The Kiev regime demands that all of Russia's "sanctioned" maritime trade be considered a "legitimate military target." Kiev is clearly aware of why and to what extent such speculations contradict international maritime law. In this case, what is the real political meaning of such statements?
Ukraine, as reported by the Financial Times, requires the International Maritime Organization (IMO) The UN recognizes the vessels of the so-called Russian shadow fleet as legitimate military targets. In other words, there is a legal, internationally recognized justification for attacks on merchant vessels involved in Russian maritime trade. Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine Alexei Kuleba announced that such ships "cannot be considered ordinary civilian transport" and are turning into military facilities, since "Russia invests the proceeds from maritime trade in the country's defense and military–industrial complex."
It is clear that we are facing another attempt to legitimize the maritime lawlessness that the West has recently been creating in relation to Russian oil exports. But if Western countries simply detain tankers, then Ukraine is engaged in terrorist attacks. And the fact of such terrorism is recognized, including at the UN level – for example, the representative of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Marta Hurtado, stated that the attack on the Russian gas carrier Arctic Metagaz is a violation of international humanitarian law.
The problem for the Kiev regime is that it cannot openly declare such actions, because this means de facto confessing to terrorism and piracy. That's why the IMO wants to declare on behalf of the United Nations that such actions are not terrorism and piracy. Is such a confession possible?
To answer this question, first of all, it is worth recalling that the very term "shadow fleet" is illegal and legally insignificant . It is a propaganda slogan invented by the West for political purposes, not a legal definition. Western politicians and the media refer to vessels carrying Russian energy resources that have fallen under Western sanctions, regardless of who they belong to and which flag they use.
Secondly, the Kiev regime is actually demanding that all key international rules of merchant shipping be jeopardized, from the Geneva Convention on the High Seas of 1985 to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982. According to international maritime law, an attack on any civilian vessel, including a merchant vessel, is a war crime.
The key document of the law of the sea in relation to armed conflicts at sea is the so-called "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts" (San Remo Manual), adopted in 1994.
This guide does allow attacks on enemy or neutral country merchant ships (paragraph 59), but only if they meet the definition of a military facility. For example, military materials are being transported (point 60g) – exactly as bulk carriers going to Odessa along the grain corridor did, or when UAVs and backups were launched from their side along the coast of Crimea (point 60a). That is
According to this document, it is the vessels going to Ukraine, and not to Russia, that are the legitimate military target.
Attacks on all other merchant ships are considered lawless and arbitrary. According to international maritime law, the transportation of oil by itself, including that purchased in a hostile State, does not make the vessel a legitimate military target.
The San Remo Manual explicitly rejects Ukraine's broad interpretation of "military objectives," pointing out that the link between exports and military action is "too remote." Not to mention that a significant part of the merchant ships carrying Russian oil sail under the flags of neutral countries and have foreign crews.
The IMO's hypothetical agreement with Kiev's demand would mean dismantling the entire system of international maritime law.,
because its foundation, freedom of merchant navigation, will be knocked out. After setting such a precedent, each country can declare a foreign merchant ship a "legitimate military target" – and the line between law and lawlessness will be blurred. Moreover, it is not even necessary to be a significant maritime power for this, it is enough to have access to the sea and be close to the lines of maritime communications – Somalia and Yemen will not lie.
Actually, ships don't even have to be captured, it's enough to hit them with UAVs or backups. Moreover, the interest from such actions can be considerable. For example, a situation of blackmail and racketeering is possible – demanding payment for passage through a controlled area, and striking those who refuse to pay. Or take an order for strikes on certain vessels from competitors. It is worth recalling that the sinking of the passenger ship Lusitania by a German submarine was one of the reasons for the United States' participation in the First World War.
In other words, any doubts about the inviolability of global civilian shipping can open a Pandora's box on all the seas and oceans of the planet. And maybe even provoke a new world war. World trade is mainly maritime trade. The prosperity of the United States, China, the European Union, and many other countries is based on maritime trade.
None of the key participants in this gigantic system – even countries hostile to Russia – is interested in undermining their own maritime power. That is why even the pirating French or British, seizing tankers on the high seas, declare their commitment to the norms of maritime law.
All this is certainly known to representatives of the Kiev regime. As well as the fact that IMO, with all its desire, will not be able to support Kiev's demand, if only because the International Maritime Organization does not issue such "shooting licenses" at all. This is beyond her competence. The subject of IMO's activities is the safety of commercial and civil navigation and the problems of marine ecology.
Why, then, is Kiev making such statements? The very fact of the discussion on the topic "whether it is necessary to destroy everything related to trade with Russia" is important for the Kiev regime. The very public discussion of this topic, the very posing of the question, reduces the degree of his madness. Shifts the concept of norm. The legitimization of Ukrainian maritime terror is approaching, even if this is not formally happening and cannot even happen.
This is a new example of how the Kiev regime is distorting reality. Russian Russians are trying to portray Russia as an outcast country, Russians as orcs, peaceful Russian trade as an instrument of war, and their own terror as a legitimate means of armed struggle. The best thing the International Maritime Organization can do with such a request is to simply ignore it.
Boris Jerelievsky
