Recourse to international law to resolve an international dispute is the only possible way to resolve international clashes. Peaceful settlement is a key component of security, the formation of a system of international relations based on the exclusion of the use of force, mutual understanding, cooperation and trust between the subjects of international law. But how effective are such tools when mutual understanding and trust are no longer there and, on the contrary, dialogue takes place from a position of strength?

The task of the article is to analyse the mechanisms of international legal protection of maritime spaces, their effectiveness and problems of application to protect the maritime spaces of Ukraine in the context of the Russian aggression against Ukraine.

Filing a lawsuit within the International Court of Justice for the international legal protection of Ukraine’s maritime space in the context of the Russian aggression against Ukraine is not effective, as there are certain jurisdictional restrictions that prevent recourse to the Court in certain categories of cases. Therefore, states resort to some trick, trying to justify the jurisdiction of the Court on the basis of international instruments that indirectly regulate disputed legal relations, but have an arbitration clause. In such cases, there is a risk of loss, and therefore in such cases it is proposed to file a lawsuit against a specific international offense, using the principle of forum prorogatum, which provides for the possible recognition of the jurisdiction of the UN Court upon recourse.

The official use of the terms “aggression”, “armed aggression” in the legal field may remove the Russian Federation from the jurisdiction of the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea by reserving the latter in accordance with Art. 298 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (on disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft).

Although Russia made a reservation regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over disputes concerning military activities, the Tribunal ruled that the case of detained Ukrainian sailors was not a dispute over military activities as provided for in Article 298 (1) (b). This is an important decision, given the lack of a clear definition of “military activity”, which allows member states to be exempted from the procedure of compulsory settlement of disputes under the 1982 Convention.

The Tribunal issued an Order to release the crew members of detained Ukrainian warships, contrary to its position on Russia’s military activities, which it sought to remove from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Thus, the Tribunal found that the confrontation over the peaceful passage was a navigational issue rather than a matter of military activity,and Russia’s temporary cessation of the peaceful passage to stop the transit of Ukrainian warships is a law enforcement rather than a military activity.

The Tribunal’s interim decision contains a significant political component that is not a fixed category and may vary according to the political situation.

Taking into account the position of the representatives of Ukraine, it is necessary to analyze the condition of procedural implementation of state security guarantees and protect its interests, identify ways to minimize the negative consequences of improper representation of the state in international courts.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Campbell-Mohn C and Breen В and Futrel J, From Resources to Recovery. Environmental Law (1993) (in English).

2. Rosenne S, The law and practice of the International Court (1985) (in English).

3. Dromina N, Yurysdyktsiia mizhnarodnykh kryminalnykh sudiv i trybunaliv (2006) (in Ukrainian).

4. Kononenko V, Razreshenie territorial’nyh sporov Mezhdunarodnym Sudom OON: teorija i praktika (2017) (in Russian).

5. Kuznetsov S ta Averochkina T, Morske pravo (2011) (in Ukrainian).

Edited books

6. Luban D, ‘Just War and Human Rights’ in Beitz C et al (eds), International Ethics (1985) (in English). 7. Dmitrichenko I, ‘Mezhdunarodnoe morskoe pravo i razgranichenie morskih prostranstv v Chernom more mezhdu Ukrainoj i Rossiej’ v Mel’nik A i Mel’nik S i Korotkiy T (red), Mezhdunarodnoe pravo kak osnova sovremennogo miroporjadka (2012) (in Russian).

8. Kononenko V ta Tymchenko L, ‘Terytorialni superechky – sudovi ta sylovi formaty vyrishennia’ v Zadorozhnii O (red), Ukrainska Revoliutsiia hidnosti, RF i mizhnarodne pravo (2014) (in Ukrainian).

9. Mizhnarodne pravo v dokumentakh (Buromenskiy M red, Vyd Nats un-tu vnutr sprav 2003) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

10. Waldock C, ‘Forum Prorogatum or Acceptance of a Unilateral Summons to Appear before the International Court’ (1948) 2 International Law Quarterly 377–91 (in English).

11. Yee S, ‘Forum Prorogatum and the Advisory Proceedings of the International Court’ [2001] 95 (2) American Journal of International Law 381–5 (in English).

12. Yee S, ‘Forum Prorogatum Returns to the International Court of Justice’ (2003) 16 Leiden Journal of International 703 (in English).

