Legal History and the Present State of Use of the Caspian Resources

Abstract

This chapter does not discuss issues relating to the legal regime of the Caspian Sea, but concentrates on deliberations concerning the status of this water basin. The rules of public international law that are applicable to the Caspian’s legal status depend primarily on the legal character of this body of water. How the Caspian Sea is regulated will therefore depend on its legal classification and the accompanying body of law. If the Caspian Sea is a “sea” in legal terms, the UNCLOS would be applicable. If, on the other hand, the Caspian Sea is a “lake” in legal terms, then customary international law concerning border lakes would apply. Given the great number of often contradictory legal opinions on its status, it seems that, rather than looking for new future regulation, it would be more rational to try to assess the compatibility of every option with current international public law doctrine. As the Caspian does not appear to fall into either category, it is therefore necessary to take into consideration its historical, geophysical and legal peculiarity in deciding whether it is an international lake or an enclosed sea. The weight of the here presented arguments suggests that the Caspian Sea is not governed by a condominium regime. It also does not appear to be a sea, so the UNCLOS does not apply directly. Nor does it seem to be an international lake. So which legal concept should be applied to successfully define the legal status of the Caspian? It is clear that there are great difficulties in resolving this issue. At the current stage of interstate negotiations regarding future legal situation of the Caspian Sea, as well as in the contemporary practice of states regarding the Caspian Sea there is, however, absolutely no reference to either of the two categories mentioned above, which are today only referred to in research papers about that subject. What remains beyond dispute is that the Caspian Sea is a water basin surrounded by five sovereign states, which must determine its future legal status. After the benefits for each of these states are considered, such a decision needs to be mutual, because only a multilateral solution can guaranty legal stability of the Caspian region.