Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
The legal status of the Åland Islands is a special case in international law. Åland is an area that is demilitarised, is neutralised and enjoys wide autonomy under Finnish sovereign rule. The demilitarisation regime is regulated directly by a multilevel legal framework, and Finland’s sovereign rights as a coastal State are significantly restricted by the 1921 Åland Convention. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea sets out a comprehensive legal framework for marine activities. The Convention contains specific articles on the right of innocent passage. The Proliferation Security Initiative launched by the United States in 2004 has raised the questions of its application on the territorial sea against a foreign ship exercising the right of innocent passage. This Chapter attempts to examine the relationship of the PSI to the right of innocent passage and to the 1921 Åland Convention.
Convention relating to the Non-fortification of and Neutralisation of the Aaland Islands, adopted on 20 October 1921 and entered into force 6 April 1922. 9 LNTS 211. Parties to the Convention include: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Iceland (Union with Denmark in 1921) Italy, Latvia, Poland and Sweden.
According to HELCOM publication Shipping Accidents in the Baltic Sea in 2013 14,433 ships on the Åland West route and 1397 ships on the Åland East route have crossed AIS fixed lines through the Åland Strait during the year 2013, HELCOM ( 2014), pp. 3–7.
The missiles of North Korean origin were in transit to Yemen by a ship flying under Cambodian flag. The So San was intercepted and boarded by the Spanish Navy relying on U.S. intelligence and subsequently released due to lack of legal support for the seizure. See more Byers ( 2004), pp. 526–527.
UN Security Council Resolutions 1540 (2004), 1673 (2006), 1810 (2008), 1977 (2011), 2055 (2012).
Protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms on the Continental Shelf adopted on 1 November 2005 and entered into force on 28 July 2010 (‘2005 SUA Protocol’).
Durkalec ( 2012), p. 14, Protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, at https://www.unodc.org/tldb/pdf/Protocol_2005_Convention_Maritime_navigation.pdf. The Achille Lauro incident of 1985 gave rise to the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms on the Continental Shelf (the SUA Convention and SUA Protocol), adopted 10 March 1988 and entered into force 1 March 1992, as a measure to prevent unlawful acts which threaten the safety of ships and security of passengers and crew. IMO Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms on the Continental Shelf, March 13, 1988, entered into force on March 1, 1992, IMO Doc SUA/CONF/15, ILM 27 (1988), pp. 672–684.
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, adopted on 1 July 1968 and entered into force on 5 March 1970 at https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1970/infcirc140.pdf.
Chemical Weapons Convention, adopted on 13 January 1993 and entered into force on 29 April 1997 at http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/cwc/text.
Biological Weapons Convention, adopted on 10 April 1972 and entered into force on 26 March 1975 at http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/bwc/text.
US Department of State Proliferation Security Initiative at http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c10390.htm, Logan ( 2005), p. 255, Prosser and Scoville ( 2004), Beck ( 2004), p. 16 at http://www.uga.edu/cits/documents/pdf/monitor/monitor_sp_2004.pdf.
“The PSI participants are committed to the following interdiction principles to establish a more coordinated and effective basis through which to impede and stop shipments of WMD, delivery systems, and related materials flowing to and from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern, consistent with national legal authorities and relevant international law and frameworks, including the UN Security Council.” Fact Sheet The White House, Office of the Press Secretary ( 2003).
Winner ( 2005), p. 130.
Thomas ( 2009), p. 657.
Convention relating to the Non-Fortification and Neutralisation of the Åland Islands, Finnish Treaty Series 1/1922, English translation available in 17 AJIL 1923, Supplement: Official Documents, pp. 1–6. Hereinafter the 1921 Åland Convention, Treaty concerning the Åland Islands between Finland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Finnish Treaty Series 24/1940. By the Armistice Agreement 19.10.1944, the bilateral treaty between Finland and the Soviet Union concerning the demilitarisation of the Åland Islands was re-confirmed. This meant that fortifications on the Åland Islands had to be destroyed, Reactivation of the Treaty concerning the Åland Islands between Finland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Finnish Treaty Series 9/1948, Peace Treaty with Finland, Finnish Treaty Series 20/1947: English translation available in 42 AJIL 1948, Supplement: Official Documents, pp. 203–223, Commission opinion on Finland’s application for membership on 4th November 1992. The 1940 Treaty was confirmed by the 1992 Protocol between Finland and the Russian Federation.
