DOCSLIB.ORG

Bulletin No.54, the Law of the Sea Information Circular and Any Other Relevant Publication Issued by the United Nations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bulletin No.54, the Law of the Sea Information Circular and Any Other Relevant Publication Issued by the United Nations NOTE The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Furthermore, publication in the Bulletin of information concerning developments relating to the law of the sea emanating from actions and decisions taken by States does not imply recognition by the United Nations of the validity of the actions and decisions in question. IF ANY MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THE BULLETIN IS REPRODUCED IN PART OR IN WHOLE, DUE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN. Copyright © United Nations, 2004 CONTENTS Page I. UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA ............................... 1 Status of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention and of the Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the Convention relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks....................................................................................1 1. Table recapitulating the status of the Convention and of the related Agreements, as at 31 March 2004................................................................................................................ 1 2. Chronological lists of ratifications of, accessions and successions to the Convention and the related Agreements, as at 31 March 2004 ............................................................ 11 (a) The Convention ........................................................................................................ 11 (b) Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention ................. 12 (c) Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the Convention relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and 13 highly migratory fish stocks ..................................................................................... 3. Declarations made upon ratification of the Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the Convention relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (19 December 2003)................... 15 (a) European Community............................................................................................... 15 (b) Austria...................................................................................................................... 17 (c) Belgium.................................................................................................................... 19 (d) Denmark................................................................................................................... 19 (e) Finland...................................................................................................................... 20 (f) France....................................................................................................................... 20 (g) Germany................................................................................................................... 22 (h) Greece ...................................................................................................................... 22 (i) Ireland ...................................................................................................................... 22 (j) Italy .......................................................................................................................... 23 (k) Luxembourg ............................................................................................................. 23 (l) Netherlands............................................................................................................... 24 - iii - CONTENTS Page (m) Portugal .................................................................................................................... 24 (n) Spain......................................................................................................................... 24 (o) Sweden ..................................................................................................................... 26 (p) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland........................................... 26 II. LEGAL INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA ................................................................. 27 A. National legislation ............................................................................................................... 27 1. Cuba: Legislative Decree No. 158—Contiguous Zone, 12 April 1995............................. 27 2. Norway: ............................................................................................................................ 29 (a) List of coordinates of points defining the outer limit of the territorial sea around 29 Norway mainland ..................................................................................................... (b) List of coordinates of points defining the outer limit of the territorial sea around Svalbard.................................................................................................................... 41 (c) List of coordinates of points defining the outer limit of the territorial sea around Jan Mayen ................................................................................................................ 81 (d) Regulations relating to the baselines for determining the extent of the territorial sea around mainland Norway, Royal Decree of 14 June 2002 ................................. 88 (e) Act of 27 June 2003 No. 57 relating to Norway’s territorial waters and contiguous zone........................................................................................................ 97 3. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: .................................................. 99 (a) Proclamation No. 1 of 17 September 2003 establishing the Environment 99 (Protection and Preservation) Zone for the British Indian Ocean Territory.............. (b) British Indian Ocean Territory Environment (Protection and Preservation) Zone ... 100 B. Communications by States .................................................................................................... 127 1. Information note by Turkey, concerning its objection to the Agreement between the Republic of Cyprus and the Arab Republic of Egypt on the Delimitation of the 127 Exclusive Economic Zone, 17 February 2003 .................................................................. 