CRIMEAN OCCUPATION AND UNCLOS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: NAVIGATING TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY AND NON-RECOGNITION
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Published:
Oct 11, 2023
Abstract
Abstract. The article examines the interplay between the Crimean occupation and UNCLOS compulsory dispute settlement procedures, exploring how the fact of Crimea’s occupation can be established and UNCLOS dispute settlement procedures applied. It also investigates the contradiction within the Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal’s award in the Coastal State Rights Dispute due to Crimea’s occupation. The study concludes that to address violations made by the Russian Federation under the provision of UNCLOS Crimea’s occupation, Ukraine can seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. Strengthening Ukraine’s position requires a legally binding decision on Crimea’s occupied status and Ukraine’s coastal state status, possibly through an ad hoc tribunal with jurisdiction. Supporting evidence from other courts may be valuable, despite their lack of direct jurisdiction over the matter of occupation. The article also discusses the principle of nonrecognition and the tribunal’s neutral approach to accommodate both parties in its award in Coastal State Rights Dispute.
How to Cite
Gorbun, O. (2023). CRIMEAN OCCUPATION AND UNCLOS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: NAVIGATING TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY AND NON-RECOGNITION. Baltic Journal of Legal and Social Sciences, (3), 20-29. https://doi.org/10.30525/2592-8813-2023-3-3
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Keywords
a dispute concerning interpretation or application of UNCLOS, Coastal State Rights Dispute, dispute between Ukraine and Russia, international law, law of the sea, state responsibility.
References
1. Boyle, A. (1997). Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 46(1): 37-54. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0020589300060103.
2. Boyle, A. (2003). Some Problems of Compulsory Jurisdiction before Specialised Tribunals: The Law of the Sea”. In P. Capps, M. Evans & S. Konstadinidis (Eds.), Asserting Jurisdiction: International and European Legal Perspectives (pp. 243–253). Hart Publishing.
3. Buga, I. (2012). Territorial Sovereignty Issues in Maritime Disputes: A Jurisdictional Dilemma for Law of the Sea Tribunals. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 27: 59–95. https://doi.org/10.1163/157180812X615113.
4. Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v United Kingdom), Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case no 2011-03, Award of 18 March 2015.
5. Chandrasekhara Rao, P. & Gautier, P. (2018). The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi-org.peacepalace.idm.oclc. org/10.4337/9781786433015.
6. Churchill R. (2017). The general dispute settlement system of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: overview, context, and use. Ocean Development and International Law 48(3-4): 216–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2017.1327287
7. Churchill, R. (2010). Trends in Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Towards the Increasing Availability of Compulsory Means. In D. French, M. Saul & N.D. White (Eds.). International Law and Dispute Settlement: New Problems and Techniques (pp. 143–172). Hart Publishing.
8. Corten O. & Koutroulis V. (2022). Tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine – a legal assessment. In-Depth Analysis Requested by the DROI Subcommittee. https://www.europarl.europa. eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2022/702574/EXPO_IDA(2022)702574_EN.pdf
9. De Herdt, S. W. (2022). Mixed Disputes, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 37(2): 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10082
10. Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius/Maldives). International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Retrieved 22 July 2023, from https://www.itlos.org/en/main/cases/list-of-cases/dispute-concerning-delimitation- of-the-maritime-boundary-between-mauritius-and-maldives-in-the-indian-ocean-mauritius/ maldives/
11. Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius/Maldives), Preliminary Objections Judgment of 28 January 2021.
12. Friedman, S. (2021). The Application of the Law of Occupation in Maritime Zones and Rights to «Occupied» Marine Resources. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 36(3): 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10064
13. Gautier, P. (2022). Some Reflections on the «New Law of the Sea». International Law Studies, 99: 1050–1062. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol99/iss1/39/
14. Holst, R. J. (2023). Reflections on the Governance Function of Compulsory Dispute Settlement in the Legal Order for the Ocean. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 38(2), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10122
15. Karaman, I. V. (2012). Dispute Resolution in the Law of the Sea. Brill | Nijhoff. https://doi. org/10.1163/9789004212015
16. Klein, N. (2005). Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511494376
17. Klein, N. (2014). The Effectiveness of the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Regime: Reaching for the Stars? Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting 108: 359–364. https://doi.org/10.5305/ procannmeetasil.108.0359
18. Klein, N. (2018). Land and Sea: Resolving Contested Land and Disappearing Land Disputes under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. In C. Giorgetti & N. Klein (Eds.), Resolving Conflicts in the Law (pp. 249–296). Brill Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004316539_014
19. Koval, D. (2021). The Award Concerning Jurisdiction in the Coastal State Rights Dispute Between Ukraine and Russia: What Has Been Decided and What to Expect Next. Lex Portus 7(1): 7–30. https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101X.7.1.2021.1
20. Lando, M. & Oral N. (2021). Jurisdictional Challenges and Institutional Novelties – Procedural Developments in Law of the Sea Dispute Settlement in 2020. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 20(1): 191–221. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341444
21. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004.
22. Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2019.
23. McDougall, C. (2023). The Imperative of Prosecuting Crimes of Aggression Committed against Ukraine. Journal of Conflict and Security Law: 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/ krad004
24. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), I.C.J. Reports 1986.
25. Nguyen, L. N. (2016). The Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration: Has the Scope of losc Compulsory Jurisdiction Been Clarified? The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 31(1): 120–143. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-12341393
26. Nguyen, L. N. (2023). The Development of the Law of the Sea by UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Bodies. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108980296
27. Nuridzhanian, G. (2018). Crimea in International Courts and Tribunals: Matters of Jurisdiction. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online 21(1): 378–403. https://doi.org/10.1163/13894633_021001013
28. Oral, N. (2022). Ukraine v. The Russian Federation: Navigating Conflict over Sovereignty under UNCLOS. International Law Studies 97: 478–508. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol97/ iss1/25/
29. Pylypenko, V. (2023, January 5). The View from Ukraine: Why a New International Criminal Tribunal to Prosecute Russian Aggression is Needed. Blog: Justice in Conflict. https://justiceinconflict. org/2023/01/05/the-view-from-ukraine-why-a-new-international-criminal-tribunal-to-prosecute- russian-aggression-is-needed/
30. Report of the International Law Commission, 53rd Session, GAOR, 56th Session, Supp. No. 10 (A/56/10), 2001.
31. Schatz, V. & Koval, D. (2018, September 6). Insights from the Bifurcation Order in the Ukraine vs. Russia Arbitration under Annex VII of UNCLOS. EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. https://www.ejiltalk.org/ insights-from-the-bifurcation-order-in-the-ukraine-vs-russia-arbitration-under-annex-vii-of-unclos/
32. Schatz, V. (2021). The Status of Crimea and the Sea of Azov as a Jurisdictional Hurdle in Ukraine v. Russia: A Comment on the UNCLOS Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal’s Award Concerning Preliminary Objections. Review of Central and East European Law 46(3–4): 400–415. https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-bja10053
33. Select Bibliography on Settlement of Disputes concerning the Law of the Sea. (2022). In Yearbook International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea / Annuaire Tribunal international du droit de la mer, (2021), 25: 165–168. Brill Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004533981_011
34. Talmon, S. (2006). The Duty Not to «Recognize as Lawful» a Situation Created by the Illegal Use of Force or Other Serious Breaches of a Jus Cogens Obligation: an Obligation without Real Substance? In C. Tomuschat & J. Thouvenin (Eds.), The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order (pp. 99–125). Brill | Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004149816.i-472.33
35. Tanaka, Y. (2018). The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316687062
36. Tanaka, Y. (2019). The International Law of the Sea. Cambridge University Press. (3rd ed.). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108545907
37. The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People's Republic of China), Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case no 2013-19, Arbitral Award of 12 July 2016.
38. The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People's Republic of China), Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case no 2013-19, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of 29 October 2015.
39. Trahan, J. (2023, February 6). Why a «Hybrid» Ukrainian Tribunal on the Crime of Aggression Is Not the Answer. Blog: Just Security. https://www.justsecurity.org/85019/ why-hybrid-ukrainian-tribunal-on-crime-of-aggression-is-not-the-answer/
40. Tzeng, P. (2016, October 14). The Doctrine of Indispensable Issues: Mauritius v. United Kingdom, Philippines v. China, Ukraine v. Russia, and Beyond. EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-doctrine-of-indispensable-issues-mauritius-v-unitedkingdom- philippines-v-china-ukraine-v-russia-and-beyond/
41. Tzeng, P. (2017). Ukraine v. Russia and Philippines v. China: Jurisdiction and Legitmacy. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy 46(1): 1-19. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp/vol46/iss1/3
42. UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262 (2014). Territorial integrity of Ukraine.
43. UN General Assembly Resolution 71/292 (2017). Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.
44. UN General Assembly Resolution 73/295 (2019). Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.
45. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 3.
46. Vasiliev, S. (2022, March 3). Aggression against Ukraine: Avenues for Accountability for Core Crimes. EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. https://www.ejiltalk.org/ aggression-against-ukraine-avenues-for-accountability-for-core-crimes/
47. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Sea (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331.
