Maritime legal issues arising out of trading to Ukraine/Crimea
Ship operators trading to Ukraine, and particularly to the ports in the newly annexed Crimea, now face a potential problem of falling foul of international/European law on the one hand and Ukrainian law on the other.
In March 2014, Ince & Co published a client alert entitled ’Shipping issues arising out of the Ukraine crisis’. This article revisits the issues facing owners when considering whether or not to accept orders to load or discharge cargo at ports located in Crimea. Where we refer to the ‘Crimean Ports’, this means the ports recently declared by Ukraine as closed, namely Kerch, Feodosia, Sevastopol, Yalta and Yevpatorya. This is not intended to suggest that Crimea is not part of Ukraine.
Russia’s annexation of Crimea is not recognised by Ukraine, nor indeed by the majority of members of the United Nations, apart from Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, Russia and Venezuela. As a matter of international law, and notwithstanding the fact that Russia is in effective control, Crimea is part of Ukraine. Ukraine has now closed the Crimean Ports. As a matter of Ukrainian law, it is illegal for vessels to call there, although Russian-flagged vessels will no doubt continue to do so. That distinction may have importance, as we discuss below. Ukraine says it cannot guarantee the ports’ safety. There is no universal concept of a free and open port and UNCLOS article 25.2 gives any nation the right to decide which of its ports are open to international shipping. There are many examples of where this has been done, notably by Cyprus 40 years ago in relation to a similar annexation of North Cyprus by Turkey. Such an action is understandable. If the closing of ports were not possible, then a government could be exposed to the risk of claims against it where conditions demanded that access should be denied. There is nothing to suggest that the ports in question are physically unsafe, although if ships are sunk strategically to block the waterways (as we saw, albeit in a limited way, at the outset of the Ukraine crisis) then that could change very quickly.
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Ince & Co briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Ince & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Ince & Co
Court of Appeal reverses 20-year service life warranty decision following the Robin Rigg grouting failures
MT Højgaard is not responsible for the cost of remedial work to the grouted connections of the foundations at the Robin Rigg offshorewind farm, overturning last year’s first instance decision.
Affected parties must think about who will be the ’operator’ for the purposes of the new European regulations.