Arctic Sunrise Arbitration

110 Pages·2015·0.82 MB·English

PCA Case Nº 2014-02

IN THE MATTER OF THE ARCTIC SUNRISE ARBITRATION

- before -

AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED UNDER ANNEX VII TO
THE 1982 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

- between -

THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS

- and -

THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

__________________________________________________________

AWARD ON THE MERITS
__________________________________________________________

ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL:

Judge Thomas A. Mensah (President)
Mr. Henry Burmester
Professor Alfred H.A. Soons
Professor Janusz Symonides
Dr. Alberto Székely

REGISTRY:

Permanent Court of Arbitration

14 August 2015
This page intentionally blank

ii
AGENTS, COUNSEL, ADVISERS, AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES

THE NETHERLANDS THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

AGENT
Professor Dr. Liesbeth Lijnzaad, Legal Adviser No agents, counsel, advisers, or other
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the representatives were appointed by the Russian
Kingdom of the Netherlands Federation in this arbitration

CO-AGENT
Professor Dr. René Lefeber, Deputy Legal
Adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

COUNSEL
Professor Dr. Erik Franckx, Professor, Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Department of
International and European Law, Centre for
International Law

PARTY REPRESENTATIVE
Peter van Wulfften Palthe, Ambassador
of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Austria

ADVISERS
Mr. Marco Benatar, Researcher, Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Department of
International and European Law, Centre for
International Law
Ms. Anke Bouma, Legal Counsel, Ministry
of Infrastructure and the Environment of the
Kingdom of the Netherlands
Mr. Tom Diederen, Legal Officer, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands
Mr. Peter Post, Transport Adviser, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands
Ms. Annemarieke Vermeer, Legal Counsel,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom
of the Netherlands

iii
This page intentionally blank
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.  INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 
II.  PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................................................................................. 5 
A.  INITIATION OF THE ARBITRATION ................................................................................... 5 
B.  APPLICATION TO ITLOS FOR PROVISIONAL MEASURES .............................................. 5 
C.  CONSTITUTION OF THE TRIBUNAL .................................................................................. 6 
D.  FIRST PROCEDURAL MEETING; ADOPTION OF TERMS OF APPOINTMENT ................... 7 
E.  ADOPTION OF PROCEDURAL TIMETABLE AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ...................... 8 
F.  THE HEARING AND POST-HEARING EVENTS ................................................................ 10 
G.  DEPOSITS FOR THE COSTS OF ARBITRATION ................................................................ 13 
III. FACTUAL OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 13 
A.  THE ARCTIC SUNRISE AND THE ARCTIC 30 .................................................................. 14 
B.  THE PRIRAZLOMNAYA .................................................................................................... 15 
C.  CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS (SEPTEMBER 2013 TO JANUARY 2015) ............................. 16 
1.  Greenpeace protest action at the Prirazlomnaya; detention of Ms. Saarela
and Mr. Weber by the Russian authorities ........................................................ 16 
2.  Boarding of the Arctic Sunrise by the Russian authorities and subsequent
measures taken against the vessel and the persons on board; diplomatic
exchanges between the Parties and commencement of this arbitration .......... 22 
3.  Release of the Arctic 30 and the Arctic Sunrise; end of legal proceedings in
Russia; commencement of related international legal proceedings ................. 28 
IV. THE NETHERLANDS’ REQUESTS FOR RELIEF .................................................................... 30 
V.  JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY ..................................................................................... 32 
A.  EXISTENCE AND SCOPE OF THE DISPUTE ...................................................................... 32 
B.  EXCHANGE OF VIEWS―ARTICLE 283(1) OF THE CONVENTION ................................. 34 
C.  STANDING ........................................................................................................................ 36 
1.  The Netherlands’ standing under the law of the sea as a flag State to invoke
Russia’s responsibility for injury caused by breaches of the Convention ....... 36 
2.  The Netherlands’ standing to invoke Russia’s responsibility for injury caused
to all persons on board the ship flying its flag, the Arctic Sunrise, regardless
of nationality ......................................................................................................... 40 
3.  The Netherlands’ entitlement to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of
the individual members of the crew having Dutch nationality ........................ 40 
4.  The Netherlands’ standing to invoke the international responsibility of Russia
for breaches of its obligations held erga omnes partes and/or erga omnes ..... 41 
VI. APPLICABLE LAW ...................................................................................................................... 43 
VII. MERITS: ALLEGED INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS OF RUSSIA ...................... 46 
A.  RUSSIA’S ESTABLISHMENT OF A SAFETY ZONE AROUND THE PRIRAZLOMNAYA ..... 46 
B.  THE LAWFULNESS OF THE MEASURES TAKEN AGAINST THE ARCTIC SUNRISE AND
ITS CREW ......................................................................................................................... 52 
v
1.  The applicable legal test ....................................................................................... 52 
2.  The boarding, seizure, and detention of the Arctic Sunrise ............................. 53 
(a)  Law enforcement measures ....................................................................... 56 
i.  Right of visit on suspicion of piracy .................................................. 56 
ii.  Violation of coastal State laws applicable to artificial islands,
installations, and structures and their safety zones in the EEZ (e.g.
prohibition of hooliganism and entry into safety zones): right of hot
pursuit ................................................................................................ 58 
(a)  Violation of the laws of the coastal State ................................ 60 
(b)  Commencement of pursuit: location of the pursued ship and
signal to stop ............................................................................ 61 
(c)  Continuity of pursuit ............................................................... 66 
iii.  Commission of terrorist offences ...................................................... 68 
iv.  Right of the coastal State to enforce its laws regarding non-living
resources in the EEZ .......................................................................... 69 
v.  Enforcement jurisdiction related to the protection of the marine
environment ....................................................................................... 71 
(a)  Article 220 of the Convention ................................................. 71 
(b)  Article 234 of the Convention ................................................. 73 
vi.  Dangerous manoeuvering .................................................................. 74 
(b)  Other possible legal bases for taking measures to protect coastal State
rights and interests in the EEZ ................................................................. 76 
i.  Prevention of adverse ecological/environmental consequences ........ 76 
ii.  Prevention of terrorism ...................................................................... 78 
iii.  Prevention of interference with the exercise of a coastal State’s
sovereign rights for the exploration and exploitation of non-living
resources in its EEZ ........................................................................... 81 
(c)  Conclusion .................................................................................................. 83 
C.  COMPLIANCE WITH THE ITLOS ORDER ....................................................................... 83 
D.  RUSSIA’S FAILURE TO PAY DEPOSITS IN THIS ARBITRATION ...................................... 90 
E.  CIRCUMSTANCES PRECLUDING WRONGFULNESS ........................................................ 92 
VIII.  REPARATION ........................................................................................................................... 92 
A.  SATISFACTION ................................................................................................................. 93 
B.  RESTITUTION ................................................................................................................... 94 
C.  COMPENSATION .............................................................................................................. 96 
IX. INTEREST ..................................................................................................................................... 97 
X.  COSTS ........................................................................................................................................... 98 
XI. DECISION ..................................................................................................................................... 98 

