Skip to main content

Implementing the Law of the Sea: Russia and Arbitrations Under Annex VII to UNCLOS

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Global Challenges and the Law of the Sea

Abstract

On 16 September 2016, Ukraine instituted arbitral proceedings against the Russian Federation (‘Russia’) under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (‘UNCLOS’), alleging violations of its coastal State rights in the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait. Russia has subsequently appointed an arbitrator, sent a delegation to The Hague, and submitted its Preliminary Objections. This marks a dramatic shift in Russia’s recent relationship with interstate arbitration under UNCLOS. Most notably, in late 2013, Russia refused to participate in the arbitration instituted by the Netherlands concerning the Arctic Sunrise, and has made no indication it will comply with the Award on Compensation in the Netherlands’ favour. This chapter compares Russia’s approach in these two cases. First, it addresses its non-participation, contextualising it against Russia’s prior experiences in international dispute resolution processes, and considers the objections that Russia tends to raise against jurisdiction. Second, this chapter analyses how maritime legal considerations interplay with Russia’s posture in international politics, and discusses how each case’s context affected Russia’s response. The authors conclude that Russia’s relationship with the law of the sea is an increasingly important consideration in its political calculus. Russia tends to frame its activities as consistent with the law of the sea and relevant dispute resolution mechanisms, and increased compliance by such a major State promotes the continued effectiveness of the law of the sea.

The authors would like to thank Dr Alison Pert and Professor Tim Stephens, for supporting the authors’ intensive study in this area at the University of Sydney. All translations from Russian and Ukrainian are the authors’ own, as are all mistakes and omissions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 10 December 1982, in force 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 396, Annex VII (‘UNCLOS’).

  2. 2.

    Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2014-02 The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia), Rules of Procedure of 17 March 2014, Preamble para. 7, Article 3 (‘Arctic Sunrise (Rules of Procedure)’).

  3. 3.

    Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2014-02 The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia), Award on Compensation of 10 July 2017 (‘Arctic Sunrise (Compensation)’).

  4. 4.

    Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2017-06 Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation), Rules of Procedure of 18 May 2017, Article 3 (‘Ukraine v. Russia (Rules of Procedure)’).

  5. 5.

    Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2017-06 Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation), Procedural Order No. 3 (Bifurcation) of 20 August 2018 (‘Ukraine v. Russia (Procedural Order No 3)’).

  6. 6.

    See, e.g., Aerial Incident of 7 November 1954 (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) [1959] ICJ Rep 276.

  7. 7.

    Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russia) (Preliminary Objections) [2011] ICJ Rep 70 (‘Racial Discrimination (Preliminary Objections)’).

  8. 8.

    International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (New York, 21 December 1965, in force 4 January 1969) 660 UNTS, Art. 22 (‘CERD’).

  9. 9.

    Racial Discrimination (Preliminary Objections), para. 16.

  10. 10.

    Racial Discrimination (Preliminary Objections), Verbatim Record of 8 September 2008, paras. 7–8 (Kolodkin).

  11. 11.

    Ibid.

  12. 12.

    Id., para. 21.

  13. 13.

    Id., para. 25. See CERD, Art. 11.

  14. 14.

    Racial Discrimination (Preliminary Objections), Verbatim Record of 10 September 2008, paras. 35–36 (Kolodkin).

  15. 15.

    Racial Discrimination (Provisional Measures) [2008] ICJ Rep 353, para. 149 (‘Racial Discrimination (Provisional Measures)’).

  16. 16.

    Id., para. 85.

  17. 17.

    Racial Discrimination (Preliminary Objections), Memorial of the Russian Federation of 1 December 2009.

  18. 18.

    Id., Chapter III.

  19. 19.

    Id., Chapter IV.

  20. 20.

    Racial Discrimination (Preliminary Objections), para. 180.

  21. 21.

    Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russia) (Provisional Measures) [2017] ICJ Rep 104 (‘Application of CERD and ICSFT (Provisional Measures)’).

  22. 22.

    Id., Application Instituting Proceedings of 16 January 2017.

  23. 23.

    International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (New York, 9 December 1999, in force 10 April 2002) 2178 UNTS 197 (‘ICSFT’).

  24. 24.

    Application of CERD and ICSFT (Provisional Measures), para. 13.

  25. 25.

    Application of CERD and ICSFT (Provisional Measures), Verbatim Record of 7 March 2017, para. 12 (Forteau).

  26. 26.

    Id., para. 20 (Kolodkin).

  27. 27.

    Id., paras. 2, 4 (Rogachev). See CERD Art. 2.

  28. 28.

    Id., para. 3 (Kolodkin).

  29. 29.

    Id., paras. 4, 17 (Lukiyantsev).

  30. 30.

    Id., paras. 21 (Rogachev), 56 (Zimmerman), 41 (Lukiyantsev).

  31. 31.

    Ibid.

  32. 32.

    Id., paras. 21 (Forteau), 76–78, 81, 87 (Zimmerman).

