Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:48:29.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legal Regime of Russian Territorial Waters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

William E. Butler
William E. Butler*
Affiliation:
Of the District of Columbia Bar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Several elements have interacted to influence the course and pattern of the boundaries and the regime of Soviet territorial waters. The foremost of these is national security. All of the seas bordering the U.S.S.R. have narrow entrances which can be commanded easily by hostile foreign Powers. During the Russian Revolution and subsequent Civil War, German vessels and, after the War, Allied vessels in the Baltic and the Dardanelles restricted to an uncomfortable extent the freedom of action of the Soviet Government. Soviet weakness in the Baltic theater was a major factor in determining Soviet policy towards Finland and the Baltic states during the 1939-1941 period, and the proximity of NATO naval forces to the Baltic continues to provoke Soviet proposals to close the sea to noncoastal Powers. Similarly, the U.S.S.R. was compelled to endure Turkish violations of the Montreux Convention on the Turkish Straits during World War II while its Black Sea fleet was immobilized. The Pacific coast seas and the Atlantic and Pacific approaches to the Arctic seas are also susceptible to a blockade by hostile Powers. Even the Arctic seas themselves, once regarded as an unguarded but impregnable frozen boundary, have become unexpectedly vulnerable with the development of nuclear submarines.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , January 1968 , pp. 51 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1968 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The author is grateful to R. R. Baxter for hie many valuable comments on the manuscript. All views expressed are exclusively those of the author. This article can only briefly outline some of the current trends in the law of Soviet territorial waters. For an exhaustive account of historical origins and recent developments, accompanied by the texts of all Soviet normative acts and most treaties and agreements cited herein, see the author’s The Law of Soviet Territorial Waters: A Case Study of Maritime Legislation and Practice, published by Frederick A. Praeger, Inc.

References

1 Western literature on the complex of normative acts governing Soviet internal and territorial waters is not extensive. See: Hartingh, Les Conceptions Soviétiques du Droit de la Mer (1960), which received a warm review in 1960 Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo (Soviet State and Law), No. 10, pp. 134^135; Eeinkemeyer, Die sowjetische Zwolfmeilenzone in der Ostsee und die Freiheit des Meeres (1955); Mateesco, Le Droit Maritime Soviétique Face au Droit Occidental (1966); Harben, “Soviet Attitudes and Practices Concerning Maritime Waters: A Recent Historical Survey,” 15 JAG Journal 149-154, 160 (1961); Kueherov, “Das Problem der Kiistenmeere und die Sowjetunion,” 5 Osteuropa Eecht 15-24 (1959); Taracouzio, The Soviet Union and International Law (1935); Lapenna, Conceptions Soviétiques de Droit International Public (1954). See also Mitchell, The Maritime History of Russia 848-1948 (1949).

2 See Vasilev, O turetskom “neitralitete” vo vtoroi mirovoi voine (On Turkish “Neutrality” in World War II) (1951).

3 3 Meshera, Morskoe pravo: pravovoi rezhim morskikh putei (Maritime Law: Legal Regime of Maritime Routes) 5 (1959).

4 See Semyonov, Siberia: Its Conquest and Development (1963); Golder, Russian Expansion on the Pacific: 1641-1850 (1914).

5 Martens, Sovremennoe mezhdunarodnoe pravo tsivilizovannykh narodov (Contemporary International Law of Civilized Peoples) 383 (1898); Zakharov, Kurs obshchago mezhdunarodnogo prava (Course of General International Law) 156-158 (1917); Kamarovskii and Ulianitskii, Mezhdunarodnoe pravo po lektsiiam (International Law Lectures) 82-84 (1908); Ulianitskii, Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (International Law) 87-89 (1911).

6 Kazanskii, Ucbebnik mezhdunarodnogo prava (Textbook on International Law) 137-138 (1902),

7 Sivers, Glavneishie svedeniia po morskomu mezhdunarodnomu pravu (The Most Important Information Concerning International Maritime Law) 5 (1902); Stoianov, OcherkIIstoriII dogmatiki mezhdunarodnogo prava (Essays on the History and Dogmatics of International Law) 356-363 (1875).