2. Statement of the position of the Government of the Republic of Mauritius with respect to the deposit by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of a list of geographical coordinates of points pursuant to article 75, paragraph 2, of 128 the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 14 April 2004 ............................. 3. Note by Italy concerning the declaration of an ecological and fisheries protection 129 zone in the Adriatic Sea by the Republic of Croatia of 3 October 2003, 16 April 2004 ... - iv - CONTENTS Page III. OTHER INFORMATION.................................................................................................. 131 A. Ukraine and the Russian Federation: The Joint Statement by the President of Ukraine and the President of the Russian Federation on the Sea of Azov and the Strait of Kerch, 24 December 2003 ...................................................................................................................... 131 B. Table of claims to maritime jurisdiction (as at 31 March 2004) ........................................... 132 - v - - 1 - I. UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA Status of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention and of the Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the Convention relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks 1. Table recapitulating the status of the Convention and of the related Agreements, as at 31 March 2004 Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the Convention relating to the Agreement relating to the conservation and management of United Nations Convention on implementation of Part XI of the straddling fish stocks and highly migratory the Law of the Sea Convention fish stocks State or entity (in force as from 16 November 1994) (in force as from 28 July 1996) (in force as from 11 December 2001) Ratification; formal Italicized text indicates non- Ratification; formal confirmation(fc); members of the United confirmation(fc); accession(a); definitive Nations; accession(a); signature(ds); Signature Ratification; accession(a) Shaded row indicates Signature succession(s); ( - participation(p);1 simplified ( - declaration or 3 landlocked States ( - declaration) declaration) Signature procedure (sp); 2 statement) ( - declaration) TOTALS 157 (35) 145 (54) 79 117 59 (5) 51 (24) Afghanistan Albania 23 June 2003(a) 23 June 2003(a) Algeria 11 June 1996 11 June 1996 (p) Andorra Angola 5 December 1990 Antigua and Barbuda 2 February 1989 Argentina 1 December 1995 1 December 1995 Armenia 9 December 2002 (a) 9 December
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trends of Aquatic Alien Species Invasions in Ukraine
    Aquatic Invasions (2007) Volume 2, Issue 3: 215-242 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/ai.2007.2.3.8 Open Access © 2007 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2007 REABIC Research Article Trends of aquatic alien species invasions in Ukraine Boris Alexandrov1*, Alexandr Boltachev2, Taras Kharchenko3, Artiom Lyashenko3, Mikhail Son1, Piotr Tsarenko4 and Valeriy Zhukinsky3 1Odessa Branch, Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NASU); 37, Pushkinska St, 65125 Odessa, Ukraine 2Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas NASU; 2, Nakhimova avenue, 99011 Sevastopol, Ukraine 3Institute of Hydrobiology NASU; 12, Geroyiv Stalingrada avenue, 04210 Kiyv, Ukraine 4Institute of Botany NASU; 2, Tereschenkivska St, 01601 Kiyv, Ukraine E-mail: [email protected] (BA), [email protected] (AB), [email protected] (TK, AL), [email protected] (PT) *Corresponding author Received: 13 November 2006 / Accepted: 2 August 2007 Abstract This review is a first attempt to summarize data on the records and distribution of 240 alien species in fresh water, brackish water and marine water areas of Ukraine, from unicellular algae up to fish. A checklist of alien species with their taxonomy, synonymy and with a complete bibliography of their first records is presented. Analysis of the main trends of alien species introduction, present ecological status, origin and pathways is considered. Key words: alien species, ballast water, Black Sea, distribution, invasion, Sea of Azov introduction of plants and animals to new areas Introduction increased over the ages. From the beginning of the 19th century, due to The range of organisms of different taxonomic rising technical progress, the influence of man groups varies with time, which can be attributed on nature has increased in geometrical to general processes of phylogenesis, to changes progression, gradually becoming comparable in in the contours of land and sea, forest and dimensions to climate impact.
    [Show full text]
  • 20020011.Pdf
    Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen 1144 PERSPECTIVE Geological and evolutionary underpinnings for the success of Ponto-Caspian species invasions in the Baltic Sea and North American Great Lakes David F. Reid and Marina I. Orlova1 Abstract: Between 1985 and 2000, ~70% of new species that invaded the North American Great Lakes were endemic to the Ponto-Caspian (Caspian, Azov, and Black seas) basins of eastern Europe. Sixteen Ponto-Caspian species were also established in the Baltic Sea as of 2000. Many Ponto-Caspian endemic species are characterized by wide environmental tolerances and high phenotypic variability. Ponto-Caspian fauna evolved over millions of years in a series of large lakes and seas with widely varying salinities and water levels and alternating periods of isolation and open connections between the Caspian Sea and Black Sea depressions and between these basins and the Mediterranean Basin and the World Ocean. These conditions probably resulted in selection of Ponto-Caspian endemic species for the broad environmental tolerances and euryhalinity many exhibit. Both the Baltic Sea and the Great Lakes are geologi- cally young and present much lower levels of endemism. The high tolerance of Ponto-Caspian fauna to varying environmental conditions, their ability to survive exposure to a range of salinities, and the similarity in environmental conditions available in the Baltic Sea and Great Lakes probably contribute to the invasion success of these species. Human activities have dramatically increased the opportunities for transport and introduction and have played a cata- lytic role. Résumé : Entre 1985 et 2000, environ 70 % des espèces qui ont envahi pour la première fois les Grands-Lacs d’Amérique du Nord étaient endémiques aux bassins versants de la région pontocaspienne de l’Europe de l’Est, soit ceux de la mer Caspienne, de la mer d’Azov et de la mer Noire.
