Cross the border
Paragraph 1 of article 2 of the UN Convention 19821 reads: "the Sovereignty of a coastal state extends beyond its land territory and internal waters to an adjacent belt of sea called the territorial sea."Under this provision, and two Russian laws2 the external limit of the territorial sea is the state border of the sea. Any crossing of the state borders of a sovereign state must be reasonable and "publicly" in the case of its legality.
From the absolute sovereignty of the coastal state over its territorial sea the UN Convention of 1982 makes one exception in the form of the right to "innocent passage". The rights and duties of the coastal state, and not only rights but also duties of other States in the exercise of innocent passage is regulated in section 3 of part II of the UN Convention of 1982 (articles 17-26).
However, the right of innocent passage does not negate a timely notice of intent to implement it and justify the legality and the purposes of crossing the state border. And it works in all countries. However, in the Ukraine – with some "features". For example, the gender-specific constraints to cross the state border of Ukraine is prohibited Russians male, aged from 16 to 60 years. Also Poroshenko has signed the law, which came into force on 8 November 2018, and provides for criminal penalties3 only for citizens of the Russian Federation for "illegal" crossing of the state border of Ukraine. Since this law introduced for persons who crossed the state border "outside the checkpoints," and those "without papers", in a very real violators of the state border have automatically got the Russians, who for work or for leisure at least once visited the Crimea. Now, even if they cross the land frontier of Ukraine in the presence of a biometric passport, quite legally, for them the probability to finish a trip in a Ukrainian prison.
Under such facts the statement of the "civilized" West that the sailors of the Ukrainian Navy, took part in the provocation in the area of the Kerch Strait are not violators of the state border of Russia sound more than strange and contrary to the provisions and norms of international law.
Paragraph 1 of article 18 of the UN Convention 1982 defines the purpose of passage through the territorial sea:
"1. Under passage means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of:
a) cross that sea without entering internal waters or getting on the roadstead or port facility outside internal waters; or
b) complete the inland waters...".
According to paragraph a) the voyage is carried out in order to cross this sea, i.e. "spratley course," the speaker in the sea of the Cape, to pass from one part of the exclusive economic zone to another, e.g. to save fuel or time in transit. Or cross the territorial sea between the two Islands (for example, in the ridge of the Aleutian or Kuril Islands). Even in this case, the Coast guard of FSB of Russia has the right to request and to insist on receiving a reply about order to find, especially military vessels in the territorial sea of Russia.
Thus, for example, swimming along the southern coast of the Crimean Peninsula within the territorial sea of Russia for quite a considerable distance, don't have either of these two purposes, does not fall under the concept of innocent passage, as the UN Convention 1982, article 18 defines passage as swimming through the territorial sea, and not along it.
In inland waters there is no right of "innocent passage" and it is obvious that the UN Convention of 1982 in this case not considering the "free" tourist trips on inland waters of a sovereign state. For passage in the internal waters of a foreign ship should have a good, proven (for example, port authorities of destination) the grounds of the necessity of his entering internal waters of a sovereign state.
The first step is to make a request for a sunset in which to justify its purpose(as a rule, it is calling at any port).Under current rules, any such request for entry into the territorial sea by the Kerch Strait with the aim of following in the internal water passage of the Kerch-Yenikalsky channel is available for 48 hours, at least 24 hours and 4 hours before sunset confirmed.
These rules apply not only in Russia4, and in all the States, with access to the sea. And nobody, neither Ukraine nor the international community (including Europe and USA), these rules still have not been disputed, because they correspond to the provisions of the UN Convention 1992
Therefore (as in September 2018 in a similar situation), the Ukrainian side had to begin to make a request for a sunset in which to justify its purpose. On the detained Ukrainian armored was discovered "Checklist of readiness of the boat "Nikopol" to the sea 09:00 23.11.2018 to 18:00 25.11.2018" with the task of transition "secret order" from the port of Odessa to the port of Berdyansk.
That is, for 46 hours before crossing the state border of Russia, the commander of the armored knew about the upcoming passage through the territorial sea of Russia and swimming in internal waters of the Kerch-Yenikalsky channel. Accordingly, the command of the Ukrainian Navy, who planned the upcoming transition, knew about it yet. Time to apply for entry into the territorial sea and pass the Kerch-Yenikalsky canal, was more than enough. But nothing of the laid was not done, and it is a violation of the provisions of the UN Convention 1982, in particular with respect to innocent passage.