8 13 Martens, Sobranie traktatov i konventsii zakliuehennykh rossieiu s inostrannym derzhavami (Collected Treaties and Conventions Concluded by Russia with Foreign Powers) 201-234 (1875).

9 4 Martens, Eecueil 229-246.

10 Ibid. 315-336.

11 22 Polnoe sobranie zakonov rossiisskoIImperii s 1649 goda (Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire Since 1649) 968-972 (1830) (hereinafter cited as Polnoe sobranie).

12 Polnoe sobranie, No. 28747.

13 Cited by Nikolaev, Problema territorialnykh vod v mezhdunarodnom prave (Problem of Territorial Waters in International Law) 57 (1954); reviewed in 49 A.J.I.L. 592 (1955).

14 Fulton, The Sovereignty of the Sea 585 (1911).

15 Ibid.

16 2 Smith, Great Britain and the Law of Nations 206 (1935).

17 Martens, op. cit. note 5 above, at 386-387.

18 Nikolaev, op. cit. note 13 above, at 58; Meyer, The Extent of Jurisdiction in Coastal Waters 237-238 (1937).

19 » Meyer, ibid.

20 An English translation of the decree is found in Masterson, Jurisdiction in Marginal Seas 286 (1929), with an account of the diplomatic protests against the decree.

21 This decree was the first to calculate the breadth of territorial waters from the lowest low-water mark or “from the edge of the ice along the coast.” 31 Polnoe sobranie 449-452 (3rd ser.).

22 Note of the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Japanese Ambassador to Russia. 1912 TJ. S. Foreign Relations 1308.

23 Durdenevskii and Krylov, Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (International Law) 246-247 (1947). We omit a discussion of inland rivers, lakes, and canals which are classified as internal or national waters.

24 Korovin, Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (International Law) 308 (1951).

25 Art. 10, TJstav vnutrennogo vodnogo transporta SSSR (Charter of Internal Water Transport of the U.S.S.R.); Art. 13 of the Decree on the Regulation of Fishing and the Protection of Fish Reserves, Sept. 25, 1935, Sobranie zakonov i rasporiazhenii SSSB (Collected Laws and Decrees of the U.S.S.R.) (1935), No. 50, item 420 (hereinafter cited as SZ SSSR).

26 Bakhov, Voenno-morskoi mezhdunarodno-pravovoi spravochnik (Naval International Law Manual) 113 (1956). Keilin and Zhudro concur with this view, but Vereshchetin considered roadsteads to be part of territorial waters, as did the 1947 and 1951 international law textbooks.

27 Bakhov, ibid, at 114.

28 Meshera, op. cit. note 3 above, at 10.

29 Vereshchetin, Svoboda sudokhodstva v otkrytom more (Freedom of Navigation on the High Seas) 7 (1958); Shmigelskii and Iasinovskii, Osnovy sovetskogo morskogo prava (Fundamental Principles of Soviet Maritime Law) 29 (1959) (hereinafter cited as 1959 Shmigelskii).

30 Art. 4, Statute on the Protection of the State Boundary of the U.S.S.R., Aug. 5, 1960, Vedomosti verkhovnogo soveta SSSE (Gazette of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.) (1960), No. 34, item 324 (hereinafter cited as Vedomosti SSSR and as 1960 statute).

31 Zhudro, et al., Morskoe pravo (Maritime Law) 98-99 (1964).

32 Durdenevskii and Krylov, op. cit. note 23 above, at 237. Contrary to the assertion of a prominent “Western authority on Soviet law, the Soviet closed sea doctrine is not an extension of mare clausum. See Grzybowski, ‘ ‘ The Soviet Doctrine of Mare Clausum and Policies in Black and Baltic Seas,” 14 J. Central European Affairs 339-353 (1955).

33 Dranov, Chernomorskie prolivy: mezhdunarodno-pravovoi rezhim (The Black Sea Straits: International Legal Regime) 227 (1948).

34 Molodtsov, Mezhdunarodno-pravovoi rezhim baltiiskikh prolivov (International Legal Regime of the Baltic Straits) (1950).