48. Volterra, R. G., Mandelli, G. F. & Nistal, A. (2018). The Characterisation of the Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 33(3): 614–622. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-12331098
49. Zadorozhnii, O. (2016). Arbitrazhnyi protses vidpovidno do Konventsii OON z morskoho prava 1982 r. ta zvernennia do Mizhnarodnoho Sudu OON yak sposoby rozviazaty spory mizh Ukrainoiu i Rosiiskoiu Federatsiieiu: efektyvnist, perevahy, nedoliky [The Arbitration Process in Accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 and the Recourse to the International Court of Justice as a Way to Resolve Disputes between Ukraine and the Russian Federation: The Effectiveness, Advantages, Disadvantages]. Ukrainian Journal of International Law 2016(2): 7–15 [in Ukrainian].
2. Boyle, A. (2003). Some Problems of Compulsory Jurisdiction before Specialised Tribunals: The Law of the Sea”. In P. Capps, M. Evans & S. Konstadinidis (Eds.), Asserting Jurisdiction: International and European Legal Perspectives (pp. 243–253). Hart Publishing.
3. Buga, I. (2012). Territorial Sovereignty Issues in Maritime Disputes: A Jurisdictional Dilemma for Law of the Sea Tribunals. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 27: 59–95. https://doi.org/10.1163/157180812X615113.
4. Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v United Kingdom), Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case no 2011-03, Award of 18 March 2015.
5. Chandrasekhara Rao, P. & Gautier, P. (2018). The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi-org.peacepalace.idm.oclc. org/10.4337/9781786433015.
6. Churchill R. (2017). The general dispute settlement system of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: overview, context, and use. Ocean Development and International Law 48(3-4): 216–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2017.1327287
7. Churchill, R. (2010). Trends in Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Towards the Increasing Availability of Compulsory Means. In D. French, M. Saul & N.D. White (Eds.). International Law and Dispute Settlement: New Problems and Techniques (pp. 143–172). Hart Publishing.
8. Corten O. & Koutroulis V. (2022). Tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine – a legal assessment. In-Depth Analysis Requested by the DROI Subcommittee. https://www.europarl.europa. eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2022/702574/EXPO_IDA(2022)702574_EN.pdf
9. De Herdt, S. W. (2022). Mixed Disputes, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 37(2): 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10082
10. Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius/Maldives). International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Retrieved 22 July 2023, from https://www.itlos.org/en/main/cases/list-of-cases/dispute-concerning-delimitation- of-the-maritime-boundary-between-mauritius-and-maldives-in-the-indian-ocean-mauritius/ maldives/
11. Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius/Maldives), Preliminary Objections Judgment of 28 January 2021.
12. Friedman, S. (2021). The Application of the Law of Occupation in Maritime Zones and Rights to «Occupied» Marine Resources. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 36(3): 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10064
13. Gautier, P. (2022). Some Reflections on the «New Law of the Sea». International Law Studies, 99: 1050–1062. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol99/iss1/39/
14. Holst, R. J. (2023). Reflections on the Governance Function of Compulsory Dispute Settlement in the Legal Order for the Ocean. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 38(2), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10122
15. Karaman, I. V. (2012). Dispute Resolution in the Law of the Sea. Brill | Nijhoff. https://doi. org/10.1163/9789004212015
16. Klein, N. (2005). Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511494376
17. Klein, N. (2014). The Effectiveness of the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Regime: Reaching for the Stars? Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting 108: 359–364. https://doi.org/10.5305/ procannmeetasil.108.0359
18. Klein, N. (2018). Land and Sea: Resolving Contested Land and Disappearing Land Disputes under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. In C. Giorgetti & N. Klein (Eds.), Resolving Conflicts in the Law (pp. 249–296). Brill Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004316539_014
19. Koval, D. (2021). The Award Concerning Jurisdiction in the Coastal State Rights Dispute Between Ukraine and Russia: What Has Been Decided and What to Expect Next. Lex Portus 7(1): 7–30. https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101X.7.1.2021.1
20. Lando, M. & Oral N. (2021). Jurisdictional Challenges and Institutional Novelties – Procedural Developments in Law of the Sea Dispute Settlement in 2020. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 20(1): 191–221. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341444
21. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004.
22. Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2019.
23. McDougall, C. (2023). The Imperative of Prosecuting Crimes of Aggression Committed against Ukraine. Journal of Conflict and Security Law: 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/ krad004
24. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), I.C.J. Reports 1986.