Hannikainen ( 1994), p. 615.
The Treaty of Fredrikshamn. www.histdoc.net/history/fr/frhamn.html. Accessed 19 Jan 2016.
Hannikainen ( 1994), p. 617.
O’Brien ( 2012).
Hannikainen ( 1994), p. 618.
“… le droit d’interdire le passage inoffensive dans des circonstances spéciales” in Actes de la Conférence, p. 64.
Remarks by the President to the People of Poland ( 2003) http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030531-3.html.
In the Proliferation Security Initiative meeting in London 9–10 October 2003 the participants to the meeting agreed that “the PSI was a global initiative with an inclusive mission. Successful interdiction of trafficking in WMD, their delivery systems and related materials requires the widest possible co-operation between states. Participation in the PSI, which is an activity not an organisation, should be open to any state or international body that accepts the Paris Statement of Principles and makes an effective contribution.” at http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/security/non-proliferation-disarmament-arms-control/psi/Pages/proliferation-security-initiative-london-9-10-october-2003-2.aspx. Klein ( 2011), p. 150, Jinyuan ( 2012), p. 97.
See Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland http://formin.fi/public/default.aspx?contentid=325890&contentlan=2&culture=en-US.
Ahlström ( 2005), p. 745.
Proliferation Security Initiative: Chairman’s Statement at the Third Meeting (2003).
http://www.psi-online.info/Vertretung/psi/en/01-about-psi/0-about-us.html, Tornberg ( 2009), p. 140.
China, India and Pakistan are not participants of the PSI.
See Operational Experts Group at http://www.psi-online.info/Vertretung/psi/en/04-Operational-Experts-Group/0-operational-experts-group.html (4.2.2016). China is not a participant of the PSI, but it has a joint declaration with the European Union Joint declaration of the People’s Republic of China and the European Union on Non-proliferation and Arms Control, C/04/348, Brussels, 8 December 2004, 15854/04 (Presse 348).
http://www.psi-online.info/Vertretung/psi/en/01-about-psi/0-about-us.html, Tornberg ( 2009), p. 140.
Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 1996, pp. 66, 226.
Article 23 requires that foreign nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying nuclear or other inherently dangerous or noxious substances provide certain documents upon request and observe special precautionary measures established for them according to international agreements when they exercise their right of innocent passage.
Lehto ( 2008), p. 57.
UNCLOS art. 30.
UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004), Jimenez Kwast ( 2007), p. 169, see also Resolutions 1673 (2006), 1805 (2008) and 1977(2011), extending the mandate of the Committee to April 25 2021.
Durkalec ( 2012), pp. 15–16.
UN Security Council Resolutions 1540(2004), 1810(2008), 1977(2011).
UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004), Durkalec ( 2012), p. 13.
Winner ( 2005), p. 136.
Logan ( 2005), p. 271.
UN Security Council meeting of April 22 S/PV.4950 (2004), p. 12, 17. The Council has adopted enforcement actions against Iran (Resolution 1929 (2010)) and North Korea (Resolution 1874 (2009)). These Resolutions ‘call on all states to inspect all cargo to and from Iran and North Korea that is in their territory, including seaports and airports, if there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the cargo contains items of which the supply, sale, transfer or export is prohibited. Both resolutions also call on states to cooperate in inspections and, more significantly, they authorize all UN members to seize and dispose of prohibited cargo’. Durkalec ( 2012), p. 13. The Resolution 1929(2010) was terminated by the Resolution 2231(2015) see http://www.un.org/en/sc/2231/.
Allen ( 2007), p. 59.
Cirincione and Williams ( 2005).
