The Kerch Incident: Security Interests and International Law

ABSTRACT

The events of November 23–26, 2018, in the Black Sea near the entrance to the Kerch Strait, resulted in Russia’s detention of Ukrainian Navy ships and sailors. This crisis confronted the community of experts of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and third countries with a host of thorny questions. How legitimate were Russia’s actions in terms of international law? Did it overstep its authority? Was there a planned provocation by Ukraine? Who bears the greater responsibility for the incident? What political and legal consequences could come out of it? The article explores answers to these questions.

KEYWORDS:

• Kerch Strait
• Kerch-Yenikale Canal
• Sea of Azov; U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea
• International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
• Permanent Court of Arbitration
• jurisdiction
• immunity
• warships
• right of innocent passage
• border regime

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Opredelenie agressii. Utverzhdeno rezoliutsiei 3314 (XXIX) General’noi Assamblei ot 14 dekabria 1974 g.

2. Kraska, J. The “ARA Libertad” (Argentina v. Ghana), American Journal of International Law, Vol. 107, No. 2, 2013, pp. 404–410.

3. Karaman, I.V. Mezhdunarodnyi Tribunal po morskomu pravu: reglamentatsiia deiatel’nosti i sudoproizvodstvo.

4. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) Case No 20. The “ARA Libertad” Case (Argentina v. Ghana). URL: https://www.itlos.org/cases/list-of-cases/case-no-20.

5. Vylegzhanin, A.N., and N.A. Churilina. “Mezhdunarodno-pravovye osnovaniia iurisdiktsionnogo immuniteta gosudarstv,” Moskovskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, 2015, No. 2, pp. 35–51.

6. Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders. The “Ara Libertad” Case (Argentina v. Ghana). List of Cases: No 20. ITLOS Provisional Measures Order of 15 December 2012. § 44.URL: https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.20/published/C20_Order_151212.pdf.

7. Ibid., §46.

8. Ibid., §55.

9. Joint Separate Opinion of Judges Wolfrum and Judge Cot. ITLOS.

10. Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders. The “Ara Libertad” Case (Argentina v. Ghana). Op. cit. § 94.

11. Vylegzhanin, A.N., and R.A. Kalamkarian. “Mezhdunarodnyi obychai kak osnovnoi istochnik mezhdunarodnogo pravda,” Gosudarstvo i pravo, 2012, No. 6, pp. 81–83.

12. Kraska, J. The “ARA Libertad” (Argentina v. Ghana), op. cit., p. 408.

13. Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders. The “Ara Libertad” Case (Argentina v. Ghana). Op. cit. § 97.

14. Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary / Ed. by A.Proelss., p. 247.

15. Provisional measures are measures that provide that both parties to a dispute will refrain from any actions that could exacerbate judicial proceedings or impede its resolution. In effect, the point is to freeze the conflict until the court/tribunal issues its judgment.

16. Case concerning the detention of three Ukrainian naval vessels (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). Verbatim Record. ITLOS/PV.19/C26/1/Rev.1. ITLOS. Р. 11.

17. Request of Ukraine for the prescription of provisional measures under article 290, paragraph 5, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 16 April 2019. ITLOS.

18. Ibid.

19. Dogovor mezhdu Rossiiskoi Federatsiei i Ukrainoi o sotrudnichestve v ispol’zovanii Azovskogo moria i Kerchenskogo proliva. 24 dekiabria 2003.

20. Pro zatverzhdennia Pravil plavannia suden Kerch-IEnikal’s’kim kanalom i pidkhidnimi kanalami do n’ogo. Nakaz Ministerstva transportu Ukraïni vid 9 zhovtnia 2002 roku No. 721. [In Ukrainian.]

21. Ministerstvo transporta Rossiiskoi Federatsii. Prikaz ot 21 oktiabria 2015 g. No. 313 “Ob utverzhdenii Obiazatel’nykh postanovlenii v morskom portu Kerch’.”

22. Case concerning the detention of three Ukrainian naval vessels (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation), provisional measures. Memorandum of the Government of the Russian Federation. 7 May 2019. ITLOS.

