Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:39:27.762Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Kiev and the Turkish Straits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

H. Gary Knight
H. Gary Knight*
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University Law Center
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On July 18, 1976, the Soviet naval vessel, Kiev, transited the Turkish Straits from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, with Turkish consent. Questions have been raised concerning the international legality of this transit, and in light of earlier reaction to an alleged violation by the Soviet Union of the rules on the passage of submarines through the Turkish Straits it seems appropriate to examine the facts and the governing law.

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , January 1977 , pp. 125 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1977

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.)

References

1 N.Y. Times, July 19, 1976, at 4, col. 4; Washington Post, July 19, 1976, at A-16, col. 1.

2 N.Y. Times, Feb. 8,1976, at 1, col. 7.

3 This and subsequent data about the Kiev was taken primarily from J. Moore (ed.) Jane's Fighting Ships 1975-76, at 551 (1976).

4 N.Y. Times, July 22,1976, at 3, col. 1.

5 Convention concerning the Regime of the Straits, signed at Montreux, July 20, 1936, 173 LNTS 215, 31 AJIL , Supp. 1 (1937). States party to the Convention are Bulgaria, France, the United Kingdom, Greece, Japan, Romania, Turkey, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union.

6 The Associated Press wire story contained this reference to the Anatolian report. The New York Times (Reuters) story, supra note 1, stated that “the Kiev was not fully operational, having no aircraft on board,” but the Washington Post (Special), supra note 1, corroborated the AP release, noting that “the Kiev was believed to be carrying 25 to 30 warplanes and a similar number of helicopters when it passed under the Bosphorus Bridge.”

7 The permitted tonnage of non-Black Sea powers in the Straits and the Black Sea is dealt with in Articles 14 and 18 and is not relevant to this analysis.

8 See j. shotwell and F. DEÁK, turkey at the straits: a short history (1940); f. vaij, the turkish straits and nato, ch. 3 (1972); Routh, The Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Black Sea Straits ﹛20th July, 1936), survey of int'l affairs 1936, at 584 (1936); Kirkpatrick, The Montreux Straits Convention, 7 geneva special studdss (no. 6) (Sept., 1936); Note, The Straits Convention of Montreux, 1936,18 brit. Y. B. Int'l l. 186 (1937).

9 Jane's Fighting Ships, supra note 3, at 105.

10 Id., at 551.

11 On the role and possible missions of the Kiev generally, see Hynes, , The Role of the Kiev in Soviet Naval Operations, 29 NAVAL WAR COLLEGE REV. (NO. 2) 38 (Fall, 1976).Google Scholar

12 An authoritative Soviet article disputes this conclusion, resting its case solely on the statement that [a]sa thorough analysis of the Montreux Convention shows, one can consider from a legal point of view that passage through the straits by any ships of states on tie Black Sea does not contradict the letter and spirit of the convention. Serkov, Legal Regulations for the Black Sea Straits, Morskoi Sbornik, No. 7 (July, 1976).

13 F. VÁLI, supra note 8, at 44.