Skip to main content

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

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

verfasst von : Grant Kynaston, Rebecca Brown

Erschienen in: Global Challenges and the Law of the Sea

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

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.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
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
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
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
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
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
See, e.g., Aerial Incident of 7 November 1954 (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) [1959] ICJ Rep 276.
 
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
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
Racial Discrimination (Preliminary Objections), para. 16.
 
10
Racial Discrimination (Preliminary Objections), Verbatim Record of 8 September 2008, paras. 7–8 (Kolodkin).
 
11
Ibid.
 
12
Id., para. 21.
 
13
Id., para. 25. See CERD, Art. 11.
 
14
Racial Discrimination (Preliminary Objections), Verbatim Record of 10 September 2008, paras. 35–36 (Kolodkin).
 
15
Racial Discrimination (Provisional Measures) [2008] ICJ Rep 353, para. 149 (‘Racial Discrimination (Provisional Measures)’).
 
16
Id., para. 85.
 
17
Racial Discrimination (Preliminary Objections), Memorial of the Russian Federation of 1 December 2009.
 
18
Id., Chapter III.
 
19
Id., Chapter IV.
 
20
Racial Discrimination (Preliminary Objections), para. 180.
 
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
Id., Application Instituting Proceedings of 16 January 2017.
 
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
Application of CERD and ICSFT (Provisional Measures), para. 13.
 
25
Application of CERD and ICSFT (Provisional Measures), Verbatim Record of 7 March 2017, para. 12 (Forteau).
 
26
Id., para. 20 (Kolodkin).
 
27
Id., paras. 2, 4 (Rogachev). See CERD Art. 2.
 
28
Id., para. 3 (Kolodkin).
 
29
Id., paras. 4, 17 (Lukiyantsev).
 
30
Id., paras. 21 (Rogachev), 56 (Zimmerman), 41 (Lukiyantsev).
 
31
Ibid.
 
32
Id., paras. 21 (Forteau), 76–78, 81, 87 (Zimmerman).
 
33
Application of CERD and ICSFT (Provisional Measures), paras. 31, 39, 62.
 
34
Id., paras. 99.
 
36
Application of CERD and ICSFT (Order on the Fixing of Time-limits) [2017] ICJ Rep 228.
 
37
ITLOS, Case No. 11 The “Volga” Case (Russia v. Australia), Judgment of 23 December 2002.
 
38
ITLOS, Case No. 14 The “Hoshinmaru” Case (Japan v. Russia), Judgment of 6 August 2007 (‘Hoshinmaru’).
 
39
ITLOS, Case No. 15 The “Tomimaru” Case (Japan v. Russia), Judgment of 6 August 2007 (‘Tomimaru’).
 
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
Hoshinmaru, Response, para. 30; Tomimaru, Response, para. 34.
 
42
Hoshinmaru, Response, paras. 36, 39; Tomimaru, Response, para. 47.
 
43
Tomimaru, Response, para. 43.
 
44
Schewe (2013), p. 1185; Jordan (2017), p. 461.
 
46
Gadelshina (2011).
 
47
See, e.g., Arbitral Tribunal, SCC Case No V079/2005 RosInvestCo UK Ltd v. Russia, Award on Jurisdiction of October 2007.
 
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
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
Mälksoo (2012), p. 365.
 
51
Federal Law No 7-FKZ (Russian Federation), 14 December 2015.
 
52
Konstitucionnyj Sud Rossijskoj Federacii, No 21-П/2015, 14 July 2015.
 
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
See Hillebrecht (2014), p. 1111.
 
55
Mälksoo (2012), p. 362.
 
56
Benedek (2017), p. 398.
 
57
Id., p. 389.
 
58
Konstitucionnyj Sud Rossijskoj Federacii, No 1-П/2017, 19 January 2017.
 
59
ECtHR, Case of Oao Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, Award on Just Satisfaction of 15 December 2014.
 
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
Id., para. 6.
 
62
Id., Annex 2, 7.
 
63
Id., Annex 5.
 
64
Ibid.
 
65
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966, in force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171.
 
66
Arctic Sunrise, Submission of Dispute to Arbitration, para. 4.
 
67
ITLOS, Case No. 22 The “Arctic Sunrise” Case (Netherlands v. Russia), Request for Provisional Measures of 21 October 2013.
 