23. Declarations and Reservations. Ukraine. UNCLOS.

24. Declarations and Reservations. Russian Federation. UNCLOS.

25. Case concerning the detention of three Ukrainian naval vessels, op. cit.

26. Dissenting opinion of Judge Kolodkin. ITLOS.

27. Ibid.

28. “Delo ‘Arctic Sunrise’ bylo ochen’ politizirovannym.” Interv’iu Vladimira Golitsyna, Prezidenta Mezhdunarodnogo tribunala OON po morskomu pravu. Zakon.ru, 10/31/2014.

29. Case concerning the detention of three Ukrainian naval vessels (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional measures. Tribunal prescribes provisional measures ordering the Russian Federation to release three Ukrainian naval vessels and their 24 servicemen. ITLOS Press-release no. 284. 25 May 2019.

30. Case concerning the detention of three Ukrainian naval vessels, op. cit., §68.

31. Ibid., §73–74.

32. Ibid., §124.

33. Ibid., §119.

34. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine. Letter re: Dispute Concerning the Detention of Three Ukrainian Naval Vessels. ITLOS Case No. 26. 25 June 2019.

35. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russian Federation Letter, 25 June 2019. ITLOS.

36. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine. Letter re: Dispute Concerning the Detention of Three Ukrainian Naval Vessels, op. cit.

37. “Klimkin zaiavil o predlozhenii Rossii osvobodit’ ukrainskikh moriakov do suda,” Kommersant.ru, 4/17/2020.

38. “Rossiia i Ukraina provodiat obmen zaderzhannymi. Khronologiia sobytii,” Nezavisimaia gazeta, 9/7/2019.

39. Kommentarii Departamenta informatsii i pechati MID Rossii v sviazi s peredachei Ukraine voennykh korablei, zaderzhannykh v noaibre 2018 goda v khode provokatsii Kieva v raione Kerchenskogo proliva. 11/18/2019.

40. Zou, K., and Q. Ye. “Interpretation and Application of Article 298 of the Law of the Sea Convention in Recent Annex VII Arbitrations: An Appraisal,” Ocean Development and International Law, Vol. 48, Nos. 3–4, 2017, pp. 331–344.

41. Roach, A., and R. Smith. Excessive Maritime Claims, pp. 794–795.

42. Kraska, J. “Did ITLOS just kill the military activities exemption in Article 298?” EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. 5/27/2019. Idem. “The Kerch Strait Incident: Law of the Sea or Law of Naval Warfare?” Ibid. 12/3/2018.

43. Kraska, J. “Did ITLOS just kill the military activities exemption in Article 298?,” op. cit.; Idem. “The Kerch Strait Incident: Law of the Sea or Law of Naval Warfare?,” op. cit.

44. Law of Naval Warfare.

45. Nuridzhanian, G. “Ukraine vs. Russia in International Courts and Tribunals.” EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. 3/9/2016.

46. “Ukraina pozhalovalas’ na Rossiiu v ESPCh iz-za intsidenta v Chernom More,” Rosbizneskonsalting (RBK), 11/30/2018.

47. ECHR puts questions to Russian Government after receiving new inter-State case from Ukraine concerning events in the Sea of Azov. European Court of Human Rights no. 412 (2018). 11/30/2018.

48. Dispute concerning the detention of Ukrainian naval vessels and servicemen (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation). Permanent Court of Arbitration.

49. PCA Case no. 2017-06 in the matter of a dispute concerning coastal state rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait before an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex vii to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the law of the sea between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Rejoinder of Ukraine on jurisdiction. Permanent Court of Arbitration, 28 March 2019.

50. Gudev, P.A. “Azovskoe more i Kerchenskii proliv: problemy delimitatsii morskikh prostranstv i opredeleniia pravovogo statusa,” Mirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, 2018, No. 10, 91–102.

51. Nikolaev, A.N., and E.L. Sokolova. “Status zaliva Fonseka (po materialam Mezhdunarodnogo Suda OON,” Moskovskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, 2013, No. 4, pp. 89–97.