  33. 33.

    Application of CERD and ICSFT (Provisional Measures), paras. 31, 39, 62.

  34. 34.

    Id., paras. 99.

  35. 35.

    See, e.g., Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Press Release of 24 April 2018: https://mfa.gov.ua/en/news/8712-zajava-ministerstva-zakordonnih-sprav-ukrajini-shhodo-zvernennya-ukrajini-do-mizhnarodnogo-sudu-oon-stosovno-tlumachennya-nakazu-sudu-pro-zastosuvannya-timchasovih-zahodiv-proti-rosijsyk.

  36. 36.

    Application of CERD and ICSFT (Order on the Fixing of Time-limits) [2017] ICJ Rep 228.

  37. 37.

    ITLOS, Case No. 11 The “Volga” Case (Russia v. Australia), Judgment of 23 December 2002.

  38. 38.

    ITLOS, Case No. 14 The “Hoshinmaru” Case (Japan v. Russia), Judgment of 6 August 2007 (‘Hoshinmaru’).

  39. 39.

    ITLOS, Case No. 15 The “Tomimaru” Case (Japan v. Russia), Judgment of 6 August 2007 (‘Tomimaru’).

  40. 40.

    Hoshinmaru, Statement in Response of 15 July 2007, para. 3 (‘Hoshinmaru, Response’); Tomimaru, Statement in Response of 17 July 2007, para. 3 (‘Tomimaru, Response’).

  41. 41.

    Hoshinmaru, Response, para. 30; Tomimaru, Response, para. 34.

  42. 42.

    Hoshinmaru, Response, paras. 36, 39; Tomimaru, Response, para. 47.

  43. 43.

    Tomimaru, Response, para. 43.

  44. 44.

    Schewe (2013), p. 1185; Jordan (2017), p. 461.

  45. 45.

    UNCTAD, Investment Policy Hub (2018): https://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/CountryBits/175.

  46. 46.

    Gadelshina (2011).

  47. 47.

    See, e.g., Arbitral Tribunal, SCC Case No V079/2005 RosInvestCo UK Ltd v. Russia, Award on Jurisdiction of October 2007.

  48. 48.

    See, e.g., Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2015-36 Everest Estate LLC et al v. Russia; Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2015-34 PJSC Ukrnafta v. Russia.

  49. 49.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, 4 November 1950, in force 3 September 1953) 213 UNTS 221 (‘ECHR’). See European Court of Human Rights, ‘Case-law References’ (31 January 2019): https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Case_law_references_ENG.pdf.

  50. 50.

    Mälksoo (2012), p. 365.

  51. 51.

    Federal Law No 7-FKZ (Russian Federation), 14 December 2015.

  52. 52.

    Konstitucionnyj Sud Rossijskoj Federacii, No 21-П/2015, 14 July 2015.

  53. 53.

    See, e.g., Konstitucionnyj Sud Rossijskoj Federacii, No 1-П/2017, 19 January 2017, p. 24: ‘…[following the judgment] would mean, in essence, not only suspension of the effect of Article 57 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but also violation of the principles of equality and justice following from its Articles.’

  54. 54.

    See Hillebrecht (2014), p. 1111.

  55. 55.

    Mälksoo (2012), p. 362.

  56. 56.

    Benedek (2017), p. 398.

  57. 57.

    Id., p. 389.

  58. 58.

    Konstitucionnyj Sud Rossijskoj Federacii, No 1-П/2017, 19 January 2017.

  59. 59.

    ECtHR, Case of Oao Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, Award on Just Satisfaction of 15 December 2014.

  60. 60.

    Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2014-02 The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia), Submission of Dispute to Arbitration of 4 October 2013 (‘Arctic Sunrise, Submission of Dispute to Arbitration).

  61. 61.

    Id., para. 6.

  62. 62.

    Id., Annex 2, 7.

  63. 63.

    Id., Annex 5.

  64. 64.

    Ibid.

  65. 65.

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966, in force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171.

  66. 66.

    Arctic Sunrise, Submission of Dispute to Arbitration, para. 4.

  67. 67.

    ITLOS, Case No. 22 The “Arctic Sunrise” Case (Netherlands v. Russia), Request for Provisional Measures of 21 October 2013.

  68. 68.

    ITLOS, Case No. 22 The “Arctic Sunrise” Case (Netherlands v. Russia), Award on Provisional Measures of 25 October 2013 (‘Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures)’).

  69. 69.

    ITLOS, Case No. 22 The “Arctic Sunrise” Case (Netherlands v. Russia), Note Verbale of the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Germany of 22 October 2013: https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.22/Note_verbale_Russian_Federation_eng.pdf (‘Note Verbale (22 October 2013)’).

  70. 70.

    Declaration of the Russian Federation on signature of the United Nations Convention (10 December 1982): http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm (‘Russia, Declaration to UNCLOS’).

  71. 71.

    Note Verbale (22 October 2013).

  72. 72.

    Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2014-02 The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia), Note Verbale from the Russian Federation to the PCA of 27 February 2014: https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1315 (‘Note Verbale (27 February 2014)’).

  73. 73.

    Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2014-02 The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia), Award on Jurisdiction of 26 November 2014 (‘Arctic Sunrise (Jurisdiction)’).

  74. 74.

    Note Verbale (27 February 2014).

  75. 75.

    UNCLOS, Art. 298.

  76. 76.

    Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2013-19 The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China), Award on Jurisdiction of 29 October 2015, para. 107 (‘South China Sea (Jurisdiction)’); Klein (2005), p. 27; Zou and Ye (2017), p. 336.

  77. 77.

    UNCLOS, Art. 298(1)(b).

  78. 78.

    Arctic Sunrise, Submission of Dispute to Arbitration, paras. 8–13.

  79. 79.

    Id., para. 13. See UNCLOS, Art. 297(2), (3).

  80. 80.

    Arctic Sunrise (Jurisdiction), para. 72.

  81. 81.

    Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No. 2012-5 The Republic of Ecuador v. The United States of America, Award of 29 September 2012, para. 208.

  82. 82.

    Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) (Questions of Jurisdiction and Admissibility) [1974] ICJ Rep 457, para. 30.

  83. 83.

    Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2011-03 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), Award of 18 March 2015, para. 212 (‘Chagos Islands’).

  84. 84.

    Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2014-02 The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia), Memorial of the Netherlands of 31 August 2014, paras. 331–340.

  85. 85.

    See Sect. 2.1 above.

  86. 86.

    Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2014-02 The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia), Award on Merits of 14 August 2015, para. 198 (‘Arctic Sunrise (Merits)’).

  87. 87.

    Arctic Sunrise (Jurisdiction), para. 10. Russia informed the tribunal of this fact in its Note Verbale (22 October 2013).

  88. 88.

    Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 19.

  89. 89.

    Ibid.

  90. 90.

    Haya de la Torre (Columbia v. Peru) (Judgment) [1951] ICJ Rep 71, p. 78; Chandrasekhara Rao and Khan (2001), section 3.085.

  91. 91.

    See Sect. 2 above.

  92. 92.

    UNCLOS, Art. 290(1).

  93. 93.

    UNCLOS, Art. 290(5).

  94. 94.

    Racial Discrimination (Provisional Measures), para. 85.

  95. 95.

    See Sect. 2.1 above.

  96. 96.

    See, e.g., Racial Discrimination (Provisional Measures), para. 73.

  97. 97.

    Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures) (Judge Golitsyn). Judge Kulyk also dissented, focusing on the circumstances in which provisional measures may be ordered, and the range of options ITLOS should have considered. See Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 6, 11 (Judge Kulyk).

  98. 98.

    Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 6 (Judge Golitsyn).

  99. 99.

    Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 73.

  100. 100.

    Id., para. 74.

  101. 101.

    Martin (2014), p. 24.

  102. 102.

    Note Verbale (22 October 2013).

  103. 103.

    Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 2 (Judge Anderson).

  104. 104.

    Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 5 (Judges Wolfrum and Kelly).

  105. 105.

    Ukraine v. Russia (Rules of Procedure), Article 3.

  106. 106.

    PCA (Ukraine v. Russia), Press Release of 22 May 2017: https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2135.

  107. 107.

    Ukraine v. Russia (Rules of Procedure), Article 13(2)(a).

  108. 108.

    Ukraine v. Russia (Procedural Order No 3), p. 2.

  109. 109.

    See Sect. 2 above.

  110. 110.

    Ukraine v. Russia (Procedural Order No 3), p. 2.

  111. 111.

    See, e.g., Agreement on Cooperation on the use of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait (Kerch, 24 December 2003), Article 1; Joint Statement by the President of Ukraine and the President of the Russian Federation on the Sea of Azov and the Strait of Kerch (Kerch, 24 December 2003); Joint Statement by the President of Ukraine and the President of the Russian Federation (Crimea, 12 July 2012).

  112. 112.

    PCA (Ukraine v. Russia), Press Release of 31 August 2018: https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2447 (‘Ukraine v. Russia (Press Release, 31 August 2018)’).

  113. 113.

    South China Sea (Jurisdiction), para. 24.

  114. 114.

    Id., para. 226.

  115. 115.

    Id., para. 227.

  116. 116.

    See Sect. 2.1 above.

  117. 117.

    Schatz and Koval (2018).

  118. 118.

    See, e.g., Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) [1982] ICJ Rep 18, para. 100: ‘The draft convention… [does not] contain any detailed provisions on the “regime” of historic waters: there is neither a definition of the concept nor an elaboration of the juridical regime of “historic waters” or “historic bays”.’

  119. 119.

    Ukraine v. Russia (Press Release, 31 August 2018).

  120. 120.

    UNCLOS, Art. 288(1).

