https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n22/348/39/pdf/n2234839.pdf (Date of request: 03/15/2025)).

The states that initiated the OOM formally follow the principle of exclusion from restrictions, since in modern conditions agriculture, as one of the key industries for ensuring people's lives, must be protected from the excessive impact of economic restrictions. An example is the practice of issuing humanitarian licenses to trade agricultural products, as is done in the United States with an OFAC license for humanitarian purposes – OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) General License No. 6B (URL: https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/924321/download?inline (Date of request: 03/15/2025)). In addition, OFAC issued an official assurance in July 2022 that "sanctions are not imposed on Russia in the areas of production, manufacture, sale or transportation of agricultural products (including fertilizers), agricultural equipment or medicines" (URL: https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/924341/download?inline (Date of request: 03/15/2025)). However, the United States has not kept this assurance, since dry cargo ships under the Russian flag and register, with the exception of those carrying products necessary for the development of the nuclear industry to the United States, are prohibited from entering American ports, and therefore trade between the United States and Russia in the field of agriculture is limited (https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/661ec0119a794777b412bbca (Date of request: 03/15/2025)).

In the UK, on November 4, 2022, the Ministry of Finance of the country adopted a General License for financial transactions related to the export of Russian agricultural products and fertilizers, including insurance services (URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1115732/Publication_Notice_INT.2022.2349952.pdf. (Date of request: 03/15/2025)).

Back in 2014, the European Union (EU) adopted Council Regulation No. 833/2014 "On Restrictive measures in connection with Russia's actions destabilizing the situation in Ukraine," which is constantly being amended and supplemented. In July 2022, the so-called "Seventh Package" of the EU OOM was adopted in relation to the Russian Federation (Council Regulation 2022/1269 of July 21, 2022 "On Amendments to Regulation (EU) No. 833/2014"). As part of the amendments, it was envisaged to lift the ban on transactions with certain Russian government organizations in relation to transactions with agricultural products and the supply of oil and petroleum products to third countries. In addition, the EU member States, despite the general restriction of navigation involving Russian vessels, have the right to independently establish exceptions to the restrictions on ship arrivals, which is also done for humanitarian purposes. However, just as in the case of the United States, in practice, these "indulgences" were hardly used by European states.

Also, one of the examples of the implementation of the principle of excluding food supplies from restrictive measures is the so-called Black Sea Grain Initiative (Black Sea Grain Initiative), the international legal aspects of which were discussed in another article by the author ^[17]. In short, the JI represents two international agreements with different legal natures, simultaneously signed in Istanbul on July 22, 2022 – the Initiative for the Safe Transportation of Grain and Food from Ukrainian Ports between the Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine (the Initiative); and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Russian Federation and the UN Secretariat on promoting the promotion of Russian food and fertilizers on Global Markets (Memorandum).

Within the framework of this study, the provisions of the Memorandum are of interest to the extent that they identify a threat to global food security and call for cooperation in achieving the SDGs on hunger eradication. In addition, paragraph 2 of paragraph 2 of the Memorandum contains a provision on the need to exclude Russian food and fertilizers from the scope of the OOM adopted in relation to the Russian Federation, based on the principle of excluding these products from any restrictions. The de facto Memorandum remains in force, but the JI as a whole has now lost its relevance. Nevertheless, the practice of implementing the JI has shown the main thing: the initiator states in relation to the Russian Federation are not really interested in ensuring global food security, since they pursue their own economic and geopolitical goals. Russian President Vladimir Putin particularly focused on this aspect in his 2023 article "Russia and Africa: Joining Forces for Peace, Progress and a Successful Future" (URL: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/71719 (Date of access: 12/15/2024)). This fact was also noted in the official position of the Russian Federation at the 79th session of the UN General Assembly (URL: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/publications/general_assembly/a_66_138.pdf (Date of request: 03/15/2025)). At the same time, CHI also proves the existence and implementation of the principle of excluding food from any restrictions.

2.3 The principle of humanitarian exceptions to restrictive measures

Another requirement based on the principles of interstate cooperation and international humanitarian law is the need for humanitarian exceptions to restrictive measures. The humanitarian vector of cooperation between States in the field of agriculture and food security becomes extremely relevant during armed conflicts, as it becomes necessary to exclude the impact of restrictive measures on the objectives of international humanitarian law.

Article 1 of the UN Charter states that the organization strives to solve international humanitarian problems, including food security, even under sanctions. Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of December 16, 1966 establishes the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including access to food, which requires States to ensure food security regardless of political interests, restrictive measures and armed conflicts. UN Security Council Resolution No. 2417 of May 24, 2018 reinforces this position, emphasizing that obstacles to humanitarian aid and access to food can be considered a violation of international law, and prohibits the use of hunger as an instrument of political pressure. In situations of armed conflict, international humanitarian law requires access to food and assistance to civilians. Additional Protocol No. 1 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, in Article 54, establishes the principle of prohibiting the use of hunger and food blockade as a means of warfare, which once again emphasizes the priority of humanitarian goals.

