The continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (NM) accounts for a great value for States. The development of technologies and science has allowed the human economic and scientific activities on the deep parts of the ocean floor. The continental shelf is rich with living resources. The living resources of continental shelf are also valuable, since they possess valuable genetic resources for pharmaceuticals and commercial products. Many valuable non-living resources are situated on the continental shelf, including hydrocarbons (oil and gas) and minerals (e.g. manganese, nickel, cobalt, gold, diamonds, copper, tin, titanium, iron, chromium and galena). Therefore, States have spent significant resources on conducting a research and exploring their continental shelf and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) has received seventy-seven submissions and issued twenty-nine recommendations pursuant to Article 76 (8) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). With the expected improvement of technological capabilities in decades to come, especially, in deep waters, the continental shelf will be explored more thoroughly and perhaps will meet no technological limits.

This article examines the meaning and evolution of the practical implementation of the ‘genuine link’ concept over the years since the rise of the flag-of-convenience (FOC) registries in the 1920s. The author notes that while the competition between Flag States become fiercer, the regulations on ship safety, pollution prevention or shipboard working and living conditions are becoming standardized and ubiquitous. By being regulated by international instruments, in effect restricting regulatory powers of Flag States. Likewise, the enforcement of these provisions is becoming internationalized – with the omnipresence of classification societies and introduction of PSC regimes. At the same time, author identifies a lack of adequate regulations in respect of employment of seafarers, most notably wages and social security contributions, both at the national (Flag State) and international level. This legal loophole encourages Port States to introduce local solutions, irrespective of Flag State regulations. Such developments weaken the ‘genuineness’ of the ‘genuine link’ between ship and its Flag State.

‘The special military operation’ conducted by the Russian Federation, including the ‘anti-terrorist operation’ in the Black and Azov Seas carried out by its Black Sea Fleet, meets the definition of aggression, which, in addition to violating the UN Charter, also violates the provisions of UNCLOS (Article 301) and the San Remo Manual (general provisions, first three sections). The unilateral announcement (through a navigational warning) of an ‘anti-terrorist operation’, and in fact a sea blockade of Ukrainian ports, is contrary to the content of UNCLOS (freedom of navigation) and does not meet the requirements for methods of fighting at sea (sea blockade, zones - San Remo Manual).
The missile attacks on civilian and protected objects located on the territory of the Ukrainian state, carried out by ships and aircraft of the Black Sea Fleet, as well as artillery and missiles shelling of coastal towns, constitute a gross violation (war crime) of the international humanitarian law of armed conflicts (San Remo Manual). On contrary, the use of unmanned surface vehicles (drones) by the Ukrainian side in the arak on the Sevastopol base is in accordance with the provisions of the Manual (means of warfare at sea). Particular attention in the discussed armed conflict deserves art. 35 (c) UNCLOS relating to the Turkish Straits, which allows Turkey (based on the Montreaux Convention) to significantly influence the strategic and operational situation in the Black Sea by denying the use of the straits to warships (Turkey closed them to warships all flags). The voting procedure for informal members of the UN Security Council should be considered ineffective, which in the discussed case, when the aggressor is a state – a permanent member of the Security Council makes it difficult to apply measures provided for by international law against it and forces the use of ad hoc solutions, such as ‘grain corridors’.

The aim of the study is to examine the importance of economic argumentation in international maritime disputes. The paper first explains what the international maritime disputes, their sources and types are, what principles they are subjected to. It also established what should be understood by economic arguments, emphasizing their relative nature, as well as showing the potential of the Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 as a basis for formulating economic argumentation. The importance of economic argumentation was considered in relation to international disputes regarding the legal status of maritime territories, delimitation of maritime zones, power over the sea and use of the sea.

Research, carried out, leads to the following conclusions: 1) economic arguments are present in the reasoning of the parties as well as dispute settlement bodies. However, their probative value is limited; 2) in disputes related to the status of maritime features economic reasoning appears in the context of necessity to demonstrate that they can be a basis for delimitation; 3) in delimitation disputes, addressing economic arguments is more complex and contradictory. Economic arguments may be useful in the second phase of delimitation when relevant circumstances are considered. However, the existing practice shows that the range of economic arguments is limited (they cannot serve as a reason for correction of natural inequalities). International jurisprudence denies taking into account arguments based on level of economic development or economic or financial difficulties of a state (except for the catastrophic repercussions for the livelihood and economic wellbeing of the population), the needs of economic development or performance of economic activities (mining, fishing, shipping). An argument associated with assurance of deposit unity is of some importance (when resources are known or readily ascertainable); 4) in disputes concerning the power over the sea some weight is held by an argument associated with the establishment of economic authority, in particular, of a regulatory and control nature; 5) in disputes related to the use of the sea, the importance of economic reasoning is varied. In disputes concerning the prompt release, the role of the economic argument is limited. On the contrary, it is relevant in disputes related to the violation of rights and economic interests of States and people, if they are protected by international law.

