SUMMARY OF THE STUDY-Beyond the dispute Ukraine v. Russian Federation

SUMMARY OF THE STUDY-Beyond the disputeUkraine v. Russian Federation

Beyond the dispute: the legal, strategic and geopolitical implications of the Ukraine v. Russian Federation arbitral award for the future of the Black Sea

AUTHORS: Admiral (ret.) PhD Aurel POPA, Associate Professor PhD Cristina-Elena POPA – expert in international law, Rear Admiral (ret.) PhD Sorin Learschi

Introduction

             On 22 April 2026, the Arbitral Tribunal established pursuant to Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) delivered one of the most significant maritime awards of the past decade in the case Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation). The dispute, initiated by Ukraine in 2016, centred on numerous activities carried out by the Russian Federation in the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait following the geopolitical changes of 2014.

              Although the case was frequently perceived as a dispute concerning Crimea, the tribunal was not called upon, nor did it have jurisdiction, to rule on sovereignty over the peninsula. The scope of the proceedings was limited to the interpretation and application of the provisions of UNCLOS relating to the exercise of coastal state rights, the exploitation of natural resources, fisheries, marine scientific research, underwater cultural heritage, the protection of the marine environment and the regime governing navigation.

              The significance of the ruling, however, extends far beyond the bilateral relations between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. It represents a landmark for the contemporary interpretation of the law of the sea in a context characterised simultaneously by armed conflict, territorial dispute, strategic competition and the development of critical maritime infrastructure. For the Black Sea littoral states, including Romania, the ruling provides important clarifications regarding the limits of UNCLOS jurisdiction, obligations to protect the marine environment, regional cooperation and the standards of conduct applicable to major maritime projects.

CHAPTER 1

The Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the case of Ukraine v. the Russian Federation: context, jurisdiction and significance for the maritime order in the Black Sea

The first chapter sets out the legal and geopolitical background to the dispute and explains how the tribunal addressed the various categories of claims put forward by Ukraine.

The arbitral award has binding legal effect exclusively between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. It does not create direct obligations for other states nor does it automatically alter their rights. However, the interpretations set out by the tribunal contribute to the development of international case law and may influence the way in which other states and international organisations understand and apply the provisions of UNCLOS.

The dispute must be understood in the context of the geopolitical changes that have taken place in the Black Sea region since 2014. Crimea’s strategic position, control over the Kerch Strait, access to the Sea of Azov, the exploitation of offshore resources and the development of maritime infrastructure have transformed the region into an area where the interests of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, NATO and the European Union constantly intersect.

Ukraine asked the tribunal to examine the legality of certain activities carried out by the Russian Federation in the maritime areas adjacent to Crimea and in the Sea of Azov. The claims concerned the exploitation of natural resources, fishing, marine scientific research, underwater cultural heritage, the protection of the marine environment, navigation through the Kerch Strait and various infrastructure projects.

One of the most difficult issues in the proceedings was the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Russian Federation argued that examining Ukraine’s claims would inevitably entail determining sovereignty over Crimea, a matter which falls outside the scope of UNCLOS. The tribunal largely accepted this argument and ruled that it could not directly or indirectly resolve the territorial dispute concerning Crimea. Consequently, all claims requiring a prior determination of Crimea’s territorial status were excluded from its jurisdiction.

This conclusion had a decisive influence on the rulings handed down on the merits.

With regard to the exploitation of natural resources and the exercise of sovereign rights over maritime zones, Ukraine did not obtain a favourable ruling. The Tribunal considered that examining these claims would inevitably entail an assessment of the issue of sovereignty over Crimea, which lay outside its jurisdiction.

The same reasoning was applied in the case of the offshore drilling platforms known as the ‘Boyko Towers’. Although these installations are of considerable strategic and economic importance, the Tribunal held that it could not examine issues relating to their actual seizure and control. Ukraine did not secure the return of the platforms or any compensation.

Claims relating to fishing and the exploitation of biological resources were also rejected. The Tribunal held that determining the exclusive holder of rights over fishery resources would require the prior resolution of the territorial issue.

In the field of marine scientific research, Ukraine argued that the Russian Federation had carried out activities without its consent. These claims were not upheld either, with the Tribunal maintaining the same cautious approach regarding the limits of its jurisdiction.

A separate aspect of the dispute concerned underwater cultural heritage. Ukraine alleged a breach of Article 303 of UNCLOS, but the tribunal concluded that the evidence presented did not justify a finding of a breach and dismissed the claims made in this regard.

The only area in which Ukraine achieved a clear legal victory was the protection of the marine environment. The tribunal found that the Russian Federation had breached its obligations under Articles 123, 192, 194, 205 and 206 of UNCLOS through its handling of environmental impact assessments, monitoring and the reporting of information concerning projects associated with the Kerch Bridge, submarine cables and other maritime infrastructure.

The judgment established that the environmental impact assessments did not comply with the standards required by the Convention and that their results were not properly communicated to the relevant international organisations and the Ukrainian party. Furthermore, the tribunal found that these shortcomings had affected the general obligations regarding cooperation in semi-enclosed seas and the protection of the marine environment.

With regard to the Kerch Bridge, the tribunal did not order the modification or removal of the infrastructure and did not find any breaches of the navigation regime. The only breaches found were those relating to procedural environmental obligations.

Claims concerning freedom of navigation and access to Ukrainian ports in the Sea of Azov were dismissed. The tribunal did not uphold Ukraine’s argument that the Russian Federation had breached the UNCLOS rules on navigation through the Kerch Strait.

Claims relating to the pollution incident near Sevastopol and the alleged aggravation of the dispute during the arbitration proceedings were also dismissed.

With regard to reparations, the tribunal adopted a cautious stance. Although it found certain breaches of the Convention, it did not award damages nor order specific measures to cease the breaches or guarantees of non-repetition. It considered that the mere finding of a breach constituted a sufficient form of legal redress.

Thus, the overall assessment of Chapter 1 shows that Ukraine did not achieve the comprehensive success initially sought in the field of maritime rights and natural resources, but did secure an important legal victory regarding the protection of the marine environment. At the same time, the Russian Federation succeeded in significantly limiting the scope of the tribunal’s analysis through its arguments regarding the lack of jurisdiction over issues relating to Crimea.

CHAPTER 2

The legal significance of the judgment for the maritime order in the Black Sea

The second chapter analyses the ruling’s contribution to the development of international law of the sea and highlights the fact that its significance stems not so much from the specific rulings handed down in relation to Ukraine and the Russian Federation, but from the interpretations offered of certain fundamental provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The first important conclusion concerns the limits of the jurisdiction of tribunals established under UNCLOS. The judgment reaffirms that these mechanisms cannot be used to indirectly resolve disputes concerning territorial sovereignty. Where the exercise of maritime rights necessarily depends on determining the owner of a territory, the tribunal cannot substitute itself for the courts competent to resolve such disputes. This interpretation reinforces the distinction between the law of the sea and the law governing the acquisition or recognition of territories, and is likely to influence numerous future disputes in which maritime claims are closely linked to territorial conflicts.

The judgment also confirms the existence of a fundamental distinction between effective control exercised over a territory and its international legal legitimacy. The Tribunal refused to treat de facto control over Crimea as a legal argument and refrained from making any assessment of the peninsula’s status. Consequently, the decision demonstrates that the effective exercise of authority and international legal recognition are distinct concepts, governed by different rules.

A central element of the chapter is the analysis of *due diligence* obligations. The judgment confirms the trend towards the expansion of this concept in contemporary international law and shows that states are not assessed solely on the basis of the outcome of their activities, but also on the basis of the measures taken to prevent risks, monitor their effects and manage their consequences. In this respect, procedural obligations take on an importance comparable to that of substantive obligations.

The Court pays particular attention to Articles 192, 194, 204, 205 and 206 of UNCLOS and makes the protection of the marine environment a central element of the legality of maritime activities. Environmental impact assessment is no longer regarded as a mere administrative formality, but as an effective legal obligation, subject to verification and scrutiny in the context of international litigation. Similarly, the ongoing monitoring of environmental impacts and the communication of relevant information are presented as autonomous obligations, the breach of which may give rise to the State’s international liability.

The judgment thus contributes to bringing international law of the sea and international environmental law closer together. The exploitation of natural resources, the development of maritime infrastructure and the exercise of sovereign rights must be carried out within a framework characterised by responsibility, transparency and prevention. This approach reflects general developments in international law and the trend towards integrating development objectives with those relating to environmental protection.

