The public administration of territorial seas: Ukrainian case
- PDF / 807,675 Bytes
- 19 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 11 Downloads / 184 Views
The public administration of territorial seas: Ukrainian case Borys Kormych1 · Tetiana Averochkina1 · Vitalii Gaverskyi1 Accepted: 22 February 2020 © Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Abstract The article evaluates the modern doctrine of territorial sea administration, given the experience of Ukraine. The article analyzes the formation of the coastal state’s legal and institutional rights and obligations in accordance with international law. It is also studied how such regulation has been formed as well as its interaction with other administrative and legal regulations, which function in a given maritime zone. Public administration of territorial seas, despite the significant role of international legal regulation, fully relies on the institutional and organizational ability of the state to effectively exercise its jurisdiction in the relevant marine areas. For instance, Ukraine is taking steps to fulfill its obligations to ensure the safety of navigation and conduct rescue operations in its area of responsibility in accordance with international agreements. Ukraine’s experience in administering territorial sea after the illegal annexation of Crimea is studied, and the pros and cons are revealed of modern concepts in this area in the context of hybrid conflicts. Keywords Coastal state jurisdiction · Marine environment · Maritime zone · Public administration · Territorial sea · Ukraine
1 Introduction UNCLOS, which was adopted in 1982, has become the basis for modern approaches to public administration of maritime zones, which, in its turn, has logically continued to develop. While Grotius’s “The Free Sea Natural Law” (2004) is considered the departure point of such development, all its subsequent transformations are associated with the expansion of the national jurisdictions by the coastal states. Such an expansion of jurisdictions entails qualitative changes, which relate to the transformation of the jurisdictional powers of coastal states and their relevant authorities (Sage 2006). There was a “gun shot” (Florsheim 1970) rule during the war, which meant a minimum three-mile zone of neutrality. Nowadays, it is believed that “the coast can generate maritime zones, where the states can declare sovereignty, sovereign rights and define their jurisdictions” (Chircop et al. 2008). These changes are considered in the context of the * Borys Kormych [email protected] 1
Department of Maritime and Customs Law, National University “Odessa Law Academy”, Odessa, Ukraine
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
B. Kormych et al.
complication and expansion of the use of maritime zones. There was classical two-element understanding of maritime zone: firstly, as the means of communication, and secondly, as a huge reservoir of resources, both living and non-living (Shaw 2008). Then, UNCLOS defined it as a territory, in which six types of activities can be carried out—navigation, innocent passage, submarine cables and pipelines, marine scientific research, the creation of artificial islands and structures, fishing (Kastrisios and Tsoulosa 201
Data Loading...
