Міжнародні і національні правові засади та філософські основи права на свободу мирних зборів у контексті принципів законності і верховенства права

The article is devoted to the international and national legal principles of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in the context of the principles of legality and the rule of law. The main international standards of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly are outlined. The main provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of December 16, 1966, the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of November 4, 1950, as well as the practice of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to peaceful assembly are analyzed. The main provisions of national and, in particular, constitutional law, which guarantees freedom of peaceful assembly, are highlighted. It was emphasized on the state monopoly right to use coercion. The main principles of distinguishing between peaceful and non-peaceful assemblies have been determined. It has been noted that the use of masks, helmets, shields, sticks, «Molotov cocktails» by protesters, throwing cobblestones, setting tires on fire, storming and seizing buildings, attacks on law enforcement officers or other citizens, hostage-taking, continuing to commit violent illegal actions despite the law enforcement officers’ demands to stop them, uniting into various «hundreds» and «self-defense» groups, etc. are clear signs of the non-peaceful nature of mass assemblies. It is pointed out that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly should under no circumstances be confused with actions aimed at the violent change or overthrow of the constitutional order or the seizure of state power, mass riots and various crimes by illegal paramilitary or armed formations, etc. The criminal-legal aspects of qualifying the actions of participants in «non-peaceful assemblies» are emphasized, as well as the need to hold to legal liability all types of accomplices (organizer, principal offender, abettor, accessory) in these types of crimes. The theory of «popular sovereignty» and the idea of «unlimited freedom» are criticized. It was noted that the theory of the social contract and natural law makes it possible to deny the right to revolt and to justify the state absolutism. It was substantiated that the «right to revolt» contradicts legality and democracy and helps to usurp the power and to establish the tyranny. The main principles of the state’s legal activity in preventing peaceful assemblies from turning into riots, uprisings, revolutions and insurrections, etc., are determined.