35 Durdenevskii and Krylov, op. cit. note 23 above, at 309.

36 Bakhov, op. cit. note 26 above, at 53.

37 Hid. at 54.

38 Vereshchetin, op. cit. note 29 above, at 11.

39 Malinin, “K voprosu o pravovoi klassifikatsii vodnykh prostranstv” (On the Question of the Legal Classification of Water Expanses), 46 Informatsionnyi sbornik. Morskoe pravo i praktika (Information Handbook. Maritime Law and Practice) 13-19 (1960).

40 Vereshchetin, op. cit. note 29 above, at 11.

41 Hartingh, op, cit. note 1 above, at 30.

42 Bakhov, op. cit. note 26 above, at 114-115.

43 Meshera, op. cit. note 3 above, at 10.

44 Durdenevskii and Krylov, op. cit. note 23 above, at 248.

45 Korovin, op. cit. note 24 above, at 296.

46 Bakhov, op. cit. note 26 above, at 118, 119.

47 Art. 4, 1960 statute. Soviet publicists contend that the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries decision supports the extension of the regime of internal waters to water routes developed by the coastal state. Kozhevnikov, Kurs mezhdunarodnogo prava (Textbook of International Law) 213 (2d ed., 1966). The U.S.S.E. indirectly reasserted that the Arctic coastline falls within this regime by announcing that the Northern Sea route would soon be opened to vessels of all foreign countries, with permission to refuel and use port facilities along the route. However, it is not clear that this policy differs from previous practice; it may merely mean the U.S.S.B. is undertaking to positively encourage, rather than tacitly permit, such voyages. See New York Times, March 29, 1967, p. 1.

48 Kozhevnikov, International Law 205-206 (1961); Zhudro, op. cit. note 31 above, at 98. At the 1958 U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, the Ukrainian delegate Koretskii declared the regime of each historic bay had been developed by, and was the result of, special historical circumstances. Accordingly, it was impossible to request the preparation of general rules applicable to all historic bays. 3 U.N. Conf. on Law of the Sea: Official Records 147-148 (1958) (A/CONF.13/39).

49 Harben, op. cit. note 1 above, at 149. Harben stated the Soviet coastline is bounded by historic bays and seas. He confused the closed or regional sea with the historic bay. But Soviet jurists have begun to suggest that the Okhotsk Sea is an internal Russian sea by virtue of an Instruction of the Tsarist Government of 1853 concerning protection of Okhotsk shores. See Kozhevnikov, op. cit. note 47 above, at 213-214.

50 Izvestia, July 21, 1957, p. 1. An approximate English translation is found in Strohl, The International Law of Bays 350 (1963).

51 The incident is comprehensively reported by Strohl, ibid, at 322-367, and Bouchez, The Regime of Bays in International Law 225 (1964). The Soviet explanations of the decree are discussed by Nikolaev, “ O zalive Petra “Velikogo” (On Peter the Great Bay), 1958 Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn (International Affairs), No. 2, pp. 50-57, and by Bomanov, “Zaliv Petra Velikogo—vnutrennie vody sovetskogo soiuza” (Peter the Great Bay—Internal Waters of the Soviet Union), 1958 Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, No. 5, p. 53.

52 Malinin, °P- cit. note 39 above, at 13.

53 Nikolaev, op. cit. note 13 above, at 199-200.

54 Bakhov, op. cit. note 26 above, at 56.

55 Belli, Voenno-morskoi mezhdunarodno-pravovoi spravochnik (Naval International Law Manual) (1939-1940).

56 Ibid. at 10-13, as cited by Nikolaev, op. cit. note 13 above, at 202-203. Belli's view was supported by Keilin and Vinogradov, Morskoe pravo (Maritime Law) (1939).

57 Nikolaev, op. cit. note 13 above, at 203.

58 lbid. at 204.

59 Koretskii and Tunkin, Ocherki mezhdunarodnogo morskogo prava (Outlines of International Maritime Law) 54 (1962).

60 See Note of the Government of the B.S.F.S.E. to the Government of Great Britain, May 7, 1923, 6 Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSE (Documents of U.S.S.E. Foreign Policy) 279-284 (1957-) (hereinafter cited as Documenty). This position was the basis of Soviet proposals that the Geneva Conferences on the Law of the Sea adopt a twelve-mile limit for territorial waters: ” I n the past, the crucial issue of the breadth of the territorial sea had been determined by each coastal state in accordance with geographical considerations, so that different limits had been fixed … “ Tunkin, 3 U.N. Conf. on Law of the Sea 31 (1958).

