International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has no jurisdiction over Kerch Strait dispute

Summary

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has no jurisdiction over the Kerch Strait dispute. The tribunal has no jurisdiction either over naval vessels nor warships. 

Disproof

This is one of the narratives promoted by the pro-Kremlin disinformation campaign on Azov sea and the Kerch Strait incident.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea ratified by Russia in 1997 and Ukraine in 1999 regulates the legal order for the seas and oceans. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) was established in 1996 on the basis of the Convention. According to Article 288 of the Convention, the tribunal shall have jurisdiction over any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention. In its April 16 2019 decision the tribunal ruled that it has jurisdiction over the Kerch Strait dispute.

According to Article 298 of the UN Convention, the state has the right not to recognize the tribunal’s jurisdiction over the disputes concerning military activities. This provision, however, refers to military activities rather than warships, as claimed. 

ITLOS ruled on May 25 after deliberation that the Russian Federation shall immediately release the Ukrainian naval vessels and detained servicemen.

Background:

On November 25th, 2018, border patrol boats belonging to Russia’s FSB security service seized two small Ukrainian armoured artillery vessels and a tug boat and their crews after shooting at them, wounding several Ukrainian servicemen. Russia argued that they were in Russian waters.

However, a bilateral treaty between Russia and Ukraine, signed in 2003 and ratified by Russia in 2004, governs the use of the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov, which in the treaty are considered to be the “internal waters” of both Russia and Ukraine.

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 152
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 25/05/2019
  • Language/target audience: Russian
  • Country: Russia, Ukraine
  • Keywords: Azov sea, Kerch
  • Outlet: Sputnik Abkhazia; RIA Novosti
see more

Chemical weapons – a false pretext to attack Assad since the very beginning

The battle for Idlib is raging as Washington accuses Assad of using chemical weapons again. The evidence put forward seems to be weak, moreover, it contradicts the official version.
What is really happening? A document from a sub-team of engineers working with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), involved in the assessment of the Duma chemical attack in April 2018, has recently been leaked. It concluded that the on-site chlorine cylinders were more likely placed there by hand rather than having fallen from an aircraft, as indicated in the final report.

In April 2018, the United States made false claims about the Syrian army using chemical weapons. It has been shown that these claims were false already before the leaks that just happened.
It is not even a sub-team, it’s a team that was led by an engineer known in his field and perfectly competent and he was officially responsible for doing this investigation. But the OPCW deliberately dismissed this report from this engineer who said: “No, it is not possible that it was the Syrian army that did that.” It was already a false pretext in April 2018. And today as the Syrian army is about to liquidate the terrorists, to finish with the precincts of Idlib, obviously the organisations that are against this are advancing their outdated narrative saying: “the Syrian government uses chemical weapons, so you have to hit.”

Disproof

Recurring disinformation narratives deflecting blame for chemical attacks from the Assad regime; painting the White Helmets as cooperating with terrorists or terrorists themselves; and aiming to discredit the OPCW.

The "new leaked report" appears to be an engineering assessment carried out by one individual who, contrary to Sputnik's false claim, was never a member of the Fact-Finding Mission and is not currently employed by the organisation.
The individual, however, was affiliated with the OPCW as an engineer and apparently had access to materials gathered in the course of the Douma FFM, and based his/her conclusions on the same evidence pool. An OPCW press statement confirms that "all information was taken into account, deliberated, and weighed when formulating the final report regarding the incident in Douma."

Global power is in the hands of powerful elite groups – Zionists, US imperialists and militarists

Global power is in the hands of powerful elite groups – Zionists, US imperialists and militarists, eurocratic elites, deep states, petro-monarchies, and oligarchies of various countries. These elite groups cooperate among themselves to protect their power and privileges, to control the people, and to deceive the latter into believing that the people rule and that the system is democratic.

The Bilderberg group  was created in order to enable such elite groups to forge alliances and work out strategies to protect their own interests.

Disproof

Conspiracy theory, often used in pro-Kremlin disinformation, about the Bilderberg Group asserting that its members are plotting the New World Order and are hell-bent on global domination. Also linked with the broader Zionist conspiracy.

There is no evidence that the Bilderberg Group represents a “shadow world government”. Its attendees  – politicians, economists, journalists, etc – claim the group is simply a debating society taking place outside the glare of the political spotlight.

Kremlin always follows the course of non-interference in the affairs of sovereign states

Europeans are voting for independence and prosperity and this is how Russia wants to see Europe too. The anti-Russian discourse and provocations imposed on EU from across the ocean must come to an end. It is important that the elected MPs be ready for a new approach and dialogue with Russia. Kremlin always follows the course of non-interference in the affairs of sovereign states.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinfo narrative narrative denying the multiple pieces of evidence of Russian interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states and violating international norms. See here and here for examples of interference in Georgia, here for Ukraine, here for Armenia and Azerbaijan and here for election meddling.