    [Show full text]
  • Directory of Azov-Black Sea Coastal Wetlands
    Directory of Azov-Black Sea Coastal Wetlands Kyiv–2003 Directory of Azov-Black Sea Coastal Wetlands: Revised and updated. — Kyiv: Wetlands International, 2003. — 235 pp., 81 maps. — ISBN 90 5882 9618 Published by the Black Sea Program of Wetlands International PO Box 82, Kiev-32, 01032, Ukraine E-mail: [email protected] Editor: Gennadiy Marushevsky Editing of English text: Rosie Ounsted Lay-out: Victor Melnychuk Photos on cover: Valeriy Siokhin, Vasiliy Kostyushin The presentation of material in this report and the geographical designations employed do not imply the expres- sion of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Wetlands International concerning the legal status of any coun- try, area or territory, or concerning the delimitation of its boundaries or frontiers. The publication is supported by Wetlands International through a grant from the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries of the Netherlands and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands (MATRA Fund/Programme International Nature Management) ISBN 90 5882 9618 Copyright © 2003 Wetlands International, Kyiv, Ukraine All rights reserved CONTENTS CONTENTS3 6 7 13 14 15 16 22 22 24 26 28 30 32 35 37 40 43 45 46 54 54 56 58 58 59 61 62 64 64 66 67 68 70 71 76 80 80 82 84 85 86 86 86 89 90 90 91 91 93 Contents 3 94 99 99 100 101 103 104 106 107 109 111 113 114 119 119 126 130 132 135 139 142 148 149 152 153 155 157 157 158 160 162 164 164 165 170 170 172 173 175 177 179 180 182 184 186 188 191 193 196 198 199 201 202 4 Directory of Azov-Black Sea Coastal Wetlands 203 204 207 208 209 210 212 214 214 216 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 230 232 233 Contents 5 EDITORIAL AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Directory is based on the national reports prepared for the Wetlands International project ‘The Importance of Black Sea Coastal Wetlands in Particular for Migratory Waterbirds’, sponsored by the Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries.
    [Show full text]
  • “The Ukraine Crisis and the International Law of the Sea”
    Unofficial translation Created as part of the research project “The Ukraine Crisis and the International Law of the Sea”. Dmytro Koval Associate Professor of International and European Law, National University of Kyiv- Mohyla Academy, Ukraine, [email protected] Valentin J. Schatz Research Associate, Chair of International Law of the Sea and International Environmental Law (Prof. Alexander Proelss), Faculty of Law, University of Hamburg, Germany, [email protected] Agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on Cooperation in the Use of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait The Russian Federation and Ukraine, hereinafter referred to as the Parties, guided by the relations of friendship and cooperation between the peoples of Russia and Ukraine, historically formed ties between them; guided by the provisions of the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between the Russian Federation and Ukraine of 31 May 1997, and the Treaty between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the Russian-Ukrainian State Border of 28 January 2003; noting the importance of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait for the economic development of Russia and Ukraine; convinced that all matters relating to the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait should be resolved only by peaceful means together or by agreement between Russia and Ukraine; based on the need to preserve the Azov-Kerch area of water as an integral economic and natural complex used in the interests of Russia and Ukraine; agreed on the following: Article 1 The Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait have historically been inland waters of the Russian Federation and Ukraine.
