(c) Peter Dejong/Reuters
The decision was rendered on April 22, 2026, by five arbitrators of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, but was not published until June 16, in accordance with the court’s procedures. The proceedings lasted about ten years and took place under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
What was the dispute between Ukraine and Russia?
Ukraine initiated arbitration proceedings in 2016 after construction began on the Crimean Bridge, which connects mainland Russia with Crimea, Reuters notes.
Kyiv claimed that Moscow had violated the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea by establishing de facto control over the Kerch Strait, the Sea of Azov, and part of the Black Sea waters around Crimea.
The Ukrainian side demanded:
– recognition of the violations of Ukraine’s rights as a coastal state;
– restore access to marine resources in the waters of the Black and Azov Seas;
– compensation for damages resulting from the use of resources;
– recognize the Kerch Strait as an international waterway with the right of passage for foreign vessels;
– take measures regarding the Crimean Bridge, including demanding its dismantling.
Russia objected to Ukraine’s demands, stating that the arbitration tribunal lacked the authority to consider issues of territorial sovereignty and the status of Crimea.
Moscow also pointed out that the special status of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait had previously been recognized by bilateral agreements between the two countries.
The arbitration court rejected the bulk of Kyiv’s claims.
In particular, the court did not grant Ukraine’s claims:
– to review the status of the Kerch Strait;
– to recognize Ukraine’s right to control resources in the relevant maritime areas;
– to pay compensation for the use of natural resources;
– the dismantling of the Crimean Bridge.
Thus, the court did not accept Ukraine’s argument that Russia had unlawfully obtained exclusive control over the strait.
At the same time, the tribunal found that Russia had violated certain provisions of international maritime law during the construction of the bridge.
This concerns the conduct of an environmental impact assessment for the project. The court concluded that the Russian side had failed to carry out the necessary environmental impact assessment procedures in accordance with the requirements of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
However, the arbitration tribunal did not award compensation and did not require Russia to pay damages to Ukraine.
The court also ruled that each party would bear its own costs of participating in the proceedings.
The parties’ reactions to the ruling
The Russian Foreign Ministry stated that it considers the decision a victory for Moscow, emphasizing that most of Ukraine’s claims were rejected, RBC reports.
The Russian ministry noted that the court did not uphold Kyiv’s claims regarding control over the Kerch Strait, marine resources, and compensation.
The Ukrainian side highlighted another part of the ruling—the recognition that Russia violated its international obligations during the construction of the bridge.
The Kerch Bridge is of strategic importance to Russia, as it provides a transport link to Crimea and is used to deliver various goods to the peninsula.
For Ukraine, the arbitration proceedings were one of several international cases against Russia since 2014.
The arbitration ruling does not alter the political status of Crimea and does not address issues of territorial sovereignty, as the court limited itself to the scope of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
