Dear CCI Readers,
Never have I had more supporters and detractors than with yesterday’s post regarding the Azov debacle!
Worse still, I quoted Patrick Buchanan (whose humorous pieces I usually enjoy) regarding the Azov waters being like a “Russian lake.” It sounded reasonable at a quick glance… but later, looking at a larger map of the area, I saw that Mariupol was on the shoreline! Was Pat thinking the port was in Eastern Ukraine, therefore it is in Russian-dominated territory? In any case, Maritime Law would have still been the same. By this time, my piece was out. I acted thoughtlessly in an area where I have no expertise! Has this ever happened to you? Argggg! I spent the day reading emails and responding to them. Finally I decided to write to the whole list. I hope the following is understandable.
From a reader came this note that gave me (I think) the essence of the situation. He said: “Sharon, my initial reaction was, likewise, that it isn’t our business (to be policemen). However, Craig Murray, a former British diplomat who is usually very sympathetic to the Russian point of view, says that the Law of the Sea is involved and that in this instance Russia is acting incorrectly:”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/12/azov-again/
Murray reports (I have underlined below to accentuate the confusing rights and wrongs):
“…Actually Trump’s actions have been correct and no doubt guided by the State Department’s maritime law experts.
As explained in my last post, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Ukrainian navy and any other vessel, has an absolute right of innocent passage to the Ukrainian coast through the Kerch Straits and the Sea of Azov. They do, however, have an obligation to comply with sea lanes and notification regimes established for reasons of navigational safety.
It appears Ukraine may not have observed the navigational safety regulations, so Russia had a right to take proportionate action for enforcement. The Russian action was a bit heavy handed, but probably did not stray over the proportionate boundary.
However Russia did not have a right to detain the vessels or the crews, other than briefly. This is specifically not allowed. So at some point in Russia’s continued detention of the vessels and crews, Russia’s actions switched from legal to illegal. The timing of Trump’s decision to cancel the Putin meeting makes perfect sense in terms of the stage at which Russia went from being in the right in the incident, to being in the wrong. In taking prisoners to Moscow, Russia is very, very definitely in the wrong.
The situation is complicated by their being military personnel. Russia has to make a decision. If the claim is this was not innocent passage and the Ukrainians planned to attack the bridge, there is no legal option to treat that as terrorism. These were military ships and that would be war. Russia has either to accept that this was not an attack, or accept that it is in a state of war with Ukraine. You can’t treat military personnel from military vessels as terrorists. And Russia very definitely acted illegally in parading foreign military personnel to make statements on TV.
As expected, my last posting brought howls of protest from those of limited intellect who style themselves as radicals, and who essentially take the view the Russians are the goodies and the Ukrainians the baddies, and therefore Russian actions must be legal. All of their arguments were intellectually abysmal.
The rule of international law is a very tenuous concept. It has great achievements, but has never been more under attack. There are proponents of the USA and UK, of Russia, of China, who plainly prefer a ‘might is right’ approach. The hypocrisies are sickening. For example, there is no significant difference in the legal justification nor in the method of achievement between the realisation of “self-determination” in Kosovo and Crimea. Yet the people who believe the West wear the white hats will argue that Kosovo was legal and Crimea illegal, and those who believe the Russians wear the white hats will argue that Crimea was legal and Kosovo illegal. It is a sorry task to try to argue for impartial rule of law in these circumstances, as the partisan idiots will prove in comments below almost immediately.
With the secession of Kosovo and Crimea, I take the view that both were illegal, though I can see a respectable argument that both were legal. That one was legal (either one) and the other not, I can see no sensible argument whatsoever.”
~~~~~~~~~~~
Friends, this brings up a number of questions for me. I wonder if it does for you also?
• Is there a way for Maritime experts to look at the existing laws in advance if something like an unexpected 12-mile bridge is suddenly being planned? Could Maritime lawyers come together to determine if existing laws will work to protect both sides. If not, they could update the law if needed, inform both sides on what to avoid, and state clearly the penalties if the laws are not adhered to. Internet says that in 1956 the UN held its first conference on Maritime Law; four treaties were concluded in 1958, and entry-into-force was September 1964. Much must have happened since then with Maritime laws and other international agreements. The question is how to be proactive in the future, rather than continue to get caught in such dangerous situations?
• Putin is a lawyer. Did his team do due diligence on this? Surely they did. Were the Ukrainians warned of the requirements before entering the area? Or did the Russians assume that the Ukrainians knew they were supposed to check in before entering, so they treated them as illegal interlopers?
Again back to Buchanan’s primary question:
What business is it of ours to be the policemen of the world? Can we financially afford to operate in this role much longer? Do our leaders and our country have the moral fiber to operate at this level? Most importantly, are we killing more human beings and devastating more economies and infrastructures by operating in this role … than if we left them to settle their challenges with each other themselves?
Lastly, what should our role be in the world today? Could we lead the world’s major powers to stay out of regional conflicts? If not, why?
Sharon Tennison
Center for Citizen Initiatives