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
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
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
Note Verbale (22 October 2013).
 
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
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
Note Verbale (27 February 2014).
 
75
UNCLOS, Art. 298.
 
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
UNCLOS, Art. 298(1)(b).
 
78
Arctic Sunrise, Submission of Dispute to Arbitration, paras. 8–13.
 
79
Id., para. 13. See UNCLOS, Art. 297(2), (3).
 
80
Arctic Sunrise (Jurisdiction), para. 72.
 
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
Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) (Questions of Jurisdiction and Admissibility) [1974] ICJ Rep 457, para. 30.
 
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
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
See Sect. 2.1 above.
 
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
Arctic Sunrise (Jurisdiction), para. 10. Russia informed the tribunal of this fact in its Note Verbale (22 October 2013).
 
88
Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 19.
 
89
Ibid.
 
90
Haya de la Torre (Columbia v. Peru) (Judgment) [1951] ICJ Rep 71, p. 78; Chandrasekhara Rao and Khan (2001), section 3.085.
 
91
See Sect. 2 above.
 
92
UNCLOS, Art. 290(1).
 
93
UNCLOS, Art. 290(5).
 
94
Racial Discrimination (Provisional Measures), para. 85.
 
95
See Sect. 2.1 above.
 
96
See, e.g., Racial Discrimination (Provisional Measures), para. 73.
 
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
Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 6 (Judge Golitsyn).
 
99
Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 73.
 
100
Id., para. 74.
 
101
Martin (2014), p. 24.
 
102
Note Verbale (22 October 2013).
 
103
Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 2 (Judge Anderson).
 
104
Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 5 (Judges Wolfrum and Kelly).
 
105
Ukraine v. Russia (Rules of Procedure), Article 3.
 
106
PCA (Ukraine v. Russia), Press Release of 22 May 2017: https://​pcacases.​com/​web/​sendAttach/​2135.
 
107
Ukraine v. Russia (Rules of Procedure), Article 13(2)(a).
 
108
Ukraine v. Russia (Procedural Order No 3), p. 2.
 
109
See Sect. 2 above.
 
110
Ukraine v. Russia (Procedural Order No 3), p. 2.
 
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
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
South China Sea (Jurisdiction), para. 24.
 
114
Id., para. 226.
 
115
Id., para. 227.
 
116
See Sect. 2.1 above.
 
117
Schatz and Koval (2018).
 
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
Ukraine v. Russia (Press Release, 31 August 2018).
 
120
UNCLOS, Art. 288(1).
 
122
Chagos Islands, para. 221.
 
123
Ibid.
 
124
Ibid.
 
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
South China Sea (Jurisdiction), para. 153.
 
127
See Sect. 2.1.2 above.
 
128
See further Tzeng (2017), p. 7.
 
129
Ukraine v. Russia (Press Release, 31 August 2018).
 
130
UNCLOS, Art. 281(1).
 
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
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
South China Sea (Jurisdiction), para. 223.
 
134
Id., para. 217.
 
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
Tzeng (2017), p. 10.
 
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
See Ukraine v. Russia (Press Release, 31 August 2018).
 
139
Border Treaty, Art. 5.
 
140
Cooperation Treaty, Art. 1.
 
141
On the approach’s persuasiveness, see, e.g., Boyle and Evans (2001), and Kwiatkowska (2003).
 
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
See generally Kratochwil (2014), and Brunnée and Toope (2010).
 
144
Bower (2017), p. 4. See generally Barnett and Duvall (2005).
 
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
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.
 
149
Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, Press Release of 23 October 2013: https://​sledcomrf.​ru/​news/​print/​105365-sledstviem-perekvalifitsiro​vanyi-deystviya-napadavshih.​html. See Federal Law No 64-FZ (Russian Federation), 13 June 1996, Articles 213(2), 227(3).
 
150
Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 105(a).
 
151
Id., para. 105(b).
 
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
Id. See also Decree of the State Duma No 3500-6 GD (Russian Federation), 18 December 2013 (‘Amnesty’).
 
154
Arctic Sunrise (Press Release, 24 August 2015).
 
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
Arctic Sunrise (Merits), para. 350.
 
157
Id., paras. 355, 358.
 
158
See further Harrison (2016), pp. 155–156.
 
159
Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 100.
 
