Navigating Legitimacy and Authority: The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Provisional Measures in Ukraine v. Russia
(Menavigasi Legitimasi dan Otoritas: Tindakan Sementara The International Tribunal For The Law Of The Sea dalam Ukraina V. Rusia)
Abstract
Abstract
International maritime disputes involving geopolitical tensions test the legitimacy and authority of tribunals like the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). This article examines ITLOS’ provisional measures order in Ukraine v. Russia (2019) to assess how the Tribunal balances procedural fairness with enforcement challenges in politically charged disputes. Employing qualitative legal analysis, the study dissects ITLOS’ reliance on state consent and procedural integrity as pillars of its normative legitimacy, while evaluating its de facto authority through state participation and compliance. The article argues that ITLOS’ strict adherence to UNCLOS provisions reinforces its normative legitimacy, yet gaps in enforcement–exemplified by Russia’s partial compliance–reveal the limits of its authority in high-stakes conflicts. By contextualizing the case within broader debates on international adjudication, the analysis demonstrates how ITLOS’ procedural rigor mitigates non-participation risks but struggles to overcome power asymmetries. The study concludes with pragmatic reforms, including clarified jurisdictional guidelines, advisory opinions, and collaborations, to bolster ITLOS’ role in maritime dispute resolution. These findings illuminate the evolving challenges faced by international courts in reconciling legal principles with geopolitical realities.
Abstrak
Sengketa maritim yang melibatkan ketegangan geopolitik menguji legitimasi dan otoritas lembaga peradilan seperti Pengadilan Internasional untuk Hukum Laut atau the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). Artikel ini menganalisis tindakan sementara ITLOS dalam Ukraina v. Russia (2019) untuk menilai bagaimana Pengadilan menyeimbangkan keadilan prosedural dengan tantangan penegakan hukum dalam sengketa politis. Melalui analisis hukum kualitatif, studi ini mengkaji ketergantungan ITLOS pada persetujuan negara dan integritas prosedural sebagai pilar legitimasi normatif, sekaligus mengevaluasi otoritas de-facto-nya melalui partisipasi dan kepatuhan negara. Artikel ini berargumen bahwa kepatuhan ITLOS pada UNCLOS memperkuat legitimasi normatifnya, tetapi celah penegakan–ditunjukkan oleh kepatuhan parsial Rusia–mengungkap batasan otoritasnya dalam konflik berisiko tinggi. Dengan mengkontekstualkan kasus ini dalam debat peradilan internasional, analisis menunjukkan bahwa ketelitian prosedural ITLOS mengurangi risiko ketidakhadiran pihak, namun belum mampu mengatasi asimetri kekuasaan. Studi ini merekomendasikan reformasi pragmatis, termasuk panduan yang mengklarifikasi yurisdiksi, pandangan hukum, dan kerjasama, untuk memperkuat peran ITLOS. Temuan ini menyoroti tantangan yang dihadapi pengadilan internasional dalam memadukan prinsip hukum dengan realitas geopolitik.
References
Arctic Sunrise Case (Kingdom of the Netherlands v Russian Federation), Case No 22, Report on compliance with the provisional measures prescribed submitted by the Netherlands of 2 December 2013, ITLOS Rep.
Case concerning the detention of three Ukrainian naval vessels (Ukraine v Russian Federation), Case No 26, Request of Ukraine for the Prescription of Provisional Measures under Article 290(5) of the UNCLOS, 16 April 2019, ITLOS Rep.
Case concerning the detention of three Ukrainian naval vessels (Ukraine v Russian Federation), Case No 26, Order of 25 May 2019, ITLOS Rep.
Case concerning the detention of three Ukrainian naval vessels (Ukraine v Russian Federation), Case No 26, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Kolodkin, ITLOS Rep.
Case concerning the detention of three Ukrainian naval vessels (Ukraine v Russian Federation), Case No 26, Separate Opinion of Judge Gao, ITLOS Rep.
Case concerning the detention of three Ukrainian naval vessels (Ukraine v Russian Federation), Case No 26, Separate Opinion of Judge Lucky, ITLOS Rep.
Case concerning the detention of three Ukrainian naval vessels (Ukraine v Russian Federation), Case No 26, Report on compliance with the provisional measures prescribed submitted by Ukraine of 26 June 2019, ITLOS Rep.
Dawson, John P. The Oracles of the Law. Thomas M. Cooley Lectures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Law School, 1968.