Another aspect analysed is cooperation in semi-enclosed seas. The Tribunal reaffirms the relevance of Article 123 of UNCLOS and emphasises that coastal States have an obligation to cooperate in the management of maritime areas characterised by strong interdependencies. Although this obligation is not interpreted as an absolute obligation of regional integration, the judgment shows that a lack of cooperation may affect the fulfilment of other obligations under the Convention, particularly in the field of marine environmental protection.

The chapter also highlights the increasingly important role of scientific expertise in the resolution of maritime disputes. Technical data, impact assessments and environmental monitoring are no longer merely administrative tools, but essential elements of legal argumentation. Consequently, investment in marine research, data collection and the development of monitoring capabilities are becoming integral to a state’s ability to support its positions within international dispute resolution mechanisms.

Overall, Chapter 2 demonstrates that the ruling does not alter the legal regime of the Black Sea, but contributes to the progressive development of international law of the sea by strengthening obligations regarding environmental protection, regional cooperation, transparency and the ‘ ’ responsibility of states. Its significance lies above all in clarifying certain legal standards that will influence offshore projects, maritime infrastructure and future international disputes.

CHAPTER 3

The implications of the ruling for the Russian Federation: between partial legal success, reputational costs and the continuity of strategic advantage

The third chapter examines the consequences of the award from the perspective of the Russian Federation and concludes that the outcome cannot be characterised as either a complete victory or a defeat. The analysis requires a nuanced approach, distinguishing between the legal and strategic dimensions of the dispute.

From a jurisdictional point of view, the Russian Federation achieved one of the most important objectives it had pursued throughout the arbitration proceedings. The tribunal accepted that it could not examine claims involving the indirect resolution of the dispute over sovereignty over Crimea. Consequently, a significant proportion of Ukraine’s claims were not examined on their merits, and the tribunal did not issue any ruling on the legal status of the peninsula.

This ruling allows the Russian Federation to maintain its effective control over Crimea and the maritime infrastructure developed in the region without the award having any direct impact on the existing situation. From an operational and military perspective, Russia’s strategic position in the Black Sea remains virtually unchanged.

At the same time, the tribunal does not legally validate this situation. The ruling does not recognise the annexation of Crimea and does not confer on the Russian Federation any additional legal title to the associated maritime areas. Effective control and legal legitimacy remain two distinct spheres, and the strategic advantage is not transformed into a normative advantage.

The analysis then highlights the fact that judicial success is accompanied by legal and reputational costs. The Tribunal finds breaches of obligations regarding the protection of the marine environment, environmental impact assessment, monitoring and the communication of relevant information. Even though these breaches did not lead to the award of damages or the imposition of specific measures, they confirm the existence of shortcomings in the implementation of the obligations set out in UNCLOS.

An important aspect of the chapter concerns the relationship between strategic power and international law. The judgment demonstrates that a state can retain control over a territory and the military advantages associated with it without, at the same time, obtaining international legal validation. This conclusion is relevant not only to the Black Sea, but also to other regions characterised by territorial disputes and strategic competition.

From the Russian Federation’s perspective, the ruling does not affect its ability to control the main maritime routes, the Kerch Bridge or the infrastructure developed in the region. Neither its freedom of naval manoeuvre nor its geostrategic position in the Black Sea is altered by the arbitral award. In this respect, the strategic advantage accumulated in recent years is maintained.

However, the tribunal sends a clear message regarding the obligations that accompany the exercise of control over maritime space. Infrastructure development, resource exploitation and the implementation of projects with an environmental impact must comply with the procedural standards laid down by UNCLOS, regardless of the complexity of the political and strategic context.

The chapter also analyses the indirect effects on the Russian Federation’s international image. Findings regarding breaches of environmental and cooperation obligations may be invoked in other diplomatic and legal contexts and help to maintain normative pressure on the state’s behaviour in the Black Sea region. Although the immediate practical impact is limited, the reputational costs must not be ignored.

Finally, the analysis concludes that the ruling does not alter the Russian Federation’s strategic position in the Black Sea, but it does limit the possibility of transforming de facto advantages into legal arguments. Russia retains control over Crimea and essential maritime infrastructure, but continues to be subject to the obligations under international law of the sea and to the international community’s assessment of its compliance with them.

CHAPTER 4

The implications of the award for Ukraine: between limited legal success and the consolidation of its position in international law

The fourth chapter analyses the effects of the award from Ukraine’s perspective and highlights the fact that the outcome of the arbitration proceedings is far more complex than the classic dichotomy of victory and defeat. Although Kyiv’s initial objectives were not fully achieved, the award produces a series of legal and political effects that may influence Ukraine’s position in the Black Sea region and within the international order in the long term.

The main favourable outcome for Ukraine is the confirmation that international law remains applicable even in contexts marked by armed conflict and territorial disputes. The Tribunal did not accept the argument that the existence of a dispute over Crimea would entirely preclude the application of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and examined in detail those claims that could be considered without ruling on territorial sovereignty. In this way, the judgment demonstrates that international legal norms continue to have effect even in the most complex geopolitical situations.

At the same time, Ukraine did not secure recognition of its exclusive rights over the natural resources in the maritime areas adjacent to Crimea, nor did it regain control over offshore infrastructure or maritime platforms. The Tribunal found that all these issues are inextricably linked to the dispute over sovereignty over Crimea and fall outside the jurisdiction conferred by UNCLOS. From this perspective, the main objective pursued by Kyiv through the arbitration has not been achieved.

The most significant outcome for Ukraine, however, concerns the protection of the marine environment. The Tribunal found that the Russian Federation had breached its obligations regarding environmental impact assessment, monitoring the effects of maritime activities, and communicating relevant information. These findings represent an international legal recognition that certain activities carried out in the Black Sea region have failed to comply with the standards set out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The chapter emphasises that this finding goes beyond the strictly environmental dimension of the dispute. In contemporary international law, obligations regarding environmental protection are increasingly closely linked to the concepts of security, sustainable development and state responsibility. Consequently, Ukraine’s success in this matter contributes to strengthening its legal and diplomatic position within various international forums.

Another important aspect analysed is the preservation of the legal dimension of the dispute concerning the Black Sea. The judgment does not resolve the conflict between the two states, but prevents it from becoming an exclusively military or geopolitical issue. The Tribunal reaffirms the existence of legal obligations applicable to all states and confirms that the exercise of effective control over a territory does not automatically suspend the application of international rules on environmental protection and regional cooperation.

From a diplomatic perspective, this conclusion is of considerable value. Ukraine can continue to use the arguments set out in the arbitral award in its dialogue with international organisations, the European Union, NATO and its strategic partners. Even though the tribunal did not award damages or order specific remedial measures, the finding that violations of the Convention had occurred helps to strengthen Kyiv’s legal case in other international proceedings and initiatives.

The chapter also analyses the implications for Ukrainian maritime policy. The judgment highlights the importance of developing modern mechanisms for monitoring the marine environment, enhanced scientific research capacity, and efficient systems for collecting and managing ‘ ’ data on marine ecosystems and offshore infrastructure. In the future, these tools will have not only administrative value, but also legal and strategic value.

The study also highlights that the ruling may influence the process of reconstruction and modernisation of the Ukrainian maritime sector. The integration of standards relating to environmental impact assessment, transparency and regional cooperation may facilitate alignment with European Union policies and contribute to the development of an institutional framework compatible with European practices in the field of maritime governance.

Overall, Chapter 4 concludes that Ukraine has not achieved a complete legal victory, nor has it brought about a change in the strategic situation in the Black Sea. It has, however, secured confirmation of the applicability of international law, a finding of breaches of environmental obligations, and a strengthening of the normative dimension of the dispute. These outcomes do not alter the balance of power in the region, but they strengthen Ukraine’s legal and diplomatic position and demonstrate that international dispute resolution mechanisms continue to play a significant role even in highly tense geopolitical contexts.

CHAPTER 5

Implications of the ruling for Romania: maritime security, energy and the reconfiguration of the strategic order in the Black Sea

The fifth chapter shifts the analysis from the parties to the dispute to one of the most important Black Sea littoral states and highlights the fact that, although Romania is not a party to the arbitration, the award has significant consequences for its legal, economic and strategic interests.

Formally speaking, the binding effects of the award are limited to Ukraine and the Russian Federation. However, the tribunal’s interpretations of Articles 123, 192, 194, 204, 205 and 206 of UNCLOS contribute to the development of standards applicable to all states conducting maritime activities in the region. In this respect, Romania is one of the main indirect beneficiaries of the legal clarifications provided by the tribunal.

A key area analysed is maritime security. The ruling confirms that this can no longer be reduced to the control of maritime space and naval presence. Environmental protection, the monitoring of offshore activities, the security of subsea infrastructure and regional cooperation are all components of the same concept of integrated maritime security. For Romania, this development is particularly important in the context of its role as a NATO member state and its position on the Alliance’s eastern flank.

