Azov and Black Sea Region: New Political and Legal Realities (Part II)

Affiliation: Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences (IMEMO)
Address: Moscow, Russian Federation

Journal name

Mirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia

Edition

Volume 62 Issue 11

Pages

87-98

Abstract

The Black Sea is a unique maritime region of great strategic importance not only for regional states, but also for non-regional players – especially for the NATO countries. For the Russian Federation it is the maritime area of its Black Sea Fleet location, the exit of which into the Mediterranean Sea and further to the Atlantic Ocean lies through the Black Sea straits of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. For NATO members which are constantly strengthening their naval presence here, it is not only a region of interaction with allies (Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey), but also a region for direct access to potential partners – Georgia and Ukraine, as well as a place for naval exercises, gathering intelligence information, and, in general, – the area of direct contact with Russia’s naval potential under conditions of a new Cold War. This existing level of conflict in the region is aggravated by a number of other circumstances. Firstly, these are unresolved issues with the delimitation of maritime spaces: between Russia and Ukraine, the problem of which has only intensified after the entry of Crimea into the Russian Federation; between Russia and other Black Sea countries (Romania, Turkey, Abkhazia), also emerged after the Crimea’s accession. Secondly, this is the nonrecognition of Russian zones of sovereignty and jurisdiction around the peninsula on the part of Kiev, and the filing of relevant lawsuits in international courts and arbitrations, which is hypothetically fraught with a growth of provocations in the waters adjacent to Crimea. Thirdly, this is a gradual aspiration of Turkey to strengthen the national level of regulation for navigation through the straits – the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. Finally, unrealized projects of the NATO’s Black Sea flotilla only exacerbate the tension here. Whether Russia will fully ensure the protection of its national interests in the Black Sea region, will determine its status of the largest and the most powerful Black Sea state.

Keywords

Crimea, Black Sea, Black Sea straits, Montreux Convention, 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, delimitation of maritime spaces, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, International Arbitration

Received

14.12.2018

Publication date

14.12.2018

Cite Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in

GOST	Gudev P. Azov and Black Sea Region: New Political and Legal Realities (Part II) // Mirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia – 2018. – V. 62. – Issue 11 C. 87-98 [Electronic resource]. URL: http://ras.jes.su/meimo/s013122270003091-1-1-en (circulation date: 09.09.2024). DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2018-62-11-87
MLA	Gudev, Pavel "Azov and Black Sea Region: New Political and Legal Realities (Part II)." Mirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia 62.11 (2018):87-98. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2018-62-11-87
APA	Gudev P. (2018). Azov and Black Sea Region: New Political and Legal Realities (Part II). Mirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia 62(11), pp.87-98 DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2018-62-11-87

Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Maritime delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine). International Court of justice. Available at: http://www.icj-cij. org/en/case/132 (accessed 20.03.2018).

2. Surzin A.S. Mezhdunarodno-pravovoi rezhim Chernogo morya (vklyuchaya Azovo-Kerchenskuyu akvatoriyu i chernomorskie prolivy). Diss. cand. ur. nauk [The international legal regime of the Black Sea (including the Azov-Kerch water area and the Black Sea straits) Cand. Diss (Jur.)]. Moscow, RUDN, 2011. 239 p.

3. Dremlyuga R. I. Mezhdunarodno-pravovoirezhim Chernomorskikh prolivov [International legal status of the Black Sea Straits]. Lex Russica, 2013, no. 10, pp. 1107-1114.

4. Buzan B. The Status and Future of the Montreux Convention. Survival, 1976, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 242-247.

5. Knight G. H. The Kiev and the Turkish Straits. The American Journal of the International Law, 1977, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 125-129.

6. Nezhinskii L. N., Ignat’ev A.V., eds. Rossiya i Chernomorskie prolivy (XVIII-XX stoletiya). [Russia and Black Sea Straits (XVIII-XX centuries]. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 1999. 557 p.

7. Kotlyar V. S. Mezhdunarodno-pravovoi rezhim chernomorskikh prolivov i politikaTurtsii v voprose o rezhimeprolivov [International legal regime of the Black Sea Straits and Turkey’s policy concerning the straits Regime]. Mezhdunarodnoe morskoe pravo. Stat’i pamyati A. L. Kolodkina [International Law of the Sea. Articles in memory of A. L. Kolodkin]. Kolodkin R. A., Punzhin S. M., eds. Moscow, Statut, 2014. 418 p.

8. Shemyakin A. N. Chernomorskie prolivy: istoriya i sovremennost’ [The Black Sea Straits: history and the present]. Transportnoe pravo, 2003, no. 4, pp. 26-30.

9. Kolodkin A. L., Gutsulyak V. N., Bobrova Yu. V. Mirovoi okean. Mezhdunarodno-pravovo i rezhim. Osnovnye problem [World Ocean. The international legal regime. Mainproblems]. Moscow, Statut, 2007. 637 p.

10. Plant G. Navigation regime in the Turkish Straits for Merchant Ships in Peacetime. Marine Policy, 1996, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 15-27.

11. Fornari M. Conflicting interests in the Turkish Straits: is the Free Passage of Merchant Ships still Applicable? The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 2005, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 225-247.

