The Black Sea Conundrum: Navigating the Murky Waters of Maritime Diplomacy

On August 13th, an incident occurred that sent ripples through the international community. Russian troops fired warning shots at a merchant vessel in the Black Sea and subsequently boarded the ship. Ukraine was quick to voice its outrage, asserting that Russia’s actions violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. They called upon the international community to intervene. However, what was even more concerning for Kyiv was the realization that, technically, Russia was within its rights to act as it did.

But this incident was just the tip of the iceberg. Russia, having withdrawn from a grain deal, is now keen for the world to believe they’ve imposed a blockade on Ukrainian ports. Yet, in reality, no such blockade exists. The Black Sea, with its strategic importance, could potentially offer a long-term solution to the ongoing conflict. However, the waters are muddied with misinformation, and not just by the presence of mythical mermaids.

When discussing the legality of actions in the context of this war, it’s essential to understand that this is an illegal war from the outset. Russia had no legitimate grounds for invasion and has been accused of numerous war crimes since. Despite the illegal actions that initiated the conflict, certain legal responsibilities are now imposed on both Ukraine and Russia due to the recognition of an international armed conflict. This is where the Montreux Convention comes into play, regulating maritime traffic through the Turkish Straits and into the Black Sea during times of warfare.

One of the internationally recognized maritime measures is the right of “visit and search.” This allows a warship, during a conflict, to ascertain the true nature of merchant ships encountered outside neutral waters. Within a country’s territorial waters, the state can board any vessel with just cause, even without being at war. This is why British Royal Marines could board an Iranian oil tanker passing through the Strait of Gibraltar in 2019.

However, the concept of blockades is where things become more complex. With 70% of Ukrainian exports moving via the Black Sea, a blockade could severely impact the country. For a naval blockade to be recognized, it must be declared by a state and, crucially, it must be effective. This means that the enforcing state must be willing to risk its assets to uphold the blockade.

Russia’s claim of a blockade is questionable at best. Their Black Sea flagship is now a relic, and their remaining ships in Sevastopol are guarded by dolphins, of all things. Russia seems to want the benefits of a blockading state without taking on the responsibilities. This is evident from incidents like the one on July 30th, when six merchant vessels, despite Russia’s warnings, sailed through the Black Sea to the Ukrainian port of Ismail. Russia took no action.

Another telling incident involved the container ship Joseph Schult, which carried a massive cargo from the port of Odessa through the Turkish Straits. If a genuine blockade was in place, why wasn’t this ship stopped? The answer lies in the flag the Joseph Schulz operates under: Hong Kong, or more accurately, China. Putin, it seems, would not want to upset his allies in Beijing.

Agricultural products are a significant export for Ukraine, accounting for about 40% of the country’s total exports. Before the full-scale invasion, Ukraine was a significant player in the global wheat, corn, and sunflower oil markets. Russia aims to cripple this trade, even resorting to misinformation about blockades. Moscow also views the grain trade as a tool to drive a wedge between Ukraine and its European allies.

So, what can be done? One solution could be for entities like the EU to fund the transportation of Ukrainian grain to more distant markets. This would counteract Russia’s attempts to “weaponize hunger.” On the military front, while some have suggested that NATO ships could lead a convoy system through the Black Sea, this is fraught with risks. The presence of NATO hardware near Russia could lead to miscalculations and escalation. Additionally, there are restrictions imposed by the Montreux Convention on non-Black Sea navies operating in the area.