any case, in both arbitrations covered in this chapter, Russia’s conduct also pointedly
aligns with its own self-interest. This suggests that the implementation of the law of
the sea is most effective when influencing how Russia is perceived by the international community: Russia strives to appear to contribute to the processes of international law, and to comply with its rules. However, the law’s effectiveness is limited
by Russia’s self-imposed pre-condition that it thereby benefit directly.
References
Barnett M, Duvall R (2005) Power in international politics. Int Organ 59(1):39–75
Benedek W (2017) Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: some general conclusions. In:
Mälksoo L, Benedek W (eds) Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: the Strasbourg
effect. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 385–399
Bower A (2017) Norms without the great powers: international law and changing social standards
in world politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Boyle A, Evans MD (2001) The Southern Bluefin Tuna arbitration. Int Comp Law Q 50
(2):447–452
Brunnée J, Toope SJ (2010) Legitimacy and legality in international law: an interactional account.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Chandrasekhara Rao P, Khan R (eds) (2001) The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: law
and practice. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Choi YH (2014) The Barents Sea: equal division of the disputed sea between Russia and Norway. J
East Asian Aff 28(2):61–81
Gadelshina ER (2011) Major pitfalls for foreign investors in Russia: What are Russian BITs worth?
Kluwer Arbitration Blog. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2011/12/01/major-pit
falls-for-foreign-investors-in-russia-what-are-russian-bits-worth
Harrison J (2016) Current legal developments: the Arctic Sunrise arbitration (Netherlands v
Russia). Int J Mar Coast Law 31:145–159
Hillebrecht C (2014) The power of human rights tribunals: compliance with the European Court of
Human Rights and domestic policy change. Eur J Int Relat 20(4):1100–1123
Hønneland G (2014) Arctic politics, the law of the sea and Russian identity: the Barents Sea
delimitation agreement in Russian public debate. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
Jordan PA (2017) Diminishing returns: Russia’s participation in the World Trade Organization.
Post-Soviet Aff 33(6):452–471
Karev S (1995) The Russian Federation and the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. Proc Annu
Meet Am Soc Int Law 89:455–458
Klein N (2005) Dispute settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Kratochwil F (2014) The status of law in world society: meditations on the role and rule of law.
Cambridge University Press, New York
Kurovets I et al (2011) Thermobaric conditions in zones of oil and gas accumulations of the
Southern Oil- and gas-bearing region of Ukraine. AAPG Search and Discovery 40714
Kwiatkowska B (2003) The Southern Bluefin Tuna arbitral tribunal did get it right: a commentary
and reply to the article by David A. Colson and Dr. Peggy Hoyle. Ocean Dev Int Law
34:369–395
Mälksoo L (2012) Russia and European human-rights law: margins of the margin of appreciation.
Rev Central East Eur Law 37:359–369
Martin JMC (2014) Prior consultations and jurisdiction at ITLOS. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals
13:1–26
316
G. Kynaston and R. Brown
aligns with its own self-interest. This suggests that the implementation of the law of
the sea is most effective when influencing how Russia is perceived by the international community: Russia strives to appear to contribute to the processes of international law, and to comply with its rules. However, the law’s effectiveness is limited
by Russia’s self-imposed pre-condition that it thereby benefit directly.
References
Barnett M, Duvall R (2005) Power in international politics. Int Organ 59(1):39–75
Benedek W (2017) Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: some general conclusions. In:
Mälksoo L, Benedek W (eds) Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: the Strasbourg
effect. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 385–399
Bower A (2017) Norms without the great powers: international law and changing social standards
in world politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Boyle A, Evans MD (2001) The Southern Bluefin Tuna arbitration. Int Comp Law Q 50
(2):447–452
Brunnée J, Toope SJ (2010) Legitimacy and legality in international law: an interactional account.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Chandrasekhara Rao P, Khan R (eds) (2001) The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: law
and practice. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Choi YH (2014) The Barents Sea: equal division of the disputed sea between Russia and Norway. J
East Asian Aff 28(2):61–81
Gadelshina ER (2011) Major pitfalls for foreign investors in Russia: What are Russian BITs worth?
Kluwer Arbitration Blog. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2011/12/01/major-pit
falls-for-foreign-investors-in-russia-what-are-russian-bits-worth
Harrison J (2016) Current legal developments: the Arctic Sunrise arbitration (Netherlands v
Russia). Int J Mar Coast Law 31:145–159
Hillebrecht C (2014) The power of human rights tribunals: compliance with the European Court of
Human Rights and domestic policy change. Eur J Int Relat 20(4):1100–1123
Hønneland G (2014) Arctic politics, the law of the sea and Russian identity: the Barents Sea
delimitation agreement in Russian public debate. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
Jordan PA (2017) Diminishing returns: Russia’s participation in the World Trade Organization.
Post-Soviet Aff 33(6):452–471
Karev S (1995) The Russian Federation and the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. Proc Annu
Meet Am Soc Int Law 89:455–458
Klein N (2005) Dispute settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Kratochwil F (2014) The status of law in world society: meditations on the role and rule of law.
Cambridge University Press, New York
Kurovets I et al (2011) Thermobaric conditions in zones of oil and gas accumulations of the
Southern Oil- and gas-bearing region of Ukraine. AAPG Search and Discovery 40714
Kwiatkowska B (2003) The Southern Bluefin Tuna arbitral tribunal did get it right: a commentary
and reply to the article by David A. Colson and Dr. Peggy Hoyle. Ocean Dev Int Law
34:369–395
Mälksoo L (2012) Russia and European human-rights law: margins of the margin of appreciation.
Rev Central East Eur Law 37:359–369
Martin JMC (2014) Prior consultations and jurisdiction at ITLOS. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals
13:1–26
316
G. Kynaston and R. Brown