This chapter pays particular attention to the energy dimension. The exploitation of offshore resources in the Black Sea and the development of strategic projects such as Neptun Deep are indirectly influenced by the standards established by the arbitral award. Environmental impact assessments, continuous monitoring of effects and the communication of relevant information become essential legal obligations for any large-scale project carried out in the maritime domain.

The analysis highlights that these obligations should not be viewed as administrative obstacles, but rather as factors that contribute to greater legal predictability and to strengthening the confidence of investors and international partners. In a context where European energy security increasingly depends on Black Sea resources, the existence of a clear legal framework represents a strategic advantage.

Another important issue is that of critical subsea infrastructure. Gas pipelines, power cables and subsea communications systems are taking on unprecedented strategic importance. The ruling demonstrates that their development and operation must be accompanied by effective mechanisms for assessment, monitoring and cooperation, and that their protection is becoming an integral part of national and regional security.

The chapter also analyses the implications for the Port of Constanța and for European logistics corridors. The region’s legal stability, the transparency of maritime activities and the existence of common standards on environmental protection contribute to strengthening Romania’s role as the European Union’s main logistics and energy hub in the Black Sea region.

Particular attention is paid to regional cooperation. The Tribunal reaffirms the relevance of Article 123 of UNCLOS concerning cooperation in semi-enclosed seas, and this interpretation may provide an additional basis for regional initiatives in the fields of environmental protection, information exchange and the security of critical infrastructure. Romania is well placed to promote such projects, benefiting both from its membership of the European Union and NATO, and from the experience it has gained in the field of maritime governance.

The chapter also highlights the importance of developing marine research and monitoring systems. The ruling demonstrates that scientific data and technical expertise can have strategic and legal value comparable to that of economic resources or military capabilities. For Romania, investment in marine research and the development of modern environmental observation systems represents both an administrative necessity and a means of strengthening its position in the region.

Finally, the analysis concludes that the ruling does not alter Romania’s maritime rights or the strategic balance in the Black Sea. It does, however, contribute to the development of a clearer and more predictable legal framework, in which security, energy, critical infrastructure, environmental protection and regional cooperation are treated as interdependent elements of the same maritime architecture. For Romania, this represents an opportunity to consolidate its role as a responsible regional actor and as one of the main pillars of security and stability in the Black Sea.

CHAPTER 6

Implications of the award for the regional legal and strategic order

The sixth chapter extends the analysis beyond the direct interests of Ukraine and the Russian Federation and examines how the arbitral award influences the evolution of the regional maritime order and the development of international law of the sea. The central idea of the chapter is that the significance of the decision lies not in altering the balance of power in the Black Sea, but in reinforcing legal principles that will influence state behaviour and the interpretation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in future disputes.

The first conclusion concerns the consolidation of the jurisdictional limits of the mechanisms established under UNCLOS. The Tribunal reaffirms that these mechanisms cannot become instruments for the indirect resolution of territorial disputes and that the demarcation of competences between the law of the sea and general international law must be maintained. This approach provides a greater degree of predictability in international practice and limits the possibility of using arbitration proceedings to gain indirect advantages in disputes concerning sovereignty.

At the same time, the ruling helps to strengthen states’ procedural obligations. Whilst in the past the emphasis was mainly on compliance with substantive rights and obligations, the tribunal demonstrates that environmental impact assessments, continuous monitoring and the communication of relevant information constitute autonomous obligations, the failure to comply with which may give rise to international liability. Thus, administrative and technical procedures become essential elements of the legality of maritime activities.

The chapter also highlights the strengthening of the *due diligence* standard. States are obliged not only to avoid causing harm, but also to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable measures to identify, prevent and manage risks. This development brings the law of the sea closer to other branches of contemporary international law, where obligations of prevention and anticipatory responsibility are playing an increasingly important role.

An important contribution of the judgment concerns the relationship between the law of the sea and international environmental law. The Tribunal integrates the protection of the marine environment into the analysis of the legality of activities carried out in maritime areas and confirms that infrastructure development, the exploitation of natural resources and the exercise of coastal State rights must comply with high standards regarding impact assessment and transparency. In this way, the marine environment ceases to be an exclusively ecological concern and becomes an element of maritime security and governance.

The chapter also analyses the implications for the concept of regional cooperation. The Black Sea is presented as an area characterised by legal, economic and environmental interdependencies, in which the activities of one state can have direct effects on the other littoral states. In these circumstances, cooperation is no longer merely a political option, but a prerequisite for the effective management of the maritime space and for compliance with the obligations set out in the Convention.

Another element highlighted is the increasingly important role of scientific expertise and technical data in the resolution of international disputes. The judgment demonstrates that impact assessments, ecosystem monitoring and information on the marine environment are essential tools for substantiating legal arguments. Consequently, a state’s capacity to generate and manage scientific knowledge becomes a component of its legal and strategic influence.

Overall, Chapter 6 concludes that the ruling contributes to the progressive development of international law of the sea and to the consolidation of a maritime order in which security, environmental protection, economic development and regional cooperation are treated as complementary elements. Although the binding effects of the decision remain limited to the parties to the dispute, the interpretations set out by the tribunal are likely to influence international practice and the future development of maritime case law.

CHAPTER 7

Prospects for the development of the maritime order in the Black Sea

Chapter Seven is forward-looking and examines how the arbitral award may influence the region’s development in the coming years. The analysis is based on the premise that the tribunal’s decision does not immediately alter the existing geopolitical landscape, but contributes to defining the legal and institutional framework within which future maritime activities will take place.

The first trend identified is the consolidation of the multidimensional nature of maritime security. Whilst in the past this was mainly associated with military presence and control of shipping routes, recent developments demonstrate that energy infrastructure, submarine cables, environmental protection and logistical resilience are becoming inseparable components of the same concept. The arbitral award reflects this transformation and confirms the need for an integrated approach to maritime security.

The chapter then analyses the prospects for the development of offshore energy projects. The exploitation of natural resources in the Black Sea will continue to be a strategic objective for the littoral states and for the European Union. However, future projects will have to comply with more stringent legal and environmental standards, and the assessment of their impact on marine ecosystems will play a central role in the decision-making process.

Particular attention is paid to critical subsea infrastructure. Gas pipelines, communications cables and offshore energy systems are presented as essential elements of European and regional security. Protecting them will require not only technical and military measures, but also legal and institutional mechanisms capable of ensuring cooperation between states and the ongoing exchange of information.

The chapter also highlights the importance of developing modern marine environmental monitoring systems. The decision demonstrates that data on the state of ecosystems and the effects of maritime activities have become strategic resources. Consequently, states that invest in marine research, observation technologies and scientific expertise strengthen both their administrative capacity and their international legal standing.

From a regional perspective, the analysis shows that the Black Sea is evolving into an area characterised by interdependence. Energy security, environmental protection, digital infrastructure and economic development can no longer be managed in isolation, and cooperation between states is becoming a prerequisite for the effective management of these areas. In this context, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey can play an important role in developing regional mechanisms for coordination and information exchange.

The chapter also examines the implications for NATO and the European Union. For both organisations, the Black Sea is taking on increased strategic importance, not only from the perspective of collective defence, but also in terms of energy security, the protection of critical infrastructure and regional resilience. The arbitral award provides an additional legal framework that can support the development of integrated policies in these areas.

Finally, the analysis concludes that the region’s future will depend less on changes to borders and more on the states’ ability to responsibly manage a maritime space characterised by multiple interdependencies. International law, technology, energy and environmental protection will all influence the development of the Black Sea in equal measure, and the award of 22 April 2026 represents one of the first legal milestones of this new phase of development.

CHAPTER 8

Conclusions and prospects for maritime security in the Black Sea

The final chapter summarises the main findings of the analysis and highlights the fact that the ruling of the Arbitral Tribunal of 22 April 2026 must be interpreted beyond its immediate legal effects. Its significance lies not in altering the strategic balance in the Black Sea region, nor in changing the existing territorial situation, but in consolidating legal principles that will influence the evolution of the regional and international maritime order.

The first conclusion concerns the practical effects of the award. The Tribunal confirmed breaches of obligations relating to the protection of the marine environment, environmental impact assessment, monitoring and the communication of relevant information, thereby reinforcing the binding nature of Articles 123, 192, 194, 204, 205 and 206 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. At the same time, it reaffirmed the limits of its own jurisdiction and refused to turn the arbitration into an indirect mechanism for resolving the dispute over Crimea. This approach demonstrates that international law retains its autonomy and its own rules of operation even in contexts characterised by armed conflicts and geopolitical rivalries.

