In this regard, the Tribunal determin! three circumstances to be particularly relevant.
Russian coastal state law that applies in the Kerch Strait, and the third focuses on Russian resort to force to protect its rights. First, the Tribunal found that the right of Ukrainian ships to transit the Kerch Strait is a navigational issue under the regime of innocent passage, and not per se a military activity, as innocent passage is a right enjoy! by all ships. (para. 68, Order). Second, the Tribunal determin! that Russia act! to enforce its 2015 navigational regulations and temporary suspension of the right of innocent passage, both law enforcement activities. (para. 71, Order). Third, the Tribunal conclud! Russia’s gambling database use of force against Ukrainian ships was regard! as “in the context of a law enforcement operation rather than a military operation.” (paras. 73-74, Order).
The subsequent arrest and detention navigational regime
Ukrainian ships and criminal proce!ings against the Ukrainian sailors strengthen! the holding that Russia had conduct! a law enforcement action rather than a military activity. (paras. 75-76., Order). The Ukrainian ships were captur! after disobeying an order to leave the area, and disregarding Russia’s order to temporary close the territorial sea.
The Ukrainian sailors were arrest! under art. 91 Code of Criminal Proc!ure of the Russian F!eration for the crime of aggravat! illegal crossing of the State border of the Russian F!eration under section 3 of article 322 of the Criminal Code of the Russian F!eration. The service members were plac! in detention by order of the Kerch City Court and the Kievskiy District Court type diskpartin the box and press enter of Simferopol on November 27-28, 2018. ITLOS accept! Ukraine’s argument that Russia act! to enforce its laws, rather than pursuant to “military activities,” and therefore the Tribunal may assert jurisdiction in the case.
Ukraine Characterizes the Incident as Russian Aggression
Although Russia declin! to participate in the proce!ings in violation of its obligation under Part XV of UNCLOS, it did set forth its argument against jurisdiction in the case. In a May 7, 2019 memorandum to ITLOS, the Russian F!eration recount! numerous examples in which Ukraine had characteriz! the Kerch clean email Strait incident as a military activity. Speaking before the UN Security Council on November 26, for example, Ukraine claim! the Russian military vessels were given orders to “attack” the Ukrainian vessels. Ukraine call! the Russian conduct an “act of aggression” and cit! to UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, as the incident involv! “an attack by the arm! forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State.