160
Id., para. 81. See UNCLOS, Art. 290(1).
 
161
Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 87.
 
162
President of Russia, Press Release of 25 June 2013: http://​en.​kremlin.​ru/​events/​president/​news/​18403.
 
163
Amnesty, Art. 6(5).
 
164
Id., Art. 10(1).
 
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
‘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
See Olympic Games, ‘Sochi 2014’ (2018): https://​www.​olympic.​org/​sochi-2014.
 
168
Human Rights Watch, ‘World Report 2013: Russia – Events of 2012’, January 2013: https://​www.​hrw.​org/​world-report/​2013/​country-chapters/​russia.
 
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
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-idUSBRE9BH0FO201​31219.
 
171
President of Russia, Press Release of 14 October 2014, supra note 165.
 
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
Amnesty International, ‘EUR 46/014/2012: Public Statement’, 3 April 2012: https://​www.​amnesty.​org/​download/​Documents/​20000/​eur460142012en.​pdf.
 
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/​2012080817505970​8/​.
 
176
Arctic Sunrise (Provisional Measures), para. 87.
 
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
Arctic Sunrise (Compensation), para. 128.
 
181
See further Ukraine v. Russia (Press Release, 31 August 2018).
 
182
Ukraine, Statement on Initiation of Arbitration, supra note 121.
 
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
‘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
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_​chernomorneftega​za_​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.
 
188
See, e.g., Repousis (2016), pp. 462–466.
 
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
‘Rossija ukrala bolee 3,5 mlrd ukbometrov ukrainsogo gaza’, supra note 186.
 
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
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/​5a82d1899a794706​e604a6d0.
 
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
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
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
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
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/​5b7c0ac89a794735​ea890564; ‘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
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/​5ab8cb709a794742​788767a5; ‘Rukovodstvo “Chernomorneftegaza” podalo v otstavku’ RIA Novosti (online), 27 March 2018: https://​ria.​ru/​economy/​20180327/​1517344227.​html.
 
199
Fadeeva, ‘Pochemu Rossija prodolzhaet dobychu’, supra note 197.
 
200
Chernomorneftegaz, ‘Nasha operacionnaja dejatel'nost’ onlajn’ (2018): http://​gas.​crimea.​ru/​map/​23-novosti/​69-karta.
 
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
UNCLOS, Art. 74.
 
203
Menkiszak (2016), p. 89.
 
204
UNCLOS, Arts 74(1), 83(1).
 
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
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
Romania v. Ukraine, paras. 217–219, 133.
 
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
UNCLOS, Arts 58(3), 77(2).
 
210
See Tkachev, Fadeeva and Podobedova, ‘Mezhdu Krymom i Odessoj’, supra note 192.
 
212
‘Rossija ukrala bolee 3,5 mlrd ukbometrov ukrainsogo gaza’, supra note 186.
 
213
Ukraine v. Russia (Press Release, 31 August 2018).
 
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-idUSKBN0TZ22G201​51216.
 
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
‘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
‘Krym nachnet otkazyvat'sja ot sobstvennogo gaza’, supra note 195.
 
219
Russian International Affairs Council, ‘O sovete’ (2018): http://​russiancouncil.​ru/​about/​.
 
220
Tkachev, Fadeeva and Podobedova, ‘Mezhdu Krymom i Odessoj’, supra note 192.
 
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
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
‘Ob’jom dobychi gaza v Krymu snizhaetsja,’ supra note 191.
 
224
President of Russia, Press Release of 27 December 2016: http://​kremlin.​ru/​events/​president/​news/​53601.
 
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
‘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
Id.
 