Equally, the award highlights what remains unchanged. The effective control exercised by the Russian Federation over Crimea and its strategic position in the Black Sea remain unchanged, and the tribunal does not grant Ukraine control over natural resources, offshore infrastructure or disputed maritime areas. From an operational and military perspective, the balance of power that existed prior to the ruling continues to exist following the conclusion of the arbitration.

This discrepancy between the legal and strategic effects constitutes one of the main lessons of the entire dispute. The award demonstrates that international law can clarify obligations, establish standards of conduct and generate legal and reputational costs without immediately altering geopolitical realities or effective control over a territory. At the same time, it confirms that strategic advantage does not automatically equate to legal legitimacy and that the exercise of power remains subject to the rules of international law.

The analysis also highlights the profound transformation of the concept of maritime security. Whereas in the past this was associated almost exclusively with freedom of navigation and naval presence, the ruling demonstrates that contemporary security encompasses the protection of the marine environment, the resilience of energy and digital infrastructure, the monitoring of offshore activities and regional cooperation. Subsea pipelines, communication cables, energy platforms and marine ecosystems are becoming elements of the same security architecture, and their protection requires the integration of legal, technical and strategic instruments.

For the Black Sea littoral states, including Romania, the ruling signals the need to develop integrated maritime policies. The exploitation of offshore resources, the protection of critical infrastructure, marine research and environmental monitoring can no longer be treated as separate areas, but must be incorporated into a unified maritime governance strategy. In this context, investment in scientific expertise, observation technologies and regional cooperation mechanisms takes on an importance comparable to investment in military capabilities and energy infrastructure.

The ruling also offers important lessons for NATO and the European Union. For both organisations, the stability of the Black Sea depends not only on the military balance, but also on the functioning of critical infrastructure, energy security, environmental protection and the ability of states to cooperate in managing common risks. From this perspective, the arbitral award complements recent developments regarding regional resilience and infrastructure security and confirms the trend towards extending the concept of security to areas previously considered exclusively economic or administrative.

A key conclusion of the study is that the Black Sea is becoming a space where law, security, energy, technology and the environment converge. The interdependencies created by the development of offshore infrastructure, digital connectivity and the exploitation of natural resources make it impossible to manage these areas separately. The maritime governance of the future will need to integrate all these dimensions into a common framework of cooperation and responsibility.

From a legal perspective, the ruling contributes to the progressive development of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and demonstrates its capacity to respond to challenges that go beyond the context in which it was adopted. Environmental protection, obligations of prevention, transparency and regional cooperation are reinterpreted in the light of new strategic and technological realities, confirming the dynamic nature of international maritime law.

Overall, the study concludes that the Ukraine v. Russian Federation arbitration represents not merely the resolution of a bilateral dispute, but one of the most significant milestones in the evolution of the contemporary maritime order. The award does not alter the map of the Black Sea nor does it change the balance of power between states, but it redefines the legal standards applicable to the management of maritime space and reinforces the principle that the exercise of sovereign rights is inseparable from obligations regarding environmental protection, cooperation and international responsibility.

From this perspective, the case transcends the boundaries of arbitration between two states and becomes a relevant case study for the transformation of international law of the sea into an instrument capable of responding to the challenges posed by strategic competition, technological development, energy security and environmental protection in the 21st century. Within this new regional architecture, the stability of the Black Sea will not depend solely on the military balance or territorial control, but also on the ability of states to integrate law, science, technology and cooperation into a common model of maritime governance.

CHAPTER 9

Conclusions and prospects for maritime security in the Black Sea

Chapter 9 serves to conclude the study’s argument with a balanced assessment of the actual effects of the ruling on maritime security in the Black Sea. The central idea is that the ruling has significant legal consequences, but does not immediately transform the existing strategic relationships in the region.

Firstly, the chapter sets out what the ruling actually changes. The Tribunal confirms that obligations regarding the protection of the marine environment, environmental impact assessment, the provision of information and cooperation between states are not mere recommendations, but legally enforceable obligations. Through this approach, the judgment strengthens the standards of conduct applicable to states carrying out maritime activities with a significant environmental impact. It thus contributes to the development of a maritime order in which infrastructure, offshore operations and strategic projects must be compatible with the requirements of international law of the sea.

This chapter explains what the ruling does not change. The Tribunal does not rule on sovereignty over Crimea, does not alter the territorial situation, does not redistribute control over maritime areas, and does not directly affect the military balance of power in the Black Sea. The Russian Federation retains the strategic advantage resulting from its effective control over Crimea, whilst Ukraine does not, through this ruling, gain control over disputed resources, infrastructure or maritime routes. This distinction is essential to understanding the limited, yet relevant, nature of the decision.

At the same time, the chapter analyses the future of the maritime order in the Black Sea. The main conclusion is that the region is entering a phase in which maritime security can no longer be reduced to naval presence, territorial control or freedom of navigation. It encompasses offshore energy, the protection of submarine cables and pipelines, environmental monitoring, information sharing, port infrastructure and logistical resilience. The ruling confirms the shift from a maritime order centred on control of space to one centred on the management of interdependencies.

The chapter then sets out lessons for coastal states. They must understand that maritime rights are accompanied by increasingly demanding procedural and substantive obligations. The exploitation of resources, the development of infrastructure and the exercise of maritime jurisdiction require rigorous impact assessments, continuous monitoring and cooperation with other affected states. For semi-enclosed seas, such as the Black Sea, regional cooperation becomes a practical prerequisite for stability.

With regard to NATO and the European Union, the chapter emphasises that the ruling confirms the need for an integrated approach to maritime security. For NATO, the protection of critical infrastructure and the resilience of the eastern flank must be linked to the legal and environmental dimensions of the maritime domain. For the European Union, the Black Sea is becoming a key area for energy security, trade connectivity, environmental protection and integrated maritime policy.

The final conclusions of Chapter 9 show that the ruling does not mark the end of the dispute nor does it offer a geopolitical solution for the Black Sea. It does, however, represent an important legal benchmark for how future maritime activities will be assessed. By emphasising due diligence, environmental protection, transparency and cooperation, the decision helps to define a new regional maritime order, in which law, security, energy and the environment become inseparable.

Final considerations

An analysis of the Arbitral Tribunal’s award of 22 April 2026 demonstrates that the effects of an international dispute cannot be assessed solely by reference to the findings set out in the operative part of the decision. The significance of such an award also lies in its ability to influence the interpretation of legal norms, to guide the conduct of states and to contribute to the progressive development of international law.

From this perspective, the case between Ukraine and the Russian Federation is a relevant example of how law and geopolitics coexist without entirely overlapping. The Tribunal did not alter the existing territorial situation, did not redistribute control over maritime areas, and did not change the balance of power in the region. Nevertheless, the judgment reaffirms the existence of legal limits on the exercise of power and confirms that environmental protection, transparency and cooperation remain obligations that apply even in contexts marked by tensions and conflicts.

The study highlights that the success or failure of the parties cannot be analysed in absolute terms. The Russian Federation maintains its strategic position and control over the infrastructure and territories under its de facto administration, but fails to secure international legal validation of this situation and faces findings of breaches of certain obligations under UNCLOS. Ukraine has failed to secure recognition of its claimed maritime rights or to reach solutions regarding the exploitation of natural resources or control over offshore infrastructure, but it has obtained confirmation of the applicability of international law and a finding that essential obligations regarding the protection of the marine environment have been breached.

For the Black Sea littoral states, including Romania, the significance of the ruling goes deeper than a mere analysis of the relations between the two parties. The decision confirms that the development of energy infrastructure, the exploitation of offshore resources, environmental protection, the security of submarine cables and pipelines, and regional cooperation must be addressed in an integrated manner. In this regard, maritime security can no longer be understood solely in terms of naval presence or territorial control, but involves the management of a complex set of legal, economic, technological and environmental interdependencies.

The ruling also reflects a broader transformation of international law of the sea. Whilst in the past the emphasis was mainly on the delimitation of maritime zones and the exercise of sovereign rights, recent developments demonstrate a steady expansion of obligations regarding risk prevention, environmental impact assessment, monitoring of activities and the exchange of information. The concept of *due diligence* is becoming increasingly important, and the legality of an activity is assessed not only by its results but also by the measures taken to prevent adverse effects.

At the same time, the ruling confirms the increasingly important role of scientific expertise in the resolution of maritime disputes. Data on the state of the marine environment, technical assessments and the continuous monitoring of ecosystems are becoming essential elements of legal argumentation and the decision-making process. Consequently, marine research, observation technologies and integrated information-gathering systems are acquiring a strategic value comparable to that of military infrastructure or capabilities.

