General issues of the exercise of jurisdiction in the process of application of law enforcement measures at sea

INTRODUCTION. Currently, states can apply a whole range of law enforcement measures at sea in order to prevent such unlawful phenomena as piracy, slave trade, drug trafficking, migrant smuggling, etc. However, the problem of the exercise of jurisdiction by states within various maritime areas is the main sticking point during the implementation of these measures. In an attempt to exercise the law enforcement function at sea, the state can't ignore the fact that its ability to create legal norms and ensure their effective implementation depends not only on its will as a sovereign, but also on the restrictions imposed by international law. Therefore, maintaining a balance between limiting the “territorialization” of maritime areas and the need to carry out a law enforcement function logically entails the need to determine the nature and content of the concept of “jurisdiction of the state” within different maritime areas, as well as to identify specific features of this legal category. The present article focuses on this and other related issues.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Historical and comparative analysis along with dogmatic research approach were used in the research process and the entire research is well grounded in focusing on the norms of international treaty law and customary law. In addition to that this research focuses on the norms of national law governing issues related to the application of law enforcement measurement at the sea. Apart from those given material and methodical inputs, the doctrinal works of the relevant jurists have been used in this research.

RESEARCH RELULTS. The author comes to an alternative conclusion that territorial jurisdiction within the maritime territory is not absolute, which is due, apparently, the principle of freedom of the high seas which have a longer support by the international community. The definition of jurisdiction as extraterritorial is not self-sufficient, since in case of conflict of jurisdictions, additional legal criteria are required to resolve such a conflict. The classification of extraterritorial jurisdiction depending on the principles on which it is based also does not solve the problem, since some principles, such as protective or universal, in turn, require additional criteria in order to become a self-sufficient tool to overcome legal uncertainty. The author notes that the ability to exercise territorial jurisdiction within maritime areas, as a rule, determines the ability to exercise legislative and executive jurisdiction, which are also not absolute. The exercise of extraterritorial legislative or executive jurisdiction at sea is potentially permissible only on the basis of international law to solve a specific function, for example, law enforcement.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. The main problem of the varieties of jurisdiction proposed by in- ternational legal science is that each of them only supplements each other, describing a possible choice, but not explaining why a particular choice should be preferred in case of conflict. It is obvious that current uncertainty has created some severe impacts upon the institution of law enforcement measures at sea as a result of the absence of standards for enforcement measures that could make a balance to the mechanism. Hence the law enforcer has to be cautious with a number of factors in deciding the implementation of law enforcement measures within the sea.

1. Agarkov S.A., Peregorodova O.V. Problemy formirovaniya sredy obitaniya rybnogo khozyaistva [Problems of formation a living environment for fish farm]. – Bulletin of the Murmansk State Technical University. 2017. No. 3 (Vol. 20) P. 636–642 (in Russ.)

2. Allott P.J. Power-sharing in the Law of the Sea. – American Journal of International Law. 1983. Vol. 77. Issue 1. P. 1–30. (in Russ.)

3. Baburina O.N., Grass E. Ju. Sovremennoe sostoyanie i problemy morskogo transporta Rossii [The current state and problems of maritime transport in Russia]. – Problems. Search. Solutions. 2013. No. 16 (205). P. 52–57. (in Russ.)

4. Blakesley C.L. United States Jurisdiction Over Extraterritorial Crime. – The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. 1982. Vol. 73. Issue 3. P. 1109–1163.

5. Chernichenko S.V. 1992. Sub"ektivnye granitsy mezhdunarodnogo prava, suverenitet i yurisdiktsiya gosudarstv [Subjective boundaries of international law, sovereignty and jurisdiction of states]. – The Soviet Yearbook of International Law. 1989-90-91. Sovetskaja Associacija mezhdunarodnogo prava. – M.: Social'no-kommercheskaja firma «Rossija-Neva» Publ. P. 19–37. (in Russ.)

6. Fink M. Maritime Interception and the Law of Naval Operations. The Hague, The Netherland: T.M.C. Asser Press. 2018. 317 p.

7. Fitzmaurice G. Some Results of the Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea. Part I. The Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone and Related Topics. – The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 1959. Vol. 8. Issue 1. P. 73–121.

8. Garrod M. The Emergence of “Universal Jurisdiction” in Response to Somali Piracy: An Empirically Informed Critique of International Law’s “Paradigmatic” Universal Jurisdiction Crime. – Chinese Journal of International Law. 2019. Vol. 18. Issue 3. P. 551–643.

