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.

Case Concerning the Detention of Three Ukrainian Naval Vessels (Ukraine v. Russian Federation): Provisional Measures Order (ITLOS)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 1147-1166
Author(s):  
Yurika Ishii
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Institutional Authority ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

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).

‘Reasonableness’ in the Law of the Sea: The Prompt Release of the Volga

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 621-630 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHESTER BROWN
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
Illegal Fishing ◽  
Financial Conditions ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Good Behaviour ◽  
Flag State

The jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to hear applications for the prompt release of vessels and crew was recently invoked by the Russian Federation against Australia in the Volga case. In determining whether the bonding arrangements set by Australia were ‘reasonable’ under Article 73(2) of UNCLOS, the Tribunal clarified several issues regarding prompt release applications, and most significantly, held that non-financial conditions and ‘good behaviour bonds’ were not permissible. In rendering its decision, the Tribunal adhered to the ‘guiding criterion’ of balancing the interests of the flag state and coastal state in determining the reasonableness of the bond. It is submitted that this test is inappropriate, and that this decision will create difficulties for coastal states seeking to control illegal fishing.

scholarly journals The Arctic Sunrise Incident: A Multi-faceted Law of the Sea Case with a Human Rights Dimension

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 244-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex G. Oude Elferink
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Exclusive Economic Zone ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Economic Zone ◽  
The Law ◽  
Oil Rig

On 18 September 2013, the crew of the Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise tried to access the Prirazlomnaya oil rig, which was operating within the Russian Federation’s exclusive economic zone in the Arctic. The following day the Russian authorities boarded and arrested the Arctic Sunrise and detained its crew and charged them with various offenses. The flag state of the vessel, the Netherlands, started an arbitral procedure against the Russian Federation. The present article looks at the issues of international law raised by the arrest of the Arctic Sunrise—which both concern the law of the sea and human rights law—and the arbitration initiated by the Netherlands. Human rights law is essential for assessing the kind of measures a coastal state may take in enforcing its legislation based on the law of the sea in its exclusive economic zone. Providing sufficient room for the freedom of expression may limit the scope of action that might otherwise exist.

Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2015—Part i

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 555-582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Protected Area ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Marine Protected Area ◽  
Exclusive Economic Zone ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Economic Zone ◽  
The Law

This is the latest in a series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement in the law of the sea, both under the un Convention on the Law of the Sea and outside the framework of the Convention, and covering developments in 2015. During the year the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea gave an advisory opinion concerning fisheries questions in the exclusive economic zone and made two orders of provisional measures. Annex vii arbitral tribunals delivered awards on the merits in the Chagos Marine Protected Area and Arctic Sunrise cases, and the tribunal in the Philippines v. China case gave an award on jurisdiction and admissibility. There were also a number of less significant developments during the year.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document