25. Nguyen, L. N. (2016). The Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration: Has the Scope of losc Compulsory Jurisdiction Been Clarified? The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 31(1): 120–143. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-12341393
26. Nguyen, L. N. (2023). The Development of the Law of the Sea by UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Bodies. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108980296
27. Nuridzhanian, G. (2018). Crimea in International Courts and Tribunals: Matters of Jurisdiction. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online 21(1): 378–403. https://doi.org/10.1163/13894633_021001013
28. Oral, N. (2022). Ukraine v. The Russian Federation: Navigating Conflict over Sovereignty under UNCLOS. International Law Studies 97: 478–508. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol97/ iss1/25/
29. Pylypenko, V. (2023, January 5). The View from Ukraine: Why a New International Criminal Tribunal to Prosecute Russian Aggression is Needed. Blog: Justice in Conflict. https://justiceinconflict. org/2023/01/05/the-view-from-ukraine-why-a-new-international-criminal-tribunal-to-prosecute- russian-aggression-is-needed/
30. Report of the International Law Commission, 53rd Session, GAOR, 56th Session, Supp. No. 10 (A/56/10), 2001.
31. Schatz, V. & Koval, D. (2018, September 6). Insights from the Bifurcation Order in the Ukraine vs. Russia Arbitration under Annex VII of UNCLOS. EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. https://www.ejiltalk.org/ insights-from-the-bifurcation-order-in-the-ukraine-vs-russia-arbitration-under-annex-vii-of-unclos/
32. Schatz, V. (2021). The Status of Crimea and the Sea of Azov as a Jurisdictional Hurdle in Ukraine v. Russia: A Comment on the UNCLOS Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal’s Award Concerning Preliminary Objections. Review of Central and East European Law 46(3–4): 400–415. https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-bja10053
33. Select Bibliography on Settlement of Disputes concerning the Law of the Sea. (2022). In Yearbook International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea / Annuaire Tribunal international du droit de la mer, (2021), 25: 165–168. Brill Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004533981_011
34. Talmon, S. (2006). The Duty Not to «Recognize as Lawful» a Situation Created by the Illegal Use of Force or Other Serious Breaches of a Jus Cogens Obligation: an Obligation without Real Substance? In C. Tomuschat & J. Thouvenin (Eds.), The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order (pp. 99–125). Brill | Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004149816.i-472.33
35. Tanaka, Y. (2018). The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316687062
36. Tanaka, Y. (2019). The International Law of the Sea. Cambridge University Press. (3rd ed.). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108545907
37. The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People's Republic of China), Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case no 2013-19, Arbitral Award of 12 July 2016.
38. The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People's Republic of China), Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal, PCA Case no 2013-19, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of 29 October 2015.
39. Trahan, J. (2023, February 6). Why a «Hybrid» Ukrainian Tribunal on the Crime of Aggression Is Not the Answer. Blog: Just Security. https://www.justsecurity.org/85019/ why-hybrid-ukrainian-tribunal-on-crime-of-aggression-is-not-the-answer/
40. Tzeng, P. (2016, October 14). The Doctrine of Indispensable Issues: Mauritius v. United Kingdom, Philippines v. China, Ukraine v. Russia, and Beyond. EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-doctrine-of-indispensable-issues-mauritius-v-unitedkingdom- philippines-v-china-ukraine-v-russia-and-beyond/
41. Tzeng, P. (2017). Ukraine v. Russia and Philippines v. China: Jurisdiction and Legitmacy. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy 46(1): 1-19. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp/vol46/iss1/3
42. UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262 (2014). Territorial integrity of Ukraine.
43. UN General Assembly Resolution 71/292 (2017). Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.
44. UN General Assembly Resolution 73/295 (2019). Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.
45. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 3.
46. Vasiliev, S. (2022, March 3). Aggression against Ukraine: Avenues for Accountability for Core Crimes. EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. https://www.ejiltalk.org/ aggression-against-ukraine-avenues-for-accountability-for-core-crimes/
47. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Sea (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331.
48. Volterra, R. G., Mandelli, G. F. & Nistal, A. (2018). The Characterisation of the Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 33(3): 614–622. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-12331098
49. Zadorozhnii, O. (2016). Arbitrazhnyi protses vidpovidno do Konventsii OON z morskoho prava 1982 r. ta zvernennia do Mizhnarodnoho Sudu OON yak sposoby rozviazaty spory mizh Ukrainoiu i Rosiiskoiu Federatsiieiu: efektyvnist, perevahy, nedoliky [The Arbitration Process in Accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 and the Recourse to the International Court of Justice as a Way to Resolve Disputes between Ukraine and the Russian Federation: The Effectiveness, Advantages, Disadvantages]. Ukrainian Journal of International Law 2016(2): 7–15 [in Ukrainian].