Abstract
This chapter studies the navigational rights in the two major Baltic Sea straits, the Åland Strait and the Danish Straits, in the light of existing international law. Both straits are of major commercial and strategic relevance in the Baltic Sea and both have been subject to specific treaties in the past. Yet the current legal status of both straits include several uncertainties with regard to the extent to which other states' ships may freely navigate therein. The examples hence illustrate that even precise regulation in the law of the sea and specific international conventions is not a guarantee for uniformity of interpretation and application of navigational rights in the Baltic Sea.
Jur.Dr., Postdoc Researcher. This chapter is written as a part research project “Demilitarisation in an increasingly militarised world. International perspectives in a multilevel framework – the case of the Åland Islands”. The research project is a co-operation between the Åland Islands Peace Institute (ÅIPI) and The University of Lapland and its Arctic Center in Rovaniemi (Finland). The Project is funded by the KONE Foundation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
According to A.G. López Martín International Straits, Concept, classification and Rules of Passage (Springer, 2010) 203 the Entrance to the Gulf of Finland that connects the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Finland and the territorial sea of Russia is also a strait in the Baltic Sea. López Martín considers the strait to be the objective of art. 45(1)(b).
- 2.
One example is the use of force by Japan in 1863, when Japan opposed passage through the Shimonoseki Strait. Another is Turkey in 1774, when the prohibition of passage was mitigated in favour of merchant vessels in the peace treaty between Russia and Turkey. E. Brüel International Straits, A Treatise on International Law, Vol. I., The General Legal Position of International Straits (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1947) 102–105; G. Alexandersson The Baltic Straits (Marinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1982) 72–73; C.L. Rozakis and P.N. Stagos The Turkish Straits (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1987) 82.
- 3.
Corfu Channel case, Judgment of April 9th, 1949: ICJ Reports 1949, 4, 28.
- 4.
See arts. 4, 12 of the Draft Report, Circulated to the Members of the Committee on 3 April 1930, (Work of the First Sub-committee) in S. Rosenne (ed) League of Nations , Conference for Codification of International Law (1930) (Oceana Publications, 1975) 1405, 1408.
- 5.
Corfu Channel case, Section B. Written Statements, The North Corfu Channel, 1. Memorial Submitted by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, ICJ Reports 1949, 43.
- 6.
Art. 14(1), 16(4).
- 7.
Art. 14(4) says that passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state . Such passage shall take place in conformity with these articles and with other rules of international law.
- 8.
H. Caminos “The Legal Régime of Straits in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ” 205 Recueil Des Cours/ Hague Academy Collected Courses1987 V (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989) 13–245
at 63; López Martín, note 1 at 29–30; Kennedy, “A Brief Geographical and Hydrographical Study of Straits which Constitute Routes for International Traffic,” UN Doc. A/CONF.13/6 and Add.1 (1957) in UNCLOS I, Official Records, Volume I, 114–164; M.F. Maduro “Passage through International Straits: The Prospects Emerging from the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea” (1980) 12 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 65–95 at 65–69. It was estimated that widening the territorial sea to 12 nautical miles would enclose some 116 international straits within territorial waters, e.g. Gibraltar, Bab al-Mandeb, Malacca.
- 9.
C. A. Fleischer “International Straits: A Key Issue at the Law of the Sea Conference” (1975) 1 Environmental Policy and Law 120–126 at 122. UN Doc. A/AC/138/SC II/L.4 81,971), UN.Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.11 (1974) the 1974 Caracas Session (Bulgaria and others e.g. USSR).
- 10.
Overflight is prohibited above the straits and submarines must navigate on the surface in straits, which is the procedure for passage through territorial seas. H. Caminos and V. P. Cogliati-Bantz The Legal Regime of Straits (Cambridge University Press, 2014) 38.
- 11.
Brüel, note 2 at 25.
- 12.
E.J. Manner “Some Observations on the Effects and Applications of the New Law of the Sea, with Special Reference to the Baltic” in M. Tupamäki (ed) Essays on International Law (Finnish Branch of the International Law Association, Vammala, 1987) 114–144 at 120.
- 13.
Corfu Channel case, ICJ Reports 1949 at 28, Caminos, note 8 at 142–143.
- 14.
