180
At the same time, the Tribunal concluded that, “despite its non-participation in
the proceedings, Russia is bound under international law by any awards rendered by
the Tribunal”.
48
The Tribunal echoed the complaints of the Netherlands. It noted that “Russia’s
non-participation in the proceedings has made the Tribunal’s task more challenging
than usual [and that] in particular, it has deprived the Tribunal of the benefit of
Russia’s views on the factual issues before it and on the legal arguments advanced
by the Netherlands”.
49
The Tribunal relied heavily on the information provided by
the Netherlands. All the witnesses were presented by the Netherlands.
50
Most of the
documents were also provided by the Netherlands; the Tribunal only “circulated to
the Parties certified English translations of certain Russian laws and regulations that
it had considered useful to procure in the course of its deliberations”.
51
It did not
spend all that much time and energy looking for facts and legal arguments that
might support Russia’s point of view. As a kind of understatement, the Tribunal
“appreciates that the evidence before it may not include all of the evidence that
would have been put before it had both Parties participated in the proceedings”.
52
At a very late stage, Russia sent a letter to the Arbitral Tribunal in which it stated
its position on the merits.
53
In this paper, Russia emphasized that it “did not participate in the ITLOS proceedings initiated by the Kingdom of the Netherlands […] nor
does it participate in the arbitration […]”. And then it continued as follows:
Nevertheless, taking into account that the case highlights issues that are essential for the
responsible lawful uses of the EEZ and of the continental shelf, for the legal regime of these
maritime areas and for the preservation of the proper balance of coastal and flag States’
rights and obligations therein, the Ministry finds it important to address some of those
issues.
54
The Tribunal clearly lost its patience at this stage. It did not take this Russian
position paper into account, as it “was brought to the Tribunal’s attention at a very
late stage of this phase of the proceedings following Russia’s consistent failure to
participate in this arbitration; and according to Russia, the Position Paper does not
constitute a formal submission in this proceeding [and] the Tribunal is satisfied that
the relevant issues are fully addressed in this Award”.
55
48 Ibidem, para. 10.
49 Ibidem, para. 19.
50 Ibidem, para. 58.
51 Ibidem, para. 66.
52 Ibidem, para. 73.
53 Ibidem, para. 68.
54 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Certain legal issues highlighted by the
action of the Arctic Sunrise against Prirazlomnaya platform, published on the website of the
Ministry,
at
http://www.mid.ru/documents/10180/1641061/Arctic+Sunrise.pdf/
bc7b321e-e692-46eb-bef2-12589a86b8a6.
55 PCA, Arctic Sunrise Arbitration, Award on the Merits, para. 68.
O. Spijkers
At the same time, the Tribunal concluded that, “despite its non-participation in
the proceedings, Russia is bound under international law by any awards rendered by
the Tribunal”.
48
The Tribunal echoed the complaints of the Netherlands. It noted that “Russia’s
non-participation in the proceedings has made the Tribunal’s task more challenging
than usual [and that] in particular, it has deprived the Tribunal of the benefit of
Russia’s views on the factual issues before it and on the legal arguments advanced
by the Netherlands”.
49
The Tribunal relied heavily on the information provided by
the Netherlands. All the witnesses were presented by the Netherlands.
50
Most of the
documents were also provided by the Netherlands; the Tribunal only “circulated to
the Parties certified English translations of certain Russian laws and regulations that
it had considered useful to procure in the course of its deliberations”.
51
It did not
spend all that much time and energy looking for facts and legal arguments that
might support Russia’s point of view. As a kind of understatement, the Tribunal
“appreciates that the evidence before it may not include all of the evidence that
would have been put before it had both Parties participated in the proceedings”.
52
At a very late stage, Russia sent a letter to the Arbitral Tribunal in which it stated
its position on the merits.
53
In this paper, Russia emphasized that it “did not participate in the ITLOS proceedings initiated by the Kingdom of the Netherlands […] nor
does it participate in the arbitration […]”. And then it continued as follows:
Nevertheless, taking into account that the case highlights issues that are essential for the
responsible lawful uses of the EEZ and of the continental shelf, for the legal regime of these
maritime areas and for the preservation of the proper balance of coastal and flag States’
rights and obligations therein, the Ministry finds it important to address some of those
issues.
54
The Tribunal clearly lost its patience at this stage. It did not take this Russian
position paper into account, as it “was brought to the Tribunal’s attention at a very
late stage of this phase of the proceedings following Russia’s consistent failure to
participate in this arbitration; and according to Russia, the Position Paper does not
constitute a formal submission in this proceeding [and] the Tribunal is satisfied that
the relevant issues are fully addressed in this Award”.
55
48 Ibidem, para. 10.
49 Ibidem, para. 19.
50 Ibidem, para. 58.
51 Ibidem, para. 66.
52 Ibidem, para. 73.
53 Ibidem, para. 68.
54 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Certain legal issues highlighted by the
action of the Arctic Sunrise against Prirazlomnaya platform, published on the website of the
Ministry,
at
http://www.mid.ru/documents/10180/1641061/Arctic+Sunrise.pdf/
bc7b321e-e692-46eb-bef2-12589a86b8a6.
55 PCA, Arctic Sunrise Arbitration, Award on the Merits, para. 68.
O. Spijkers