Suppression of Crimes Against the Security of Fixed Platforms Located in the Waters of the Russian Federation (International Law Basis)

Abstract

The Russian state exercises sovereignty over its waters and has exclusive criminal jurisdiction with respect to crimes infringing on the security of oil, research or other stationary platforms in these waters, although their status may differ, for example, Lake Baikal; part of a continental water body (the Caspian Sea); marine internal waters (the Peter the Great Gulf); the territorial sea of the Russian Federation. Despite certain differences in status, all these waters are united by being part of the Russian territory. They differ from the waters that are not part of the territory of the state, but are above the continental shelf of the Russian Federation; these are the waters of the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation, and the open sea waters start beyond the 200-mile distance from the baseline. Even in the latter case, since a platform is stationary on the continental shelf of the Russian Federation, it is within the exclusive criminal jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. Counteraction to crimes infringing of the security of platforms fixed to the seabed includes a wide range of legal and organizational-legal measures. Besides, an important part is played by the special norms of international and national laws, including the criminal legislation of the state that has jurisdiction over the water body where a fixed platform is located. This article presents suggestions on improving Russian criminal legislation taking into account Russia's participation in the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf of 1988, other applicable norms of international law, the necessity to observe international law obligations and protect the national interests of the country. The authors suggest that unlawful acts of seizing a fixed platform or other violent actions infringing on the security of this object, the security of personnel operating it, aimed at forcing a state or an organization which is legally operating this object to perform or abstain form certain actions, and resulting in the intimidation of the population should be specifically included in the national criminal law as a separate type of terrorism crimes. The authors also recommend to add the norms on criminal liability for other unlawful, criminally punishable acts (which are not acts of terrorism and do not have the features of terrorism), including the attempts of illegal entry into a fixed platform or hindering its operation, to Chapter 24 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation «Crimes against Public Safety» as a separate Article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation among the norms regarding crimes that violate the security of the functioning of potentially dangerous objects (potentially dangerous operations). They recommend to use the most successful international legal experience to improve corporate acts within the framework of Russian legislation through the content specification of the scope and type of rights and obligations of business entities, including the relationships of the fixed platforms personnel with the law enforcement bodies with the purpose of a more effective inclusion of business entities in the system of measures of preventing and suppressing illegal interference in the functioning of fixed platforms in the Russian waters.

Legal Frameworks For International Cooperation Against Corruption: Retrospective Analysis

“…Today, international cooperation against crime needs a reliable legal framework, which is mandatory under the commonly accepted rules if such cooperation is to be legitimate. An integrated, holistic approach to crime prevention is arising in international and national legislation (Vylegzhanin et al, 2020).…”

“…The globalization and expansion of international cooperation coupled with the spread of democratic and liberal principles contributed to the development of information communications, which enabled informing the society on the causes and consequences of corruption as well as on the new approaches to combating it. However, it should be noted that integration that promotes international ties has both positive effects, as it strengthens international cooperation, but also negative impact, as it might facilitate international crime (Vylegzhanin et al, 2020). International cooperation against corruption makes international law enforcement more efficient, as countries develop common frameworks for legal assistance in corruption-related investigations, limit corruption suspects' access to asylum, and deport corruption convicts if need be (Kobets & Nikitenko, 2020).…”