Corfu Channel case, ICJ Reports 1949 at 28–29.
- 15.
Caminos, note 8 at 143–144, UNCLOS art. 38(2).
- 16.
H. Caminos and V. P. Cogliati-Bantz, note 10 at 42; UNCLOS arts. 35, 36, 38 and 45.
- 17.
Art. 35 (a), 36.
- 18.
UNCLOS III, Official Records, Volume XIV, 21, 35; K. Hakapää Marine Pollution in International Law, Material Obligations and Jurisdiction with special Reference to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, Helsinki, 1981) 202; H. Caminos and V. P. Cogliati-Bantz, note 10 at 71.
- 19.
S. Mahmoudi “Transit Passage ” Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law available at MPEPIL online/Transit Passage <http://www.mpepil.com> para. 16.
- 20.
Ibid.; K. Buntoro An Analysis of Legal Issues relating to Navigational Rights and Freedoms through and over Indonesian Waters (Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS) - Faculty of Law, University of Wollongong 2010) available at <http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/3091>.
- 21.
Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Summary records of the seventh session 2 May — 8 July 1955, 1955, Volume I, 150.
- 22.
Yearbook of the International Law Commission Documents of the eighth session including the report of the Commission to the General Assembly, 1956, Volume II, 277.
- 23.
M. Reisman “The Regime of Straits and National Security: an Appraisal of International Law-making” (1980) 74 American Journal of International Law 48–76 at 30, 67.
- 24.
Caminos, note 8 at 122; UNCLOS art. 38(2).
- 25.
Caminos, note 8 at 144.
- 26.
Art. 2, Convention on the High Seas, 450 UNTS 11; Finnish Treaty Series (SopS 6–7/1965).
- 27.
Caminos, note 8 at 150.
- 28.
UNCLOS arts. 19 (2) and 44; R.R. Churchill and A.V. Lowe The Law of the Sea (Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1999) 107.
- 29.
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, ICJ Reports 1986 at 14, 102–104, 110–111; Churchill and Lowe, note 28 at 107, see also J. Hargrove “The Nicaragua Judgment and the Future of the Law of Force and Self-Defense” (1987) 81 American Journal of International Law 135–143.
- 30.
UNCLOS art. 42 (1).
- 31.
M.H. Nordquist et al. (eds) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, A Commentary, Volume II (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993) 375, 388; Churchill and Lowe, note 28 at 108; S.N. Nandan “Legal Regime for Straits Used for International Navigation” in B. Öztürkand R. Özkan (eds) The Proceedings of the Symposium on the Straits Used for International Navigation, 16–17 November 2002, Ataköy Marina, Istanbul – Turkey, Publication Number: 11 (Turkish Marine Research Foundation, Istanbul, 2002) 1–11 at 6; D.R. Rothwell and T. Stephens The International Law of the Sea (Hart Publishing Ltd., 2010) 243.
- 32.
Art. 14 (4) of the 1958 TSC prescribes that passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state and art. 16(4) states that: “There shall be no suspension of the innocent passage of foreign ships through straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and another part of the high seas or the territorial sea of a foreign State.” R.B. McNees “Freedom of Transit through International Straits” (1974) 6 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 175–211 at 185–186.
- 33.
Art. 19 of UNCLOS states that
“1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.
2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:
(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations ;
(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;
(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State ;
(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;
(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;
(i) any fishing activities;
(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;
(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State ;
(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.”
Art. 45(2) states that: “There shall be no suspension of innocent passage through such straits.”
- 34.
J. A. de Yturriaga Straits Used for International Navigation, A Spanish Perspective (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991) 167.
- 35.
Manner, note 12 at 121; Nordquist et al. (eds), note 31 at 298.
- 36.
Manner, note 12 at 123.
- 37.
UNCLOS III, Official Records, Volume XIV, 21, 35, 61, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/SR.135, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/SR.136, A/CONF.62/SR.138, Manner, note 12 at 125–126.
- 38.
“It is the understanding of the Government of Sweden that the exception from the transit passage régime in straits, provided for in Article 35 (c) of the Convention is applicable to the strait between Sweden and Denmark (Oresund) as well as to the strait between Sweden and Finland (the Aland islands). Since in both those straits the passage is regulated in whole or in part by long-standing international conventions in force, the present legal régime in the two straits will remain unchanged.”, available at <http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?&src=UNTSONLINE&mtdsg_no=XXI~6&chapter=21&Temp=mtdsg3&lang=en#EndDec>
- 39.