12. Joyner Ch., Mitchell J. Regulating Navigation trough the Turkish Straits: a Challenge for Modern International Environmental Law. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 2002, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 521-559.

13. Zanina V. Iz Kremlya Bosfor ne viden [Bosfor us is not visible from the Kremlin]. International Affairs, 2014, no. 6, pp. 82-94.

14. Order of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation of November 26, 2014 no. 659 “On the limits of the border zone in the territory of the Republic of Crimea”. Rossiiskaya gazeta, 17.12.2014. (In Russ.)

15. Limits at the Seas. No. 109. Continental Shelf Boundary: Turkey-USSR. Available at: https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/58383.pdf (accessed 15.02.2018).

16. Abkhazia protests Georgia over detention of Ukrainian ship. RIAN.COM.UA, 02.07.2018. (In Russ.) Available at: http://rian.com.ua/world_news/20100730/78465342.html (accessed 18.02.2018).

17. Syrian captain suffered for the Crimea. Ukraine confiscated cargo and vessel from Tanzania for visiting Crimea (In Russ.) Available at: https://www.gazeta.ru/social/2017/03/17/10579721.shtml (accessed 28.02.2018).

18. Ukrainian border guards detained in the Sea of Azov Russian fishing vessel. Gazeta.Ru, 17.03.2017. (In Russ.) Available at: http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/5066125http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/5066125 (accessed 03.03.2018).

19. The Law of Ukraine “On ensuring the rights and freedoms of citizens and the legal regime in the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine”. Vіdomostі Verkhovnoї Radi, 2014, no. 26, st. 892 (In Ukr.) Available at: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1207-18 (accessed 14.03.2018).

20. On the Sea Ports closing (In Ukr.) Available at: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/ z0690-14 (accessed 12.03.2018).

21. IMO Maritime Safety Committee. 97th session, MSC97/4/2, 19 September 2016. Safety and security of navigation in the North- Eastern part of the Black Sea Submitted by Georgia and Ukraine. Available at: https://docs.imo.org/Shared/Download.aspx?did=99517 (accessed 15.03.2018).

22. Everest Estate LLC et al. v. The Russian Federation. Available at: https://pcacases.com/web/view/133 (accessed 15.03.2018).

23. Stabil LLC, (ii) Rubenor LLC, (iii) Rustel LLC, (iv) Novel-Estate LLC, (v) PII Kirovograd-Nafta LLC, (vi) Crimea-Petrol LLC, (vii) Pirsan LLC, (viii) Trade-Trust LLC, (ix) Elefteria LLC, (x) VKF Satek LLC,(xi) Stemv Group LLC v. The Russian Federation. Available at: https://pcacases.com/web/view/122 (accessed 15.03.2018).

24. Limited Liability Company Lugzor, (2) Limited Liability Company Libset, (3) Limited Liability Company Ukrinterinvest, (4) Public Joint Stock Company niproADzot, (5) Limited Liability Company Aberon Ltd v. The Russian Federation. Available at: https://pcacases.com/web/view/124 (accessed 15.03.2018).

25. PJSC CB Privat Bank and Finance Company Finilon LLC v. The Russian Federation. Available at: https://pcacases.com/web/ view/130 (accessed 15.03.2018).

26. Aeroport Belbek LLC and Mr. Igor Valerievich Kolomoisky v. The Russian Federation. Available at: https://pcacases.com/web/ view/123 (accessed 15.03.2018).

27. NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine (Ukraine) et al. v. The Russian Federation. Available at: https://pcacases.com/web/view/151 (accessed 15.03.2018).

28. Tzeng P. Sovereignty over Crimea: A Case for State-to-State Investment Arbitration. Yale Journal of International Law, 2016, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 459-468.

29. Bing Bing Jia. 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. German Yearbook of International Law, 2014, no. 57, pr. 1-32.

30. Karaman I. V. Mezhdunarodnyi Tribunal po morskomu pravu: reglamentatsiya deyatel’nosti i sudoproizvodstvo [International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea: regulation of Activities and Legal Proceeding]. Odessa, Feniks, 2007. 160 p.

31. Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation). Available at: https://pca-cpa.org/ru/cases/149/ (accessed 17.03.2018).

32. Rules of the Procedure. Available at: https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2136 (accessed 19.03.2018).

33. Keyuan Zou, Qiang 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, 2017, vol. 48, issue 3-4, pp. 331-344. DOI:10.1080/00908320.2017.1320917

34. Statement given to the Informal Meeting of Legal Advisers of Ministries of Foreign Affairs. New York, 23 October 2006. Available at: https://www.itlos.org/press-media/statements-of-the-president/statements-of-president-wolfrum/ (accessed 19.03.2018).

35. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Declarations made upon signature, ratification, accession or succession or anytime thereafter. Ukraine. Available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations. htm#Ukraine%20Upon%20ratification (accessed 19.03.2018).

36. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Declarations made upon signature, ratification, accession or succession or anytime thereafter. Russian Federation. Available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm#Russian%20Federation%20Upon%20ratification (accessed 20.03.2018).

37. Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom). Available at: https://pcacases.com/web/view/11 (accessed 25.03.2018).

38. Tzeng P. Ukraine v. Russia and Philippines v. China: Jurisdiction and Legitimacy. Denver Journal of International Law and Police, 2017, vol. 46, pp. 1-19.