The Law of Naval Warfare and Maritime Neutrality

Kraska, James; Pedrozo, Raul

doi:10.1093/oso/9780197630181.003.0002

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Kiev is litigating this case on the basis of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, international lawyers have debated whether the naval clash should come under peacetime rules of the law of the sea or the law of naval warfare (if it is part of a continuing aggression by Russia against Ukraine), which applies to international armed conflicts (Kraska, 2018).…”

Section: Legal Discourse Over Crimea and Lawfarementioning

confidence: 99%

Russian Revisionism, Legal Discourse and the ‘Rules-Based’ International Order

Allison¹

2022

Hybridisation of Political Order and Contemporary Revisionism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The claim that Russia has a revisionist approach to international order has resounded in Western capitals since Crimea was annexed in 2014an act which overturned the basic prohibition against states reverting to wars of territory or the use of force to expand their territorial sphere. In such official language revisionism is defined as a challenge to a 'rules-based' approach to the international system. Since norms and rules are ultimately vested in international law, which is contested but still the foundation of global order, this leads to important questions for scholarly analysis about contemporary Russian attitudes to international law. Is Russia seeking to change certain fundamental rules of global order, a form of legal revisionism?, and what role has Russia assigned to discourse on international law since 2014? These questions are part of a broader enquiry whether Russia can be defined as revisionist in ways beyond rule-breaking or rule-making. This article contributes to an evolving debate on these questions by reviewing the initial post-2014 scholarly findings about the Russian use of legal discourse and examining further Russian official views on the role of rules and international law during 2014-19. It assesses the ways in which and purposes to which Russia has deployed such legal language more specifically in continued clashes around the regional conflicts in Ukraine and Syria. It seeks to clarify the limits of Russian revisionism as an intellectual category related to international law and rules. The focus of study is on the rules governing the use or the threat of use of force in these conflicts, since these lie at the apex of a hierarchy of legal constraint on state conduct and have generated the most significant body of justificatory discourse, of claims and counter-claims by Russia and other states.A premise of our analysis is that principles of international law and discourse around them matters. These principles, as expressed in foundational documents such as the UN Charter, interpretations of customary law and international judicial opinion, opinio juris, are central to the language of diplomacy and the way states interact.They constrain and enable state action, even if occasionally and controversially powerful states break rules. They provide a normative framework which regulates interstate competition. However, rules and power are interrelated and legal discourse can be deployed for strategic ends. Arguably Western concern over Russian efforts to justify its post-2014 rule-breaking ultimately rests on a belief that these Russian claims are part of an effort to reorder the balance of structural power in Europe, the Middle East and more widely. It is this wider geopolitical or realist interpretation of revisionism, focused on the outcome and intentions of rule-breaking, which sustains the use of the term among Western officials and practitioners.Analysis of such structural logic lies beyond the main concerns of this article. However, we show how the strategic use of legal discourse by Russia...

show abstract

Section: Legal Discourse Over Crimea and Lawfarementioning

confidence: 99%

Russian Revisionism, Legal Discourse and the ‘Rules-Based’ International Order

Allison¹

2022

Hybridisation of Political Order and Contemporary Revisionism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ambiguous and secretive nature of Chinese maritime militia poses a threat to the international legal system. Kraska and Monti (2015) find that China's paramilitary groups obscure the core principles of distinction between civilian and military objects as developed in international humanitarian law and that China is further integrating its maritime militia into the naval structure by taking advantage of such ambiguities. They also argue that the use of fishing vessels during any armed conflicts is against the legal principle of the protected status of coastal fishing vessels found in customary international law.…”

Section: Chinese Maritime Militia and The Question Of State Responsib...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 3 Kraska and Monti (2015); Patalano (2018); Hu (2020); O'Rourke (2020); Wiegand and Ryou-Ellison (2020). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is China Responsible for Its Maritime Militia's Internationally Wrongful Acts? The Attribution of the Conduct of a Parastatal Entity to the State

Yoo¹,

Koo

2022

Bus. Polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

China's maritime militia groups have attracted much scholarly attention in recent years. Systematically funded and trained by the Chinese authorities, the militia groups help advance China's maritime claims but risk both intended and unintended physical clashes at sea. Based on the 2001 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, this study explores the possibility of establishing and recognizing China's state responsibility in relation to the internationally wrongful conduct of its maritime militia. China's maritime militia groups blur the line between fishing boats and naval forces. In essence, they are empowered to perform the critical function of the Chinese government as provided by Chinese internal laws. As shown by emerging evidence, China's maritime militia groups are also instructed, directed, and/or controlled by the Chinese state organs including military authority and party leadership, both central and local. This study finds that the conduct of Chinese maritime militia constitutes the breach of China's international obligations in terms of (1) due regard for other states, (2) maritime safety, (3) marine environment protection and preservation, and/or (4) the overfishing ban.

show abstract

The Law of Naval Warfare and Maritime Neutrality

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Russian Revisionism, Legal Discourse and the ‘Rules-Based’ International Order

Russian Revisionism, Legal Discourse and the ‘Rules-Based’ International Order

Is China Responsible for Its Maritime Militia's Internationally Wrongful Acts? The Attribution of the Conduct of a Parastatal Entity to the State

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About