The Status of Crimea and the Sea of Azov as a Jurisdictional Hurdle in Ukraine v. Russia

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 400-415
Author(s):  
Valentin Johannes Schatz

Abstract On 21 February 2020, the arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex vii of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos) in the Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation) rendered its award concerning preliminary objections. This comment focuses on the arbitral tribunal’s findings concerning Russia’s two most important and far-reaching objections, both of which concern jurisdiction ratione materiae. First, it argues that the arbitral tribunal convincingly declined jurisdiction over those of Ukraine’s claims, which would have required the arbitral tribunal to decide the dispute between Ukraine and Russia concerning sovereignty over Crimea. Second, this comment analyzes the arbitral tribunal’s conclusion that the parties’ dispute concerning the status of the Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait was not of an exclusively preliminary character and must, therefore, be reserved for the proceedings on the merits.

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.


Author(s):  
Iryna Panchenko

The article gradually considers the negotiation process between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the delimitation of theSea of Azov and the Kerch Strait from 1991 to the present. It was established that according to the map of the inter-republican borderbetween the Ukrainian SSR and the Russian SSR, and according to the division of maritime waters on the basis of international law,Russia should get a smaller part of the Sea of Azov. That is why Russia was not interested in the rapid establishment of a state borderon water. It was advantageous for Russia to delay the negotiation process on this issue and use the Sea of Azov on the same terms asbefore the collapse of the USSR.The article also focuses on numerous attempts of Ukrainian diplomats to achieve legal certainty in the delimitation of the Sea ofAzov and the Kerch Strait. A total of 36 rounds of border talks about the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait, held from 1996 to 2012under the leadership of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, showed that Russia was ready to delimit the Sea of Azov only onits own terms but not on the basis of international maritime law.After the annexation of Crimea, a new round of relations begins regarding the division of the Black Sea. Russia acted quicklyand in March 2014 announced a tender for a construction project of a bridge that would connect mainland Russia and the CrimeanPeninsula, which at that time had already been illegally incorporated into the Russian Federation. Moscow has stated that the KerchStrait should be fully controlled by them, as both shores are Russian.In 2016, Ukraine filed a lawsuit against Russia in the Hague Arbitration Court for breaking the UN Convention on the Law ofthe Sea in the Black and Azov Seas and in the Kerch Strait. For today we don’t know what decision will be made by the Hague tribunal,but there is reason to believe that the chances for winning of Ukraine are high.The problem of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait has no simple solution. For today the only option is to wait for a decisionof the Arbitration Tribunal. Only on its basis Ukraine will be able to achieve the best strategy of the relations with Russia on the delimitationthe Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait.


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


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 191-221
Author(s):  
Massimo Lando ◽  
Nilüfer Oral

Abstract In 2020, law of the sea tribunals rendered one decision on jurisdiction and decided one case on the merits. First, the arbitral tribunal in the Azov Sea and Kerch Strait dispute dismissed the jurisdictional objections raised by the Russian Federation and thus will proceed to hear the merits of Ukraine’s claims. Second, the arbitral tribunal in the Enrica Lexie Incident case found, after upholding its jurisdiction in relation to the dispute before it, that the Italian marines who had shot an Indian fisherman in India’s Exclusive Economic Zone were entitled to immunity under international law and that Italy had breached certain provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). These two arbitral awards have confirmed and developed certain trends in the jurisprudence of law of the sea tribunals. In addition, a novelty in 2020 was the conclusion of a Model Agreement between Singapore and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), for the latter to be able to discharge its judicial business in Singapore. Last, the Meeting of the States Parties to UNCLOS elected five new members of ITLOS and re-elected two.


Author(s):  
Iryna Panchenko

The article gradually considers the negotiation process between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the delimitation of theSea of Azov and the Kerch Strait from 1991 to the present. It was established that according to the map of the inter-republican borderbetween the Ukrainian SSR and the Russian SSR, and according to the division of maritime waters on the basis of international law,Russia should get a smaller part of the Sea of Azov. That is why Russia was not interested in the rapid establishment of a state borderon water. It was advantageous for Russia to delay the negotiation process on this issue and use the Sea of Azov on the same terms asbefore the collapse of the USSR.The article also focuses on numerous attempts of Ukrainian diplomats to achieve legal certainty in the delimitation of the Sea ofAzov and the Kerch Strait. A total of 36 rounds of border talks about the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait, held from 1996 to 2012under the leadership of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, showed that Russia was ready to delimit the Sea of Azov only onits own terms but not on the basis of international maritime law.After the annexation of Crimea, a new round of relations begins regarding the division of the Black Sea. Russia acted quicklyand in March 2014 announced a tender for a construction project of a bridge that would connect mainland Russia and the CrimeanPeninsula, which at that time had already been illegally incorporated into the Russian Federation. Moscow has stated that the KerchStrait should be fully controlled by them, as both shores are Russian.In 2016, Ukraine filed a lawsuit against Russia in the Hague Arbitration Court for breaking the UN Convention on the Law ofthe Sea in the Black and Azov Seas and in the Kerch Strait. For today we don’t know what decision will be made by the Hague tribunal,but there is reason to believe that the chances for winning of Ukraine are high.The problem of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait has no simple solution. For today the only option is to wait for a decisionof the Arbitration Tribunal. Only on its basis Ukraine will be able to achieve the best strategy of the relations with Russia on the delimitationthe Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roman Sedakov ◽  
Barnier Bernard ◽  
Jean-Marc Molines ◽  
Anastasiya Mershavka