61 Tunkin, ibid, at 31. Also see Koretskii's Statement to the Second TJ.N. Conf. on the Law of the Sea: Official Eecords at 116 (1960) (A/CONF.19/8) ; Krylov, in 1955 I.L.C. Yearbook (I) 156 (1956).

62 Sobranie uzakoneniII rasporiazhenii RSFSR (Collected Laws and Decrees of the R.S.F.S.B.) (1921), No. 49, item 259 (hereinafter cited as SU RSFSR).

63 Cited by Nikolaev, op. cit. note 19 above, at 200.

64 SZ SSSR (1929), No. 48, item 431.

65 SZ SSSR (1927), No. 62, item 625.

66 10 Sbornik deistvuiushchikh dogovorov, soglasheniII konventsii zakliuchennykh SSSR s inostrannym gosudarstvami (Collection of Prevailing Treaties, Agreements, and Conventions Concluded by the U.S.S.R. with Foreign States) 11-17 (hereinafter cited as SDD); for an account of the 1965 changes, see Barabolia et al., Voennomorskoi mezhdunarodno-pravovoi spravochnik (Naval International Law Manual) 47 (1966).

67 Bakhov, op. cit. note 26 above, at 82.

68 Art. 3, 1960 statute.

69 Nikolaev, op. cit. note 13 above, at 207.

70 Note 21 above.

71 These differences and relevant legislation prior to 1960 are set forth in detail in Butler, “Soviet Concepts of Innocent Passage,” 7 Harvard Int. Law J. 113-130 (1965). In 1965 and 1967 TJ. S. Coast Guard icebreakers attempted to become the first American vessels to navigate the Northern Sea route. On both occasions passage through the Vilkitskii Strait was refused by the Soviet Government. The voyages were cancelled. In view of the fact the icebreakers were under quasi-military command, carried armament, and intended to conduct hydrographic and other research in the Strait, the Soviet refusal of innocent passage probably was well-founded. Hydrographic research in Soviet territorial waters is prohibited by Soviet law, and it would appear the Coast Guard icebreakers would qualify as warships as defined by the U.S.S.E. Customs Code. The American argument for a right of innocent passage is not a strong one, and the cancellation of the voyages and de facto acquiescence in the Soviet position goes a long way toward tacit recognition of the Soviet claim to a twelve-mile limit of territorial waters. For a detailed account of the 1965 voyage, see Petrow, Across the Top of Russia (1967); on the 1967 incident, see New York Times, Sept. 1, 1967, p. 1.

72 Nikolaev, op. cit. note 13 above, at 47.

73 Ibid, at 51.

74 Tunkin, op. cit. note 60 above, at 32.

75 The official Russian text is found in Vedomosti SSSR (1964), No. 43, item 472.

76 To article 20: ‘ The Government of the USSE considers that state vessels in foreign territorial waters enjoy immunity and therefore the application of measures mentioned in the present article thereto may occur only with the consent of the state whose flag the vessel sails'.“ “To article 23: (Subsection D. The Rule Applying to Warships) ‘The Government of the USSR considers that a coastal state has the right to establish an authorization procedure for the passage of foreign warships through its territorial waters'.“ Ibid.

77 Kolodkin, Pravovoi rezhim territorialnykh vod i otkrytogo moria (The Legal Begime of Territorial Waters and the High Seas) 11 (1961).

78 Op. cit. note 59 above.

79 1959 Shmigelskii, op. cit. note 29 above, at 31.

80 Art. 35 of the 1964 Customs Code defines a warship as “any vessel (or auxiliary vessel) sailing under a military or border guard flag, under the command of a person in military service and on the staff of a military command, as well as a vessel which in accordance with a special declaration of the TJ.S.S.R. Ministry of Defense, performs tasks of a military-operational nature. The Commander of a warship bears responsibility for observing the provisions of the Customs Code.” Art. 36 extends the provisions of Art. 35 to foreign warships visiting U.S.S.E. ports. Vedomosti SSSR (1964), No. 20, item 242.