Night5, the day before the incident, a patrol boat of the Coast guard of FSB of Russia (PSCA-302) was brought to a group of Ukrainian Navy ships (ship security "Gorlovka" and sea tug "Yana Kapu", located in the exclusive economic zone of Russia opposite the Kerch Strait) information about the closure of the area in the territorial sea of Russia on the approach to the Kerch Strait from the Black sea. This closure was effected in accordance with paragraph 3 of article 25 of the UN Convention 1982,6.
And before that (on the approach of this group) at the request of PSCA-302 commanders of the ships of naval forces of Ukraine received the answer that the crossing of the state border of the Russian Federation and the passage of the Strait of Kerch naval group is not planned. But the commander of the "Yana's mouthpiece" a few hours after it apparently "changed his mind".
Imagine that the brothers Sheriff Sakta staged on 11 December 2018 fire in the centre of Strasbourg, a few days before talking on the streets and in cafes that soon there will be a terrorist attack. Did the French secret service to protect the population would take measures? There would have blocked the streets with patrols, and the entrances to the Christmas fair of a metal detector?
And there is not anybody, and MPs (for example, I. Mosiychuk) of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, publicly call for a terrorist act, with the subversive groups of the armed forces and the Ukrainian Navy to blow up and destroy the Crimean bridge with all the people that are at this time. But the measures are very similar to those of Western intelligence agencies, undertaken by the Russian special services, the "civilized" West immediately declared the "aggression" of Russia.
25 Nov at 05:35 the commander of the Ukrainian armored "Berdyansk" announced for the post of technical supervision (M. Takil) about the planned passage of ships of the Ukrainian Navy in the port of Berdyansk Kerch Strait at 06:00 CET (07:00 GMT). That is less than half an hour, and despite the warning of the closure of the district.
Article 25 of the UN Convention of 1982 States:
"1. A coastal state may adopt in its territorial sea measures necessary to prevent passage that is not peaceful.
2. For vessels traveling the inland waters... the coastal state also has the right to take the necessary measures to prevent any breach of the terms on which these vessels are permitted in inland waters".
Very clear and understandable. The conditions under which the ship is allowed in internal waters, the ships of naval forces of Ukraine were violated. It remained for the measures.
From the Black sea entrance to the Kerch Strait in the days of the USSR, and Ukraine (1992 to 2014), "blocked" straight reference line between the Cape Kyz-Aul (up to 2014 – Ukraine) and Cape Zhelezny Rog (Russia). In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 8 of the UN Convention of 1982 the waters located in the landward side of this line are internal waters.
That is, the entire water area of the Azov sea (including the Kerch Strait to the specified line) is internal waters. Not to mention Russia, this is evidenced by the current official Ukrainian documents: a note verbale to the UN (1992), note to the Ministry of foreign Affairs (1997), and also the agreement between Ukraine and Russia (2003). To this we can add that to the 2014 Ukraine under the version of the distinction, on which she insisted, did not deny that a part of the Kerch-yenikalsky channel (in the North)refers to internal waters of Russia.
At 07:01 on 25 November, the ships of naval forces of Ukraine crossed the line of the state border of the Russian Federation and headed to the Kerch Strait. 07:20 patrol ships of a Coast guard of FSB of Russia "don" and "Emerald" took measures to prevent the passage of ships of the Ukrainian Navy Kerch-Yenikalsky channel, called the Ukrainian ships on the radio and demanded to immediately leave the territorial sea of the Russian Federation, but the Ukrainians, these legitimate demands have been ignored and on bond until their detention was not.
The rules of innocent passage
Article 19 of the UN Convention of 1982 States:
"2. Passage of a foreign vessel is considered to violate the peace, good order or security of the coastal state if in the territorial sea it shall exercise any of the following activities:
a) the threat of force against the sovereignty......
l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage".
On television has repeatedly shown video of a Coast guard of FSB of Russia uncovered (08:35) guns in armored Ukraine, aimed at the Russian court, i.e. bringing the ships of naval forces of Ukraine in combat readiness ("threat of force"), and if there was such a "threat of force" against the implementation by the competent authorities of Russia measures to ensure security (protection) of its sovereign territory and ensure the security of the state, the passage under paragraph 2, article 19 "is considered disturbing the peace, good order or security of the coastal state" and according to paragraph 1 of article 19, such a passage is not "peaceful" and contrary to the provisions of the UN Convention of 1982: "1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state."
Regarding subparagraph l of paragraph 2 of article 19 of the UN Convention of 1982 should state the fact that if for more than 10 hours in a row warships of the Ukrainian Navy with uncovered guns dangerous maneuvers, endangering the safety of other vessels awaiting their turn for passage of the Kerch-Yenikalsky channel, do not respond to the legitimate demands of the Coast guard of Russia, will not respond to offer to take a pilot aboard for the transaction on the channel as it is obligatory, such "activity" has absolutely nothing (not just "direct") relationship to the "peaceful" passage.
