Foreign Policy Concept of Russian Federation- Approved by V.Putin (28/06/2000)

Tagged: 2000CE, Foreign policy, NATO

This topic has 1 reply, 1 voice, and was last updated 5 months, 3 weeks ago by advtanmoy.

Viewing 1 reply thread

Author

Posts
- 03/04/2023 at 20:04 #128649
  
  advtanmoy
  Keymaster
  
  At the same time, on a number of parameters, NATO’s present-day political and military guidelines do not coincide with security interests of the Russian Federation and occasionally directly contradict them. This primarily concerns the provisions of NATO’s new strategic concept, which do not exclude the conduct of use-of-force operations outside of the zone of application of the Washington Treaty without the sanction of the UN Security Council. Russia retains its negative attitude towards the expansion of NATO.
  
  [See the full post at: Foreign Policy Concept of Russian Federation- Approved by V.Putin (28/06/2000)]
- 03/04/2023 at 20:06 #128650
  
  advtanmoy
  Keymaster
  
  Vladimir Putin signed Executive Order On Approving the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation-March 31, 2023
  
  In order to update the priorities, goals and objectives of the foreign policy activities of the Russian Federation, the President resolved to approve the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation.
  
  As per the Executive Order, the Presidential Executive Order No. 640 On Approving the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, dated November 30, 2016, was declared invalid.
  
  This Executive Order shall enter into force on the day of its signing.
Author

Posts

Viewing 1 reply thread

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Judgments

Vinod Kumar vs State Of Punjab (23/09/2014)

Smt. Roopa Soni Vs. Kamalnarayan Soni (06/09/2023)

Riya Bawri Etc. Vs. Mark Alexander Davidson & Ors (23/08/2023)

L. Janakirama Iyer And Others vs P. M. Nilakanta Iyer And Others (26/10/1961)

Yadaiah and Anr. Vs. State of Telangana and Ors (01/08/2023)

A judge is the pillar of entire justice system and public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from a judge (SC-10/12/2019) - A person discharging judicial duties acts on behalf of the State in discharge of its sovereign functions. Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious matter. The standards of probity, conduct, integrity that may be relevant for discharge of duties by a careerist in another job cannot be the same for a judicial officer. A judge holds the office of a public trust. Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable independence with moral values embodied to the core are absolute imperatives which brooks no compromise. A judge is the pillar of the entire justice system and the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function. Judges must strive for the highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal lives.
A daughter has no right u/s 14 of Hindu Succession Act of her father’s property if it is occupied by her brother through adverse possession (SC-28/08/2023) - A Hindu daughter has no right u/s 14 of Hindu Succession Act on the property of her father if it is occupied by her brother through adverse possession (SC-28/08/2023)- [See Pritam Singh v. State, AIR (1950) SC 169: (1950) SCR 453, Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer AIR (1954) SC 462: (1954) SCR 1133, Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Employees, AIR (1959) SC 633: 1959 Supp (2) SCR 136: (1959) 1 LLJ 413, Municipal Board, Pratabgarh and Anr. v. Mahendra Singh Chawla and Ors. (1982) 3 SCC 331: (1983) SCC (L&S) 19, Taherakhatoon (dead) by LRs v. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635]