81 The citation given by Nikolaev is incorrect. The full text of the Provisional Rules is reproduced in Bakhov, op. tit. note 26 above, at 106-109. Harben erroneously referred to “undisclosed” Soviet rules relating to warships.

82 Durdenevskii and Krylov, op. tit. note 23 above, at 257.

83 Nikolaev, op. tit. note 13 above, at 214.

84 Note from the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs of the TJ.S.8.B. to IT. S. Secretary of State Hughes, Dec. 11, 1924. 7 Dokumenty 572-573; 1924 IT. S. Foreign Relations 681.

85 1956 LL.C. Yearbook (II) 276 (1957).

86 Tunkln urged that foreign warships cannot pass without the consent of the coastal state because that would entail a security risk for the latter and had in practice given rise to abuse. 3 U.N. Conf. on Law of the Sea 32 (1958).

87 The official text of the 1960 Rules has been published annually in the first issue of Izveshcheniia moreplavateliam (Notices to Mariners), a weekly publication of the Soviet Naval Hydrographic Service in Leningrad, attached to the TT.S.S.E. Ministry of Defense. Subsequent weekly issues of the Izveshcheniia contain technical navigational information and corrections to Soviet charts and publications. It is published in the same format and size as Vedomosti SSSB. The U. S. Naval Oceanographic Office appears to be the sole American recipient. Soviet jurists often cite different years of the Izveshcheniia when discussing the Eules.

88 Op. cit. note 59 above.

89 Levin and Kaliuzlmaia, Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (International Law) 195 (1964).

90 S?rensen, ‘ ‘ The Law of the Sea,'’ International Conciliation, No. 520, p. 244 (1958); Jessup, “The United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,” 59 Col. Law Bev. 234-268 (1959).

91 A Soviet delegate to the 1958 Geneva Conference, A. N. Nikolaev, met this objection by arguing “the paramount interests of a State should not be subordinated to a desire for haste in some other quarters.” 3 U.N. Conf. on Law of the Sea 130 (1958).

92 The R.S.F.S.R. Criminal Code incorporates the provisions of Art. 4 of the 1958 All-Union Fundamental Principles of Criminal Legislation. The other union republic codes contain identical provisions. See Berman and Spindler (trans.), Soviet Criminal Law and Procedure: The RSFSR Codes 146 (1966).

93 SU RSFSR (1927), No. 52, item 348.

94 Zhudro, op. cit. note 31 above, at 108.

95 This formulation appears to exclude the detention of persons for committing offenses which are only administratively punishable.

96 Art. 36, 1960 statute.

97 Meshera, op. cit. note 3 above, at 29.

98 The 1964 R.S.F.S.R. Civil Code is translated in Gray, Soviet Civil Legislation (1965), and in Kiralfy, The Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure of the RSFSR 1964 (1966). Also see sees. 2, 239, and 240 of the Merchant Shipping Code of the Soviet Union.

99 Imenitov, Sovetskoe morskoe i rybolovnoe pravo (Soviet Maritime and Fishing Law) 21 (1951).

100 Ohira, ‘ ‘ Fishing Problems between Soviet Eussia and Japan,'’ 2 Japanese Annual of Int. Law 1-19 (1958).

101 Levin and Kaliuzhnaia, Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (International Law) 171 (1960). Koretskii contended the establishment of special zones was a circuitous means to extend sovereign rights. ‘ ‘ Eights exercised in such zones were the same as those possessed by the coastal state in the territorial sea and the effort to justify those claims on the ground that they were necessary solely for purposes of administration, control and jurisdiction carried no weight because those were precisely the functions discharged by a state in virtue of its sovereignty.” 3 U.N. Conf. on Law of the Sea 67 (1958).

102 Siling, Morskoe pravo (Maritime Law) 62 (1964). A. A. Volkov concurs: “Some authors erroneously equate the volume of rights of coastal states in the fishing and contiguous zones. In reality fishing zones are areas of special competence of coastal states in which their volume of rights is incomparably greater than in contiguous zones.” Volkov, “Pravovoi rezhim rybolovnykh zon” (Legal Regime of Fishing Zones), 1963 Sovetskii ezhegodnik mezhdunarodnogo prava (Soviet Yearbook of International Law) 218 (1965).