And this again means that such a passage (or intent) under clause 2, article 19 "is to violate the peace, good order or security of the coastal state" and according to paragraph 1 of article 19, such a passage is not "peaceful" and contrary to the provisions of the UN Convention of 1982
The laws and regulations of the coastal state
Article 21 of the UN Convention of 1982 States:
"1. A coastal state may adopt, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law laws and regulations relating to the peaceful passage through the territorial sea, in respect of all of the following questions or some of them:
a) the safety of navigation and regulation of vessel traffic;
4. Foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea, to comply with all such laws and regulations".
Artificial Kerch-Yenikalsky canal dug even by the Russian Empire in the XIX century, is the only safe passage between the Black and Azov seas. Accordingly, it has its own navigation fencing and navigation software. The passage in safety, and the courts are regulated by special service vessel traffic management (VTMS) from compulsory pilotage (even from 1991 to 2014, when most of the channel was controlled by Ukraine).
The right of Russia to set rules of passage through this channel, including the approach thereto, including passage through the territorial sea according to the established in this recommended routes and separation schemes, vessel traffic, clearly enshrined in the UN Convention of 1982
Article 22 of the UN Convention of 1982 States:
"1. The coastal state, if necessary, and taking into account the safety of navigation may require foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through its territorial sea to use such sea lanes and separation schemes traffic, it may impose or prescribe for the regulation of passage of ships".
Article 300 of the UN Convention of 1982 States:
"States parties shall fulfil in good faith assumed under this Convention obligations and exercise rights and jurisdiction and enjoy the freedoms recognized in this Convention, therefore, to prevent the abuse of rights".
Ukraine the actions of the vessels of its Navy has violated all the provisions of the UN Convention 1982, in respect of innocent passage and has abused its rights and perform its obligations under the UN Convention of 1982 with all the consequences of these provisions the consequences.
Article 30 of the UN Convention of 1982 States:
"If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal state concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request to him requirement for compliance, the coastal state may require it to leave the territorial sea".
For nearly 12 hours Russia demanded from the Ukrainian Navy ships leave the territorial sea of the Russian Federation, confirmed by numerous testimonies. But they are constantly maneuvering, tried hard to break into the internal waters of Russia. This time is more than enough for the application of clause 1 of article 111 of the UN Convention of 1982, which reads as follows:
"1. The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken if the competent authorities of the coastal state have good reason to believe that the ship has violated the laws and regulations of this state."
It appears that such grounds the Coast guard (the competent authorities of Russia) was more than enough. It should be noted that in this case, according to this article 111 the prosecution could continue across the Black sea to the territorial sea of another state (for example Ukraine or Turkey).
Naturally, this prosecution is not for the sake of persecution, and for "detention of a vessel within the jurisdiction of this state and escort him to the port of this state." It does not matter where it was detained the ship in "neutral" or "international" waters (the version of the West) if the pursuit was conducted in accordance with the provisions of article 111 of the UN Convention of 1982
21:06 guard ship Izumrud was detained armored "Berdyansk". At 21:15 patrol ship "don" detained marine tug "Yana Kapu," and in 21:27 was stopped, and at 23:21задержан patrol ship "don" armored "Nikopol". And then comes the trial in the Federal legislation on violation of the state border of Russia, because, as mentioned above, in this case on a "peaceful passage" within the framework of the provisions of the UN Convention 1982 and the question.
The geography of the Azov sea is that it connects with the rest of the oceans water by only one narrow passage – the Strait of Kerch. That is, even if the waters of the sea of Azov belonged to the territorial sea, the geography of the sea does not allow the ship to implement the "pass-through" pass through it to the intersection and beyond the territorial sea in a place other than where "entered". In other words, through the territorial sea of Russia (and Ukraine before 2014) that covers the entrance to the Kerch Strait, free and uncontrolled passage (only for the intersections of these seas) as designated in subsection A of section 3 of part II of the UN Convention (articles 17-26), cannot continue.
On the other hand, the passage for ships on the Kerch Strait is only possible on the Kerch-Yenikalsky channel with limited opportunities for passing ships. For example, the movement in its most narrow part can be carried out alternately: first one way, then the other.
Article 1 of the "Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on cooperation in using the Azov sea and the Kerch Strait" of 24 December 2003 reads as follows:
"1. Merchant ships and warships and other government ships under the flag of the Russian Federation or Ukraine, operated for non-commercial purposes, use in the Azov sea and the Kerch Strait freedom of navigation.
