Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait; (Ukraine v. Russian Federation)

2021 ◽  
Vol 191 ◽  
pp. 1-171

Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Dispute concerning coastal State rights in Black Sea, Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait — Ukraine instituting proceedings against Russian Federation under Annex VII of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Ukraine alleging unauthorized activities of Russian Federation violating its rights under Convention — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction — Basis of Tribunal’s jurisdiction — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction to rule on sovereignty over Crimea — Legal status of Crimea — Objection that Tribunal having no jurisdiction over Ukraine’s claims concerning activities in Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait — Whether objection possessing exclusively preliminary character — Objection that Tribunal having no jurisdiction in light of Parties’ declarations under Article 298(1) of Convention — Objection that Tribunal having no jurisdiction over fisheries claims in light of Article 297(3)(a) of Convention — Objection that Tribunal having no jurisdiction over fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, and navigation in light of Annex VIII to Convention — Objection that Tribunal having no jurisdiction pursuant to Article 281 of Convention — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction in light of Parties’ declarations under Article 298(1) of Convention — Exceptions — Military activities — Law enforcement — Delimitation — Historic bays or titles Treaties — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Interpretation — Application — Article 288(1) — Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of Convention — Scope of jurisdiction of Tribunal — Dispute between Parties — Whether dispute concerning interpretation or application of Convention falling within jurisdiction of court or tribunal under Article 288(1) — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over Ukraine’s sovereignty claim Territory — Sovereignty — Crimea — Legal status — Russian Federation recognizing Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea before March 2014 — Events in 2014 — Russian Federation claiming sovereignty over Crimea after March 2014 — Opposing views of Parties on sovereignty over Crimea — Question as to whether Russian Federation or Ukraine having sovereignty over Crimea — Whether prerequisite for decision of Tribunal on Ukraine’s claims under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Whether Russian Federation or Ukraine coastal State for purposes 2of Convention — Whether sovereignty dispute over Crimea existing vel non — Whether ancillary to maritime dispute brought by Ukraine — Russian Federation’s claim that legal status of Crimea altered — Whether Russian Federation’s claim of sovereignty admissible — Principle of non-recognition — Article 41 of International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility — United Nations General Assembly resolutions — Principles of good faith and estoppel — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over Ukraine’s sovereignty claim International organizations — United Nations — General Assembly — Resolutions — Legal effect and meaning — Interpretation — Relevance — Customary international law — Factual and legal determinations made in resolutions — Effect and weight — Content, conditions and context of adoption of resolutions — Whether Tribunal having power to interpret texts of international organizations — Whether recognizing objective fact of existence of dispute over Crimea contravening resolutions — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over claims of sovereignty over Crimea Sea — Maritime zones — Entitlements — Exclusive economic zone — Entitlements to maritime zones generated by Crimean coast — Overlapping entitlements — Whether determination possible — Jurisdiction of Tribunal to make determination in respect of dispute or on coastal State — Question of sovereignty over Crimea — Jurisdiction of Tribunal Treaties — Application — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Coastal State rights — Crimean peninsula — Ukraine instituting proceedings under Annex VII to Convention — Scope of Convention — Dispute concerning coastal State rights in Black Sea, Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait — Claims under Convention — Ukraine claiming that Russian Federation violating its rights under Convention — Determination of coastal State necessary for purposes of Convention — Question as to whether Ukraine or Russian Federation having sovereignty over Crimea — Whether determination prerequisite for determining significant part of Ukraine’s claims — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over Ukraine’s sovereignty claim — Jurisdiction of Tribunal Treaties — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Scope — Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait — Status — Parties 3agreeing internal waters of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics prior to dissolution — Disagreement as to status thereafter — Legal regime — Historic title — Whether questions for merits phase — Whether outside scope of Convention if underlying events occurring in internal waters — Whether issue regulated by Convention — Whether pertaining to interpretation and application of Convention — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over Ukraine’s claims concerning activities in the Sea of Azov and in the Kerch Strait — Whether objection of Russian Federation possessing exclusively preliminary character Treaties — Interpretation — State Border Treaty, Article 5 — Azov/Kerch Cooperation Treaty, Article 1 — Textual interpretation — Context — Negotiating history — Whether Article 4 of Azov/Kerch Cooperation Treaty excluding jurisdiction of Tribunal — Whether Articles 1 and 5 dispute settlement clauses within meaning of Article 281 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over dispute

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 614-622
Author(s):  
Robert G. Volterra ◽  
Giorgio F. Mandelli ◽  
Álvaro Nistal

Abstract The Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait between Ukraine and the Russian Federation probably will reactivate the debate regarding whether and to what extent tribunals constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea have jurisdiction to decide law of the sea disputes involving concurrent land sovereignty issues. The tribunal’s characterisation of the dispute likely will have a significant impact on its decision on jurisdiction. Although the tribunal might apply its own test to define the dispute, the awards on jurisdiction in the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration and in The South China Sea Arbitration offer useful guidance on the key components that might influence that characterisation.


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 210-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anh Duc Ton

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (losc) is well known as the “Constitution for the Oceans”; however, the passage of foreign warships through the territorial sea of a coastal State is not clearly addressed. All East Asian littoral States (except North Korea and Cambodia) are parties to the losc but their practices regarding the innocent passage of warships are different. This article provides an analysis of the innocent passage regime of the losc, the practice of East Asian littoral States regarding the innocent passage of warships as well as factors that have influenced the trends in their practices.


Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak

This chapter looks at applications for prompt release of vessels and crews detained after violating laws and regulations of a coastal State. Pursuant to Article 292(1) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has default jurisdiction over prompt release applications, unless the parties otherwise agree. The parties must be States Parties to UNCLOS and have not agreed to submit the question of release from detention to any other court or tribunal within ten days from the time of detention. Article 112 of the ITLOS Rules adds, inter alia, that ITLOS shall give priority to applications for release of vessels or crews over all other proceedings before ITLOS. In its judgment, ITLOS must determine in each case whether or not the allegation made by the applicant that the detaining State has not complied with a provision of UNCLOS for the prompt release of the vessel or the crew upon the posting of a reasonable bond or other financial security is well founded. If ITLOS decides the allegation is well founded, it shall determine the amount, nature, and form of the bond or financial security to be posted for the release of the vessel or the crew.


Author(s):  
Michael Sheng-ti Gau ◽  
Gang Tang

Abstract The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) regulates the establishment of the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 miles by a coastal State. Such limits are legitimised when based on the recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) under LOSC Article 76(8). The coastal State must first submit the information for delineating the limits to the CLCS, which will evaluate the information before providing recommendations. The CLCS shall not consider the submission made by any State concerned in a land or maritime dispute unless consent from all disputing parties is given under paragraph 5(a) of Annex I to the CLCS Rules of Procedure. This article interprets paragraph 5(a) and examines the subsequent practice of States sending submissions and/or notifying the CLCS of disputes, and the CLCS in handling various submissions involved in these disputes.


Author(s):  
Barnes Richard A

This chapter discusses flag state jurisdiction as set forth in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). It covers the development of flag state jurisdiction; registration and nationality; the operation of flag state jurisdiction; and flag state rights and duties.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-24
Author(s):  
Shotaro Hamamoto

Abstract The obligation of the coastal state to have due regard to the rights and duties of other states (Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) Art 56(2)) did not suddenly appear with the LOSC. It was gradually formed corresponding to the increasing recognition of the rights of the coastal state in adjacent maritime zones. The practice prior to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea and the travaux préparatoires of the LOSC indicate that this obligation requires something more than the negative obligation not to interfere with the exercise by the coastal State of its rights and competences, and that the ‘rights and duties’ to which due regard is to be paid are not limited to those explicitly listed in the LOSC, such as the freedoms of navigation, overflight and of laying of submarine cables and pipelines.


2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 1147-1166
Author(s):  
Yurika Ishii

On May 25, 2019, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued a provisional measures order to the Russian Federation to release two Ukrainian warships, a naval auxiliary ship, and their servicemen. This case adds to the jurisprudence concerning the Tribunal's institutional authority to issue a provisional measures order under Article 290(5) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).


Teisė ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 68 ◽  
pp. 97-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Indrė Isokaitė

Straipsnyje apžvelgiamos pagrindiniame tarptautinės jūrų teisės akte – 1982 m. Jungtinių Tautų jūrų teisės konvencijoje – įtvirtintos pakrantės valstybės teisės ir pareigos ir nagrinėjamas jų įgyvendinimas Lietuvos teisėje. Vertinamas Lietuvos pasinaudojimas konvencijos pakrantės valstybėms suteikiamomis galimybėmis, konvencijoje numatytų įsipareigojimų vykdymas, nacionalinio reglamentavimo pakanka­mumas, poreikis ir reikšmė. The Article provides the review of the rights and duties of a coastal state implemented in the basic instru­ment of international sea law, the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, and deals with their implementation in the Lithuanian law. Lithuania‘s making use of the opportunities granted by the convention, performance of the obligations under the convention, sufficiency of national regulation, the need and importance thereof are hereby analysed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 873-899
Author(s):  
Francisco Lertora Pinto ◽  

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea established spe-cific rules for the delineation of the outer limit of the continental shelf in Article 76. This Article contains two formulae and two constraints. Regarding these constraints, the coastal State can apply, whichever is more favorable to its claim, unless the exception established under Article 76 (6), first sentence, applies. This exception establishes that, on submarine ridges, the State can only apply the 350 nautical miles distance constraint. However, Article 76 (6), second sentence, introduces a counter-exception and preserves the State’s right to ap-ply either constraint when the seafloor high is a submarine elevation that is a natural compo-nent of the continental margin


Warta Geologi ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-28
Author(s):  
Mazlan Madon ◽  

The entitlement of a coastal State over the seabed and subsoil in front of its landmass is provided for in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS), in particular Article 76 for the continental shelf. This short note in Malay gives a brief introduction to the concept of the “continental shelf” in the context of Article 76. This concept is important as a means by which coastal States may establish the outer limit of their continental shelves beyond 200 nautical miles (M) measured from the territorial sea baselines. Once the outer limits have been established, coastal States are then able to exercise with certainty their sovereign rights over the extended continental shelf for the purposes of exploring and exploiting the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil, as provided for by UNCLOS. The establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 M is based on the principle of natural prolongation of land territory in Article 76. Geology also plays an important role in the process of determining the extent of the prolongation in accordance with the provisions of Article 76. For authors and students of this topic in Malay, it is proposed that the synonymous Malay terms for continental shelf – “pelantar benua” and “pentas benua” – be given specific meanings for use in their legal and geological contexts, respectively.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document