unsaveSave
expand-left
full screen NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte announces that the defense alliance will investigate the law of the sea at a press conference in Helsinki. Photo: Anders Wiklund/TT
NATO must investigate what powers the alliance’s members have within the framework of the law of the sea. It is absolutely necessary to be able to protect critical infrastructure, according to Professor Henrik Ringbom.
– I was really happy when I heard that you are going to put resources into this, he says to TT.
During the NATO summit in Helsinki, Finland was mentioned countless times as a leading country for its handling of the Eagle S, the tanker suspected of damaging a number of important cables in the Baltic Sea.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte underlined that Finland has proven that it is possible to act resolutely within the narrow framework of the law of the sea.
– Whoever believes that the law of the sea prevents nations within NATO from acting is wrong. There are several possibilities to act. I won’t go into details, but I can assure you that we are committed to protecting critical infrastructure.
Affects the law
Shortly afterwards, Alexander Stubb, the president of Finland and host of the summit, announced that NATO will investigate the issue thoroughly with the help of an expert group consisting of the foreign ministries of the Baltic Sea countries.
If several states agree on how to act, it could affect the law in the long run, according to Henrik Ringbom, professor of maritime law at Åbo Akademi University.
– I think it can result in a new practice. It is important because there has been a certain anxiety, he says and emphasizes that the law of the sea is not clear-cut when it comes to sabotage outside territorial waters.
In the Yi Peng 3 case, where Sweden is investigating suspected sabotage of underwater cables, it took 32 days for authorities to board the vessel.
“Can’t just watch”
Just like the Eagle S, it was outside territorial waters when the suspected sabotage was discovered, says Henrik Ringbom.
– An essential difference is that Eagle S cooperated with Finnish authorities when they asked the ship to move towards territorial waters. It meant that you didn’t have to put things on edge.
– Regardless, I don’t think that countries can just sit and watch when submarine cables are destroyed. What is interesting to look at is whether countries have the authority to act even when ships are not moving voluntarily towards territorial waters.
In such cases, can Sweden act in the same way as Finland if a similar situation were to arise in the future?
– It is an interesting question, said Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson immediately after the summit.
– We cannot accept that a rule-based order is abused in such a way that infrastructure is systematically destroyed. That made us agree to draw up a legal analysis of exactly what can be done.