vi
GLOSSARY OF DEFINED TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

1958 Convention Convention on the High Seas, 1958
1995 Federal Law Federal Law No. 187-F3 dated 20 November 1995 “On the Russian
Federation continental shelf”
2013 Presidential Decree Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 23 dated
14 January 2013 “On federal executive agencies responsible for
determining measures to assure navigation safety within safety zones
established around artificial islands, installations and structures
located on the Russian Federation’s continental shelf, as well as
measures to assure security of such artificial islands, installations and
structures”
2014 Order of the Ministry Order of the Ministry of Transport No. 186 dated 16 June 2014 “On
of Transport establishing a safety zone limit around MLSP Prirazlomnaya
artificial installation”
Administrative Code Administrative Offences Code of the Russian Federation
Arctic 30 The thirty persons who were on board the Arctic Sunrise on
14-24 September 2013
Articles on State ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful
Responsibility Acts, 2001
Award on Jurisdiction Award issued by this Tribunal on 26 November 2014 concerning the
effect of the Declaration on the jurisdiction of this Tribunal
Convention United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982
Criminal Code Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Declaration Declaration made by Russia upon ratification of the Convention
District Court Leninsky District Court of Murmansk
EEZ Exclusive economic zone
ECHR European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, 1950
ECtHR European Court of Human Rights
FMS Federal Migration Service of the Russian Federation
Gazprom Neft Shelf Gazprom Neft Shelf LLC, a Russian entity and the operator of the
Prirazlomnaya
vii
Greenpeace International Greenpeace International (Stichting Greenpeace Council)
Greenpeace International Statement of Facts by Greenpeace International dated 15 August
Statement of Facts 2014, filed by the Netherlands in this arbitration as Annex N-3
Greenpeace International Addendum and Corrigendum to the Greenpeace International
Statement of Facts Statement of Facts, filed by the Netherlands in this arbitration as
(Addendum and Annex N-44
Corrigendum)
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
ILC International Law Commission of the United Nations
Investigation Committee Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation
ITLOS International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
ITLOS Order Order prescribing provisional measures issued by ITLOS on
22 November 2013 in “Arctic Sunrise” (Kingdom of the Netherlands
v. Russian Federation)
Marchenkov Interrogation Witness Interrogation Report of Nikolai Anatolievich Marchenkov
Report (gunnery officer on the Ladoga) dated 24 September 2014,
Investigation Committee
Memorial Netherlands’ Memorial dated 31 August 2014
the Netherlands The Kingdom of the Netherlands, the claimant in this arbitration
PCA Permanent Court of Arbitration
RHIB Rigid hull inflatable boat
Parties The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Russian Federation
Prirazlomnaya Offshore oil production platform located in the Pechora Sea at
69º 15ʹ56.88ʺ N 57º 17ʹ17.34ʺ E, in Russia’s EEZ
Russia (or Russian The Russian Federation, the respondent in this arbitration
Federation)
Second Supplementary The Netherlands’ Second Supplemental Written Pleadings (Replies
Submission to Questions Posed by the Arbitral Tribunal to the Netherlands
pursuant to Section 2.1.4.1 of Procedural Order No. 2) dated
12 January 2015
Sokolov Interrogation Witness Interrogation Report of Alexei Sergeevich Sokolov (master
Report mechanic on the Ladoga) dated 24 September 2014, Investigation
Committee
viii
Solomakhin Interrogation Witness Interrogation Report of Ivan Alexandrovich Solomakhin
Report (warrant officer on the Ladoga) dated 24 September 2014,
Investigation Committee
Statement of Claim The Netherlands’ Statement of the Claim and the Grounds on which
it is Based dated 4 October 2013
SUA Convention Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety
of Maritime Navigation, 1988
SUA Fixed Platforms Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of
Protocol Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, 1988
Supplementary Submission The Netherlands’ Supplementary Written Pleadings on Reparation
for Injury dated 30 September 2014
Third Supplementary The Netherlands’ Third Supplemental Written Pleadings (Replies to
Submission Further Questions from the Arbitral Tribunal Arising out of the
Netherlands’ Second Supplemental Submission dated 12 January
2015) dated 25 February 2015

ix
This page intentionally blank

x