On 31 August 2018, the Tribunal hearing Ukraine’s case against the  Russian Federation under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law  of the Sea (“UNCLOS”) published a procedural order determining that it would rule on certain jurisdictional objections  raised by the Russian Federation in a preliminary phase of the  proceedings.

On 19 February 2018, Ukraine filed a Memorial with the UNCLOS Tribunal establishing that Russia has violated  Ukraine’s sovereign rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch  Strait.  Ukraine’s Memorial showed that, since 2014, Russia has  unlawfully excluded Ukraine from exercising its maritime rights; it has  exploited Ukraine’s sovereign resources for its own ends; and it has  usurped Ukraine’s right to regulate within its own maritime areas.  Through these violations of international law, Russia is stealing  Ukraine’s energy and fisheries resources, harming the livelihoods of  Ukrainian fishermen, and blocking traffic to Ukrainian ports with its  illegal bridge over the Kerch Strait, among other serious violations.

Rather than respond to the merits of Ukraine’s case, the Russian  Federation filed objections to the jurisdiction of the UNCLOS Tribunal  on 22 May 2018, as permitted by the Tribunal’s rules of procedure.  As  is common practice in inter-state disputes, the UNCLOS Tribunal has  elected to hear these objections in a preliminary phase of the  proceedings, before hearing the case on the merits.

Ukraine does not believe that the Russian Federation’s jurisdictional  objections are plausible or that they will be accepted by the  Tribunal. 

Russia’s primary jurisdictional objection is that Ukraine’s claims do  not actually concern UNCLOS, but instead are an attempt to obtain a  ruling confirming Ukraine’s sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula.   This objection blatantly misconstrues Ukraine’s claim.  Ukraine has  brought a dispute concerning maritime rights in the Black Sea, Sea of  Azov, and Kerch Strait that are established under and defined by  UNCLOS.  That Ukraine enjoys such maritime rights is recognized by the  international community — for more than two decades after the  dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine's continuous and peaceful  exercise of the rights now at issue attracted no controversy.  It is a  core function of the UNCLOS dispute resolution system to address claims  of the sort brought by Ukraine, involving an attempt by one State Party  to interfere with and usurp the established maritime rights of another  State Party.  Moreover, Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea needs no  further confirmation:  it is overwhelmingly accepted by the  international community as a whole, and it has been affirmed three times  by the U.N. General Assembly (in 2014, 2016 and 2017).

Russia’s remaining jurisdictional objections are similarly  unfounded.  For example, in what Russia describes as its second most  important jurisdictional objection, Russia argues that the Sea of Azov  and Kerch Strait are not subject to UNCLOS because Ukraine and Russia  have agreed to maintain these areas as “common internal waters.”  Yet,  in reality, Russia has seized Ukrainian gas fields in the Sea of Azov,  purported to unilaterally nullify Ukrainian licenses for such gas  fields, unilaterally built a bridge and other structures across the  Kerch Strait, and imposed unilateral limits on the dimensions of vessels  that may pass through the Strait.  Each of these actions is  irreconcilable with Russia’s assertion that Ukraine and Russia have  maintained common sovereignty over the Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait — an  arrangement that would entitle Ukraine to participate in the very  hydrocarbon extraction, construction, navigational, and other activities  in those bodies of water from which Russia has excluded it.

Ministry of Foreign affairs looks forward to fully addressing each of  the Russian Federation’s jurisdictional objections before the UNCLOS  Tribunal, and to returning to the merits of its case as expeditiously as  possible. 

Ukraine believes that Russia must and will be held accountable for its serious breaches of the international law of the sea.