Dedicated Russian thread

UNCLOS Article 25.3 does permit the unilateral suspension of rights of innocent passage through designated parts of territorial waters, provided notice is given by the coastal state. Apart from the Redbeard Rum aspect of whose waters were involved, the Russians acted within UNCLOS.

Article 25.3 states :

The coastal State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security, including weapons exercises. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published

Unfortunately, the Russ have discriminated in form by only imposing their exclusion zone for warships and "temporarily" is not intended to mean several months. Some (admittedly potentially partial) discussion on the subject.

Russia’s Illegal Restriction of Navigation in the Black Sea
 
I think that's missing the point. The point I was making was that the sort of people who read RT, PressTV, and the like on a regular basis are in most cases not interested in reading news. Rather, they are interested in reading things that confirm what they already believe emotionally. RT give them that while their local media may not if they feel alienated from their society.

Of course the comment sections in Western news web sites aren't exactly all that edifying either. I don't normally read the comments in news stories, but to get a comparison I just picked a political story on the CBC web site and read some of the comments. It's a cesspit. It reminds me why I read and comment on ARRSE instead of the major news sites.
From the bias check comments I thought that was obvious, with it's mention of conspiracy theories etc. I was going to cite examples, such as person A who I know leans to the left but regards RT as a purveyor of ridiculous and biased anti-Western propaganda and person B who thinks the sun shines out of their studios and they are the only purveyor of "non-leftist" "truth". Person B is beyond help and will only double down in the face of scientific evidence or logical reasoning. This is RT's target audience.
 
UNCLOS Article 25.3 does permit the unilateral suspension of rights of innocent passage through designated parts of territorial waters, provided notice is given by the coastal state. Apart from the Redbeard Rum aspect of whose waters were involved, the Russians acted within UNCLOS.

As Terminal said, it's a game of assertion: the Russians need to keep acting in ways consistent to their claims, and we need to keep acting in ways consistent with ours.
Why would Russia NEED to conduct firing exercises at the very outward limits of their claimed territorial waters? The UK seems to acknowledge that a firing exercise was declared, but I would be interested to see the notice which Russia issued under Article 25.3, if you have a link.
 
UNCLOS Article 25.3 does permit the unilateral suspension of rights of innocent passage through designated parts of territorial waters, provided notice is given by the coastal state. Apart from the Redbeard Rum aspect of whose waters were involved, the Russians acted within UNCLOS.

As Terminal said, it's a game of assertion: the Russians need to keep acting in ways consistent to their claims, and we need to keep acting in ways consistent with ours.
I asked for a link to the notice posted by Russia under Art 25.3, but I've now seen from the link posted by @Not a Boffin that the notice of "temporary" exercises lasts from Apr 24 to Oct 31 - half a year - and (only) applies to warships and other state vessels. With great respect to you and indeed to Russia this seems an extremely thin attempt at justification of an exclusion zone under Article 25.3.
 
Do you care to say why you think it’s only alleged a Russian war plane entered Turkish airspace?
It was more than just alleged that a Turkish armoured brigade entered Syrian territory. They remained there for quite some time without any sanction from the countries who seem so adamant that territorial integrity be respected in this case.

When is a border not a border, kind of thing...
 
Why would Russia NEED to conduct firing exercises at the very outward limits of their claimed territorial waters?
I can't find any requirement in UNCLOS to prove a NEED, nor any article of international law restricting what military exercises a country can conduct on its own territory.

That's the problem with a 'rules-based order' - it has rules.
 
I can't find any requirement in UNCLOS to prove a NEED, nor any article of international law restricting what military exercises a country can conduct on its own territory.

That's the problem with a 'rules-based order' - it has rules.
I agree with your last sentence as you well know, but the rule under discussion reads (my bold):

"3. The coastal State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security, including weapons exercises."

Also, the issue under Art 25.3 clearly isn't "restricting what military exercises a country can conduct on its own territory" to quote your good self, but rather, the restrictions which it can impose on passage by marine traffic.
 
