Land Territory Issue in the Light of UNCLOS Jurisdiction: Ukraine v. Russia

Licencinė sutartis Nr. MRU-EDT-166

Legal status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine is an established fact. Under international law, neither occupation, nor annexation may on its own create a dispute over land sovereignty. On the contrary, sovereignty of the occupied State is preserved and cannot be transferred without its consent. In general, disputed land sovereignty takes place when claims of both parties of the conflict made in good faith. As a result, if a claim of the party is based on the violation of peremptory norm there is no dispute over sovereignty. Russia occupied and annexed Crimea on the basis of unconstitutional referendum. It means that Crimea’s legal status is defined and no lawful process has changed it. As a consequence, Russia’s principal objection is based on illegal acts and, therefore, cannot deprive arbitral tribunal from its jurisdiction. UNCLOS case law is inconsistent when it comes to the issues of land territory or the use of force. It is even more unclear when it comes to the mix of these two issues: land territory issue as a result of the use of force. The main question is how this complex issue has to be treated within UNCLOS jurisprudence.