UNCLOS art. 110.
Bergin ( 2005), pp. 89–90.
UNCLOS art. 19.
UNCLOS arts. 2, 19, 21, Convention (XIII) concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, adopted on 18 October 1907 and entered into force on 26 January 1910 art. 1, Malanczuk ( 1997), pp. 177–178.
TSC art 23, UNLOSC art. 30.
UNCLOS art. 17.
Klein ( 2011), p. 200.
Wolfrum ( 2009), p. 90.
Churchill and Lowe 1999, pp. 94–95. According to Article 22 a coastal State is not allowed to dismiss recommendations made by the IMO, a competent international organisation, when ordering sea lanes. Harrison ( 2013) argues, however, that the IMO has only a recommendatory role in this situation (p. 180).
For example, Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, London, 20th October 1972, which entered into force on 15th July 1977, 1050 UNTS 16.
Churchill and Lowe ( 1999), p. 95.
TSC art. 14.
Art. 23: Foreign nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying nuclear or other inherently dangerous or noxious substances shall, when exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea, carry documents and observe special precautionary measures established for such ships by international agreements.
Rayfuse ( 2005), p. 190. United States required Article 23 to the Convention.
International agreements, such as the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and its Annex, as well as IMO recommended codes regarding the construction and equipment of ships carrying dangerous liquid chemicals or liquefied gases in bulk, Nordquist et al. ( 1993), p. 220.
See International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms Aotearoa New Zealand Branch http://lcnp.org/disarmament/nwfz/submission%20on%20NWF2.htm.
The freighter So San was transporting according to ship’s manifest 2000 pounds of concrete, however, it was also transporting missile parts and an unknown chemical, see Joyner ( 2005), p. 2.
Lehrman ( 2004), p. 232.
Kaye ( 2006), pp. 147–148.
Churchill and Lowe ( 1999), p. 85.
Joyner ( 2005), p. 529.
Ronzitti ( 1990), p. 5.
Garvey ( 2005), p. 131.
LOSB ( 1989), p. 12.
Nowadays Russia, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
The Russian Federation ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on 12th February 1997. The United States signed the Convention on 29th July 1994 and on 7th October 1994 President Clinton transmitted to the Senate the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Treaty Document 103–39.
Churchill and Lowe ( 1999), p. 86. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea entered into force 16.11.1994.
Hakapää and Molenaar ( 1999), p. 132.
Churchill and Lowe ( 1999), p. 84.
Lehto ( 2008), s. 57.
Article 5 says: “The prohibition to send warships into the zone described in Article 2 or to station them there shall not prejudice the freedom of innocent passage through the territorial waters. Such passage shall continue to be governed by the international rules and usages in force.”
Innocent passage is defined in the Finnish Territorial Surveillance Act (755/2000) Section 2 and includes a specific reference to the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention.
The Finnish Territorial Surveillance Act, the Finnish Collection of Decrees 178/1938, 755/2000 Section 3.
Churchill and Lowe ( 1999), p. 87.
Hakapää and Molenaar ( 1999), p. 133.
Logan ( 2005), p. 261.
For example, when undertaking weapon exercises on its own or with a third State. See UNCLOS art. 25 (3).
Shearer ( 1986), p. 325.
Brown ( 1994), p. 64.
Article 27(2), (3), Klein ( 2011), pp. 201–202.
Klein ( 2011), p. 76.
Border Guard Act the Finnish Collection of Decrees 178/1938 578/2005 Section 77a, 79, Laki puolustusvoimien virka-avusta poliisille the Finnish Collection of Decrees 178/1938.
781/1980 Section 1.
Treves ( 2009), p. 412.
Government Proposal HE 220/2013 vp., Laki puolustusvoimien virka-avusta poliisille the Finnish Collection of Decrees 178/1938.
Ministry of Defence (2014), p. 7.
Ministry of Defence (2014), p. 7.