As I understand it, "innocent passage" refers to what the ship does while passing through those waters. It can't engage in active military operations (launch attacks on someone), conduct military exercises, fish, conduct oil exploration surveys, or anything like that until it has exited territorial waters.

However, so long as the ship passes through the waters on its way to its destination and does so directly and by the most expeditious route without engaging in activities which are prohibited by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, then that is considered to be "innocent passage". Whether or not London had ulterior motives doesn't factor into that.
At the time, the Soviet Union recognized the right of innocent passage for warships in its territorial waters solely in designated sea lanes.[2] The United States believed that there was no legal basis for a coastal nation to limit warship transits to sea lanes only.[3] Subsequently, the U.S. Department of State found that the Russian-language text of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Article 22, paragraph 1 allowed the coastal state to regulate the right of innocent passage whenever necessary, while the English-language text did not.[1] Following the incident, the Soviet Union expressed a commitment to resolve the issue of innocent passage in Soviet territorial waters
Meanwhile, "The Rules of Navigation and Sojourn of Foreign Warships in the Territorial Waters and Internal Waters and Ports of the USSR", enacted by the Soviet Council of Ministers in 1983, acknowledged the right of innocent passage of foreign warships only in restricted areas of Soviet territorial waters in the Baltic, Sea of Okhotsk and the Sea of Japan;[1] no sea lanes for innocent passage in the Black Sea were designated.
From my point of view English and Russian texts of the convention are not absolutely identical
The coastal State may, where necessary having regard to the safety of navigation, require foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through its territorial sea to use such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes as it may designate or prescribe for the regulation of the passage of ships.
'it may designate or prescribe' is translated as 'может установить или предписать' = has right to establish or prescribe.
 
Last edited:
In short, a Russian/Putin PR exercise to G up the public.

In the West, the news pedlars to exaggerate, conflate, and sell copy.

Move on folks, nothing to see here.
 

Slime

LE
It was more than just alleged that a Turkish armoured brigade entered Syrian territory. They remained there for quite some time without any sanction from the countries who seem so adamant that territorial integrity be respected in this case.

When is a border not a border, kind of thing...

Just in case I’m missing the point of your post.
How does it relate to a Russian aircraft entering Turkish airspace????

In other news, I saw a postman walk on someone’s grass today instead of sticking to the concrete path………….Perhaps that is relevant too.
 
I agree with your last sentence as you well know, but the rule under discussion reads (my bold):
The salient point to 25.3 is that notified military exercises are considered a valid reason for suspending the right to innocent passage. The timing and necessity are solely down to the coastal state and no justification is needed.
Also, the issue under Art 25.3 clearly isn't "restricting what military exercises a country can conduct on its own territory" to quote your good self, but rather, the restrictions which it can impose on passage by marine traffic.
I have wasn't specifically referring to UNCLOS there but rather that international law as a body doesn't impose conditions on a sovereign nation's right to use it's own territory for military exercises. UNCLOS is just one of any documents which leaves the exercise of that right to the state concerned.
 
Just in case I’m missing the point of your post.
How does it relate to a Russian aircraft entering Turkish airspace????
That some transgressions into others' territory seems more easily forgiven by our side than others, regardless of how much more objectively transgression-ey they might appear.

Exhibit B: Turks in Iraq despite the protests of the Iraqi government contrasted with Russians in... well, pretty much anywhere Russians go under whatever circumstances.
 

Slime

LE
That some transgressions into others' territory seems more easily forgiven by our side than others, regardless of how much more objectively transgression-ey they might appear.

Exhibit B: Turks in Iraq despite the protests of the Iraqi government contrasted with Russians in... well, pretty much anywhere Russians go under whatever circumstances.

So nothing at all to do with KGB‘s claim, or my question back to him.
Niether of us mentioned forgiveness. His claim was purely proximity based.
 
So nothing at all to do with KGB‘s claim, or my question back to him.
Since your point was to cast blame on Russia for violating another country's airspace, I thought it interesting to contrast the response when that same country does the violating in a more overt, large-scale and extended fashion.

Basically whether the principle is important or whether it's just a handy stick to beat Russia with.
 