  121. 121.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Press Release of 14 September 2016: http://mfa.gov.ua/en/news-feeds/foreign-offices-news/50813-zajava-mzs-ukrajini-shhodo-porushennya-arbitrazhnogo-provadzhennya-proti-rosijsykoji-federaciji-vidpovidno-do-konvenciji-oon-z-morsykogo-prava (‘Ukraine, Statement on Initiation of Arbitration’).

  122. 122.

    Chagos Islands, para. 221.

  123. 123.

    Ibid.

  124. 124.

    Ibid.

  125. 125.

    Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2013-19 The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China), Memorial of the Philippines of 30 March 2014, para. 1.7.

  126. 126.

    South China Sea (Jurisdiction), para. 153.

  127. 127.

    See Sect. 2.1.2 above.

  128. 128.

    See further Tzeng (2017), p. 7.

  129. 129.

    Ukraine v. Russia (Press Release, 31 August 2018).

  130. 130.

    UNCLOS, Art. 281(1).

  131. 131.

    See Sect. 2.2 above. See also Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2004-02 (Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago), Award of 11 April 2006, para. 200; Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case No 2002-1 The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Order No 3 (Suspension) of 24 June 2003, para. 18.

  132. 132.

    Arbitral Tribunal, Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of 4 August 2000 (2002) 23 RIAA 1, paras. 40, 57, 65 (‘Southern Bluefin Tuna (Jurisdiction)’).

  133. 133.

    South China Sea (Jurisdiction), para. 223.

  134. 134.

    Id., para. 217.

  135. 135.

    See, e.g., ITLOS, Case No 12 Land Reclamation in and around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v. Singapore), Decision on Provisional Measures of 8 October 2003.

  136. 136.

    Tzeng (2017), p. 10.

  137. 137.

    See Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership Between Ukraine and the Russian Federation (Kiev, 31 May 1997, in force 1 April 1999) UNTS No 52240, Article 37; Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the Ukrainian-Russian State Border (Kerch, 28 January 2003, in force 23 April 2004), Article 5 (‘Border Treaty’); Treaty Between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on Cooperation in the Use of the Sea of Azov and the Strait of Kerch (Kerch, 24 December 2003, in force 23 April 2004), Art. 1 (‘Cooperation Treaty’).

  138. 138.

    See Ukraine v. Russia (Press Release, 31 August 2018).

  139. 139.

    Border Treaty, Art. 5.

  140. 140.

    Cooperation Treaty, Art. 1.

  141. 141.

    On the approach’s persuasiveness, see, e.g., Boyle and Evans (2001), and Kwiatkowska (2003).

  142. 142.

    A further example is the relationship between Russia and Norway in the Barents Sea. The two States have long cooperated on enforcement measures in relation to fisheries violations, and in 2010 resolved their dispute over maritime delimitation. Contrary to its initial position, Russia agreed to delimit the sea according to the median-line principle, the predominant approach under international law: Hønneland (2014), and Choi (2014).

  143. 143.

    See generally Kratochwil (2014), and Brunnée and Toope (2010).

  144. 144.

    Bower (2017), p. 4. See generally Barnett and Duvall (2005).

  145. 145.

    For example, Russia was the first State to claim an extension of its continental shelf in the Arctic pursuant to Art. 76(8) of UNCLOS: UN Office of Legal Affairs, ‘Submissions’ (2018). See http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.html. More broadly, the USSR supported UNCLOS as a means for guaranteeing its rights (in particular, the navigational rights of its military): Klein (2005), p. 18. See also Karev (1995).

  146. 146.

    In the context of Russia’s establishment of its continental shelf in the Arctic, for example, it has been commented that the nature of its claims ‘proves that Russia is interested in following the legal path and international cooperation in the Arctic, at least as long as it serves Russia’s interests’: Zysk (2016), p. 150.

  147. 147.

    ITLOS (Arctic Sunrise), Press Release of 25 October 2013: https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/press_releases_english/PR_202_E.pdf.

  148. 148.

    ITLOS (Arctic Sunrise), Press Release of 21 October 2013: https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/press_releases_english/PR_201_E.pdf.

  149. 149.

    Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, Press Release of 23 October 2013: https://sledcomrf.ru/news/print/105365-sledstviem-perekvalifitsirovanyi-deystviya-napadavshih.html. See Federal Law No 64-FZ (Russian Federation), 13 June 1996, Articles 213(2), 227(3).

  150. 150.

    Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 105(a).

  151. 151.

    Id., para. 105(b).

  152. 152.

    PCA (Arctic Sunrise), Press Release of 24 August 2015: http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1444 (‘Arctic Sunrise (Press Release, 24 August 2015’).

  153. 153.

    Id. See also Decree of the State Duma No 3500-6 GD (Russian Federation), 18 December 2013 (‘Amnesty’).

  154. 154.

    Arctic Sunrise (Press Release, 24 August 2015).

  155. 155.

