Tasks of the CIS Member States in Ensuring National Security

This study is focused at studying the problem of the political and legal rationalization of the actions of government authorities in defining and proclaiming the category of “national interests” in the framework of the common interests of the international community and the common goals of the international security system for other participants in international communication.
Aim. Eliminate methodological problems in defining the content of the terms “national security”, “public security”, “personal security”, “constitutional order”, “state” while institutionalizing interference in the internal affairs of other states.
Tasks. To highlight and formulate the directions of concentration of efforts of state authorities in the movement of the nation towards its goals in relation to dangers, threats and risks.
Methods. The state of the modern security environment testifies to the mobility of the content of national interests, and, therefore, there is a problem of determining the directions of concentration of efforts of a government to ensure them and proclaiming them for other participants in international communication. The allocation of categories of national interests is based on national security objects and on a comparative analysis of the necessary reactions of states to external and intranational threats and threats to private interests.
Results. The study showed that the most important mission of government bodies is to continuously redefine dangers, threats and risks, and provide resources to counter them. Competition of states for a place in the hierarchy of the balance of power is inevitable, and, accordingly, the redefinition of vital, important, significant interests should also be carried out continuously. The directions of efforts of international actors can be explained in terms of how they do proclaim their national interests. One of the most obvious problems of modern political discourse is the endowment of the political mechanism “state” with subjectivity in the processes of determining national interests and ensuring the security of the nation, which is a serious methodological error, and which, in turn, was confirmed by the decision of the Nuremberg Tribunal. To ensure the survival of the nation as a result of political consensus, it is necessary to determine the main objects of concentration of efforts and necessary resources. Such errands include the declaration for other participants in international communication of certain “values” of the nation as its “vital” interests, to protect which its total resources will be allocated.
Conclusion. The decision of the state authorities to take any action to interfere in the internal affairs of any state should be based on the determination of the fact, which is, of course, conditioned not by the thresholds and “red lines” declared by the state, but by the state of the balance of power in international relations.

1. Iroshnikov D. V. Documents of Strategic Planning in the System of Ensuring National Security of the Russian Federation: Theoretical and Legal Aspect // National Security and Strategic Planning. 2021. No. 3 (35). P. 33–38. (In Rus.)

2. Korostelev S. V. Basics of the Theory of Legitimizing of Acts of Use of Force to Protect National Interests of the Russian Federation in the Context of the Emergence of a New Geopolitical Model of the World. Saint Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin. 2018. 288 p. (In Rus.)

3. Korostelev S. V. Technology of Political Legitimization of Acts of Use of Force in International Relations: diss. ... for the degree of Doctor of Science (Political Sciences) [Electronic resource]. URL: https://disser.spbu.ru/files/2021/disser_korostelev.pdf (accessed:17.11.2021).

4. Nuremberg Trials. Collection of Materials / ed. by K. P. Gorshenin, R. A. Rudenko and I. T. Nikitchenko. V. I. Second edition, revised and enlarged. Moscow : State Publishing House of Legal Literature. 1954. (In Rus.)

5. Cardwell Curt M. NSC 68 and the Foreign Policy of Postwar Prosperity: Political Economy, Consumer Culture, and the Cold War. Rutgers. The State University of New Jersey — New Brunswick. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2006. 3203365. P. 72.

6. Rostow Eugene V. A Breakfast for Bonaparte: U. S. National Security Interests from the Heights of Abraham to the Nuclear Age. Washington, D. C. : National Defense University Press. 1996.

7. Sarkesian Sam C. U. S. National Security: Policymakers, Processes, and Politics. 2nd ed. Boulder : L. Rienner. 1995.

8. Yarger Harry R. Strategic Theory for the 21st Century: The Little Book on Big Strategy. Carlisle Barracks, PA : U. S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute. 2006.