The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) today announced the publication of the Award in the Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation). The case was initiated by Ukraine on 16 September 2016 under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Award, dated 22 April 2026, addresses the Parties’ claims concerning coastal State rights in the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the Kerch Strait. The Tribunal decided on questions of jurisdiction and admissibility as well as on the merits of the Parties’ claims under UNCLOS.

This case concerns a dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation regarding the interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to a dispute concerning coastal State rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait. The Tribunal issued its Final Award on 22 April 2024. According to the case page, the arbitration is administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration seated in The Hague, under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

An international court found that Russia flouted some sea laws during the construction of the Kerch Strait bridge between mainland Russia and Crimea, but rejected much of Ukraine's case against Moscow. The case brought before the intergovernmental Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague was initiated in 2016, following Moscow's construction of the 19-kilometre Crimea Bridge. In a decision dated April 22 but made public only on Monday, the tribunal rejected the majority of Kyiv's allegations regarding Russia's authority over the strait on procedural grounds. However, the court determined that Russia had breached certain maritime regulations by failing to conduct adequate environmental assessments during the bridge's construction. The five-judge panel did not grant any damages and instructed both sides to bear their own legal expenses.

On 15 June, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague issued its final ruling in the 10‑year arbitral proceedings between Russia and Ukraine concerning the rights of a coastal state in the Kerch Strait, the Sea of Azov, and the waters of the Black Sea surrounding Crimea. The press release states that "the case ... ended in a decisive victory for the Russian Federation" and that "numerous claims by Ukraine which accused Russia of violating dozens of provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea have been rejected." It further claims that "Kiev’s efforts to challenge Russia's sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and the adjacent maritime areas have failed" and that the tribunal "dismissed all Ukrainian claims regarding alleged environmental damage caused by Russia."

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) lists several cases between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, including ‘Allegations of Racial Discrimination’ and ‘Allegations of Genocide.’ None of the ICJ cases relates to a merits judgment on the legality of Russia’s annexation of Crimea or on sovereignty over the Sea of Azov. The ICJ’s case descriptions clarify that these proceedings are distinct from the UNCLOS arbitration administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration and that The Hague’s courts have not issued a general ruling recognising Russian sovereignty over Crimea.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine reported on 15 June 2026 that the Arbitration Tribunal issued its decision on the merits on 22 April 2026 in the case concerning coastal State rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait. The MFA states that the tribunal confirmed that ‘the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait remain the internal waters of both States’ and that ‘Ukraine retains all its rights as a coastal State regardless of the temporary occupation’ of part of its territory. The Ministry emphasises that the tribunal ‘did not recognise Russia’s claims that the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov are under the exclusive control of the Russian Federation’ and that the award ‘does not in any way legitimise the attempted annexation of Crimea.’

An international arbitration tribunal has affirmed Ukraine’s rights as a coastal state in the Black and Azov Seas and the Kerch Strait and has rejected Russia’s claims to sole control over these waters. According to Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the case concerns a proceeding Ukraine initiated in 2016 over Russia’s violations of UNCLOS following the occupation of Crimea. The Arbitration Tribunal issued its decision on the merits on April 22, 2026, and on June 15 the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry released key findings. The Ministry stressed that the tribunal did not agree with Russia’s claims that the Black and Azov Seas and the Kerch Strait are under the exclusive control of the Russian Federation. Instead, it confirmed that the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait remain the internal waters of both states, and that Ukraine retains all its rights as a coastal state regardless of the occupation of part of its territory. The tribunal also ruled that Russia’s actions during infrastructure projects in the Crimea region and in maritime areas violated international law regarding protection of the marine environment.