The guidelines on sanctions of the UN Security Council Committee on Somalia, established by resolution No. 751 (1992), confirm that UN Security Council sanctions should be aimed only at political purposes and should not affect civilians. These principles apply by analogy to OOM. Economic sanctions affecting food and humanitarian aid are unacceptable, as they can lead to humanitarian disasters and violations of fundamental human rights. The social consequences of sanctions should be commensurate with the purpose of their imposition. The principle of humanitarian exceptions from restrictive measures should apply to the food sector so that the goals of maintaining peace and security of the civilian population are not sabotaged. Paragraph 110 of the Report of the UN Special Rapporteur "Unilateral coercive measures: concept, types and qualifications" 2021 also notes the need to assess in each case the humanitarian consequences of OOM.

One should agree with the position of I.L. Trunov, who finds unacceptable "the international sanctions policy of food pressure, which creates prerequisites for famine" ^{[18, p. 215]}. Moreover, as some researchers in the field of criminal law rightly point out, for example, V.V. Lisauskaite, "the deliberate use of starvation of the civilian population as a strategy for conducting military operations is a crime within the meaning of art. 356 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation" ^{[19, p. 104.]}

Thus, it seems that it is possible to talk about the existence and functioning in positive international law of the principle of humanitarian exceptions from restrictive measures in order to maintain cooperation between States in the field of agriculture and food security, even in conditions of armed conflict. Despite the absence of an outright prohibition in international law on unilateral restrictive measures, which is extremely unfair, the principle of humanitarian exceptions can balance the consequences of violating the sovereignty of the countries that are the destinations of restrictions.

2.4 The principle of proportionality of restrictive measures in the field of agriculture

OOM, as well as restrictive measures in principle, including UN Security Council sanctions, potentially have adverse consequences for the population of their destination state. As the practice of applying UN Security Council sanctions against Iraq and Iran shows, there are a number of problems regarding the consequences of their application in the field of agriculture and food security. Thus, the economic sanctions against Iraq in the early 1990s, according to some estimates, worsened the economic situation in the country, completely destroying the Iraqi agricultural sector, provoking famine and literally the extinction of the population. Obviously, the negative social consequences turned out to be disproportionate to the emerging threat to the existence of the political regime.

The long–term practice of imposing sanctions and OOM on Iran, which has been one of the longest-term destinations of the US OOM since 1979, has shown that restrictions affecting the financial sector of the state affect the agricultural sector ^{[20, p. 33]}. In 2018, the United States imposed severe restrictions on Iran, including the sale and transfer of dollars in cash to Iran, trade in gold and precious metals with it, transactions in Iranian rials, transactions with government debt and the central bank, exports of energy resources and products from other key sectors from Iran, as well as cooperation with Iranian state-owned companies. which dominate the agricultural sector. Sectoral sanctions have provoked inflation and food shortages in Iran. Thus, restrictive measures against Iran have indirectly affected the agricultural sector of the state. As a result of economic vulnerability, the country's food security has been significantly weakened, and the current food price and income situation has made it more difficult for most Iranians to adhere to a healthy diet. This is what the Iranian population is doing, according to J. Hejazi and S. Emamgholipour are more susceptible to chronic diseases in the near future, and if this trend continues, the country will be at risk of a food crisis and political instability ^{[21, p. 656]}.

In 2019, the humanitarian crisis in Iran reached such a scale that European countries were forced to create a special mechanism called Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX) to carry out legitimate trade with Iran without the risk of being sanctioned by the United States. INSTEX operates as a clearing house and facilitates the exchange of payments between Europe and Iran. It cooperates with the Iranian Special Committee on Trade and Finance (STFI) to resolve mutual claims and obligations by paying off debts within the framework of a "closed-loop" financial system that minimizes cross-border payments between Europe and Iran. Among other things, this mechanism provides for the possibility of selling agricultural equipment, grain crops and fertilizers to Iran.

Moreover, the INSTEX mechanism is not the only example of cooperation between states in the field of agriculture and food, bypassing the imposed restrictions. Within the framework of UN Security Council Resolution No. 986 of April 14, 1995, a number of exemptions from the sanctions regime were imposed on Iraq in order to provide humanitarian support to the population in need due to the sanctions (URL: http://humanrts.umn.edu/russian/resolutions/SC 95/R 986 SC 95.html (Date of request: 03/15/2025)). To this end, the Committee established by UN Security Council Resolution No. 661 (1990) monitored exceptions to restrictions on the import of petroleum products from Iran so that the funds received would be spent on food and medicine for the Iraqi population. This relaxation of the sanctions regime was called the oil-for-Food program and is an example demonstrating the solidarity of the international community in providing humanitarian assistance to people in need and cooperation to maintain a stable level of food security. Despite numerous shortcomings and shortcomings, the program was the source of livelihood for 27 million people, which accounted for 60% of the Iraqi population and, according to some estimates, was an effective means of containing the growing humanitarian crisis (URL: http://www.un.org/russian/news/fullstorynews.asp?newsID=1157 (Date of request: 03/15/2025)).

