Kerch Strait Dispute: Hague Arbitration Rejects Most of Ukraine’s Claims Against Russia

The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague has removed the foundation for Kyiv’s accusations of “maritime piracy” against Russia by recognizing Russia’s control over the Kerch Strait, according to the article.

Photo: Rosavtodor's film "Bridge with a Russian Character"

Crimean Bridge across the Kerch Strait

The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague has issued its final ruling on Ukraine’s 2016 lawsuit against Russia concerning the waters of the Black and Azov seas. The court rejected the overwhelming majority of Kyiv’s key claims, while identifying certain procedural violations on Moscow’s part.

The decision by five arbitrators from Algeria, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea was adopted unanimously.

It should be noted from the outset that the arbitration did not consider the issue of Crimea’s ownership and did not rule on sovereignty over the peninsula. The dispute was examined exclusively within the framework of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The decision was based on two precedents: the 2016 case of the Philippines versus China concerning the South China Sea and the 2015 case of Mauritius versus the United Kingdom regarding the Chagos Archipelago. In these disputes, arbitration tribunals applied the legal principle known in international law as “the land dominates the sea.”

If two states have an unresolved sovereignty dispute over territory, an arbitration tribunal cannot determine whose maritime rights have been violated until the land issue has been settled. Since this matter falls outside its jurisdiction, the court must either completely reject the claim, as happened with many of Ukraine’s demands, or proceed from the reality of de facto control over the coastline.

For this reason, the arbitrators immediately refused to award Kyiv compensation for hydrocarbon extraction and the use of other resources off the coast of Crimea, as these issues were deemed beyond the court’s jurisdiction.

Kerch Strait and Azov Sea recognized as internal waters

Examining the case under UNCLOS, the court concluded that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the disputed waters retained the status of internal waters.

The precedent was considered in the dispute over the Gulf of Fonseca (Tunisia versus Libya at the International Court of Justice). The gulf had been recognized as internal waters by mutual agreement, meaning that this status could only be changed through mutual consent.

The conclusion that the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait are internal waters was based on the 2003 bilateral agreement between Ukraine and Russia. The court confirmed that this status had not changed, rejecting Ukraine’s demands to recognize the Kerch Strait as an “international” waterway.

The court also rejected Ukraine’s demand to dismantle the Crimean Bridge, as it found that the structure does not physically obstruct navigation, contrary to Ukraine’s claims. The construction of the bridge itself and inspections of vessels by Russian border authorities were not recognized as violations of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Only environmental violation recognized

The only violation attributed to Russia concerned environmental issues — specifically, insufficient notification and the absence of a joint assessment of potential damage during the construction of the Crimean Bridge.

The court recognized this as a breach of procedural obligations but refused to order compensation payments because actual environmental damage had not been proven.

There was also a precedent for this approach — the “Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay” case (Argentina versus Uruguay, International Court of Justice, 2010).

The court ordered each side to cover its own legal expenses.

This outcome demonstrates that international arbitration relies heavily on precedent-based legal principles that favor the party maintaining control over disputed land-based facilities.

What Russia gained from the Hague arbitration ruling

Thus, the Hague tribunal legitimized the status quo of the Kerch Strait as internal waters and legally secured Russia’s full control over navigation in the strait and the Sea of Azov, depriving Ukraine and its allies of legal mechanisms to change this regime.

As a result, Russia will continue to establish passage rules through the Kerch Strait unilaterally. The practice of inspecting commercial and civilian vessels was recognized as consistent with the UNCLOS framework, eliminating the possibility of accusing Moscow of an “illegal blockade” under this treaty.

Warships belonging to third countries, including NATO members, no longer have the right to “transit passage” or “innocent passage” through the Kerch Strait without Russia’s direct consent. Attempts by foreign military vessels to enter the Sea of Azov without Russian approval will now be interpreted by the international community as a direct violation of sovereign borders.

Russia may also temporarily restrict certain areas of the Black Sea for foreign state and military vessels.

Kerch Strait verdict will affect other Ukrainian lawsuits

The Hague arbitration verdict will directly influence other Ukrainian lawsuits, significantly limiting Kyiv’s legal position in maritime disputes.

As a result, Ukraine’s 2018 claim seeking compensation for the detention of Ukrainian military vessels and sailors in the Kerch Strait — the Berdyansk, Nikopol, and the tugboat Yany Kapu — may also face serious obstacles.

The Hague verdict does not directly affect the European Court of Human Rights, as the ECHR examines human rights violations rather than maritime law. However, the legal recognition of the legitimacy of Russian inspections and navigation regulations significantly negates Kyiv's arguments in the ECHR regarding the "unlawful restriction of the rights" of Ukrainian sailors and shipowners in the Kerch Strait.