The article explains that the case "Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait" was initiated by Ukraine against Russia in 2016 under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It notes that the arbitral tribunal "found Russia violated its obligations under UNCLOS in several respects, including environmental obligations during the construction of the Kerch Bridge," but also that "the tribunal declined to consider a significant number of Ukraine’s claims because it found they related to issues of territorial sovereignty beyond its jurisdiction." The piece emphasizes that while Ukraine did not obtain the full relief it sought, the award still "recognizes Russia’s breaches of international maritime law in connection with Crimea and the Sea of Azov."

On 16 September 2016, Ukraine instituted arbitral proceedings against Russia under Part XV and Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation). The case relates to Russia’s occupation of Crimea in 2014, which fundamentally disrupted the maritime order in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. The blog notes that the Tribunal would have to address, among other things, whether the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov are internal waters of Russia and Ukraine or part of their respective territorial seas. It discusses two possible legal scenarios: one where these waters remain internal waters of both states as a single bay regime, and another where that regime dissolved and the waters are mostly territorial seas of each state.

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev claimed that the decision by an arbitration tribunal in The Hague effectively recognizes Russia's 'new borders', including Crimea and surrounding waters. Speaking about the award in the Ukraine v. Russia case over the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait, Medvedev said the ruling 'supports Moscow's position on Crimea and surrounding waters'. However, legal experts and Ukrainian officials have rejected this interpretation, stressing that the tribunal did not legitimize Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and dealt only with issues under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

This academic article examines several Ukraine–Russia proceedings under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, including the "Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and the Kerch Strait". It notes that "the real issue in these cases is whether Ukraine or Russia has sovereignty over Crimea, but the legal analysis is skillfully couched within the language of UNCLOS" and that Ukraine initiated arbitral proceedings against Russia for events in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait, as well as separate proceedings for Russia’s detention of Ukrainian naval vessels.

A UN media summary reports that on 16 March the International Court of Justice in The Hague ordered that "Russia must immediately suspend military operations in Ukraine." It states that, by a vote of 13 to two, the ICJ ruled that Russia "shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February" in response to a suit by Ukraine under the Genocide Convention. This ICJ case concerns the legality of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, not the maritime dispute over Crimea and the Sea of Azov, and the order goes against Russia’s position.

The Russian Foreign Ministry stated: "On June 15, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague issued its final ruling in the 10-year arbitral proceedings between Russia and Ukraine concerning the rights of a coastal state in the Kerch Strait, the Sea of Azov, and the waters of the Black Sea surrounding Crimea." The statement says that the case ended "in a decisive victory for the Russian Federation" and that "numerous claims by Ukraine which accused Russia of violating dozens of provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea have been rejected." It further claims: "Kiev’s efforts to challenge Russia's sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and the adjacent maritime areas have failed" and that the award "formally recognised the status of the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov as internal waters forming part of sovereign state territory". The ministry concludes that nothing in the award prevents Russia from exercising sovereignty and jurisdiction in maritime areas contiguous to Crimea, the Sea of Azov, and the Azov-Kerch waters.

The article discusses the PCA case "Dispute concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v Russian Federation)". It describes it as an Annex VII UNCLOS arbitration administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague and notes that Ukraine alleged Russia had violated its coastal State rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait following the 2014 occupation of Crimea. The discussion emphasises that the tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to interpreting and applying UNCLOS and does not extend to deciding questions of territorial sovereignty over Crimea.

EADaily cites the Russian Foreign Ministry as saying that the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ‘made a final decision in favor of Russia’ in arbitration with Ukraine over rights to coastal waters of the Black Sea near Crimea, the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov. The article quotes the MFA as calling the result ‘a convincing victory for the Russian Federation’ and states that numerous Ukrainian demands, including for the dismantling of the Crimean Bridge and for compensation and return of control over resources, were rejected. According to this report, the tribunal’s award ‘formally recognised the status of the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov as internal waters forming part of sovereign state territory.’