103 Zhudro, op. cit. note 31 above, at 114.

104 Art. 19, 1960 statute. Administrative penalties for violations of U.S.S.B. fishing regulations were recently increased. See Vedomosti SSSR (1964), No. 14, item 158. Fishing legislation prior to 1937 is treated in Bohmert, “Die russische Fischereigrenze,“ 21 Zeitsehrift fur Völkerreeht 441-496 (1937), 257-306 (1938).

105 Sobranie postanovlenii soveta ministrov SSSE (Collected Decrees of the XJ.S.S.E. Council of Ministers) (1958), No. 16, item 127 (hereinafter cited as SP), partially reproduced in Kolbasov, comp., Okhrana prirody: sbornik zakonodatelnykh aktov (Conservation: Collection of Legislative Acts) (1961), translated in 3 Soviet Statutes and Decisions, No. 1, at 56-57 (1966).

106 SZ SSSB (1935), No. 50, item 420.

107 Lisovskii, Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (International Law) 155 (2d ed., 1961). Shmigelskillmplied that both the 1935 and 1954 decrees are in force. See Shmigelskii and Iasinovskii, Osnovy sovetskogo morskogo prava (Fundamental Principles of Soviet Maritime Law) 33 (1963).

108 The only available text of the 1954 decree is an excerpt translated in U. N. Legislative Series, Laws and Regulations on the Regime of the Territorial Sea 577-578 (1957). Bakhov states on p. 188 that the 1954 decree repealed the 1935 decree.

109 Meshera, op. cit. note 3 above, at 21; Zhudro, op. cit. note 31 above, at 104.

110 Bouchez, op. cit. note 51 above, at 68.

111 Vedomosti SSSB (1959), No. 14, item 87; 338 U.N. Treaty Series 3. The agreement was extended on May 23, 1966. Vedomosti SSSE (1966), No. 22, item 338.

112 Vedomosti SSSE (1962), No. 34, item 362.

113 The Convention is translated in 5 Int. Legal Materials 1144 (1966).

114 Vedomosti SSSE (1959), No. 1, item 8.

115 The full text of the Merchant Shipping Code is translated in Documentation Office for East European Law, University of Leyden, Law in Eastern Europe—The Merchant Shipping Code of the Soviet Union, No. 4 (1960).

116 Strohl, op. cit. note 50 above, at 334.

117 See Nikolaev, op. cit. note 13 above, at 246. Reproduced in Izveshcheniia moreplavateliam (1966), No. 15.

118 SZ SSSB (1928), No. 48, item 431.

119 Vedomosti SSSB (1964), No. 20, item 242; translated in Butler, Customs Code of the ITSSB (1966).

120 SZ SSSB (1931), No. 55, item 355.

121 SP SSSB (1959), No. 13, item 80. Cited by Zhudro, op. cit. note 31 above, at 112. The 1959 rules evidently replace rules issued in 1940. No text of the new rules has been located.

122 Art. 23, 1960 statute.

123 Op. cit. note 115 above, at 93-95

124 SU ESFSB (1921), No. 6, item 40.

125 Ibid. No. 49, item 259.

126 Prikaz EVSE, No. 29S3.

127 SU BSFSB (1923), No. 6, item 93.

128 SZ SSSR (1928), No. 48, item 431.

129 SU ESFSB. (1923), No. 13, item 172.

130 SU BSFSE (1927), No. 102, item 684.

131 SZ S8SE (1927), No. 62, item 625.

132 Arts. 25 and 26.

133 Durdenevskii and Krylov, op. cit. note 23 above, at 252-254.

134 The regime of the Caspian Sea is not regulated by international law norms relating to either closed or open seas. The provisions of the 1960 statute on the state boundary apply to the Caspian insofar as the statute regulates border lakes. There are no territorial waters in the Caspian, only the ten-mile fishing zone. The entire sea is open to fishing vessels of both countries except in these zones. The warships of each country may not cross the state boundary without the permission of authorities of the other nation; the sea is closed to all vessels of third countries. Maritime navigation on the Aral Sea is governed solely by Soviet legislation regulating internal water routes of the TJ.S.S.E. See Meshera, op. cit. note 3 above, at 11-12; Bakhov, op. cit. note 26 above, at 258.