    UNCLOS, Art. 290. See also Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 101. This requirement differs from the prompt release remedy available for ships captured on account of breaches of coastal State fisheries regulations (UNCLOS, Arts 73(2), 292). While Judges Jesus and Golitsyn queried whether the provisional measure amounted to a constructive prompt release remedy (see Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), paras. 265–266, 289–290), these are not necessarily equivalent.

  156. 156.

    Arctic Sunrise (Merits), para. 350.

  157. 157.

    Id., paras. 355, 358.

  158. 158.

    See further Harrison (2016), pp. 155–156.

  159. 159.

    Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 100.

  160. 160.

    Id., para. 81. See UNCLOS, Art. 290(1).

  161. 161.

    Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 87.

  162. 162.

    President of Russia, Press Release of 25 June 2013: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/18403.

  163. 163.

    Amnesty, Art. 6(5).

  164. 164.

    Id., Art. 10(1).

  165. 165.

    President of Russia, Press Release of 14 October 2014: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/46786 (‘President of Russia, Press Release of 14 October 2014’).

  166. 166.

    ‘Delo Arctic Sunrise: Zaderzhanie aktivistov Greenpeace u neftjanoj platformy ‘Gazproma”, RAPSI News (online), 22 November 2013: http://rapsinews.ru/incident_publication/20131122/269764768.html.

  167. 167.

    See Olympic Games, ‘Sochi 2014’ (2018): https://www.olympic.org/sochi-2014.

  168. 168.

    Human Rights Watch, ‘World Report 2013: Russia – Events of 2012’, January 2013: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/russia.

  169. 169.

    See, e.g., Luke Harding and Francesca Ebel, ‘Pussy Riot and Arctic 30 amnesty is a Putin masterstroke ahead of Olympics’, Guardian (online), 19 December 2013: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/18/pussy-riot-arctic-30-amnesty-putin-winter-olympics-sochi.

  170. 170.

    Steve Gutterman, ‘Russian amnesty to benefit Pussy Riot, Greenpeace 30’, Reuters (online), 20 December 2013: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-greenpeace-amnesty/russian-amnesty-to-benefit-pussy-riot-greenpeace-30-idUSBRE9BH0FO20131219.

  171. 171.

    President of Russia, Press Release of 14 October 2014, supra note 165.

  172. 172.

    ‘Pussy Riot members jailed for two years for hooliganism’, BBC News (online), 17 August 2012: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19297373.

  173. 173.

    Amnesty International, ‘EUR 46/014/2012: Public Statement’, 3 April 2012: https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/20000/eur460142012en.pdf.

  174. 174.

    See, e.g., Nataliya Vasilyeva, ‘Pussy Riot members sentenced to 2 years in prison’, USA Today (online), 17 August 2012: https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-08-17/pussy-riot-verdict/57109992/1; ‘121 German Parliamentarians Support Jailed Pussy Riot Members’, Sputnik International (online), 8 August 2012: https://sputniknews.com/russia/20120808175059708/.

  175. 175.

    Levada Center, Press Publication of 31 July 2012: https://www.levada.ru/2012/07/31/rossiyane-o-dele-pussy-riot/.

  176. 176.

    Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 87.

  177. 177.

    ITLOS, Case No. 22 The “Arctic Sunrise” Case (Netherlands v. Russia), Answers to Questions by the Tribunal of 7 November 2013, p. 3.

  178. 178.

    Arctic Sunrise (Compensation), para. 128.

  179. 179.

    The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Press Release of 20 July 2017: http://www.mid.ru/en/web/guest/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2818579?.

  180. 180.

    Government of the Netherlands, Press Release of 18 July 2017: https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2017/07/18/koenders-satisfied-with-award-of-damages-in-arctic-sunrise-case.

  181. 181.

    See further Ukraine v. Russia (Press Release, 31 August 2018).

  182. 182.

    Ukraine, Statement on Initiation of Arbitration, supra note 121.

  183. 183.

    President of Ukraine, Press Release of 14 September 2016: http://www.president.gov.ua/news/prezident-doruchiv-mzs-podati-pozov-proti-rosiyi-do-mizhnaro-38147.

  184. 184.

    This chapter uses the Russian spelling of ‘Chernomorneftegaz’, in keeping with the entity’s current public position: Chernomorneftegaz, ‘Kto my’ (2018): http://gas.crimea.ru/o-nas/kto-my.

  185. 185.

    ‘Aktyvy ‘Chornomornaftohazu’ pid oxoronoyu i budut’ peredani Rosiyi, – Konstantynov’ INSIDER (online), 13 March 2014: http://www.theinsider.ua/business/53218dfe2cec8/. See also, ‘Zamglavy ‘Chernomornaftogaza’: my stanem sobstvennost’ju ‘Gazproma” INSIDER (online), 14 March 2014: http://www.theinsider.ua/business/532339463f7a1/; Chernomorneftegaz, ‘Nasha Istorija’ (2018): http://gas.crimea.ru/o-nas/nasha-istoriya.

  186. 186.

