The right without bills

How Goznak was in the center of the scandal with Libyan banknotes

The State Department of the United States announced the detention of a Libyan currency cargo in Malta. It is printed at the factory of Russian Goznak, and it seems that its customer is not the Central Bank of Libya. This unusual story is a vivid example of a clash of world politics and international law. And whoever prevails is not obvious.

The buyer counts the Libyan dinars. Photo: Reuters

Welcome to Failed State

After the fall of the Gaddafi regime, Libya ceased to be one. Various parts of the country are controlled by separate groups. The international recognized government of Libya is located in Tripoli. The chairman of the Provisional Government and Prime Minister of the Government of National Consent (PNS)-Fazi Saraj, under his control is less than 20 % of the country. The eastern and southern parts of Libya control the forces of the Libyan National Army (LNA), subordinate to the Field Marshal Halifa Haftaru. On April 28, he declared himself the ruler of the whole country. However, none of the states officially recognized him as such.

Modern international law proceeds from the principle of sovereign equality of states. The recognition of the state means recognition of his government. One state of De Jure has one government. It is unacceptable to have two cabins. Only an international recognized government has the right to represent the interests of the state outside the country and decide the legal fate of property abroad.

At the same time, the United States and an increasing number of countries in its relations with failed states come from the concept of effective control of the territory. That is, they build relationships with the power that effectively controls a certain land. PNS is based on Italy, Turkey and Qatar, and also enjoys the support of UN institutions. Haftar is supported by France, Russia, Egypt and the UAE. It was his regime, as follows from the report of the State Department of the United States, that was the customer and owner of the money arrested by the authorities of Malta.

Only a recognized government in Tripoli can answer the question of whether this money printed on the Moscow Goznak is considered a legal means of calculations. In the event of a request, funds should be returned to him.

At the same time, PNS, and before it, the Gaddafi regime ordered the seal of the bill of the British company De La Rue. According to the usual norm of international law, only the Central Bank of the country has the right to order the seal of bills in other countries or authorize other persons to conclude such agreements. It seems extremely unlikely that the PNS by its decision authorized Caliph Haftar to order national banknotes in Goznak in Moscow. Until the official statement about the fate of the funds arrested in Malta, all reasoning remains nothing more than speculations from the PNS.

Colonel under sanctions

According to the resolutions of the UN Security Council 1970 (2011) and 1973 (2011), international sanctions were imposed against the Libyan regime of Muamar Gaddafi. The causes and grounds of such a step are listed in the preamble of both resolutions: violence and the use of force against civilians; gross and systematic violations of human rights; Warm -scale and systematic attacks on the civilian population, which can qualify as crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law.

By virtue of articles 25 and 103 of the UN Charter, all 193 UN member states are obliged to comply with the requirements of UN Security Council resolutions. There is one big nuance here. The UN Sat resolutions oblige only the state itself, but do not oblige its residents - individuals and legal entities. Therefore, in order to give mandatory force to these Acts of the UN Security Council at the domestic level, the relevant regulatory legal act must be adopted. However, in Russia, a separate domestic act on the implementation of the above “Libyan” resolutions or on giving their obligatory power in a different way was not adopted.

The implementation of the UN sanctions regime in relation to Libya by each state is carried out independently. Usually the same types of prohibitions and restrictions are used as in UN resolutions - the ban on travel and freezing assets of the identified persons. In particular, paragraph 17 of the Resolution 1970 (2011) obliges all UN member states:

To immediately freeze all funds, other financial assets and economic resources that are available on their territory and are directly or indirectly owned or under the control of the identified individuals or legal entities, or persons acting on their behalf or at their direction, or legal entities that belong to them or control them;
To ensure that none of their citizens or any individuals or legal entities on their territory provide funds, financial assets or economic resources to these persons or in their favor.

Most of the Libyan persons fell under the sanctions with this justification for the inclusion: "is under the control of Colonel Gaddafi and his family and is a potential source of financing his regime." After the fall of the Government of the Gaddafi, the sanctions regime was somewhat softened; A number of people and banks are excluded from the list. Funds inside Libya were defrosted, but prohibitions and restrictions were in force in relation to foreign assets. The purpose of the sanctions regime was that frozen funds and assets are at the disposal of the people of Libya as soon as possible until the UN Security Council determines that these funds and assets are used by an open and responsible method in accordance with the needs and aspirations of the Libyan people.

The consequences for Goznak

The Central Bank of Libya, controlled by PNS, is not under the sanctions of the UN, EU or the USA. According to established practice, sanctions are rarely imposed on central banks. Not under sanctions and Caliph Haftar. The sanctions against him by the UN, the USA or EU would have deprived the international community in the issue of resolving the situation in Syria, and in such crises, the efficiency and willingness to work with all parties is a key condition for success.

At the same time, the lack of sanctions against the Libya authorities on the part of the most influential participant in the process does not mean security guarantees for other participants in this story. And Goznak is an obvious convenient political victim. The company is fully belonging to the Russian government, it can be represented as an accomplice of Libyan separatism and actor of international instability.

The statement of the State Department of Goznak is a brilliant exercise in public diplomacy. It does not have a direct threat of sanctions (although it is read between the lines), but Washington gives a clear signal of dissatisfaction with the Russian company.

The company claims that his contract for the creation of Libyan banknotes is absolutely legal. The United States does not like the cooperation of the Russian enterprise and the Libyans. The winner in this conflict will determine the money. The United States may not even impose direct sanctions against Goznak. In different years, the company ordered banknotes such states as Columbia and Malaysia, traditionally closely related to the United States. Will they believe other potential customers to the legalistic explanations of Goznak or prefer not to quarrel with Washington?