In connection with the above, the author believes that it is appropriate to talk about the existence and operation of the principle of proportionality (proportionality) of international law, which, in relation to sanctions and restrictive measures, means that the restrictions imposed must comply with a number of conditions important for the social situation in the country that is the destination of restrictive measures. This principle is of crucial importance when restrictive measures are in place affecting the food sector. The State's recourse to the principle of proportionality is an auxiliary mechanism for protecting its rights, since this principle is a doctrinal precedent that is not enshrined in international conventions and does not establish specific rights and obligations of States. This principle is based on the customs established in international relations and consists of three main ideas.:

- any activity of states aimed at resolving an international conflict or dispute should be aimed at finding a balance between the interests of the disputing parties, and the consequences of imposing restrictive measures of any kind should be "commensurate with the damage caused, taking into account the relevant rights" (the position set out in the decision of the International Court of Justice in the case "Nicaragua v. USA" (URL: URL: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?sum=367&p 1=3&p 2=3&case=70&p 3=5 (Accessed: 03/15/2025));

- restrictive measures, as rightly noted by E. Cannizzaro should correspond to the social function of international law: the initiator of restrictive measures should carry out a direct assessment and coordination of competing interests, find a balance between them, assessing both the social usefulness of a certain behavior in a particular situation and the social harm caused by such behavior ^{[22, P. 334]};

- the individual circumstances of a particular international dispute should be comprehensively perceived so that the restrictive measures imposed have a factual and value orientation: factual implies proportionality between benefits and costs, and value considers proportionality as proportionality between means and end. The refusal to take full account of the proportionality of the imposed measures, as V.A. Vasilenko rightly noted, should be interpreted as an international legal arbitrariness ^{[23, p.45]}.

Thus, the principle of proportionality in international law, as G.V. Vaipan correctly notes, is often perceived by researchers as a manifestation of a mechanism for finding a pragmatic and realistic balance ^{[24, p. 11]}. In our opinion, restrictive measures, including those of States affecting the agricultural sector, will comply with the principle of proportionality only if the issue of their social consequences for the society of the State being sanctioned has been studied in detail, and possible adverse consequences are either eliminated by virtue of the sanctions themselves, or are leveled after how the purpose of the restrictive measures was eventually achieved. This approach is consistent with the practice and values of numerous UN Security Council sanctions committees. We also add that in the 2005 World Summit Declaration, the UN General Assembly called on the UN Security Council to ensure, with the support of the Secretary General, the adoption of fair and clear procedures for the introduction and lifting of sanctions measures (URL: https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/declarations/outcome2005.shtml (Date of request: 03/15/2025).

Conclusions

Based on the conducted research, the following conclusions can be reached.

1) Like any other spheres of interstate relations in any context, cooperation between States in the field of agriculture and food security, especially in the context of restrictive measures, should be based primarily on the fundamental principles of international law. These principles are imperative (jus cogens) and contain obligations for each member of the interstate interaction (erga omnes). OOMs, being by their nature acts of national law and acting extraterritorially, intrude into the subject of regulation of public international law, and contradict these principles. It seems that if we compare the content of OOM with the negative consequences of their actions in the agricultural sector, each of these principles is violated.

2) Despite the absence of an outright ban in international law on the introduction of GMS, a number of UN institutions in some cases confirm their contradiction to the basic principles of international law, especially when it comes to GMS affecting agriculture and food security. In the author's opinion, OOM in the field of agriculture should not be identified with countermeasures in international law, since, as a rule, the State-addressee of OOM in such cases does not violate its international legal obligations in relation to the States-initiators of OOM. Whereas the use of countermeasures is legitimate only to restore the pre-existing situation or to influence other States that have violated their obligations towards them. In addition, the OOM cannot be identified with the UN Security Council sanctions.

3) The practice of cooperation between states in the field of agriculture and food security allows us to talk about the formation of several key special principles of interaction in the context of restrictive measures. In particular, according to the author, the following special principles can currently be said to exist: the principle of commitment to the SDGs; the principle of excluding food supplies from restrictive measures; the principle of humanitarian exceptions from restrictive measures, as well as the principle of proportionality (proportionality) of restrictive measures in agriculture. It seems that these principles are of crucial importance in conditions when the operation of the OOM in the practice of interstate relations has become an objective reality. The author believes that it is necessary to systematize and consolidate these special principles within the framework of universal international organizations, for example, through the UNGA resolution.

4) One of the key problems of OOM action in the field of agriculture in modern conditions is that in most cases, such OOMs do not directly affect the agricultural sector. As a rule, the initiator states impose restrictions on the financial or other spheres of the addressee state, which leads to problems in international trade in agricultural products during logistics, transportation and mutual settlements between counterparties that are "on opposite sides of the barricades." The solution to this problem is seen in increased monitoring of the action of OMS and their impact on cooperation in the field of agriculture by international organizations. An example of this is the mechanism of the Black Sea Grain Initiative.