    Andrij Yanitsky, ‘Glava ‘Chernomorneftegaza’ Svetlana Nezhnova: ‘Rossijane nas bojatsja, pojetomu usilenno ohranjajut burovye platformy” LB.ua (online), 12 September 2017: https://lb.ua/economics/2017/09/12/376183_glava_chernomorneftegaza_svetlana.html; ‘Rossija ukrala bolee 3,5 mlrd kubometrov ukrainskogo gaza’ Delovaya Stolitsa (online), 22 February 2018: http://www.dsnews.ua/economics/rossiya-ukrala-bolee-3-5-mlrd-kubometrov-ukrainskogo-gaza-22022018063400.

  187. 187.

    Naftogaz, Press Release of 19 October 2016: http://www.naftogaz.com/www/3/nakweb.nsf/0/551231B8DEF4EB16C22580510024CA6E?.

  188. 188.

    See, e.g., Repousis (2016), pp. 462–466.

  189. 189.

    Ministry of Fuel and Energy of the Republic of Crimea, Attachment to Ministerial Decree No. 170 of 26 April 2016, p. 4. For the relative positioning of the fields, see ‘Kiev taking Moscow to court: Who will get Black Sea gas?’ Eurasia Daily (online), 1 September 2016: https://eadaily.com/en/news/2016/09/01/kiev-taking-moscow-to-court-who-will-get-black-sea-gas; Kurovets et al. (2011).

  190. 190.

    ‘Rossija ukrala bolee 3,5 mlrd ukbometrov ukrainsogo gaza’, supra note 186.

  191. 191.

    Ministry of Fuel and Energy of the Republic of Crimea, Attachment to Ministerial Decree No 658 of 5 December 2017, p. 6; ‘Ob’jom dobychi prirodnogo gaza v Krymu snizhaetsja — ministr topliva i jenergetiki RK’ Krymskoe informacionnoe agentstvo (online), 29 December 2017: https://kianews24.ru/news/obyom-dobichi-prirodnogo-gaza-v-krimu-s/.

  192. 192.

    Ivan Tkachev, Alina Fadeeva and Lyudmila Podobedova, ‘Mezhdu Krymom i Odessoj: pochemu Rossija sokrashhaet dobychu gaza v Chernom’ RBK Group (online), 15 February 2018: https://www.rbc.ru/economics/15/02/2018/5a82d1899a794706e604a6d0.

  193. 193.

    See, e.g., ‘Rossija ostanovit dobychu gaza v Krymu iz-za suda s Ukrainoj – SMI’ Dengi.ua (online), 15 February 2018: http://dengi.ua/business/302155-Rossiya-ostanovit-dobichy-gaza-v-Krimy-iz-za-syda-s-Ykrainoi-SMI; ‘RBK uznal o vozmozhnoj zamorozke krupnejshego gazovogo mestorozhdenija na shel'fe Kryma’ Vedomosti (online), 15 February 2018: https://www.vedomosti.ru/business/news/2018/02/15/751047-zamorozke-mestorozhdeniya-krima.

  194. 194.

    Alexander Sukov, ‘Sam ne gam. Pochemu Rossija brosaet dobychu gaza na shel'fe Kryma’ Delovaja stolica (online), 1 March 2018: http://www.dsnews.ua/economics/sam-ne-gam-rossiya-mozhet-svernut-dobychu-gaza-na-shelfe-28022018220000.

  195. 195.

    Tkachev, Fadeeva and Podobedova, ‘Mezhdu Krymom i Odessoj’, supra note 192; ‘Krym nachnet otkazyvat'sja ot sobstvennogo gaza v sledujushhem godu’ Eurasia Daily (online), 30 November 2017: https://eadaily.com/ru/news/2017/11/30/krym-nachnet-otkazyvatsya-ot-sobstvennogo-gaza-v-sleduyushchem-godu.

  196. 196.

    Ministry for Economic Development of the Republic of Crimea, ‘Pojasnitel'naja zapiska po osnovnym parametram prognoza social'no-jekonomicheskogo razvitija na 2018 god i planovyj period 2019 i 2020 godov v Respublike Krym’, 12 October 2017: http://budget.rk.ifinmon.ru/dokumenty/prochie-dokumenty, p. 10.

  197. 197.

    Alina Fadeeva, ‘Pochemu Rossija prodolzhaet dobychu na spornom Odesskom mestorozhdenii v Krymu’ RBK Group (online), 3 September 2018: https://www.rbc.ru/business/03/09/2018/5b7c0ac89a794735ea890564; ‘RF peredumala ostanavlivat’ dobychu gaza v okkupirovannom Krymu’ LIGA.net (online), 3 September 2018: https://biz.liga.net/ekonomika/tek/novosti/rf-peredumala-ostanavlivat-dobychu-gaza-v-okkupirovannom-krymu.

  198. 198.