    [Show full text]
  • Kerch Strait En Route to the Ukrainian Port of Berdyansk, on the Sea of Azov, According to Official Ukrainian and Russian Reports (See Figure 1)
    CRS INSIGHT Russia's Use of Force Against the Ukrainian Navy December 3, 2018 (IN11004) | Related Author Cory Welt | Cory Welt, Analyst in European Affairs ([email protected], 7-0530) Naval Incident Escalates Tensions On November 25, 2018, Russian coast guard vessels in the Black Sea forcibly prevented two small Ukrainian armored artillery boats and a tugboat from transiting the Kerch Strait en route to the Ukrainian port of Berdyansk, on the Sea of Azov, according to official Ukrainian and Russian reports (see Figure 1). After ramming the tugboat and blockading all three boats for hours, the Russian vessels reportedly fired on them as they sought to leave the area, injuring six sailors. The Ukrainian boats and their 24 crew members were detained and taken to Kerch, in the Russian-occupied Ukrainian region of Crimea. The sailors were arrested and placed in pretrial detention on charges of illegally crossing what Russia refers to as its state border (i.e., the territorial waters around occupied Crimea). Observers generally viewed the incident as a major escalation of tensions between Russia and Ukraine. Russia Tightens Control In May 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin opened a new 12-mile-long bridge linking Russia to Crimea over the Kerch Strait, the waterway connecting the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov. The bridge was designed to accommodate an existing shipping lane, but it imposes new limits on the size of ships that transit the strait. Observers note that since the bridge's opening, Russia has stepped up its interference with commercial traffic traveling to and from Ukrainian ports in Mariupol and Berdyansk, which export steel, grain, and coal.
    [Show full text]
  • Security in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov: New Threats and Challenges
    SECURITY IN THE BLACK SEA AND THE SEA OF AZOV: NEW THREATS AND CHALLENGES CRIMEA – ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF RUSSIAN REGIONAL DESTABILISATION RUSSIAN MILITARY BUILD-UP IN TEMPORARILY OCCUPIED CRIMEA BEFORE RUSSIAN OCCUPATION OF CRIMEA (JAN 2014) AUTUMN 2018 12500 31500 - 40 92 583 24 162 22 122 37 62 - 16 26 71 2 7 Аirfield «Baherove» Property № 100 Property № 221 Property № 76, «Feodosia-13» Property № 825 RESTORATION OF NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE Russian means of delivery of nuclear weapons in Crimea EXISTING MEANS WHICH CAN BE USED TO DELIVER NUCLEAR WARHEADS «MOSKVA» «SMETLIVY» guided missile escort ship SU-24 bomber guided missile cruiser Missile – torpedo launch system «Rastrub-B» Engagement range: 560 km Max.range: 90 km avionic bombs with nuclear Missile system «Vulkan» Max.range: munitions 700 km ADVANCED ASSETS CAPABLE TO DELIVER NUCLEAR WARHEADS TU-22M3-strategic long-range bomber SU-34 fighter-bomber Range of engagement: 2400 km Range of engagement: 1100 km Max range of cruise missile Cruise missiles and avionic bombs with nuclear with nuclear munitions: 600 km munitions BLACK SEA •Military Exercises •Maritime traffic AZOV SEA suspension •Excessive control of civilian maritime traffic •Increased military ship CRIMEAN PENINSULA numbers Deployment of forces and means for seaborne TARHANKUT CAPE assault KERCH KERCH BRIDGE construction SIMFEROPOL SEVASTOPOL PREPARATION FOR NAVAL BLOCKADE OF UKRAINE 3 UKRAINIAN MILITARY SHIPS CAPTURED IN HIGH SEAS (OUTSIDE NATIONAL JURISDICTION) YANI KAPU BERDIANSK RUSSIAN GUARD SHIP Russia’s gross violation of •UN CHARTER International Law Article 2 •HELSINK I 1975 FINAL ACT Helsinki Decalogue •UNCLOS Articles 2, 21, 32, 38, 44, 56, 58, 88, 92 •NPT Treaty, Budapest Memorandum Non-use of force or threat of force • 1949 Third Geneva Convention Prisoners of war UN General Assembly draft resolution “The problem of militarization of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine), as well as parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov”.