For Romania, these developments offer the opportunity to develop an integrated maritime strategy capable of capitalising on its geographical position, its membership of the European Union and NATO, and the growing role of the Port of Constanța and offshore energy projects. Strengthening regional cooperation, investing in marine environmental monitoring and protecting critical infrastructure are areas that can contribute both to national security and to the stability of the entire region.

Looking ahead, the Arbitral Tribunal’s ruling can be seen as one of the first legal milestones of a new phase in the evolution of the international maritime order. The Black Sea is becoming an area where law, security, energy, technology and environmental protection are deeply interdependent, and managing these interdependencies will be one of the main challenges of the coming decades.

Ultimately, the analysis demonstrates that the true significance of the ruling does not lie in the redistribution of maritime rights or in altering the existing strategic configuration, but in reaffirming the principle that the exercise of power in the maritime domain must remain compatible with the norms of international law and with the shared responsibility for protecting a marine environment that constitutes a common heritage and interest of all coastal states. From this perspective, the case of Ukraine v. the Russian Federation constitutes not merely a dispute concerning the Black Sea, but a milestone for the future development of international maritime governance and for the adaptation of the law of the sea to the strategic challenges of the 21st century.

ANNEXES

APPENDIX 1

Background to the arbitration ‘Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. Russian Federation)’

1. Background to the dispute

The dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation has its origins in the events of 2014, when the Russian Federation assumed effective control over the Crimean Peninsula and the maritime areas adjacent to it. As a result of these developments, Russia began to exercise coastal state rights in the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait, managing natural resources, fishing activities, marine scientific research and infrastructure projects in the region.

Ukraine considered that these activities infringed its rights under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and decided to invoke the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism provided for in Annex VII to the Convention.

1. Initiation of arbitration

On 16 September 2016, Ukraine officially notified the Russian Federation of the initiation of arbitration and filed a Notification and Statement of Claim, requesting the constitution of an arbitral tribunal in accordance with Annex VII to UNCLOS.

The claim comprised several categories of claims concerning:

• the exercise of coastal State rights;
• the exploitation of natural resources;
• fishing;
• marine scientific research;
• underwater cultural heritage;
• protection of the marine environment;
• navigation through the Kerch Strait;
• development of maritime infrastructure.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague has been appointed to provide the registry services for the proceedings.

1. Constitution of the arbitral tribunal

The arbitral tribunal was constituted in accordance with the provisions of Annex VII to UNCLOS and comprised five independent arbitrators specialising in international law and the law of the sea.

During the proceedings, several procedural stages were organised concerning:

• the submission of written pleadings;
• raising preliminary objections;
• the taking of evidence;
• oral hearings;
• the submission of further observations.

1. Preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction

The Russian Federation challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction, arguing that most of Ukraine’s claims presuppose the prior establishment of sovereignty over Crimea.

According to the Russian argument, UNCLOS does not confer on arbitral tribunals the jurisdiction to resolve territorial disputes, and Ukraine was indirectly seeking a ruling on the status of Crimea.

This issue became the central focus of the entire proceedings.

2. The Judgment on Jurisdiction (2020)

In 2020, the tribunal issued its award on the preliminary objections.

The tribunal confirmed that:

• it cannot resolve disputes concerning sovereignty over territories;
• it cannot examine claims that necessarily depend on determining the status of Crimea;
• it may, however, examine those issues that can be analysed exclusively through the interpretation and application of UNCLOS.

This decision significantly narrowed the scope of the dispute and limited the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

3. Proceedings on the merits (2021–2025)

Following the resolution of the preliminary objections, the proceedings continued with the examination of the merits of the case.

At this stage, the following were examined:

• the exploitation of natural resources;
• fishing activities;
• marine scientific research;
• underwater cultural heritage;
• the construction and operation of the Kerch Bridge;
• impact on the marine environment;
• monitoring and reporting obligations;
• cooperation in semi-enclosed seas.

The proceedings included supplementary submissions, technical reports and numerous expert assessments concerning the marine environment and maritime infrastructure.

4. The final award of 22 April 2026

On 22 April 2026, the arbitral tribunal delivered its final award.

The main conclusions were as follows:

• the tribunal maintained its position that it could not resolve the dispute concerning sovereignty over Crimea;
• most of the claims relating to natural resources and exclusive rights were dismissed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction;
• claims relating to fisheries, scientific research and underwater cultural heritage were also dismissed;
• the tribunal found that the Russian Federation had breached its obligations regarding the protection of the marine environment and environmental impact assessment as set out in Articles 123, 192, 194, 205 and 206 of UNCLOS;
• No compensation was awarded and no specific remedial measures were ordered, as the tribunal considered that the mere finding of a breach constituted a sufficient form of legal redress.

5. The significance of the arbitration

The Ukraine v. Russian Federation arbitration is one of the most complex disputes resolved under Annex VII of UNCLOS and one of the most significant examples of the relationship between international law of the sea and territorial disputes.

The award reaffirms that UNCLOS mechanisms cannot be used to indirectly resolve issues of sovereignty, but also demonstrates that obligations regarding the protection of the marine- al environment, environmental impact assessment and regional cooperation remain fully applicable even in contexts characterised by armed conflict and strategic competition.

From this perspective, the case constitutes a landmark in case law for the development of international law of the sea and for future disputes concerning the management of maritime areas, critical infrastructure and environmental protection in regions under geopolitical pressure.

ANNEX 2

The legal, strategic and operational implications of the Arbitral Tribunal’s Award of 22 April 2026

The binding legal effects of the award apply exclusively to Ukraine and the Russian Federation. However, the tribunal’s interpretations of Articles 123, 192, 194, 204, 205, 206 and 303 of UNCLOS have relevance beyond the bilateral framework and are likely to influence state practice in the future.

Implication No. 1: Consolidation of the limits of UNCLOS jurisdiction in the context of territorial disputes

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Article 288 of UNCLOS; Annex VII to UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: The chapter on jurisdiction and admissibility; the conclusions regarding the impossibility of examining claims that require the prior resolution of the dispute over sovereignty over Crimea.

One of the most important conclusions of the judgment is the reaffirmation of the limits of the jurisdiction of the compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms provided for by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Tribunal held that it cannot examine those claims made by Ukraine which necessarily presuppose the prior determination of sovereignty over Crimea. Consequently, UNCLOS cannot be used as an indirect instrument for the resolution of territorial disputes.

The implications of this conclusion extend beyond the Black Sea and affect all maritime regions where territorial and maritime claims are interdependent. The ruling reinforces the trend in case law that maritime tribunals cannot substitute for mechanisms designed to resolve disputes concerning territorial sovereignty.

Implication No. 2. The distinction between de facto control and legal legitimacy

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Derives from the interpretation of the tribunal’s jurisdiction and the application of Article 288 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: The sections on jurisdiction and the delimitation of the subject-matter of the dispute.

The Judgment confirms one of the fundamental characteristics of the contemporary international legal order: the exercise of effective control over a territory does not automatically confer international legal validity. The Tribunal analysed the situation in the Crimea region without ruling on sovereignty and without transforming the factual realities into legal recognition thereof.

This conclusion is particularly important as it demonstrates that international law continues to distinguish between the exercise of power and legal legitimacy. In strategic terms, the ruling confirms that the advantages gained through effective control do not automatically lead to international recognition.

Implication No. 3. Strengthening the general obligation to protect and conserve the marine environment

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 192 and 194 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 942–969; operative part of the judgment, paragraph 975(e).

The Tribunal reaffirms that the obligation to protect and conserve the marine environment constitutes one of the fundamental obligations laid down by the Convention. The analysis carried out demonstrates that this obligation is not merely declaratory or programmatic in nature, but gives rise to concrete obligations for States carrying out activities likely to affect the marine environment.

The judgment thus contributes to reinforcing a trend observable in contemporary international law, whereby environmental protection is becoming a central element of the legality of economic and strategic activities carried out in maritime areas.

For the states bordering the Black Sea, this conclusion implies the need to integrate environmental considerations into all major projects relating to energy, offshore infrastructure and maritime development.

Implication No. 4. Environmental impact assessment becomes an operational legal obligation

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Article 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 861–907; operative part of the judgment, paragraph 975(b).

The Tribunal concluded that the environmental impact assessments carried out for the Kerch Bridge, the power cables and the gas pipelines did not comply with the requirements laid down in Article 206 of UNCLOS.

This conclusion has implications that extend beyond the specific dispute. The environmental impact assessment is no longer merely an administrative or technical formality, but an autonomous legal obligation, subject to scrutiny and verification by international courts.