The official ICJ case file shows that Ukraine instituted proceedings against the Russian Federation on 26 February 2022 concerning a dispute relating to the interpretation, application and fulfilment of the Genocide Convention. On 16 March 2022, the Court indicated provisional measures ordering the Russian Federation to immediately suspend the military operations it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine. This ICJ case is distinct from the UNCLOS arbitration about coastal State rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait and does not address sovereignty over Crimea or the legal status of the Sea of Azov.

The video report states that the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague "has issued its final ruling in the 10-year arbitration proceedings between Russia and Ukraine over the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the Kerch Strait." The presenter describes the outcome as "a decisive legal victory" for Russia, saying that "Ukraine's claims have been rejected" and that Ukrainian demands challenging Russian sovereignty over waters surrounding Crimea were dismissed. At the same time, the segment clarifies that the tribunal “did not legitimize Russia’s annexation” and that it found Russia violated international law by failing to conduct proper environmental impact assessments for the Crimean Bridge, but declined to order the bridge dismantled due to lack of jurisdiction over such territorial issues.

The Russian Embassy tweet says: "The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague issued its final ruling in the 10-year arbitral proceedings between Russia and Ukraine over the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the Kerch Strait." It continues that "The tribunal rejected Ukraine's demands challenging Russian sovereignty over waters surrounding Crimea" and "rejected Kyiv's demand to declare the Kerch Strait an international waterway and to demolish the Crimean Bridge." The tweet characterizes the outcome as a Russian victory but does not note that the tribunal found Russia in violation of environmental obligations or that it declined jurisdiction over territorial sovereignty questions.

A DW News segment describes the outcome of the PCA arbitration as "a stunning setback for Ukraine" and reports that a Hague-based arbitration tribunal "rejected a series of key claims against Russia" in a ruling Moscow is calling a major victory. According to the report, Russia says the ruling unanimously rejected requests for compensation and challenges to its position on strategic waterways and regional sovereignty. The piece notes that the tribunal dismissed Ukraine's demands for compensation and reparations related to natural resources around Crimea and rejected Kyiv's efforts to classify the Kerch Strait as an international waterway open to vessels from all nations. It also relays the Russian Foreign Ministry’s claim that the decision recognized the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov as Russia’s historic internal waters, while indicating that this is Moscow’s interpretation of the ruling.

A social media post from Al Majalla states: "Russia wins international arbitration case against Ukraine after a decade-long legal battle." It explains that the case concerned control over the Kerch Strait, the Sea of Azov, and surrounding waters near Crimea, and that Ukraine filed the case in 2016. The post characterizes the Permanent Court of Arbitration's award as a victory for Russia in this dispute over maritime rights.

Annex VII tribunals under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea have jurisdiction over disputes concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS. They are not competent to rule on questions of territorial sovereignty over land (such as who owns Crimea) but can decide on maritime rights and obligations assuming a given coastal configuration. As a result, when one party frames claims in a way that would require deciding land sovereignty, UNCLOS tribunals typically decline jurisdiction or treat such matters as outside the scope of the case, even if their decisions have practical implications for control of adjacent waters.

The embassy post declares in English that "Russia won international arbitration on the rights of a coastal state in the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the Kerch Strait." It asserts that the tribunal "rejected Kyiv’s claims that Russia’s assertion of sovereignty over the Sea of Azov was an unlawful aggravation of the dispute" and that it "dismissed Ukraine’s demands to dismantle the Crimean Bridge and to recognize the Kerch Strait as an international waterway." The post presents the award as confirming Russia’s position, while omitting mention of any findings against Russia or the tribunal’s limited jurisdiction.

This post states that "the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled in Ukraine's favor, rejecting Russia's claims it has exclusive rights over the waters around occupied Crimea in the Black Sea and Azov Sea." It adds that the tribunal "likewise rejected claims that Russia violated international law by asserting sovereignty over the Sea of Azov" and suggests that the decision confirms Ukraine’s rights under international law. The post illustrates that Ukrainian-aligned sources have portrayed the same award as a Ukrainian legal success, in contrast to Russian government claims of a decisive victory.