<p>The Sea of Azov is a small, shallow, and freshened sea that receives a large freshwater discharge. Under certain external forcing conditions brackish water from the Sea of Azov flow into the north-eastern part of the Black Sea through the narrow Kerch Strait and form a surface-advected buoyant plume. Water flow in the Kerch Strait also regularly occurs in the opposite direction, which results in the spreading of an advected plume of saline and dense water from the Black Sea into the Sea of Azov. Using a regional Black Sea Azov Sea model based on NEMO we study physical mechanisms that govern water exchange through the Kerch Strait and analyze the dependence of its direction and intensity on external forcing conditions. We show that water exchange in the Kerch Strait is governed by a wind-induced barotropic pressure gradient. Water flow through the shallow and narrow Kerch Strait is a one-way process for the majority of the time. Outflow from the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea is induced by moderate and strong northerly winds, while flow into the Sea of Azov from the Black Sea is induced by southerly winds. The direction and intensity of water exchange have wind-governed synoptic and seasonal variability, and they do not depend on the variability of river discharge rate to the Sea of Azov on an intraannual timescale.</p>


Ocean Science ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Zavialov ◽  
Alexander Osadchiev ◽  
Roman Sedakov ◽  
Bernard Barnier ◽  
Jean-Marc Molines ◽  
...  

Abstract. The Sea of Azov is a small, shallow, and freshened sea that receives a large freshwater discharge. Under certain external forcing conditions low-salinity waters from the Sea of Azov flow into the north-eastern part of the Black Sea through the narrow Kerch Strait and form a surface-advected buoyant plume. Water flow in the Kerch Strait also regularly occurs in the opposite direction, which results in the spreading of a bottom-advected plume of saline and dense waters from the Black Sea into the Sea of Azov. In this study we focus on the physical mechanisms that govern water exchange through the Kerch Strait and analyse the dependence of its direction and intensity on external forcing conditions. Analysis of satellite imagery, wind data, and numerical modelling shows that water exchange in the Kerch Strait is governed by a wind-induced barotropic pressure gradient. Water flow through the shallow and narrow Kerch Strait is a one-way process for the majority of the time. Outflow from the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea is induced by moderate and strong north-easterly winds, while flow into the Sea of Azov from the Black Sea occurs during wind relaxation periods. The direction and intensity of water exchange have wind-governed synoptic and seasonal variability, and they do not depend on the rate of river discharge to the Sea of Azov on an intra-annual timescale. The analysed data reveal dependencies between wind forcing conditions and spatial characteristics of the buoyant plume formed by the outflow from the Sea of Azov.


Author(s):  
Boris N. Panov ◽  
Elena O. Spiridonova ◽  
Michail M. Pyatinskiy ◽  
Aleksandr S. Arutyunyan

The paper presents the results of monitoring the process of migration and fishing of the Azov khamsa in April-May and October-November, 2019. The research used daily maps of sea surface temperature (SST) of the Black and Azov seas, built in the hydrometeorological Center of Russia according to NCDC/NOAA (Operational module Yessim - hmc.meteorf.ru/sea/black/sst/sst_black.htm) and daily fishing information of the Center for Monitoring of Fisheries and Communications. It is shown that in the spring, khamsa clusters begin to disperse and move to feeding places after the water temperature reaches 11 °C, and at a water temperature of 14-15 °C, the fish becomes much more mobile and the clusters finally disperse. In autumn, the Azov khamsa began to concentrate in the pre-flood zone of the Sea of Azov at an average SST of 16-17 °C, with a SST of 14-16 °C, the khamsa went out into the Kerch Strait. The active output of the khamsa into the Black Sea began at the SST of the pre-flood zone of 15 °C and almost stopped at the SST of about 13 °C. The average SST in the Kerch Strait dropped to 11 °C these days.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Zavialov ◽  
Alexander Osadchiev

Abstract. The Sea of Azov is a small, shallow and freshened sea that receives a large freshwater discharge and, therefore, can be regarded as a large river estuary. Under certain external forcing conditions low-saline waters from the Sea of Azov inflow to the northeastern part of the Black Sea through the narrow Kerch Strait and form a surface-advected buoyant plume. Water flow in the Kerch Strait also regularly occurs in the opposite direction, which results in spreading of a bottom-advected plume of saline and dense waters from the Black Sea in the Sea of Azov. In this study we focus on physical mechanisms that govern water exchange through the Kerch Strait, analyse dependence of its direction and intensity on external forcing conditions. Based on ocean color satellite imagery and wind reanalysis data, we show that water transport from the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea is induced by moderate and strong northeastern winds, while water transport in the opposite direction occurs during wind relaxation periods. Thus, direction and intensity of water exchange through the Kerch Strait has wind-govern synoptic and seasonal variability, and do not show dependence on river discharge rate to the Sea of Azov on intra-annual time scale. Finally, we determined numerical dependencies between discharge rate from the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea and spatial characteristics of the related surface-advected plume in the Black Sea, on the one hand, and wind forcing conditions, on the other hand.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document