Actes de la Conférence. relative à la non-fortification et à la neutralisation des îles d’Aland, tenue à Genève, du 10 au 20 octobre 1921. (1922). Publie par les soins du Secretariat Permanent de la Société des Nations. Genève
Ahlström C (2005) The proliferation security initiative: international law aspects of the statement of interdiction principles. In: SIPRI Yearbook 2005: armaments, disarmament and international security, pp 741–765
Allen CH (2007) Matitime counterproliferation operations and the rule of law. Praeger Security International
Beck ME (2004) The promise and limits of the PSI. The Monitor 10(1):16–17. Available via, Center for International Trade and Security. http://www.uga.edu/cits/documents/pdf/monitor/monitor_sp_2004.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2016
Bergin A (2005) The proliferation security initiative-implications for the Indian Ocean. Int J Mar Coast Law 20(1):85–95 CrossRef
Brown ED (1994) The international law of the sea, volume introductory manual
Byers M (2004) Policing the high seas: the proliferation security initiative. Am J Int Law 98(3):526–545 CrossRef
Churchill RR, Lowe AV (1999) The law of the sea. Manchester University Press
Cirincione J, Williams J (2005) Putting PSI into Perspective, April 27 2005. In: Carnegie endowment for international peace. http://carnegieendowment.org/2005/04/27/putting-psi-into-perspective. Accessed 18 Feb 2016
Dixon DB (2006) Transnational shipments of nuclear materials by sea: do current safeguards provide coastal states a right to deny innocent passage? The Berkeley Electronic Press Paper 1794, pp 1–34. http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1794. Accessed 9 Feb 2016
Durkalec J (2012) The proliferation security initiative: evolution and future prospects. EU Non-Proliferation Consortium Non-Proliferation Papers, pp 1–21
Fact Sheet The White House, Office of the Press Secretary 2003 September 4. http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c27726.htm. Accessed 16 Feb 2016
Fidler DP (2003) Weapons of mass destruction and international law. ASIL Insights 8(3). https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/8/issue/3/weapons-mass-destruction-and-international-law. Accessed 25 July 2016
Garvey JI (2005) The international institutional imperative for countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction: assessing the proliferation security initiative. J Conflict Secur Law 10(2):125–147 CrossRef
Government Proposal. HE 220/2013 vp. Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle laiksi rajavartiolain muuttamisesta sekä eräiksi siihen liittyviksi laeiksi
Hakapää K (1981) Marine pollution in international law, material obligations and jurisdiction with special reference to the Third United Nations Conference on the law of the sea. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, Helsinki
Hakapää K (1988) Uusi kansainvälinen merioikeus. Lakimiesliiton Kustannus, Helsinki
Hakapää K, Molenaar EJ (1999) Innocent passage - past and present. Mar Policy 23(2):131–145 CrossRef
Hannikainen L (1994) The continued validity of the demilitarised and neutralised status of the Åland Islands. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 54:614–651
Harrison J (2013) Making the law of the sea, a study in the development of international. Cambridge University Press
HELCOM (2014) Annual report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea in 2013. HELCOM-Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission
International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms Aotearoa New Zealand Branch (n.d.) Submission to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Extension Bill. http://lcnp.org/disarmament/nwfz/submission%20on%20NWF2.htm. Accessed 21 March 2016
Jimenez Kwast P (2007) Maritime interdiction of weapons of mass destruction in an international perspective. Neth Yearb Int Law 38:163–241
Jinyuan S (2012) The proliferation security initiative (PSI) and interdiction at sea: a Chinese perspective. Ocean Dev Int Law 43(1):96–118. doi:10.1080/00908320.2012.647515
Joint Statement by the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uniform Interpretation of Norms of International Law Governing Innocent Passage (1989). Law of the Sea Bulletin 1989(14):12–13
Joyner DH (2005) The proliferation security initiative: nonproliferation, counterproliferation, and international law. Yale J Int Law 30:507–548
Kaye S (2006) The proliferation security initiative in the maritime domain. Int Law Stud 81:141–164