2. Merchant ships under the flags of third countries may enter the Azov sea and Kerch Strait to go through, if they go to Russian or Ukrainian port, or returning from it".
Recalling these provisions, the policy of Ukraine, Europe and the United States accused Russia in violation of freedom of navigation and the right to "unhindered" passage through the Kerch Strait, thus significantly distorting those concepts.
After all, freedom of navigation and "unimpeded" passage by themselves do not supersede the provisions and regulations of the Convention on the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea 1972 (COLREGs-72) and the UN Convention of 1982 (section on the peaceful passage in the territorial sea).
Imagine that the city authorities (mayor, municipality) agreed with the traffic police (traffic police) on ensuring smooth traffic on city streets. Does this arrangement negate the SDA (traffic Rules)? Of course not. And the driver of the vehicle is obliged to stop at a red light, stop to let pedestrians cross at uncontrolled intersection to stop on request of inspectors of traffic police, followed his instructions and, if necessary, to ensure inspection of the vehicle.
The same thing is happening in the Kerch Strait. All ships (including the Russian) are required to comply with the rules established for the passage of the Kerch-Yenikalsky channel, to comply with VTS and Coast guard of FSB of Russia.
And in this regard the incident of 25 November 2018 is clearly a provocation of Ukraine and the violation of it rules of international law.
We have already cited samples of double standards of the "civilized" community in connection with the incident in the Kerch Strait. Here are a few examples.
November 27 (two days after the incident), speaking at the Berlin conference on security, the Minister of defence of Germany Ursula von der Leyen said:"Russia must ensure free passage in waterways and to abandon the disproportionate action".
Germany supports Ukraine, turning a blind eye to the civil war with numerous victims among the civilian population of aggressive and destructive policies against the people of Ukraine by the authorities headed by Poroshenko. As well as Ukraine, Germany considers the territory of the Crimea "occupied" by Russia. Recall that an integral is part of the territory and the territorial sea adjacent to the Crimean Peninsula. The recognition of the land territory of the Crimea "occupied", and the adjacent territorial sea is free from "occupation" and belonging to Ukraine, where she "has the right" to carry out any activity – it is beyond reasonable and beyond any "red line".
During the great Patriotic war, when Hitler's troops entered into the city of Leningrad in blockade from the South, and the troops his "ally" Mannerheim – North, 40 km to the West of Leningrad on the southern shore of the Gulf of Finland was blockaded but not occupied by the Germans territory, which was called "Oranienbaum patch"7. The center of the bridgehead were in the Fort Krasnaya Gorka8, and its width averaged 25 km (from the coast of the Gulf of Finland to the front line).
Imagine that the General staff of the red army decided to send to the aid of the defenders of the Oranienbaum patch tank column through the occupied territory. Based on the statements of Ursula von der Leyen, Germany was to "allow free passage" this column and to "abandon the disproportionate action".
Ms. Merkel, who dreams about restoring the national army, can only sympathize. If the German army to ensure the security of the state, if not of the Minister of defence is a "strategic" thinking?
The EU, NATO and the US urged Russia to "restore" the freedom of passage of vessels in the Kerch Strait and to return the "occupied" sailors and ships of Ukraine."Civilized" West again cynically and in the form of an ultimatum demands from Russia to give up sovereignty, release of all violators of the state border, international law and national legislation, especially if they are citizens of Ukraine.
"Civilized and democratic" West, led the United States denied Russia in the protection of the state borders of its real offenders, while trump is on the border of the United States is building a concrete wall and entangles her "razor" wire, direct to the border of the 15-strong military forces and threatens not to let anyone in, because the US has the assumption that in the "caravan of migrants" hiding criminals and terrorists. And the one who "cast in stone the police", faces a lengthy jail term.
"Civilized and democratic" West, led the United States denied Russia in legal proceedings and court proceedings, demanding the immediate release of "innocent imprisoned sailors", while M. Butina over six months subjected to torture in the dungeons of the United States, and the American Themis still can not beat a confession out of her in the "spy" activities. Because the US judicial system tangible evidence, some assumptions involved in Russophobia.
Some of the "moderate" Ukrainian experts say about humanism and the need to "pardon" the boys sent Poroshenko provocation "planned" them outcome. But you can't pardon someone who hasn't condemned. Other "experts" (such as Zaporizhia), which is an aggressive nationalist forces in the Ukrainian government, yell at the talk show, the guys are traitors who violated their military oath is the fact that not opened fire when approaching the Russian border guard ships.
According to the author, humanity to these guys (and their families) will be to for specific violations of the state border, international law and Russian legislation to condemn the guys for a few years, and when the situation in Ukraine is "normal" – to have mercy. Otherwise, it is likely, they can expect the fate of N. Savchenko9.