Gapsa, M. “On the Importance of Provisional Measures in Ukraine’s Cases against Russia.” Baltic Yearbook of International Law Online 22, no. 1 (2024): 113–146.
Grossman, Nienke. “The Legitimacy and International Adjudicative Bodies.” George Washington International Law Review 41, no. 1 (2009): 107-180.
Grossman, Nienke. “The Normative Legitimacy of International Courts.” Temple Law Review 86 (2013): 61–105.
Grossman, Nienke, Harlan Grant Cohen, Andreas Føllesdal, and Geir Ulfstein. Legitimacy and International Courts. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Guzman, Andrew T. “A Compliance-Based Theory of International Law.” California Law Review 90 (2002): 1823–1887.
International Court of Justice. Adoption of a new Article 11 of the Resolution concerning Internal Judicial Practice of the Court, on procedures for monitoring the implementation of provisional measures indicated by the Court. Press Release No. 2020/38, December 21, 2020.
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. “Members of the Tribunal.” Accessed January 25, 2025. https://www.itlos.org/en/main/the-tribunal/members/.
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Rules of the Tribunal (Rules of the Tribunal) 2009.
Kraska, James. “Did ITLOS Just Kill the Military Activities Exemption in Article 298?” EJIL: Talk! May 27, 2019. https://www.ejiltalk.org/did-itlos-just-kill-the-military-activities-exemption-in-article-298/.
Kraska, James. “The Kerch Strait Incident: Law of the Sea or Law of Naval Warfare?” EJIL: Talk! December 3, 2018. https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-kerch-strait-incident-law-of-the-sea-or-law-of-naval-warfare/.
Kraska, James. “The Obligation of ‘Due Regard’ in the EEZ During Armed Conflict at Sea.” International Law Studies 106, no. 116 (2025): 116-145.
Ndiaye, Tafsir Malick. “Non-Appearance before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.” Indian Journal of International Law 53 (2013): 545–564.
Romano, Cesare P. R. “Legitimacy, Authority, and Performance: Contemporary Anxieties of International Courts and Tribunals.” American Journal of International Law 114, no. 1 (2020): 149–163.
Shelton, Dinah. “The Participation of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Judicial Proceedings.” American Journal of International Law 88, no. 4 (1994): 611–642.
Shi, Xinxiang, and Yen-Chiang Chang. “Order of Provisional Measures in Ukraine v Russia and Mixed Disputes Concerning Military Activities.” Journal of International Dispute Settlement 11 (2020): 278–294.
Sun, Ying. “Why States Refuse to Participate in Judicial Proceedings: Uncovering Key Reasons and Historical Evolution.” Journal of International Dispute Settlement 14, no. 4 (2023): 451–468.
Tams, Christian J. “Monitoring Provisional Measures at the International Court of Justice: The Recent Amendment to the Internal Judicial Practice.” EJIL: Talk! October 5, 2023. https://www.ejiltalk.org/monitoring-provisional-measures-at-the-international-court-of-justice-the-recent-amendment-to-the-internal-judicial-practice/.
The Republic of the Philippines v The People’s Republic of China, UNCLOS Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal, Case No 2013-19, Award of 12 July 2016.
Tobiasco-Casals, Neus. “The Legitimacy of International Courts: The Challenge of Diversity.” Journal of Social Philosophy 52, no. 4 (2021): 491–515.
Tzeng, Peter. “A Strategy of Non-Participation before International Courts and Tribunals.” The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 19 (2020): 5–27.
Tzeng, Peter. “Ukraine v Russia and Philippines v China: Jurisdiction and Legitimacy.” Denver Journal of International Law & Policy 46, no. 1 (2017): 1–19.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982.
Venzke, Ingo. “Understanding the Authority of International Courts and Tribunals: On Delegation and Discursive Construction.” Theoretical Inquiries in Law 14, no. 2 (2013): 381–410.
Vidal, John. “Arctic 30: Russia to Release Greenpeace Ship Arctic Sunrise.” The Guardian, June 6, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/06/arctic-30-sunrise-russia-to-release-greenpeace-ship.
Zarbiyev, Fuad. “Judicial Activism in International Law–A Conceptual Framework for Analysis.” Journal of International Dispute Settlement 3, no. 2 (2012): 247–278.
Copyright (c) 2025 Hanif Ardiningrum Khansa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