Klein N (2011) Maritime security and the law of the sea. Oxford University Press
Kraska J (2009) Grasping “The Influence of Law on Sea Power”. Naval War Coll Rev 62(3):113–135
Lehrman TD (2004) Enhancing the proliferation security initiative: the case for a decentralized nonproliferation architecture. Virginia J Int Law 45:223–276
Lehto M (2008) International responsibility for terrorists acts. A shift towards more indirect forms of responsibility. Acta Universitatis Lapponiensis 139, Lapland University Press, Vaajakoski
Logan SE (2005) The proliferation security initiative: navigating the legal challenges. J Transl Law Policy 14(2):253–274
Malanczuk P (1997) Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law. Seventh revised edition. Routledge, London
McDougal MS, Burke WT (1987) The public order of the oceans. A contemporary international law of the sea. New Haven Press, New Haven
Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. http://formin.fi/public/default.aspx?contentid=325890&contentlan=2&culture=en-US. Accessed 16 Feb 2016
Ministry of Defence, Selvitys/Utredning HARE PLM001:00/2014, FI.PLM.2015-2073, 767/00.99.00/2014
Nordquist MH, Nandan SN, Rosenna S, Grandy NR (eds) (1993) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, A Commentary, Volume II. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
O’Brien P (2012) The Åland Islands Solution. A precedent for successful international disputes settlement. http://legal.un.org/ola/media/info_from_lc/POB%20Aalands%20Islands%20Exhibition%20opening.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug 2014
O’Connell DP (1984) In: Shearer IA (ed) The International Law of the Sea Volume II. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Pharand D (1977) International straits. Thesaurus Acroasium 7:64–100
Proliferation Security Initiative. http://www.psi-online.info/Vertretung/psi/en/01-about-psi/0-about-us.html. Accessed 5 Feb 2016
Prosser A, Scoville HJ (2004) The proliferation security initiative in perspective. Center for Defense Information June 16, 2004. http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/psi.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2016
Rayfuse R (2005) Regulation and enforcement in the law of the sea: emerging assertions of a right to non-flag state enforcement in the high seas fisheries and disarmament contexts. Aust Yearb Int Law 24:181–200
Remarks by the President to the People of Poland 2003 May. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030531-3.html. Accessed 16 Feb 2016
Ronzitti N (1990) The law of the sea and the use of force against terrorists activities. In: Ronzitti N (ed) Maritime terrorism and international law. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 1–14
Shearer IA (1986) Problems of jurisdiction and law enforcement against delinquent vessels. Int Comp Law Q 35(2):320–343 CrossRef
Thomas TV (2009) The proliferation security initiative: towards relegation of navigational freedoms in UNCLOS? An Indian perspective. Chin J Int Law 8(3):657–680 CrossRef
Tornberg R (2009) Folkrättsliga aspekter på Proliferation Security Initiative. Inrädesanförande hållet vid Kungl. Örlogsmannasällskapets ordinarie sammanträde i Stockholm, pp 137–149
Treves T (2009) Piracy, law of the sea, and use of force: developments off Coast of Somalia. Eur J Int Law 20(2):399–414 CrossRef
US Department of State (2003) Proliferation Security Initiative: Chairman’s Statement at the Third Meeting. Third Meeting of the PSI, September 3–4, 2003. http://2001-2009.state.gov/t/isn/rls/other/25425.htm. Accessed 16 Feb 2016
US Department of State Proliferation Security Initiative. http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c10390.htm. Accessed 16 Feb 2016
Vukas B (2004). The law of the sea: selected writings. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
Winner AC (2005) The proliferation security initiative: the new face of interdiction. Wash Q 28(2):129–143 CrossRef
Wolfrum R (2009) Freedom of navigation: new challenges. In: Norquist MH, Koh TT, Moore NJ (eds) Freedom of seas, passage rights and the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. Matinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston, pp 79–94
Yearbook of International Law Commission Volume II (1956)
Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 1996, p 66
- The Right of Innocent Passage: The Challenge of the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Implications for the Territorial Waters of the Åland Islands