Poberovskii and introducing a new "sanctions" against Russia, the "civilized" West quickly "forget" these sailors as the "lost" national hero of Ukraine, member of the permanent delegation of Ukraine in PACE N. Savchenko, on hunger strike now in the dungeons of the SBU.
Article 31 of the UN Convention of 1982 States:
"The flag state shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage caused to the coastal state resulting from non-compliance by any warship or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes, the laws and regulations of the coastal state concerning passage through the territorial sea, or of the provisions of this Convention or other rules of international law".
It seems appropriate in parallel with the trial of detained offenders to prepare to international courts against the Ukraine in accordance with this article on compensation for damage Russia for treatment and detention of Ukrainians of maintaining "survivability" of the arrested vessels repair vessel of the Coast guard, forced to carry out "raids" on the Ukrainian tug, measures the overlap of the channel by the ship, the damage from the stop motion on the Kerch-Yenikalsky channel, court costs, etc. And ask the court to determine the incident not only as a clear violation of the provisions and norms of international law, but as a deliberate provocation on the part of Ukraine against Russia's sovereignty.
And it will be a worthy response not only to Ukraine, especially in connection with its claim in the Arbitration Tribunal on the alleged violations by Russia of the provisions and standards of the UN Convention of 1982, but to all Western spiteful critics about some Russian "aggression".
From the editor. 19 December 2018, the Secretary of national security Council of Ukraine Turchinov (acting in the period of martial law – the 2nd person of the state after Poroshenko) in an interview announced "in the near future" the repetition of the passage of ships of naval forces of Ukraine through the Kerch Strait with an invitation to representatives of the international community (presumably from OSCE) to "fix violations" by Russia of norms of international law and "aggression" of Russia. If will again violated the state border of Russia and rules of passage through internal waters of Russia established in strict accordance with the provisions of international law – the response will be appropriate.
- The United Nations Convention on the law of the sea of 10 December 1982. The Convention entered into force on 16 November 1994, ratified by Russia FZ of 26 February 1997 No. 30-FZ.
- FZ "About internal sea waters, territorial sea and contiguous zone of the Russian Federation" from July, 31st, 1997 № 155-FZ and the Federal law "On the State border of the Russian Federation" from April, 1st, 1993 n 4730-I.
- Law No. 7017 provides for a punishment of deprivation of liberty for a term up to three years. For a second offense or an illegal crossing of the Ukrainian border by a group of persons introduces liability in the form of deprivation of liberty for a term of three to five years, illegal entry into the country with a weapon carries a penalty of imprisonment for a term of five to eight years.
- For example, the passage of the black sea (Turkish) Straits, must notify 7 days, and the passage of the Baltic Straits for 8 days.
- In relation to the chronology of events in the Kerch Strait used materials from the official site of FSB of Russia:http://www.fsb.ru/fsb/press.htm
- Paragraph 3, article 25 of the UN Convention of 1982: "the Coastal state may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specific areas of its territorial sea the exercise of the right of innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security...".
- Oranienbaum patch (also known as Oranienbaum bridgehead, Primorsky bridgehead, Cameronesque Republic, Lebedinskaya Republic, Small Land, the Germans called it Oranienbaumsky pot) – named after the town of Oranienbaum (1948 – Lomonosov), located inside the "patch".
- The range of the guns of the Fort actually determined the distance location of German positions. Around the Fort was laid the train tracks, which on special conveyors moved the large-caliber naval guns (356-, 305-, 180-mm).
- Hope Savchenko on 21 March 2016, condemned the Donetsk city court of the Rostov region "for his involvement in the murder of journalists VGTRK" for 22 years. During the trial elected a member of Parliament (27 November 2014) it was awarded the title of Hero of Ukraine (2015). Pardoned by presidential decree of may 25, 2016. March 22, 2018 arrested by the SBU in the building of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on suspicion of organizing a coup and terrorist attacks.
Tags: Sea policy
- 09-09-2018Le Monde (France): We come to the point where globalization is too expensive
- 02-05-2018Technology: 35-forecasts to 2018
- 22-03-2018"Digital state": how they have evolved
- 08-03-2018Welcome to the new world: a map of the opposing blocks of the XXI century
- 17-02-2018Priority projects of mankind
- 04-07-2012Russia cooking oil blockade and the collapse of the scenario of the 80-ies
- 23-12-2012The Vedic understanding of state policy
- 22-11-2013In the archives of the "world government"
- 08-01-2014Of a mega-Church and their communication strategies
- 08-11-2012The main threat to peace or a recipe for success