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
Sinclair (2010), p. 1; Kratochwil (2014), p. 1.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Barnett M, Duvall R (2005) Power in international politics. Int Organ 59(1):39–75CrossRef Barnett M, Duvall R (2005) Power in international politics. Int Organ 59(1):39–75CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
Zurück zum Zitat Bower A (2017) Norms without the great powers: international law and changing social standards in world politics. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef Bower A (2017) Norms without the great powers: international law and changing social standards in world politics. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Boyle A, Evans MD (2001) The Southern Bluefin Tuna arbitration. Int Comp Law Q 50(2):447–452CrossRef Boyle A, Evans MD (2001) The Southern Bluefin Tuna arbitration. Int Comp Law Q 50(2):447–452CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Brunnée J, Toope SJ (2010) Legitimacy and legality in international law: an interactional account. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef Brunnée J, Toope SJ (2010) Legitimacy and legality in international law: an interactional account. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Chandrasekhara Rao P, Khan R (eds) (2001) The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: law and practice. Kluwer Law International, The Hague Chandrasekhara Rao P, Khan R (eds) (2001) The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: law and practice. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Zurück zum Zitat Choi YH (2014) The Barents Sea: equal division of the disputed sea between Russia and Norway. J East Asian Aff 28(2):61–81 Choi YH (2014) The Barents Sea: equal division of the disputed sea between Russia and Norway. J East Asian Aff 28(2):61–81
Zurück zum Zitat Harrison J (2016) Current legal developments: the Arctic Sunrise arbitration (Netherlands v Russia). Int J Mar Coast Law 31:145–159CrossRef Harrison J (2016) Current legal developments: the Arctic Sunrise arbitration (Netherlands v Russia). Int J Mar Coast Law 31:145–159CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat 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):1100–1123CrossRef 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):1100–1123CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hønneland G (2014) Arctic politics, the law of the sea and Russian identity: the Barents Sea delimitation agreement in Russian public debate. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRef Hønneland G (2014) Arctic politics, the law of the sea and Russian identity: the Barents Sea delimitation agreement in Russian public debate. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Jordan PA (2017) Diminishing returns: Russia’s participation in the World Trade Organization. Post-Soviet Aff 33(6):452–471CrossRef Jordan PA (2017) Diminishing returns: Russia’s participation in the World Trade Organization. Post-Soviet Aff 33(6):452–471CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Karev S (1995) The Russian Federation and the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Int Law 89:455–458CrossRef Karev S (1995) The Russian Federation and the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Int Law 89:455–458CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Klein N (2005) Dispute settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Klein N (2005) Dispute settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Zurück zum Zitat Kratochwil F (2014) The status of law in world society: meditations on the role and rule of law. Cambridge University Press, New York Kratochwil F (2014) The status of law in world society: meditations on the role and rule of law. Cambridge University Press, New York
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
Zurück zum Zitat 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 34:369–395CrossRef 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 34:369–395CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Mälksoo L (2012) Russia and European human-rights law: margins of the margin of appreciation. Rev Central East Eur Law 37:359–369 Mälksoo L (2012) Russia and European human-rights law: margins of the margin of appreciation. Rev Central East Eur Law 37:359–369
Zurück zum Zitat Martin JMC (2014) Prior consultations and jurisdiction at ITLOS. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 13:1–26CrossRef Martin JMC (2014) Prior consultations and jurisdiction at ITLOS. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 13:1–26CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Menkiszak M (2016) Borders in flux: Ukraine as a case study of Russia’s approach to its borders. Eurasia Border Rev 6:83–102 Menkiszak M (2016) Borders in flux: Ukraine as a case study of Russia’s approach to its borders. Eurasia Border Rev 6:83–102
Zurück zum Zitat 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 32:459–481CrossRef 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 32:459–481CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Schewe CJ (2013) Russia in the WTO: the bear on a leash? J World Trade 47(6):1171–1201 Schewe CJ (2013) Russia in the WTO: the bear on a leash? J World Trade 47(6):1171–1201
Zurück zum Zitat Sinclair A (2010) International relations theory and international law: a critical approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef Sinclair A (2010) International relations theory and international law: a critical approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Tanaka Y (2006) Predictability and flexibility in the law of maritime delimitation. Hart Publishing, Oxford Tanaka Y (2006) Predictability and flexibility in the law of maritime delimitation. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Zurück zum Zitat Tzeng P (2017) Ukraine v Russia and Philippines v China: Jurisdiction and legitimacy. Denver J Int Law Policy 46(1):1–19 Tzeng P (2017) Ukraine v Russia and Philippines v China: Jurisdiction and legitimacy. Denver J Int Law Policy 46(1):1–19
Zurück zum Zitat 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 48:331–344CrossRef 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 48:331–344CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat 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 141–174CrossRef 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 141–174CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Implementing the Law of the Sea: Russia and Arbitrations Under Annex VII to UNCLOS
verfasst von
Grant Kynaston
Rebecca Brown
Copyright-Jahr
2020
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42671-2_16