– Law of the Sea Aspects of Sabotage to Submarine Infrastructure in the Baltic Sea34th Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceMariehamn, 25 August 2025Henrik RingbomProfessor in Maritime Law and the Law of the Sea, Åbo Akademi University,Professor II, Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law, University of OsloSome preliminary issues–Sabotage ≠ Shadow fleet–UNCLOS ≠ General international law(note e.g. State responsibility, LNW &jus ad bellum)Interpretation of UNCLOS–Starting point (a contrario)–Treaty interpretation VCLT Art. 31(1):A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.–Text:■Numerous gaps■Right to lay cable – lateral■Coastal state enforcement■State involvement■Balancing rules (balancing of interests,due regard, prohibition of abuse of right)■EEZ ≠ high seas–Object and purpose of UNCLOS–Living treaty: new threatsState Practice and Case Law–Limited State practice–International case law■Virginia G(ITLOS2014)■Arctic Sunrise (PCA,2015)Conclusions–Not straightforward legal situation with respect tosuspected ships➔scope for interpretation/application–➔Scope for altering State practice–Case-by-case assessment–Key issues affecting legality:■Location of damage and enforcement■Gravity of suspected offence■Availability of evidence■Proportionality of enforcement measures in light ofabove–Global■Short-term: interpretation, practice■Long-term: implementing, other agreements?–Regional■Flag State cooperation■Monitoring tools, ‘irregular behaviour’, presence atsea■Joint implementation guidance, e.g. regarding■Identification of key criteria triggering suspicion(AIS data, irregular behaviour, timing ofcrossing, visual observations etc.)■Different response levels, depending oncollaboration of ship (stopping, boarding,investigation, arrest, judicial procedures...)–National solutions (maritime zones,straits...) What can be done?Thank you!JurisdictionCables and pipelinesEEZPrescriptiveRight to lay (art 58(1)) Jurisdictional conflicts (art 59)EnforcementStarting point: like the high seas Environmental jurisdiction (arts: 220, 221, 73(1))Continental shelfPrescriptiveRight to lay (art 79(1)) Particular rights re own installations (art 79(4)) Pollution and direction (art 79(2, 3) (only pipelines, not cables) Drilling (exclusive) (art 81) Environmental provisions (art 208)Enforcement- But some measures to support environmental rules (art 214)High seasPrescriptiveFreedoms to lay Damage to cables and pipelines (art 113)EnforcementEnvironmental enforcement (necessity) Exclusive FSJ for ‘incidents of navigation’ (art. 97), right to visit (art 110), hot pursuit (111)...Cables and pipelines: some relevant provisionsGulf of FinlandGeneral on the shadow fleet•Linked to sanctions against Russia. Some 1.500 ships (around half of the Russian oil transports is carried by such ships – more for crude, less for products) •Background •UN •Law of the sea limitations •Different types of sanctions (related to transportation of oil by sea) •2022 – Import ban (➔ lack of tonnage) •6/2024 – Price cap (USD 60, not so effective) (➔ ownership, flagging, insurance, GPS and AIS disturbances...) •12/2024 – Listing of ships (EU 358 + US 400 + UK 250) •Latest development (Estonia, Poland) •What can be done? (globally, Baltic Sea, nationally)