For all states developing offshore projects, including Romania, this interpretation indicates that future maritime investments will need to be accompanied by rigorous, transparent assessments based on credible scientific data.

Implication No. 5. Strengthening the obligation to monitor and report on the marine environment

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 204 and 205 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 908–941; operative part of the judgment, paragraph 975(c).

The Tribunal held that the obligations to monitor the effects of activities on the marine environment and to report the results of such assessments are essential components of the legal regime established by UNCLOS.

Through this interpretation, environmental information acquires legal significance in its own right. States are not only obliged to collect data and monitor the effects of their activities, but also to communicate this information in a transparent and accessible manner.

This conclusion is particularly important for the Black Sea region, where the development of offshore operations and subsea infrastructure will require advanced monitoring and information-sharing systems.

Implication No. 6. Strengthening the obligation to cooperate in semi-enclosed seas

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Article 123 of UNCLOS, read in conjunction with Articles 192 and 194 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 944–955; operative part of the judgment, paragraph 975(e).

The Tribunal reaffirms the importance of the duty of cooperation between States bordering semi-enclosed seas in the field of marine environmental protection and the management of activities likely to have transboundary effects.

Although Article 123 is not interpreted as establishing an absolute and autonomous obligation to cooperate, the judgment confirms that States cannot ignore the regional dimension of activities carried out in such maritime areas.

For the Black Sea, this conclusion is particularly important as it provides an additional legal basis for the development of regional mechanisms concerning environmental protection, the exchange of information and the management of critical maritime infrastructure.

Maritime disputes and the evolution of the maritime order in the Black Sea.

Implication No. 7. Strengthening the concept of due diligence in international law of the sea

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 192, 194, 205 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 861–969; in particular, the analysis of the obligations to assess, monitor and cooperate.

One of the most significant legal consequences of the judgment is the consolidation of the concept of due diligence as a standard of conduct applicable to maritime activities. Although the Convention does not provide an explicit definition of the concept, a combined interpretation of the obligations regarding environmental protection, impact assessment and cooperation demonstrates that States must act in a prudent, informed and proactive manner.

The judgment confirms that the legality of a maritime activity is not assessed solely by reference to the existence or absence of actual damage. The Tribunal also examines the measures taken prior to the risk materialising, including the quality of impact assessments, the existence of monitoring systems and the availability of relevant information.

For the states bordering the Black Sea, this conclusion means that legal obligations are no longer purely reactive. They are progressively becoming obligations to anticipate and manage risks.

Implication No. 8. The legal relevance of the Kerch Bridge for future maritime infrastructure

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 192, 194, 205 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 861–975; analysis of the construction of the Kerch Bridge and associated infrastructure.

Although the tribunal did not declare the existence of the Kerch Bridge to be unlawful, nor did it order a change to its status, the analysis carried out sets an important precedent for all large-scale maritime projects.

For the first time in a dispute of this scale, a strategic piece of infrastructure has been assessed not only in terms of its economic and transport functions, but also in terms of its effects on the marine environment, water flow, sediments and associated ecosystems.

The implications are significant for future maritime bridges, offshore terminals, artificial islands, subsea pipelines and other similar infrastructure. The ruling suggests that the development of such projects will increasingly be conditional upon demonstrating their compatibility with the environmental obligations set out in UNCLOS.

Implication No. 9. The growing legal significance of subsea infrastructure

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 192, 194 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 861–907; the analysis concerning submarine power cables and pipelines.

The Judgment demonstrates that subsea infrastructure is becoming a central element of contemporary maritime governance. Although the dispute does not directly concern its security, the Tribunal’s analysis confirms that the installation and operation of subsea cables and pipelines give rise to complex legal obligations.

In the current context, characterised by energy dependence, digitalisation and regional connectivity, this conclusion is particularly important. Submarine pipelines, communications cables and offshore energy infrastructure are becoming targets of legal, economic and strategic significance.

For Romania, the implication is direct, given the development of offshore energy projects and the growing role of subsea infrastructure in regional energy security.

Implication No. 10. Strengthening the protection of underwater cultural heritage

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Article 303 of UNCLOS.

References in the Award: The chapter on underwater cultural heritage; §§ 1033–1087.

The Award provides one of the most detailed arbitral interpretations of Article 303 of UNCLOS concerning underwater cultural and archaeological heritage.

The Tribunal confirms that historical and archaeological remains on the seabed are not merely objects of scientific or cultural interest, but are subject to a legal regime of international protection.

This conclusion is relevant to all Black Sea littoral states, including Romania, which possesses a significant underwater heritage associated with ancient, Byzantine, Ottoman and modern navigation.

Implication No. 11. Strengthening the legal relevance of environmental information and data

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 204 and 205 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 908–941.

The Judgment transforms information on the marine environment into an element with independent legal significance. Data on biodiversity, pollution, hydrological changes, sedimentation or the effects of maritime infrastructure are no longer merely technical tools used by experts.

They become factors capable of influencing the assessment of the legality of a state’s conduct and may constitute decisive evidence in international disputes.

This development will heighten the importance of marine monitoring systems and regional information exchange in the Black Sea.

Implication No. 12. The transformation of environmental protection into an element of maritime security

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 192, 194 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 942–969; the operative part of the judgment.

Beyond the strictly legal dimension, the judgment confirms the trend towards integrating environmental protection into the modern concept of maritime security.

The marine environment is no longer analysed exclusively as a matter of ecological conservation. It is becoming a component of the region’s economic, energy and strategic stability. Consequently, damage to marine ecosystems can have consequences that go beyond the sphere of environmental protection and directly affect the security of coastal states.

This conclusion is particularly relevant to the Black Sea, where offshore energy, maritime transport and subsea infrastructure are playing an increasingly important role.

Implication No. 13. Relevance to the development of offshore operations in Romania

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 192, 194, 205 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 861–975; the operative part of the judgment.

The judgment is directly relevant to offshore projects being developed in the Romanian sector of the Black Sea.

The Tribunal sends a clear signal that the exploitation of marine resources and the development of energy infrastructure must be accompanied by rigorous environmental impact assessments, effective monitoring systems and appropriate mechanisms for cooperation and transparency.

In this context, the legal standards applicable to offshore energy projects are becoming more stringent and more closely aligned with the requirements of sustainable development.

Implication No. 14. Relevance to NATO and the security of critical infrastructure

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 123, 192 and 194 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 944–955 and §§ 956–969.

Although the ruling does not directly concern NATO, its conclusions have significant implications for the security of critical infrastructure in the Black Sea region.

Submarine pipelines, communication cables, offshore installations and energy infrastructure are becoming key elements of regional security and require increasingly sophisticated protection and cooperation mechanisms.

Consequently, contemporary maritime security can no longer be defined solely in terms of naval presence or military control of maritime space.

Implication No. 15. The emergence of a new paradigm for the regional maritime order

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 123, 192, 194, 205 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: the body of conclusions set out in paragraphs 861–975 and the operative part.

Perhaps the most important conclusion arising from the judgment as a whole is the emergence of a new conception of the regional maritime order.

The Tribunal does not alter maritime boundaries, redistribute resources or change existing power balances. Instead, it redefines the legal standards applicable to the exercise of these rights and activities.

In this new paradigm, maritime security, environmental protection, critical infrastructure, offshore energy, regional cooperation and due diligence obligations are no longer separate areas. They become components of the same system of maritime governance.

For Romania, this development is particularly relevant because the future of the Black Sea will depend to an ever-greater extent on the ability of states to integrate the legal, energy, technological, environmental and strategic dimensions into a coherent and sustainable approach.

Implication No. 16. Strengthening the binding nature of procedural obligations under international law of the sea

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 204, 205 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 861–941; operative part of the judgment, paragraph 975(b)–(d).

One of the most significant developments arising from the judgment is the transformation of procedural obligations from ancillary obligations into essential components of the legality of maritime activities. Traditionally, the focus of the law of the sea has been on substantive rights concerning the exploitation of resources, navigation or the exercise of maritime jurisdiction. The judgment demonstrates, however, that compliance with procedures for assessment, monitoring and reporting may itself become the subject of a finding of a breach of the Convention.

The Tribunal thus sends an important message: the legality of a maritime activity is not determined solely by its outcome, but also by the manner in which the state has assessed, monitored and managed the associated risks. This conclusion will inevitably influence future maritime disputes and the development of state practice.

Implication No. 17. Strengthening the preventive dimension of international law of the sea

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 192, 194 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 861–969.

The Judgment confirms the trend observable in contemporary international case law towards shifting the focus from redressing harm to preventing it. The Tribunal attaches particular importance to the obligations to anticipate risks and identify potential effects before actual harm occurs.