52. PCA Case no. 2017-06 in the matter of a dispute concerning coastal state rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait, op. cit. §53–57.

53. Ibid., § 73–79.

54. Ibid., § 79–83.

55. “Most v Krym meshaiut stroit’ obychai. Pochemu nel’zia stroit’ most v Krym bez razresheniia Ukrainy,” Gazeta.ru, 1/12/2015.

56. PCA Case no. 2017-06 in the matter of a dispute concerning coastal state rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait, op. cit. §88–90.

57. PCA Case no. 2017-06 in the matter of an Arbitration before an arbitral tribunal constituted under annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the law of the sea between Ukraine and the Russian Federation in respect of dispute concerning coastal state rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait. Award concerning the preliminary objections of the Russian Federation. Permanent Court of Arbitration, 21 February 2020.

58. Tzeng, P. “Ukraine v. Russia and Philippines v. China: Jurisdiction and Legitimacy,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2017, pp. 1–19.

59. Jia, B.B. “The Principle of the Domination of the Land over the Sea: A Historical Perspective on the Adaptability of the Law of the Sea to New Challenges.” In German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 57, 2014, pp. 1–32.

60. PCA Case no. 2017-06 in the matter of an Arbitration, op. cit. §291.

61. Therefore, this right can be applied with respect to the Kerch Strait, and hence the vessels and ships of all states can exercise it.

62. Dispute concerning the detention of Ukrainian naval vessels and servicemen, op. cit.

63. Dispute concerning the detention of Ukrainian naval vessels and servicemen (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation), the Hague, 2 December 2019. Procedural hearing in Arbitration under Law of the Sea Convention. Permanent Court of Arbitration Press Release.

64. PCA Case no. 2019-28 in the matter of Arbitration. Before an arbitral tribunal constituted under annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the law of the sea Between Ukraine and the Russian Federation in respect of a dispute concerning the detention of Ukrainian naval vessels and servicemen. Permanent Court of Arbitration. Procedural Order no. 1.

65. “Ukraina budet sudit’sia s RF v tribunale po morskomu pravu nesmotria na vozvrashchenie korablei,” Evropeiskaia pravda, 11/18/2019.

66. The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia). Permanent Court of Arbitration.

67. “Ukraina budet sudit’sia s RF,” op. cit.

68. The Arctic Sunrise Case (Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

69. The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia), op. cit.

70. “Delo ‘Arctic Sunrise’ bylo ochen’ politizirovannym,” op. cit.

71. Arbitrazhnoe razbiratel’stvo “Arktik Sanraiz” (Niderlandy protiv Rossii). Press-reliz. Sostav arbitrazha vynes Reshenie po sushchestvu spora. 24 avgusta 2015 g. Postoiannaia palata treteiskogo suda (PPTS); Arbitrazhnoe razbiratel’stvo “Arktik Sanraiz” (Niderlandy protiv Rossii). Gaaga, 18 fevralia 2015 g. Dopolnitel’nye Zaivleniia Niderlandov. Slushaniia v Vene. PPTS; Arbitrazhnoe razbiratel’stvo “Arktik Sanraiz” (Niderlandy protiv Rossii). Gaaga, 17 iiulia 2017 g. Sostav arbitrazha vynosit Reshenie o kompensatsii. PPTS.

72. “Russian-Dutch settlement on Arctic Sunrise is a recognition of international law,” Raam op Rusland, 5/22/2019.

73. For more detail, see Kiselev, I. “Intsident v Kerchenskom prolive. 28 noiabria 2018,” Livejournal. Ivan Kiselev. 4/12/2019.

74. Dogovor mezhdu Rossiiskoi Federatsiei i Ukrainoi o rossiisko-ukrainskoi gosudarstvennoi granitse. 28 ianvaria 2003 g.

75. Dogovor mezhdu Rossiiskoi Federatsiei i Ukrainoi o sotrudnichestve v ispol’zovanii Azovskogo moria i Kerchenskogo proliva. 24 dekabria 2003 g.