    [Show full text]
  • Azov–Kuban Basin Province, Ukraine and Russia, 2010
    World Petroleum Resources Project Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Azov–Kuban Basin Province, Ukraine and Russia, 2010 The U.S. Geological Survey, using a geology-based assessment methodology, estimated mean volumes of technically recoverable, conventional, undiscovered petroleum resources at 218 million barrels of crude oil, 4.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 94 million barrels of natural gas liquids for the Azov–Kuban Basin Province. Introduction province—Foredeep and Foreland Slope (figs. 1 and 2). A second AU possibly containing continuous accumulations, Foredeep Tight The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated technically Gas, was identified based on an assumed overpressured section in recoverable, conventional, undiscovered oil and gas resources of the basin center, but was not quantitatively assessed in this study. the Azov–Kuban Basin Province in Ukraine and Russia as part Major source rocks are mudstones within the middle–upper of a program to estimate petroleum resources for priority basins Eocene and Oligocene–lower Miocene stratigraphic section around the world. The province encompasses about 161,000 square (Robinson and others, 1996). Potential source rocks include Lower kilometers, northeast of the Black Sea (fig. 1). This assessment was Cretaceous and Lower to Middle Jurassic mudstones, and possibly based on published geologic information and on commercial data Upper Jurassic subsalt black mudstones. Cenozoic source rocks at from oil and gas wells and fields, and field production records. The present are in the oil window; maturation was probably reached USGS approach is to define total petroleum systems and assess- in late Miocene to Pliocene time when the greatest amount of ment units, and assess the potential for undiscovered oil and gas sediment was deposited.
    [Show full text]
  • Monthly Discharges for 2400 Rivers and Streams of the Former Soviet Union [FSU]
    Annotations for Monthly Discharges for 2400 Rivers and Streams of the former Soviet Union [FSU] v1.1, September, 2001 Byron A. Bodo [email protected] Toronto, Canada Disclaimer Users assume responsibility for errors in the river and stream discharge data, associated metadata [river names, gauge names, drainage areas, & geographic coordinates], and the annotations contained herein. No doubt errors and discrepancies remain in the metadata and discharge records. Anyone data set users who uncover further errors and other discrepancies are invited to report them to NCAR. Acknowledgement Most discharge records in this compilation originated from the State Hydrological Institute [SHI] in St. Petersburg, Russia. Problems with some discharge records and metadata notwithstanding; this compilation could not have been created were it not for the efforts of SHI. The University of New Hampshire’s Global Hydrology Group is credited for making the SHI Arctic Basin data available. Foreword This document was prepared for on-screen viewing, not printing !!! Printed output can be very messy. To ensure wide accessibility, this document was prepared as an MS Word 6 doc file. The www addresses are not active hyperlinks. They have to be copied and pasted into www browsers. Clicking on a page number in the Table of Contents will jump the cursor to the beginning of that section of text [in the MS Word version, not the pdf file]. Distribution Files Files in the distribution package are listed below: Contents File name short abstract abstract.txt ascii description of
    [Show full text]
  • Ukraine V. the Russian Federation: Navigating Conflict Over Sovereignty Under UNCLOS
    Ukraine v. The Russian Federation: Navigating Conflict over Sovereignty under UNCLOS Nilüfer Oral 97 INT’L L. STUD. 478 (2021) Volume 97 2021 Published by the Stockton Center for International Law ISSN 2375-2831 International Law Studies 2021 Ukraine v. The Russian Federation: Navigating Conflict over Sovereignty under UNCLOS Nilüfer Oral CONTENTS I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 479 II. The Regime of the Black Sea from the Ottoman Empire to the USSR ..................................................................................................... 481 III. Shift in the Sphere of Influence over the Black Sea following the Dissolution of the USSR ..................................................................... 484 IV. Current conflicts in the Black Sea region .......................................... 487 A. Crimea and the control over the Black Sea Fleet ......................... 487 B. Unresolved Issues of Navigation and Delimitation in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait ......................................................... 489 V. The Black Sea before International Court and Tribunals ................ 491 A. Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation) . 492 B. Case Concerning the Detention of Three Ukrainian Naval Vessels (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures . 503 VI. Conclusion ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Reply of the Russian Federation to the Written Observations and Submissions of Ukraine on Jurisdiction