Slime

LE
Since your point was to cast blame on Russia for violating another country's airspace, I thought it interesting to contrast the response when that same country does the violating in a more overt, large-scale and extended fashion.

Basically whether the principle is important or whether it's just a handy stick to beat Russia with.

No, my post wasn’t about that, no need for you to try to spin it.

The point of my posts were contained in the posts, and were to KGB.

He has already covered this subject, as have others here. He is now doing what he does very often, which is to ignore what he and others have already said, and has reset to his own propaganda position.
He does this on a regular basis. Perhaps he is trying to catch out or fool those not paying attention to what has gone before :)
 
The salient point to 25.3 is that notified military exercises are considered a valid reason for suspending the right to innocent passage. The timing and necessity are solely down to the coastal state and no justification is needed.

I have wasn't specifically referring to UNCLOS there but rather that international law as a body doesn't impose conditions on a sovereign nation's right to use it's own territory for military exercises. UNCLOS is just one of any documents which leaves the exercise of that right to the state concerned.
In fairness to your argument, this learned article from early May disagrees with the German Government view that these "restrictions on the so-called innocent passage through territorial waters for such a long period of time are unprecedented and very problematic in terms of international law".

The article treats Russia as the illegal occupier of Crimea, but nevertheless cites restrictions protecting Iraqi oil terminals and the US base at Guantanamo as precedents for restrictions which are by no means temporary.

Usefully the article quotes the Notice to Mariners and also includes a sketch of the restricted areas. The article concludes that "Accepting the measure as a lawful exercise of the powers of a belligerent occupant neither implies recognition of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea nor undermines support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, extending to its territorial waters."

The justification for the less-than-temporary restriction appears, in the eyes of the article's author, to be under the Laws of Armed Conflict.

 
In fairness to your argument, this learned article from early May disagrees with the German Government view that these "restrictions on the so-called innocent passage through territorial waters for such a long period of time are unprecedented and very problematic in terms of international law".

The article treats Russia as the illegal occupier of Crimea, but nevertheless cites restrictions protecting Iraqi oil terminals and the US base at Guantanamo as precedents for restrictions which are by no means temporary.

Usefully the article quotes the Notice to Mariners and also includes a sketch of the restricted areas. The article concludes that "Accepting the measure as a lawful exercise of the powers of a belligerent occupant neither implies recognition of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea nor undermines support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, extending to its territorial waters."

The justification for the less-than-temporary restriction appears, in the eyes of the article's author, to be under the Laws of Armed Conflict.


That was very interesting. The key point seems to be:
The question is thus not whether the Russian Federation is the “coastal State” with regard to the Crimean Peninsula but whether it is the “occupying Power” there. During the ongoing armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine the law of the sea is at least partly supplanted by the law of armed conflict and, in particular, the law of occupation. Germany and other States cannot consider Russia to be an occupying Power in Crimea and, at the same time, deny it the rights that come with that status.

In other words, Russia have the right to define exclusion zones within the territorial waters of Crimea under their rights as the belligerent occupying power in the ongoing war between between Russia and Ukraine. This is based on the laws of armed conflict. Under international law, Russia can also discriminate between military and civilian traffic as part of this war.

Or to put it another way, people or countries who state that Russia has no right to impose such exclusion zones are implicitly conceding that:
  1. Crimea rightfully belongs to Russia and not Ukraine.
  2. The ongoing war in the Donbas is purely an internal war between the Ukrainian state and Ukrainian rebels and Russia are completely innocent of any involvement.

All those posters who have been spouting on about Russia having no right to impose this exclusion zone have just been exposed as Putin bots promoting Russian propaganda from their troll factory in St. Petersburg.
 
How Moscow is rewriting history to suit its own agenda.
Moscow Is Using Memory Diplomacy to Export Its Narrative to the World
The Muscovite Mindset in action. There is no truth, but the truth of the Kremlin. The Kremlin's selective and falsified rendition of history must be enforced.

For an objective account of Moscow's actual conduct in WW2, see Sean McMeekin's recent well-researched tome: "Stalin's War".
 
Last edited:
Top