The study addresses the challenges facing the law of the sea. Although UNCLOS is rightly described as a constitution of the law of the sea, it does not and cannot give answers to all problems and doubts that arise in practice and that are related to global warming, protection of biodiversity, legal status of genetic resources, controversy concerning shipping, delimitation of areas or the protection of underwater cultural heritage. Hence the question arises, what the ways and means of further development of the law of the sea are. Undoubtedly, one of the possibilities is to develop implementation agreements, of which the third devoted to the protection and sustainable use of marine biodiversity outside national jurisdiction is the subject of an international conference convened by the General Assembly, whose resolutions in the area of the law of the sea play an important role. Undoubtedly, also the importance of the organization of the United Nations system, such as the IMO, FAO, UNESCO, UNEP is significant. There is also the possibility of accepting agreements addressing the issues left by UNCLOS without solution or definition. Not without significance is the soft law and the practice of states as well as the position of the organs appointed by UNCLOS.

This article discusses the development of international law concerning the underwater cultural heritage (UCh), with particular emphasis on the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the subject. It attempts to set out the main legal solutions adopted in the 2001 Convention. however, in order to achieve this aim, it traces the genesis of the Convention and identifies the problems which prompted UNESCO to initiate the negotiations that ultimately led to the adoption of the 2001 Convention. hence, before analysis of the UNESCO treaty it firstly describes the initial phase of the development of law regarding UCh, which was mostly based on the national laws of particular coastal States, as well as in some instances on the laws of salvage. Subsequently, the article turns to the discussion concerning the (in)famous two provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) dealing with archaeological objects, as well as the efforts that were undertaken within the framework of the Council of Europe to adopt a convention on UCh.

The environment in general and the marine environment in particular forms an ecosystem. Such ecosystem is characterized by high interconnectivity and interdepen-dence of species inhabiting it. Often enough, marine ecosystems far exceed the limits of the State’s sovereignty. Thus, their effective protection and preservation shall be carried out on a cooperative basis, engaging all States sharing common environment. The first international treaty to tackle the issue of marine environmental protection on a systemic basis is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It is also a treaty which directly established an obligation to cooperate in ensuring this protection. However, homogenous international regulation is not capable of addressing regional varying circumstances of marine environment. As the example of the South China Sea shows, lack of cooperation between coastal States can result in an irreversible damage to the environment. On the other hand, a remarkable model of effective realization of the obligation to cooperate has been established in the region of the Baltic Sea. What we can learn from these experiences is that fulfillment of the obligation to cooperate on a re-gional basis is a prerequisite for effective protection and preservation of the marine environment.

From the announcement of the Independence by Ukraine in 1991 and signing many bilateral agreements with the Russian Federation on the state border, the joint use of the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait, until the annexation of the Crimea in 2014, both parties did not manage to carry out maritime distractions on these waters, due to different positions. After the annexation of the Crimea, the situation became beneficial for FR, because in its hands there was a Kerch Strait and the Russian side started the economic blockage of Ukrainian ports on the Azov Sea. The Ukrainian site, wanting to increase the number of its ships in the Berdyansk base located on this sea, decided to move through the sea team consisting of 2 artillery cutters and a subsidiary (tug) belonging to the Navy of Ukraine. During the approach to Kerch Strait, an incident occurred on November 25, 2018 between Ukrainian ships and the ships of the border service of the Federal Security Service (shelling, detention of the ships, arrests and putting their crews before the court). The above action was inconsistent with international law violating Articles 32, 58, 95 and 96 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea from 1982. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in its judgement ordered RF to give back the ships and send seamen to Ukraine. The warrant was performed partially: ships were returned, while seafarers returned as part of the exchange of prisoners between the parties. Currently, Russia continues to run the economic blockage of the Ukrainian ports, closing (due to military exercises) approaches to the Kerch Strait for ships and vessels of other countries. The current situation indicates that Russia implements its geopolitical goals and disregards the provisions of international law of the sea.