“The Kingdom of Denmark makes the following declaration: It is the position of the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark that the exception from the transit passage regime provided for in article 35 (c) of the Convention applies to the specific regime in the Danish straits (the Great Belt, the Little Belt and the Danish part of the Sound), which has developed on the basis of the Copenhagen Treaty of 1857. The present legal regime of the Danish straits will therefore remain unchanged.”
- 40.
E. Brüel International Straits, A Treatise on International Law, Vol. II., Straits Comprised by positive Regulations (Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1947) 45; C.J. Colombos The International Law of the Sea 6th (Longmans, 1967)
199; Manner, note 12 at 127, see also Alexandersson, note 2 at 73.
- 41.
J.A. Roach and R.W. Smith Excessive Maritime Claims 3rd (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012) 284.
- 42.
Although the right of innocent passage of warships is allowed.
- 43.
Manner, note 12 at 128–129.
- 44.
B. Johnson Theutenberg Folkrätt och säkerhetspolitik (Nordstedts, Uppsala, 1986) 198. For more on the numerous unlawful intrusions and so called “submarine incidents” see Johnson Theutenberg at 381–384. At the time both Finland and Sweden required prior notification from foreign warships.
- 45.
Manner, note 12 at 124–125.
- 46.
Johnson Theutenberg, note 44 at 198.
- 47.
K. Bangert “Belts and Sund” Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law available at MPEPIL online/Belts and Sund <http://www.mpepil.com> para. 16.
- 48.
Manner, note 12 at 122; B. A. Boczek International law: a dictionary (Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2005) 313.
- 49.
M. Koskenniemi and M. Lehto “Finland and the Law of the Sea” in T. Treves (ed) The Law of the Sea. The European Union and Its Member States (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997) 127–150 at 149.
- 50.
Ibid.
- 51.
The Åland Strait is a significant sea route . According to HELCOM publication Shipping Accidents in the Baltic Sea , in 2013 14,433 ships on the Åland West route and 1397 ships on the Åland East route crossed AIS fixed lines through the Åland Strait, HELCOM Annual report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea in 2013 (2014), 3–7.
- 52.
Roach and Smith, note 41 at 284.
- 53.
H. Rotkirch “The Demilitarization and Neutralization of the Åland Islands: A Regime “in European Interests” Withstanding Changing Circumstances” (1986) 23 Journal of Peace Research 357–376 at 372; Manner, note 12 at 126–127.
- 54.
C. N. Gregory “The Neutralization of the Aaland Islands” (1923) 17 American Journal of International Law 65–76
at 65; Rotkirch, note 53 at 359; for more information about the Åland Islands see the official homepage http://www.aland.ax
- 55.
UNCLOS III, Official Records, Volume XIV, 21, 35; Hakapää, note 18 at 202.
- 56.
W.L. Schachte Jr. and J.P.A. Bernhardt “International Straits and Navigational Freedoms” (1992–1993) 33 Virginia Journal of International Law 527–556 at 547–548; Limits in the Seas No. 112, 67; Roach and Smith, note 41 at 284.
- 57.
France, Great Britain and Russia concluded the Convention on the demilitarisation of the Åland Islands in 1856 after the Crimean War; the 1921 Convention on the Demilitarisation and Neutralisation of the Åland Islands; the demilitarisation of the Åland Islands is also mentioned in the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty, whereby Finland and the Soviet Union concluded the bilateral treaty concerning the demilitarisation of the Åland Islands in 1940.
- 58.
Report of the International Committee of Jurists 1920, 17–19.
- 59.
Manner, note 12 at 127–128; L. Hannikainen “The Continued Validity of the Demilitarised and Neutralised Status of the Åland Islands” (1994) 54 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 614–651 at
619–620.
- 60.
B. Broms Kansainvälinen oikeus (Suomalainen lakimiesyhdistys, Vammala, 1978) 534; Johnson Theutenberg, note 44 at 203; Rotkirch, note 53 at 372.
- 61.