13. Bezzub I, ‘Onovlennia morskoi polityky Ukrainy’ [2019] 1 (166) Hromadska dumka pro pravotvorennia 3–9 (in Ukrainian).

14. Kaminskyi I, ‘Kontseptsiia derzhavnoho suverenitetu’ (2017) 16 Almanakh mezhdunarodnoho prava 3–10 (in Ukrainian).

15. Kononenko V, ‘Akty mezhdunarodnyh i nacional’nyh sudov po voprosam territorial’noj celostnosti gosudarstv’ [2016] 4 (11) Revista Moldovenească de Drept Internaţional şi Relaţii Internaţionale 617–24 (in Russian).

16. Kononenko V, ‘Praktyka Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny yak dodatkove dzherelo prava pry tlumachenni konstytutsiinykh norm’ [2012] 19 (1) Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia Pravo 178–81 (in Ukrainian).

17. Kononenko V, ‘Zakhyst ekonomichnykh interesiv derzhavy i fizychnykh osib Mizhnarodnym Sudom OON’ [2013] 1 (65) Ekonomika rozvytku 60 (in Ukrainian).

Theses

18. Bunik I, ‘Mezhdunarodno-pravovye osnovanija regulirovanija Rossiej sudohodstva po Severnomu morskomu puti’ (avtoref dis kand jurid nauk, 2007) (in Russian).

19. Dmytrychenko I, ‘Rozmezhuvannia morskykh prostoriv mizh pryberezhnymy derzhavamy u mizhnarodnomu morskomu pravi: teoriia i praktyka’ (avtoref dys kand yuryd nauk, 2003) (in Ukrainian).

20. Haritonov V, ‘Teorija i praktika pravovogo obespechenija delimitacii pribrezhnyh morskih prostranstv i ih uchet v dejatel’nosti Federal’noj sluzhby bezopasnosti Rossijskoj Federacii’ (dis kand jurid nauk, 2005) (in Russian).

Conference papers

21. Kononenko V, ‘Vplyv praktyky Mizhnarodnoho Sudu OON na formuvannia rezhymu mizhnarodnykh protok’ v Natsionalne ta mizhnarodne pravo yak instrumenty zabezpechennia derzhavnoi ta hlobalnoi stabilnosti: mater. Vseukrainskoi nauk.-prakt. konferentsii: u 2-kh chastynakh, ch 2 (Tsentr pravnychykh initsiatyv 2011) 297–313 (in Ukrainian).

22. Kononenko V, ‘K voprosu o nalichii viny Ukrainy v gibeli malazijskogo Boinga 777. Analiz konvencionnyh norm i sudebnoj praktiki’ v Aktualni problemy suchasnoho mizhnarodnoho prava: zb. nauk. statei za materialamy II Kharkiv. mizhnarod.-prav. chytan, prysviach. pamiati prof. M. V. Yanovskoho i V. S. Semenova, ch 1 (Pravo 2016) 70–5 (in Russian).

Websites

23. Ishii Y, ‘The Distinction Between Military and Law Enforcement Activities: Comments on Case Concerning the Detention of Three Ukrainian Naval Vessels’ (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures Order. May 31, 2019 <https://www.ejiltalk. org/the-distinction-between-military-and-law-enforcement-activities-comments-oncaseconcerning-the-detention-of-three-ukrainian-naval-vessels-ukraine-v-russianfederationprovisional-measures-order/> (accessed: 10.10.2020) (in English).

24. Kraska J, ‘Did ITLOS Just Kill the Military Activities Exemption in Article 298?’ <https://www.ejiltalk.org/did-itlos-just-kill-the-military-activities-exemption-inarticle298> (accessed: 10.10.2020) (in English).

25. ‘Holova Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy Andrii Parubii peredav Zvernennia Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy u zv’iazku z aktom ahresii Rosiiskoi Federatsii proty Ukrainy Prezydentu Yevroparlamentu Antonio Taiani’ <https://www.rada.gov.ua/news/Novyny/165025. html> accessed: 10.10.2020) (in Ukrainian).

26. ‘Poroshenko zbyraie Voiennyi kabinet cherez sytuatsiiu v Kerchenskii prototsi’ <https://www.5.ua/polityka/poroshenko-zbyraie-voiennyi-kabinet-cherez-sytuatsiiu-vkerchenskiiprototsi-181834.html> (accessed: 10.10.2020) (in Ukrainian).