This approach is consistent with recent developments in the case law of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice and other international courts. Consequently, the Judgment contributes to the development of a legal culture based on the prevention and proactive management of maritime risks.

Implication No. 18. Enhancing the legal relevance of scientific expertise

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 204, 205 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 861–941.

The tribunal’s analysis demonstrates that scientific expertise is becoming a central element in assessing the legality of maritime activities. Environmental impact assessments, biodiversity studies, hydrological models and data on the cumulative effects of maritime infrastructure are taking on unprecedented legal significance.

In future, states’ ability to base maritime decisions on sound scientific grounds will directly influence the assessment of their compliance with international obligations. The judgment thus confirms the progressive convergence between international law and scientific knowledge.

Implication No. 19. Strengthening the role of international organisations in maritime governance

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Article 205 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 908–941.

By emphasising the obligation to provide information to the competent international organisations, the tribunal highlights the increasingly important role of international bodies specialising in the monitoring and coordination of maritime activities.

This conclusion suggests that contemporary maritime governance can no longer be viewed solely in terms of national jurisdiction. International organisations are becoming key players in ensuring transparency, the exchange of information and regional coordination.

For the Black Sea, this development may help to strengthen cooperation between the littoral states and international institutions with responsibilities in the fields of the marine environment and maritime security.

Implication No. 20. Limiting the possibility of invoking strategic interests to avoid environmental obligations

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 192, 194, 205 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 861–975; the operative part.

The tribunal’s reasoning suggests that the existence of strategic, economic or security objectives does not override the procedural and environmental obligations set out in the Convention. Even projects considered strategically essential must comply with the requirements regarding environmental impact assessment and regional cooperation.

This conclusion is particularly relevant at a time when energy, port and subsea infrastructure projects are often justified on the grounds of national security. The judgment confirms that such arguments do not automatically suspend the obligations laid down by UNCLOS.

Implication No. 21. The emergence of a more complex legal framework for critical subsea infrastructure

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 192, 194 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 861–975.

Although the tribunal was not called upon to analyse directly the security of critical subsea infrastructure, its conclusions contribute to the development of a legal regime applicable to such infrastructure. Gas pipelines, power cables and other subsea infrastructure are analysed not only as technical elements, but also as activities likely to have an impact on the marine environment.

This development is significant because subsea infrastructure has become an essential component of the digital economy and of European energy security. The judgment indirectly contributes to the development of the standards that will govern their protection and operation in the future.

Implication No. 22. Reinforcing the importance of the Black Sea in the European strategic architecture

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Article 123 of UNCLOS; Articles 192 and 194 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 944–969.

The judgment demonstrates that the Black Sea can no longer be viewed exclusively as a regional space. The dispute highlights the intersection of energy, trade, security and environmental interests that characterise the region.

For the European Union and NATO, this conclusion confirms the strategic importance of the Black Sea as a hub for energy, logistics and digital connectivity. Consequently, legal and political developments in the region will continue to have implications that extend far beyond the littoral states.

Implication No. 23. A precedent for future large-scale offshore and maritime projects

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 205 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 861–975.

The tribunal’s analysis regarding the Kerch Bridge and associated infrastructure provides an assessment model that is likely to be applied in future maritime disputes. The judgment establishes criteria for the assessment of cumulative effects, risk analysis and obligations of cooperation that may be applied to similar projects in other maritime regions.

This conclusion is relevant to offshore developments in the Black Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Arctic and other maritime areas characterised by ecological sensitivity and strategic importance.

Implication No. 24. Confirmation of the evolving nature of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 123, 192, 194, 204, 205, 206 and 303 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: all the sections analysed and the operative part.

Perhaps the most profound conclusion drawn from the entire judgment is that UNCLOS continues to demonstrate a remarkable capacity to adapt to contemporary challenges. Although the Convention was negotiated in a different geopolitical context, the tribunal demonstrates that its rules can be applied to current issues such as critical infrastructure, offshore projects, the protection of the marine environment, underwater cultural heritage and regional cooperation.

In this respect, the ruling is not merely the resolution of a dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. It contributes to the progressive development of international law of the sea and to the shaping of a new conception of maritime governance, in which security, the environment, energy and regional cooperation are treated as interdependent elements of the same maritime legal order.

Implication No. 25. Confirmation of the trend towards the ‘greening’ of international law of the sea

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 192, 194, 204, 205 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 861–969; operative part, paragraph 975.

The Tribunal’s analysis confirms one of the most significant trends in contemporary international law: the progressive integration of environmental protection into all areas of maritime governance. In the past, the law of the sea was dominated by issues such as the delimitation of maritime zones, fishing, navigation and the exploitation of natural resources. The judgment demonstrates that environmental protection has become a cross-cutting issue that influences all these areas.

This development is significant as it suggests that future maritime disputes will increasingly be assessed in terms of their impact on marine ecosystems and obligations to prevent harm. In this respect, the judgment contributes to bringing the law of the sea and international environmental law closer together.

Implication No. 26. Strengthening the relationship between energy security and environmental obligations

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 192, 194 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 861–975.

The Judgment emphasises that the development of maritime energy infrastructure cannot be separated from obligations regarding the protection of the marine environment. Subsea pipelines, power cables and other infrastructure associated with the exploitation of natural resources are analysed in terms of their impact on ecosystems and the associated procedural obligations.

For the Black Sea littoral states, this conclusion is particularly relevant in the context of the growing importance of offshore projects and the region’s role in European energy security.

Implication No. 27. Confirmation of the role of regional cooperation as an element of maritime stability

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Article 123 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 944–955.

The Tribunal reaffirms that semi-enclosed seas require enhanced forms of cooperation between coastal States. Although the duty to cooperate is not interpreted as a mechanism for compulsory regional integration, the judgment confirms that the effective management of maritime risks becomes difficult in the absence of mechanisms for coordination and the exchange of information.

For the Black Sea region, this has normative significance as it provides an additional legal basis for regional initiatives concerning environmental protection, the safety of navigation, infrastructure security and the exchange of maritime data.

Implication No. 28. Strengthening the legal significance of maritime resilience

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 192, 194, 204 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 861–969.

Although the term ‘resilience’ does not feature prominently in the text of the Convention, the tribunal’s reasoning points to this concept. Risk assessment, continuous monitoring of impacts and the duty to cooperate are essentially aimed at enhancing the capacity of marine ecosystems and infrastructure to cope with shocks and disruptions.

The judgment indicates that resilience is gradually becoming an implicit objective of international law of the sea and contemporary maritime policies.

Implication No. 29. Relevance to future disputes concerning climate change and the marine environment

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 192, 194, 204, 205 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 861–969; interpretation of environmental obligations.

The Judgment forms part of a broader context characterised by the expansion of international obligations regarding environmental protection. The interpretations set out by the Tribunal are consistent with recent developments in international case law concerning climate change and due diligence obligations.

Consequently, the decision may also be regarded as a landmark for future disputes concerning the impact of human activities on the marine environment and on vulnerable ecosystems.

Implication No. 30. The transformation of the maritime order of the Black Sea into a space of legal and strategic interdependence

Legal basis under UNCLOS: All the articles analysed by the Tribunal – Articles 123, 192, 194, 204, 205, 206 and 303 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: the judgment as a whole and the operative part.

The broadest conclusion to be drawn from the judgment as a whole is that the Black Sea is evolving into an area characterised by legal, strategic, energy and environmental interdependence. The activities carried out by a state frequently have effects that extend beyond the limits of its jurisdiction and influence the security, environment and economy of the other littoral states.

The ruling confirms that the region’s future will no longer be determined exclusively by military control or access to resources, but also by the ability of the actors involved to manage this interdependence through legal norms, cooperation and regional governance mechanisms.

Implication No. 31. Confirmation that strategic advantage does not guarantee legal victory

Legal basis under UNCLOS: the proceedings as a whole.

References in the Judgment: the operative part and the sections on jurisdiction.

The ruling demonstrates that strategic superiority and effective control over a territory or maritime area do not preclude the possibility of an international legal challenge. The Russian Federation retains its operational advantages and control over Crimea, but the tribunal does not equate this reality with international legal validation. The decision thus confirms the existence of a relative autonomy of international law vis-à-vis power relations.

Implication No. 32. Confirmation that international law can influence conflicts even when it cannot resolve them

Legal basis under UNCLOS: the judgment as a whole.

References in the Judgment: the operative part and the chapters on jurisdiction and the merits.

The Tribunal did not resolve the dispute concerning Crimea, nor did it alter the strategic configuration of the region. However, it did influence the normative framework within which regional actors exercise their rights and obligations. The judgment illustrates that international law can shape the behaviour of states even when it cannot eliminate the political causes of the conflict.

