International Law of the Sea

Reviewing Britain Vs Russia Incident at Black Sea

HOME

BACK

JUNE 2021 Download this Article

United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea

When Russia claimed to have fired warning shots over Britain's navy ships in Crimean waters, we are forced to open the UNCLOS to figure out, who is at fault.

On the 23rd of June, a Royal Navy destroyer ship, HMS Defender, set out for sail from Odesa in Ukraine to Georgia. It followed the international maritime trade route in the Black Sea.

Crimea is claimed to be Russian occupied territory by NATO and that it is a Ukrainian territory. In the official statement by British ministry of defence, it insisted that HMS Defender was in Ukranian waters.

समुद्र का अंतर्राष्ट्रीय कानून

When the HMS Defender came close 12 miles to Sevastopol, Crimea, it raised the alarm from the Russian coast guards and air force. Sevastopol is home to the Russian all-powerful Black Sea Fleet.

The presence of the HMS Defender was considered hostile and provocative by Russia. The coast guards issued a warning over the radio, and the British ship buzzed by SU-30, taking more than two dozen flights around, coming at times too close for comfort.

All this is happening in light of the continued row between Russia and the West. Russia continues to take aggressive posturing in Ukraine, and Britain is accusing Russia of Novock poisoning, cyberattacks and interfering in internal affairs.

Recently Britain took a U-turn in its nuclear policy and decided to increase its nuclear stockpile. The nuclear weapn review was Russia centric and aimed to balance the threat from Moscow.

A few weeks ago, Russian Premier Vladimir Putin proclaimed that he sees the lowest point in NATO relations with Russia. The times are sensitive.

While Royal Navy is accused of violating the Russian territorial waters, Britain, in its defence, cites the UN laws of the Sea for justifying its presence in the region.

Now that the Law of the Sea contents needs referencing in light of this incidence, we will review sections relevant to this situation.

Did Royal Navy break the Law of the Sea, or Russia was wrong in firing the warning shots?

According to Article 17:

"Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea".

The words "Innocent Passage" are in contention between the two countries, which has led to a diplomatic row between the EU, NATO on one side and Russia on the other.

Here is a further interpretation of the keywords in the Law of the Sea.

According to Article 18:

The "Passage" is defined as follows:

1. Passage means navigation through the territorial Sea for the purpose

of:

(a) traversing that Sea without entering internal waters or calling at

a roadstead or port facility outside internal waters; or

(b) proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such roadstead or port facility.

समुद्र का अंतर्राष्ट्रीय कानून

The British HMS Defender was sailing from Odesa, Ukraine, to Georgia following an international trade route. It certainly did not enter the internal waters of Crimea.

2. Passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage

includes stopping and anchoring, but only in so far as the same are incidental to ordinary navigation or are rendered necessary by force majeure or distress or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in

danger or distress.

HMS Defender sailed continuously with a uniform speed on the set international course. It did not stop for any reason mentioned in section 2, article 18.

So far, HMS Defender was not wrong in making that passage. But why did the Russians find it provocative?

According to Article 19, "Innocent" Passage is defined as follows:

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good

order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international Law.

The coastal State is Russia, though NATO considers Crimea as Russian occupied Ukrainian territory. Therefore, the Russian State can, on its own will assume the threat posed by a fully loaded British destroyer in its vicinity.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the

peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial Sea it

engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial

integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any

other manner in violation of the principles of international Law

embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

defence or security of the coastal State;

(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;

Section 2 of Article 19 contains all the reasons that will not account for "innocent" passage.

Referring to the relevant ones – sub-section (c) makes the most probable reason why Russia has legal rights to issue warnings of varying severity.

Sub-section (c) talks against "collecting information", and Sub-section (j) indicates activities of "research" and "survey".

In today's highly sophisticated technological warfare world, any vessel from a hostile county near strategic naval base will be treated with suspicion.

The British ship doesn't need to be close to the coastal State to collect information or test any warfare strategy. Also, the passage may not be just limited to activity visible on the surface. What information was being collected underwater during the course is unknown.

समुद्र का अंतर्राष्ट्रीय कानून

For all practical purposes, it could be an innocent passage, but the prevailing geopolitical conditions make it hard to believe any side of its intention.

One thing to take away from this incident is not good news.

Both sides are not backing down for the sake of world peace. If peace was the highest priority, then the British Navy should have made efforts to make an "Informed" "Innocent" passage.

Considering the susceptible geopolitical situation, the Royal Navy should have been more responsible for their Crimean waters. There are ways to do that, using the proper channels of communication.

Russians could have been less aggressive to the passage and avoided visual demonstration of warning shots and aggressive fly-past.

Imagine one misfire from either side by local commanders, and the situation could have sparked another crisis involving many nuclear-armed countries.

Indeed, more precautions need to be taken by both sides.