    PCA Case No. 2017-06 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION before AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED UNDER ANNEX VII TO THE 1982 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA between UKRAINE and THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION in respect of a DISPUTE CONCERNING COASTAL STATE RIGHTS IN THE BLACK SEA, SEA OF AZOV, AND KERCH STRAIT Volume I - REPLY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION TO THE WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS OF UKRAINE ON JURISDICTION ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL: Judge Jin-Hyun Paik, President Judge Boualem Bouguetaia Judge Alonso Gómez-Robledo Judge Vladimir Golitsyn Professor Vaughan Lowe, QC REGISTRY: The Permanent Court of Arbitration 28 January 2019 page intentionally left blank INDEX OF MATERIALS Volume I Reply of the Russian Federation to the Written Observations and Submissions of Ukraine on Jurisdiction Volume II Exhibits Volume III Legal Authorities (in electronic form only) i page intentionally left blank TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER UKRAINE’S CLAIM: THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT DETERMINE WHICH STATE IS SOVEREIGN OVER THE LAND TERRITORY OF CRIMEA.................................................................................. 7 I. Alleged inadmissibility .................................................................................................. 9 II. Alleged implausibility .................................................................................................. 12 III. Mauritius
    [Show full text]
  • Water Flea (Cornigerius Maeoticus Maeoticus) Ecological Risk Screening Summary
    Water Flea (Cornigerius maeoticus maeoticus) Ecological Risk Screening Summary U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Web Version – 9/13/2017 Photo: Rodionova et al. (2005, Figure 1). 1 Native Range and Status in the United States Native Range From Rodionova et al. (2015): “[…] outside the limits of its initial range (the Sea of Azov and Caspian Sea) […]” From Mordukhai-Boltovskoi (1967): “Distribution. -- Sea of Asov, mainly in slightly brackish (oligo- and meiomeso haline) waters (Gulf of Taganrog and northeastern part of the open sea); Dnjepro-Bug liman and limans in the Danube delta. It occurs also in quite fresh waters and in the Danube River; […]” 1 From Baker et al. (2015): “Ponto-Caspian basin, lower reaches of Danube, Dnieper, and Bug rivers (Panov et al. 2007).” Status in the United States From Baker et al. (2015): “Status: Not established in North America, including the Great Lakes” Means of Introductions in the United States No records of Cornigerius maeoticus maeoticus in the United States were found. Remarks No additional remarks. 2 Biology and Ecology Taxonomic Hierarchy and Taxonomic Standing From Kotov et al. (2016): “Accepted scientific name: Cornigerius maeoticus maeoticus (Pengo 1879) (accepted name)” “Kingdom Animalia Phylum Arthropoda Class Branchiopoda Order Diplostraca Family Podonidae Genus Cornigerius Species Cornigerius maeoticus” From Rodionova et al. (2005): “Subsequently, Mordukhai-Boltovskoi and Rivier [Mordukhai-Boltovskoi and Rivier, 1987] revised polyphemids from the Sea of Azov and the Black, Caspian, and Aral
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Leadership Needed to Improve Maritime Security in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov Luke Coffey and Brent Sadler
    BACKGROUNDER No. 3614 | MAY 3, 2021 KATHRYN AND SHELBY CULLOM DAVIS INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY U.S. Leadership Needed to Improve Maritime Security in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov Luke Coffey and Brent Sadler his spring, Russia has been conducting a sizeable KEY TAKEAWAYS military buildup along its border with Ukraine T and in occupied Crimea. Most of these deploy- A sovereign and secure Black Sea and Sea ments seem spontaneous and unrelated to any scheduled of Azov are critical to keeping the region training exercises. Russia’s activity has not been limited free from Russia’s maligned influence. to the land. There has also been a Russian buildup at sea. Recently, four Russian warships from the Baltic fleet have moved to the Black Sea. In addition, 15 vessels from the Caspian flotilla have just arrived in the Sea of Azov. Russia’s mounting aggression around Ukraine’s border at land and sea directly This means a total of at least 50 Russian warships are 1 threatens U.S. and NATO security interests. now operating in the waters around Ukraine. Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, Moscow has essentially turned the Sea of Azov into a Russian The U.S. should think outside of the box lake, with one exception: Ukraine’s port at Mariupol. If as it builds a strategy to counter Russian this port were neutralized, Russia would then move on aggression and work with NATO to in the hope of a similar outcome in the Black Sea. This enhance the security in both seas.
    [Show full text]