As part of its analysis for jurisdiction, the Tribunal avoid! a determination on whether there was an arm! conflict between the two states, as would appear from the application of the Geneva Conventions in article 2 common, and as I suggest! in an earlier piece. Instead, the ITLOS order accepts without analysis that Ukraine and Russia are interacting during a time of peace, a dubious assumption. In doing so, the Tribunal vindicates two important rights that will be welcom! by maritime powers: sovereign immunity of warships and other government vessels and the peacetime right of fre!om of navigation by Ukrainian military vessels. But in reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal diminish! the military activities exemption. In a departure from the broader understanding of military activities evident in the 2016 Philippines v.
China arbitration, the Tribunal found that the Provisional Measures
over innocent passage was a navigational issue, rather than one concerning a military activity, because phone number database innocent passage is a right enjoy! by all ships. The Tribunal also determin! that Russia’s temporary suspension of innocent passage declar! conveniently to halt the transit of Ukrainian warships was a law enforcement activity rather than a military activity. These factors l! the Tribunal to conclude that Russia’s actions were “in the context of a law enforcement operation rather than a military operation.”
The case was brought by Ukraine
The clean email tribunal vot! 19 to 1 to award provisional measures. As Russia previously had by declaration exercis! its right to exempt military activities from compulsory dispute resolution proc!ures in accordance with article 298 of UNCLOS, the sole issue fix! ‘run as different user’ not showing before the tribunal was whether Russia’s action constitut! “military activities.” (para. 63, Order).
The Tribunal conclud! that a determination of “military activities” cannot be made only bas! on whether naval vessels or law enforcement vessels were involv!, as the roles and missions of these two types of vessels “has become considerably blurr!.” (para. 64, Order). Nor was the Tribunal willing to draw the distinction between law enforcement and military activities bas! solely on how parties subjectively characteriz! the dispute (para. 65). Instead, the Tribunal suggest! that it made the distinction bas! on an “objective evaluation of the nature of the activities.” (para. 66, Order).