Implication No. 33. The growing relevance of the concept of integrated maritime security

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 123, 192, 194, 205 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References in the Judgment: §§ 861–975.

The judgment confirms that contemporary maritime security can no longer be reduced to its military dimension. The marine environment, critical infrastructure, offshore energy, submarine communications, freedom of navigation and regional cooperation are all part of the same strategic equation. This conclusion is particularly important for NATO, the European Union and the Black Sea littoral states.

Implication No. 34. Relevance to the development of the concept of strategic resilience in the Black Sea

Legal basis under UNCLOS: Articles 123, 192, 194, 204 and 206 of UNCLOS.

References from the Judgment: §§ 861–969.

The Tribunal’s analysis suggests that the region’s stability does not depend exclusively on the military balance, but also on the capacity of infrastructure, ecosystems and institutions to absorb shocks and disruptions. From this perspective, resilience becomes an implicit objective of regional maritime governance.

Implication No. 35. The Black Sea as a testing ground for the future international maritime order

Legal basis under UNCLOS: all the articles analysed.

References in the Judgment: the entire judgment.

Perhaps the most far-reaching conclusion to be drawn from the dispute is that the Black Sea today functions as a space where almost all contemporary challenges of the law of the sea intersect: territorial disputes, energy security, critical infrastructure, environmental protection, underwater cultural heritage, regional cooperation and strategic competition. From this perspective, the ruling transcends the significance of a regional dispute and offers valuable insights into the direction in which the international maritime order is evolving in the 21st century.

ANNEX 3

MATRIX OF THE LEGAL, STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL’S AWARD OF 22 APRIL 2026.

No.	Issue analysed	UNCLOS Articles	References in the Award	The Tribunal’s Conclusion	Legal implications	Strategic/operational implications	Relevance for Romania
1	The Court’s jurisdiction	Article 288; Annex VII	Chapter on jurisdiction	UNCLOS cannot indirectly resolve territorial disputes	Strengthening the limits of UNCLOS jurisdiction	Separation of territorial disputes from maritime disputes	Confirms the stability of the regional legal framework
2	Crimea and effective control	Article 288 (implied)	Chapter III	De facto control does not equate to legal legitimacy	Distinction between fact and law	Strategic advantage without legal recognition	Relevant to the regional legal order
3	Protection of the marine environment	Article 192	§§ 942–969	The obligation is effective and enforceable	Strengthening environmental obligations	The environment becomes a component of maritime security	Applicable to offshore projects
4	Pollution prevention	Article 194	§§ 942–969	Positive obligations to prevent pollution	Strengthening due diligence	Impact on maritime infrastructure	Relevant to the Black Sea
5	Environmental impact assessment	Article 206	§§ 861–907; §975(b)	The assessments carried out were insufficient	EIA becomes a standalone legal obligation	Higher standards for maritime projects	Neptun Deep and other offshore projects
6	Monitoring of the marine environment	Art. 204	§§ 908–941	Monitoring is an ongoing obligation	Increased procedural obligations	The need for ongoing supervision	Development of national capacities
7	Disclosure of environmental- al information	Art. 205	§§ 908–941; §975(c)	Failure to disclose information may constitute a breach	Transparency becomes a legal obligation	Environmental data takes on strategic value	The need for regional information exchange
8	Cooperation in semi-enclosed seas	Art. 123	§§ 944–955	Cooperation is an essential element of maritime governance	Reinforcing the interpretation of Article 123	The need for regional mechanisms	Promotes Romanian regional initiatives
9	Due diligence	Articles 192, 194, 205, 206	§§ 861–969	States must prevent and manage risks	Strengthening due diligence obligations	Focus on anticipation and prevention	Relevant to critical infrastructure
10	The Kerch Bridge	Articles 192, 194, 205, 206	§§ 861–975	Major projects must be assessed and monitored	Higher standards for infrastructure	Impact on future maritime projects	Lessons for Romanian infrastructure
11	Subsea pipelines	Articles 192, 194, 206	§§ 861–907	The need for an environmental impact assessment	Extension of environmental obligations	Relevance to energy security	Important for energy corridors
12	Submarine cables	Articles 192, 194, 206	§§ 861–907	The need for assessment and monitoring	Strengthening procedural obligations	Protection of digital connectivity	Relevant to digital infrastructure
13	Critical maritime infrastructure	Articles 192–206	§§ 861–975	Infrastructure subject to international legal control	Integration of environmental and security standards	Regional strategic objectives	Direct relevance to Romania
14	Underwater cultural heritage	Article 303	§§ 1033–1087	Underwater heritage is afforded legal protection	Further interpretation of Article 303	Strategic and identity-defining value	Relevant to sites in the Black Sea
15	Scientific expertise	Articles 204–206	§§ 861–941	Data and studies have legal relevance	Science becomes a central element of evidence	The growing role of research	The need for investment in marine research
16	International organisations	Art. 205	§§ 908–941	Communication to the competent bodies is legally relevant	Strengthening multilateral governance	Enhancing the role of specialised agencies	Cooperation with the EU and international organisations
17	Environmental protection and security	Articles 192, 194	§§ 942–969	The environment is integrated into maritime security analysis	The convergence of the law of the sea and environmental law	Extended maritime security	Relevant to national strategies
18	Russia	Multiple	Approach and conclusions	Partial legal success	No legal recognition of Crimea	Maintaining the strategic advantage	Indirect impact on the region
19	Ukraine	Multiple	Strategy and conclusions	Limited legal victory	Confirmation of the applicability of UNCLOS	Maintaining the legal scope of the dispute	Impact on regional stability
20	Romania	Articles 123, 192–206	Based on the conclusions	More stringent legal standards	Adaptation of maritime projects	Strengthening the regional role	Direct relevance
21	NATO	Articles 123, 192, 194	Based on the conclusions	Maritime security is becoming multidimensional	Integration of the environment and infrastructure	Protection of critical infrastructure	The eastern flank
22	The European Union	Articles 123, 192–206	Based on the conclusions	Compatibility with EU policies	Strengthening environmental standards	Support for energy security	Highly relevant
23	Energy security	Articles 192, 194, 206	§§ 861–975	Offshore energy must be made compatible with environmental obligations	Integration of law and energy	Impact on energy corridors	Neptun Deep
24	Regional resilience	Articles 123, 192–206	The ruling as a whole	Risk management is becoming essential	Strengthening preventive obligations	Enhancing maritime resilience	Strategic relevance
25	Future maritime disputes	Articles 123, 192–206, 303	The judgment as a whole	The judgment becomes a persuasive precedent	It influences future case law	Global impact	Relevance to legal doctrine
26	The evolution of UNCLOS	Multiple	The ruling as a whole	The Convention remains adaptable to new challenges	Progressive development of the law of the sea	Integration of the environment, energy and technology	Of major interest to coastal States
27	The maritime order of the Black Sea	Articles 123, 192–206	The ruling as a whole	The regional order is becoming more complex and interdependent	Strengthening maritime governance	Integration of security, energy and the environment	Direct implications for Romania
28	Maritime power in the 21st century	Based on interpretation	The overall conclusion	Maritime power extends beyond the military dimension	Expanding the legal concept of governance	Includes energy, data, infrastructure and the environment	Of major strategic importance
29	Regional governance	Art. 123	§§ 944–955	The need for functional cooperation	Strengthening regional mechanisms	Stability and predictability	Romania’s strategic interest
30	The new regional maritime order	Articles 123, 192–206, 303	The full judgment	Law, security and the environment are becoming interdependent	The regulatory restructuring of the region	The transformation of the maritime architecture of the Black Sea	Of the utmost strategic importance

ANNEX 4

MAIN IMPLICATIONS FOR ROMANIA (NATIONAL INTEREST MATRIX)

Area	Main Implication	Level of relevance
Offshore energy	More stringent standards regarding impact assessment and monitoring	Very high
Neptun Deep	The need for robust and transparent environmental documentation	Very high
Port of Constanța	Benefits from the growing importance of legal predictability in the maritime sector	High
Subsea infrastructure	The need to protect pipelines and cables	Very high
Environmental monitoring	Development of national marine observation capabilities	High
Regional cooperation	Opportunities for Romanian initiatives in the Black Sea	High
NATO	Integrating infrastructure and energy into security planning	Very high
EU	Compatibility with European energy and environmental policies	Very high
Underwater cultural heritage	Strengthening the legal protection of historic sites	Environment
Marine research	Increasing the strategic value of expertise and data	High
Maritime resilience	The need for an integrated approach to maritime security	Very high
Maritime policies	Basis for updating the National Maritime Strategy	Very high

MARITIME SECURITY FORUM