9. Gavouneli M. Functional Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 2007. 286 p.

10. Higgins R. Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1994. 304 р.

11. Ireland-Piper D. Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction: Does the Long Arm of the Law Undermine the Rule of Law. – Melbourne Journal of International Law. 2012. Vol. 13. Issue 1. P. 1–36.

12. Kayumova A.R. Suverenitet i yurisdiktsiya gosudarstva: problemy sootnosheniya [State sovereignty and jurisdiction: problems of the correlation]. – Constitutional and municipal law. 2008. No. 9. Р. 12–15. (in Russ.)

13. Kaye S. Freedom of Navigation in a Post 9/11 World: Security and Creeping Jurisdiction. – The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006. 465 р.

14. Kutkovich T.M. Udobnyi flag v mirovom sudokhodstve: prichiny perekhoda i puti vozvrata pod natsional'nyi [Flag of convenience in world shipping: the reasons for the transition and the return path under the national]. – Aktual'nye problemy nauki i praktiki sovremennogo obsh- chestva. 2016. No. 3. P. 19–24. (in Russ.)

15. Maier H.G. Jurisdictional Rules in Customary International Law – Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in Theory and Practice. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. 1996. 262 p.

16. O'Connell D.P. The International Law of the Sea: Volume I. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1982. 634 p.

17. O'Connell D.P. The International Law of the Sea: Volume II. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1984. 1202 p.

18. O'Connell M. E. The Power and Purpose of International Law: Insights from the Theory and Practice of Enforcement. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008. 408 p.

19. Osvetimskaya I.I. Gosudarstvennyi suverenitet: soderzhanie i preobrazovanie v usloviyakh globalizatsii [State sovereignty: content and transformation in the context of globalization]. – Izvestiya VUZov. Pravovedenie. 2017. No. 2 (331). P. 150–166. (in Russ.)

20. Romashev Yu. S., Fetishchev D. V. Yurisdiktsiya gosudarstv v pravookhranitel'noi sfere [Jurisdiction of states in law enforcement area]. M.: Nauchnaya kniga Publ. 2009. 47 p. (in Russ.)

21. Romashev Yu. S. Bor'ba s piratstvom i vooruzhennym razboem na more (pravovye osnovy i praktika) [Combating piracy and armed robbery at sea (legal basis and practice)]. M.: TransLit Publ. 2013. 336 p. (in Russ.)

22. Romashev Yu.S. Mezhdunarodnoe pravookhranitel'noe pravo [International law enforcement]. M.: Norma: Infra-M Publ. 2010. 367 р. (in Russ.)

23. Romashev Yu .S. Osobennosti ustanovleniya i osushchestvleniya gosudarstvami svoei yurisdiktsii v pravookhranitel'noi sfere. [Features of the assertion and implementation by states of their jurisdiction in the law enforcement sphere]. – State and law. 2015. No. 5. Р. 82-91. (in Russ.)

24. Ryngaert C. Jurisdiction in International Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 2008. 272 p.

25. Shearer I. The Limits of Maritime Jurisdiction. – The Limits of Maritime Jurisdiction. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 2014. 794 p.

26. Szigeti P. D. In the Middle of Nowhere: The Futile Quest to Distinguish Territoriality from Extraterritoriality – The Extraterritoriality of Law: History, Theory, Politics. (Margolies et all. (eds.)). London: Routledge. 2019. 243 p.

27. Vylegzhanin A.N., Anyanova E.S. International Law Versus Piracy: Issues in Legal Theory. – International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation. 2020. Vol. 24. Issue 01. P. 6–25.

28. Vylegzhanin A.N., Potier T., Torkunova E.A. Towards Cementing International Law through Renaissance of the United Nations Charter. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2020. No. 1. P. 6–25.

29. Watson G.R. Offenders Abroad: The Case for Nationality-Based Criminal Jurisdiction. – Yale Journal of International Law. 1997. Vol. 17. Issue 41. P. 41-84.

30. Watson G.R. The Passive Personality Principle. – Texas International Law Journal. 1993. Vol. 28. Issue 1. P. 1–ч46.

31. Zadorozhnyi G.P. Territoriya i mezhdunarodnoe parvo [Territory and International Law]. – Mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Otv. red. F.I. Kozhevnikov. [International Law. Ed.-in-chief Kozhevnikov F.I.] M.: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya Publ. 1987. P. 156–176