    Lyudmila Podobedova, Alina Fadeeva and Ivan Tkachev, ‘“Chernomorneftegaz” otvetil za zaderzhku’ RBK Group (online) 26 March 2018: https://www.rbc.ru/newspaper/2018/03/27/5ab8cb709a794742788767a5; ‘Rukovodstvo “Chernomorneftegaza” podalo v otstavku’ RIA Novosti (online), 27 March 2018: https://ria.ru/economy/20180327/1517344227.html.

  199. 199.

    Fadeeva, ‘Pochemu Rossija prodolzhaet dobychu’, supra note 197.

  200. 200.

    Chernomorneftegaz, ‘Nasha operacionnaja dejatel'nost’ onlajn’ (2018): http://gas.crimea.ru/map/23-novosti/69-karta.

  201. 201.

    ‘Kiev taking Moscow to court: Who will get Black Sea gas?’ Eurasia Daily (online), 1 September 2016: https://eadaily.com/en/news/2016/09/01/kiev-taking-moscow-to-court-who-will-get-black-sea-gas.

  202. 202.

    UNCLOS, Art. 74.

  203. 203.

    Menkiszak (2016), p. 89.

  204. 204.

    UNCLOS, Arts 74(1), 83(1).

  205. 205.

    See Tanaka (2006), pp. 121–122; Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) (Judgment) [1985] ICJ Rep 13, para. 70; Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) (Merits) [2001] ICJ Rep 40, para. 230.

  206. 206.

    See, e.g., Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine) (Judgment) [2009] ICJ Rep 61, paras. 115–122 (‘Romania v. Ukraine’); Case Concerning Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) (Judgment) [2014] ICJ Rep 3, para. 180. See also ITLOS, Case No 16 Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment of 14 March 2012, para. 240.

  207. 207.

    Romania v. Ukraine, paras. 217–219, 133.

  208. 208.

    See Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) (Judgment) [1984] ICJ Rep 246, para. 237. Compare Romania v. Ukraine, paras. 197–198.

  209. 209.

    UNCLOS, Arts 58(3), 77(2).

  210. 210.

    See Tkachev, Fadeeva and Podobedova, ‘Mezhdu Krymom i Odessoj’, supra note 192.

  211. 211.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Press Release of 19 February 2018: http://mfa.gov.ua/en/press-center/news/63052-zajava-mzs-ukrajini-shhodo-podachi-ukrajinoju-memorandumu-v-arbitrazhnomu-provadzhenni-proti-rf-za-konvencijeju-oon-z-morsykogo-prava.

  212. 212.

    ‘Rossija ukrala bolee 3,5 mlrd ukbometrov ukrainsogo gaza’, supra note 186.

  213. 213.

    Ukraine v. Russia (Press Release, 31 August 2018).

  214. 214.

    See, e.g., ‘Ukraine says Russia looted two Crimean oil rigs’, Reuters (online), 17 December 2015: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-crimea-energy/ukraine-says-russia-looted-two-crimean-oil-rigs-idUSKBN0TZ22G20151216.

  215. 215.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Press Release of 16 December 2015: http://mfa.gov.ua/ua/press-center/news/43246-statement-by-the-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-of-ukraine-with-regard-to-gross-violation-by-the-russian-federation-of-the-united-nations-convention-on-the-law-of-the-sea.

  216. 216.

    See ‘FSB sends escort ship to protect Chernomorneftegaz boring rigs from Ukrainian warships’, Russian News Agency TASS (online), 16 December 2015: https://tass.com/politics/844375; Yuri Barsukov and Yanina Sokolovskaya, ‘Otstuplenie v burovom porjadke: Zachem ‘Chernomorneftegazu’ voennyj konvoj’ Kommersant (online), 15 December 2015: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2877578.

  217. 217.

    ‘Odessa court seizes four floating drilling rigs in the Black Sea that were captured by Russia’, UAWire (online), 7 February 2017: http://www.uawire.org/news/the-odessa-court-arrested-in-absentia-four-floating-drilling-rigs-in-the-black-sea-captured-by-russia; ‘Court arrests four drilling rigs of Chornomornaftogaz seized by Russia’, Interfax-Ukraine (online), 7 February 2017: https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/economic/401625.html.

  218. 218.

    ‘Krym nachnet otkazyvat'sja ot sobstvennogo gaza’, supra note 195.

  219. 219.

    Russian International Affairs Council, ‘O sovete’ (2018): http://russiancouncil.ru/about/.

  220. 220.

    Tkachev, Fadeeva and Podobedova, ‘Mezhdu Krymom i Odessoj’, supra note 192.

  221. 221.

    See, e.g., Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to the Crimea Region of Ukraine (United States of America), Executive Order 13685, Federal Register 79 No 247, 19 December 2014, Section 1.

  222. 222.

    See Republic of Crimea, No. 352-ZRK/2017: Attachment to Law of the Republic of Crimea of January 9 2017: https://minek.rk.gov.ru/file/File/minek/2017/strategy/strategy-fullvers.pdf.

  223. 223.

    ‘Ob’jom dobychi gaza v Krymu snizhaetsja,’ supra note 191.