Foreign state ships have a right of passage through the Swedish territorial sea . Passage may not be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of Sweden and must be continuous and expeditious. Ordinance 1992:118 (Admission Ordinance) Permission to enter Swedish airspace is required for a foreign state aircraft, including military helicopters.
- 62.
Rotkirch, note 53 at 372. At the time of the Conference, Finland and Sweden required prior notification for the passage of foreign warships through their respective territorial seas , whereas this kind of requirement was not possible when exercising transit passage .
- 63.
M. Lehto Itämeren turvallisuusjärjestelmä erityisesti oikeudellisen säännöstön kehityksen kannalta (ARNEK, 1986) 56.
- 64.
Brüel, note 40 at 33; Alexandersson, note 2 at 70; S.P. Menefee “The Sound Dues and Access to the Baltic Sea ” in R. Platzöder and P. Verlaan (eds) The Baltic Sea: New Developments in National Policies and International Cooperation (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996) 101–132 at 102–103.
- 65.
Brüel, note 40 at 36–37.
- 66.
See Treaty between Great Britain, Austria, Belgium, France, Hanover, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, the Netherlands, Oldenburg, Prussia, Russia and Sweden, and Norway and the Hansa Towns on the one hand, and with Denmark on the other, for the Redemption of the Sound Dues, signed at Copenhagen and Convention between United States of America and Denmark for the Discontinuance of the Sound Dues 116 PCTS 357.
- 67.
Alexandersson, note 2 at 72–73; Manner, note 12 at 12.
- 68.
Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark), Counter-Memorial Submitted by the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, 219; Manner, note 12 at 123–124.
- 69.
Churchill and Lowe, note 28 at 114; S. Mahmoudi “The Baltic Straits” in D. D. Caron and N. Oral (eds) Navigating Straits. Challenges for International Law (Brill/Nijhoff, 2014) 125–131 at 130.
- 70.
Note 61. Ordinance Governing the Admission of Foreign Warships and Military Aircraft to Danish Territory in Time of Peace 224, 16 April 1999.
- 71.
Churchill and Lowe, note 28 at 114; Mahmoudi, note 69 at 131.
- 72.
See Limits in the Seas No. 112, 75.
- 73.
See art. 35 (c); Schachte and Bernhardt, note 56 at 544.
- 74.
Schachte and Bernhardt, note 56 at 544–545.
- 75.
Limits in the Seas No. 112, 75.
- 76.
E. Rauch The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of victims of International Armed Conflicts and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea : Repercussions of Naval Warfare. Report to the Committee for the Protection of Human Life in Armed Conflict of the International Society for Military Law and Law of War (1984) 52.
- 77.
W. Heintschel von Heinegg “The Law of Naval Warfare and International Straits” in M.N. Schmitt and L.C. Green (eds) The Law of Armed Conflict: Into Next Millennium (71 International Law Studies, 1998) 263–292 at 279; Roach and Smith, note 41 at 284.
- 78.
Limits in the Seas No. 112, 66–67: “The United States, which is not a party to this Convention, has never recognized this international strait as falling within the Article 35(c) exception.”
- 79.
K. Hakapää, J. Perttunen and H. Rotkirch YK:n III merioikeuskonferenssi. Selostus 2. istuntokaudesta Garacasissa 20.6–29.8.1974 (1975)
112; K. Hakapää, T. Hämäläinen, E. Kivimäki and T. Lahelma, H. Rotkirch YK:n III merioikeuskonferenssi. Selostus 3. istuntokaudesta Genevessä 17.3–10.5.1975 (1975) 86; K. Hakapää “National Interests and Policies of Finland in the Baltic Sea : A Law of the Sea Perspective” in R. Platzöder and P. Verlaan (eds) The Baltic Sea: New Developments in National Policies and International Cooperation . (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996) 387–398 at 397; Koskenniemi and Lehto, note 49 at 133.
- 80.
Hakapää, Hämäläinen, Kivimäki, Lahelma and Rotkirch, note 79 at 86–88.
- 81.
Menefee, note 64 at 129.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kleemola-Juntunen, P. (2018). Straits in the Baltic Sea: What Passage Rights Apply?. In: Ringbom, H. (eds) Regulatory Gaps in Baltic Sea Governance. MARE Publication Series, vol 18. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75070-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75070-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75069-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-75070-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)