THE KERCH STRAIT INCIDENT: IS THERE A BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW?

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 57
Author(s):  
Michelle Viandy Huang
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Provisional Measure ◽  
Security Service ◽  
Kerch Strait ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
International Tribunals

On 23th November 2018, the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation ("FSB") destroyed and captured three of Ukrainian Military Vessel, as well as detaining 24 of its personnels. As the dispute continues, Ukraine raised this matter to the International Tribunals on Law of The Sea (“ITLOS”), requesting a provisional measure pursuant to Article 280 paragraph 5 UNCLOS to release the vessels and personnels detained. ITLOS has made its order on 25th May 2019, ruling that Russia must release the detainee and return the vessels immediately to Ukraine. However, Russia refused to enforce the order and denied ITLOS jurisdiction over this matter due to the involvement of military aspect in the incident. Therefore, this paper provides an answer to the questions whether Russia’s act constitutes a violation to international law and whether ITLOS has the jurisdiction over the dispute.

scholarly journals Problems of delimitation of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait

2020 ◽  
pp. 365-369
Author(s):  
Iryna Panchenko
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
Sea Of Azov ◽  
The Sea Of Azov ◽  
Kerch Strait ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Hague

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.

Free Access to and from the Ocean in the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea: The Law of the Sea and the Caspian “Body of Water”

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Alberto PECORARO
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Caspian Sea ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Free Access ◽  
The Caspian Sea ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

Abstract Access to and from the sea for landlocked states has been a long-standing issue in the law of the sea. Such issue is also addressed by the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea (or Aktau Convention), which foresees a right of free access to other seas for landlocked State Parties—Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan—through the Russian Federation. At the same time, it upholds the transit state's sovereignty and right to protect its legitimate interests. Consequently, it is important to assess the limits of the transit state's discretion pursuant to the Aktau Convention. In this regard, that instrument has important linkages with UNCLOS and with general international law. These linkages introduce in the Aktau Convention various norms—such as due regard and reasonableness—that play an important role in its interpretation.

Jurisdictional Challenges and Institutional Novelties – Procedural Developments in Law of the Sea Dispute Settlement in 2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 191-221
Author(s):  
Massimo Lando ◽  
Nilüfer Oral
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
New Members ◽  
Azov Sea ◽  
Kerch Strait ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law

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.

Provisional Measures and the MV Arctic Sunrise

2014 ◽  
Vol 108 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Guilfoyle ◽  
Cameron A. Miles
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Exclusive Economic Zone ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Security Service ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Vladimir Putin

On September 18, 2013, several Greenpeace activists, bearing ropes and posters, attempted to board a Gazprom oil platform, the Prirazlomnaya, in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Russian Federation. They did so in inflatable craft launched from a Greenpeace vessel, the Netherlands-flagged MV Arctic Sunrise. They were soon arrested by the Russian Coast Guard. The following day, armed agents of the Russian Federal Security Service boarded the Arctic Sunrise itself from a helicopter, arresting those on board. The Netherlands was apparently informed of Russia’s intention to board and arrest the vessel shortly after the original boarding of the platform. Over the next four days, the vessel was towed to Murmansk. Russian authorities charged the thirty detained persons (the so-called Arctic 30) with “piracy of an organized group.” Although President Vladimir Putin acknowledged that the protesters were “obviously... not pirates,” he also noted that “formally, they tried to seize our platform.” On October 4, the Netherlands announced that, under Annex VII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it had commenced arbitration proceedings against Russia over the detention of the Arctic Sunrise and the legality of its seizure. On October 21, the Netherlands filed with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) a request for the prescription of provisional measures pending the constitution of the Annex VII arbitration tribunal.

scholarly journals Problems of delimitation of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait

2020 ◽  
pp. 365-369
Author(s):  
Iryna Panchenko
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
Sea Of Azov ◽  
The Sea Of Azov ◽  
Kerch Strait ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Hague

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.

Arctic Horizon of Russia’s Strategy: Contemporary Dynamics

2010 ◽  
pp. 54-65
Author(s):  
K. Voronov
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Spatial Reorientation ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Liberal Approach ◽  
The Eu

As a result of struggle between two concept-lines in prescriptive documents (concepts, strategies, doctrines) of the Russian Federation, certain compromise is reached between a popular ultra-liberal approach and national patriotic appeals for state development spatial reorientation. Having analyzed geopolitical aspirations of five Arctic states – Denmark, Canada, the USA, Norway, Russia (as well as NATO and the EU activities), and the legal regime of the Arctic, the author comes to a conclusion that, anyhow, no horrifying fight/race battle for possession of its territories or resources is taking place in practice. There is every indication to believe that all Arctic states will adhere to the existing and framing rules of international law (especially the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982).

Ensuring the security of critical information infrastructure: the powers of the federal government bodies of the Russian Federation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilia Pavlovich Mikhnev ◽  
Svetlana Vladimirovna Mikhneva
Keyword(s):  
Information Security ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Information Infrastructure ◽  
Critical Information ◽  
Security Service ◽  
Presidential Decree ◽  
Computer Attacks ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article discusses the competences and powers of the state authorities of the Russian Federation within their legal status in the field of ensuring the security of critical information infrastructure. Some functions and authorities in the field of information security have changed in a number of federal executive bodies. In particular, the Federal Security Service, on the basis of a presidential decree, is authorized to create a state system for detecting, preventing and eliminating the consequences of computer attacks on information resources of the Russian Federation. However, not all rights and obligations are enshrined; a number of powers cause the duality of the legal status of certain federal bodies of state power. The clarity and unambiguity of securing the rights and obligations of state bodies authorized in the field of information security are guarantees for effectively ensuring the security of important information infrastructure facilities.

INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF THE SPHERE OF BLOCKCHAIN FUNCTIONING AGAINST CRIMINAL OFFENCES: LANDSCAPE, DYNAMICS AND PERSPECTIVES

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 133-138
Author(s):  
SONA MKRTCHIAN ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Information Technologies ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Telecommunications Network ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The purpose of the research is to identify the most successful ideas and legal techniques used in international law regarding regulations of defense against criminal offences in the sphere of cybersecurity, as well as blockchain functioning and cryptocurrency turnover. Results. On the basis of the positive international experience in regulating the criminal legal protection of relations in the last-mentioned sphere, the following directions for improving Russian criminal legislation were formulated: 1) fixation of the fair limits of the criminal administrative liability for defendant in reliance on the level of public danger of his personality and his offences; 2) creation of the formally defined crimes against computer information; 3) criminalization of some actions that precede cybercrimes; 4) expansion in the number of the mentioning of the sign "by interfering in the functioning of the resources of the storing, processing or transmitting computer information or data telecommunications network" as an essential or aggravating elements of crimes, typically committed with the use of information technologies (for example, in the articles number 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 146, 147, 163, 165, 240, 240.1, 241 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, etc.); 5) expansion in the number of the elements of crimes combined in the chapter 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in reliance on the modern criminal schemes and typical criminal situations in the world of information technology; 6) expansion of the effect of the article number 274.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on any criminal offense to the critical information infrastructure of the Russian Federation and inclusion of the additional aggravating elements in the text of this article.

THE PROBLEM OF OFFSHORE ZONES IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: THE IMPACT AND WAYS OF COUNTERING

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (11) ◽  
pp. 187-192
Author(s):  
Konstantin S. Startsev ◽  
◽  
Emil R. Myalikov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
International Experience ◽  
Regulation Policy ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Impact

The authors provide a study of Russian and international experience of offshore zones, the problems of regulation by Russian and international law and examples and consequences of the capital out-flow as a lack of regulation policy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document