  224. 224.

    President of Russia, Press Release of 27 December 2016: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/53601.

  225. 225.

    ‘Media: Crimea began receiving gas from Russia’s Krasnodar Krai’, UAWire (online), 9 January 2017: http://uawire.org/news/media-crimea-began-receiving-gas-from-russia-s-federal-subject-krasnodar-krai.

  226. 226.

    ‘Chernomorneftegaz do fevralja 2019g kupit u struktury Minjenergo RF 1,8 mlrd kub. m gaza na 11 mlrd rub’ Interfax-Russia (online), 17 January 2018: http://www.interfax-russia.ru/Crimea/news.asp?id=901328.

  227. 227.

    Id.

  228. 228.

    See, e.g., ‘Purchases for new gas pipeline from Krasnodar region to Crimea include 200 km of pipes’, Russian News Agency TASS (online), 1 October 2015: http://tass.com/economy/825243.

  229. 229.

    Sinclair (2010), p. 1; Kratochwil (2014), p. 1.

References

  • Barnett M, Duvall R (2005) Power in international politics. Int Organ 59(1):39–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benedek W (2017) Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: some general conclusions. In: Mälksoo L, Benedek W (eds) Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: the Strasbourg effect. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 385–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower A (2017) Norms without the great powers: international law and changing social standards in world politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle A, Evans MD (2001) The Southern Bluefin Tuna arbitration. Int Comp Law Q 50(2):447–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunnée J, Toope SJ (2010) Legitimacy and legality in international law: an interactional account. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekhara Rao P, Khan R (eds) (2001) The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: law and practice. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi YH (2014) The Barents Sea: equal division of the disputed sea between Russia and Norway. J East Asian Aff 28(2):61–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadelshina ER (2011) Major pitfalls for foreign investors in Russia: What are Russian BITs worth? Kluwer Arbitration Blog. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2011/12/01/major-pitfalls-for-foreign-investors-in-russia-what-are-russian-bits-worth

  • Harrison J (2016) Current legal developments: the Arctic Sunrise arbitration (Netherlands v Russia). Int J Mar Coast Law 31:145–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillebrecht C (2014) The power of human rights tribunals: compliance with the European Court of Human Rights and domestic policy change. Eur J Int Relat 20(4):1100–1123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hønneland G (2014) Arctic politics, the law of the sea and Russian identity: the Barents Sea delimitation agreement in Russian public debate. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan PA (2017) Diminishing returns: Russia’s participation in the World Trade Organization. Post-Soviet Aff 33(6):452–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karev S (1995) The Russian Federation and the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Int Law 89:455–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein N (2005) Dispute settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratochwil F (2014) The status of law in world society: meditations on the role and rule of law. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurovets I et al (2011) Thermobaric conditions in zones of oil and gas accumulations of the Southern Oil- and gas-bearing region of Ukraine. AAPG Search and Discovery 40714

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwiatkowska B (2003) The Southern Bluefin Tuna arbitral tribunal did get it right: a commentary and reply to the article by David A. Colson and Dr. Peggy Hoyle. Ocean Dev Int Law 34:369–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mälksoo L (2012) Russia and European human-rights law: margins of the margin of appreciation. Rev Central East Eur Law 37:359–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin JMC (2014) Prior consultations and jurisdiction at ITLOS. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 13:1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menkiszak M (2016) Borders in flux: Ukraine as a case study of Russia’s approach to its borders. Eurasia Border Rev 6:83–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Repousis OG (2016) Why Russian investment treaties could apply to Crimea and what would this mean for the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian territorial conflict. Arbitr Int 32:459–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schatz VJ, Koval D (2018) Ukraine v. Russia: Passage through Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov (Part III). Völkerrechtsblog. http://voelkerrechtsblog.org/ukraine-v-russia-passage-through-kerch-strait-and-the-sea-of-azov-3

  • Schewe CJ (2013) Russia in the WTO: the bear on a leash? J World Trade 47(6):1171–1201

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair A (2010) International relations theory and international law: a critical approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka Y (2006) Predictability and flexibility in the law of maritime delimitation. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzeng P (2017) Ukraine v Russia and Philippines v China: Jurisdiction and legitimacy. Denver J Int Law Policy 46(1):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Zou K, Ye Q (2017) Interpretation and application of Article 298 of the Law of the Sea Convention in recent Annex VII arbitrations: an appraisal. Ocean Dev Int Law 48:331–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zysk K (2016) Maritime security and international order at sea in the Arctic Ocean. In: Bekkevold JI, Till G (eds) International order at sea. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 141–174

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca Brown .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kynaston, G., Brown, R. (2020). Implementing the Law of the Sea: Russia and Arbitrations Under Annex VII to UNCLOS. In: Ribeiro, M., Loureiro Bastos, F., Henriksen, T. (eds) Global Challenges and the Law of the Sea. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42671-2_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42671-2_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42670-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42671-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics