On 24 June, the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum hosted the session “Economic Warfare against Freedom of Navigation: How to Navigate Maritime Trade amid Unlawful Restrictions and Piracy,” organised by the G.O.R.K.I. Centre.
The discussion brought together representatives of the Russian Ministry of Transport and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, maritime law practitioners, shipowners, and experts in international arbitration.
Participants discussed the rise of state-sponsored sanctions “piracy,” the crisis of the flag State institution, the weaponisation of maritime safety systems against Russian vessels, and the legal mechanisms available to protect shipowners and crews—ranging from national courts and international arbitration to the European Court of Human Rights.
The session concluded with the adoption of a package of recommendations: the development of an independent reinsurance system with insurance coverage raised to USD 3 million; further simplification of vessel registration under the Russian flag; the introduction of a tonnage tax and crew incentives; mandatory insurance for foreign shipowners calling at Russian ports; and strengthened cooperation through the SCO and BRICS+ frameworks to safeguard freedom of navigation. A resolution incorporating these proposals will be submitted to the Russian Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ministry of Justice.
The discussion brought together representatives of the Russian Ministry of Transport and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, maritime law practitioners, shipowners, and experts in international arbitration.
Participants discussed the rise of state-sponsored sanctions “piracy,” the crisis of the flag State institution, the weaponisation of maritime safety systems against Russian vessels, and the legal mechanisms available to protect shipowners and crews—ranging from national courts and international arbitration to the European Court of Human Rights.
The session concluded with the adoption of a package of recommendations: the development of an independent reinsurance system with insurance coverage raised to USD 3 million; further simplification of vessel registration under the Russian flag; the introduction of a tonnage tax and crew incentives; mandatory insurance for foreign shipowners calling at Russian ports; and strengthened cooperation through the SCO and BRICS+ frameworks to safeguard freedom of navigation. A resolution incorporating these proposals will be submitted to the Russian Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ministry of Justice.
❤2
At today’s session “The Concept of ‘Hostile Actions’ by Unfriendly Foreign States toward Russia and Measures to Further Improve Russian Legislation in This Area” at the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum, participants discussed the growing role of sanctions, economic coercion, and extraterritorial measures in international relations.
Among the speakers was Karin Kneissl, head of the G.O.R.K.I. Centre SPbU, who examined the experiences of Iran and Russia under sanctions regimes. Drawing on the Iranian case since the 1990s, she addressed the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), restrictions on access to the SWIFT system, and the broader use of extraterritorial jurisdiction. She argued that the cases of Iran and Russia reveal significant double standards in sanctions policy, while noting that the sanctions imposed on Russia have been considerably more extensive. In the case of Iran the UN security council decided on sanctions, in the case of Russia about 42 states did unilateral sanctions.
Dr. Kneissl also reflected on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the decision of the United States to withdraw from the agreement in 2018. Despite efforts by the European Union to preserve economic cooperation with Iran and maintain financial mechanisms, these initiatives ultimately produced limited practical results.
In conclusion, Karin Kneissl argued that the key challenge today is not the creation of additional jurisdictional mechanisms, but rather defining what constitutes an imminent attack and ensuring the protection of critical infrastructure, including refineries, pipelines, and energy networks. She concluded with the remark: “Russia cannot be defeated in the battlefield; it can only be destroyed from within.”
#SPILF2026 #InternationalLaw #SanctionsPolicy #EconomicCoercion #Geopolitics
Among the speakers was Karin Kneissl, head of the G.O.R.K.I. Centre SPbU, who examined the experiences of Iran and Russia under sanctions regimes. Drawing on the Iranian case since the 1990s, she addressed the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), restrictions on access to the SWIFT system, and the broader use of extraterritorial jurisdiction. She argued that the cases of Iran and Russia reveal significant double standards in sanctions policy, while noting that the sanctions imposed on Russia have been considerably more extensive. In the case of Iran the UN security council decided on sanctions, in the case of Russia about 42 states did unilateral sanctions.
Dr. Kneissl also reflected on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the decision of the United States to withdraw from the agreement in 2018. Despite efforts by the European Union to preserve economic cooperation with Iran and maintain financial mechanisms, these initiatives ultimately produced limited practical results.
In conclusion, Karin Kneissl argued that the key challenge today is not the creation of additional jurisdictional mechanisms, but rather defining what constitutes an imminent attack and ensuring the protection of critical infrastructure, including refineries, pipelines, and energy networks. She concluded with the remark: “Russia cannot be defeated in the battlefield; it can only be destroyed from within.”
#SPILF2026 #InternationalLaw #SanctionsPolicy #EconomicCoercion #Geopolitics
❤3👍3
On 26 June, as part of the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum, head of the G.O.R.K.I. Centre SPbU, Karin Kneissl delivered a lecture titled “Why meritocracy matters - a perspective for young legal scholars”.
Beginning with the origins of the term—merit (to deserve) and kratos (power)—Dr. Kneissl traced the historical evolution of meritocracy from the imperial examination system in China to the French civil service. She argued that meritocratic governance is based on transparent selection through knowledge, talent, experience, and achievement rather than personal connections. Referring to the French administrative model, she stressed that career advancement should depend on hard work, competitive examinations, and professional competence, while warning that bureaucracy, corruption, and nepotism undermine the effective implementation of laws and public institutions.
The lecture also examined the relationship between meritocracy and the rule of law. Dr. Kneissl emphasized that equal opportunities—not equal outcomes—should remain the guiding principle of a healthy society, where social mobility is earned through individual achievements. Drawing on historical examples, including the administrative practices of Genghis Khan, she illustrated how merit-based selection has contributed to effective governance across different civilizations. At the same time, she argued that theoretical knowledge alone is insufficient, as leadership also requires practical experience, judgment, and responsibility.
Concluding her lecture, Dr. Kneissl highlighted that an effective civil service is essential for the functioning of any state. Referring to Montesquieu’s The Spirit of Laws, she underlined the enduring importance of the separation of powers and transparent legal institutions.
She concluded that the quality of governance ultimately depends not only on legal frameworks but also on the ability of states to promote talented individuals on the basis of merit.
#SPILF2026 #Meritocracy #RuleOfLaw #PublicAdministration #LegalEducation
Beginning with the origins of the term—merit (to deserve) and kratos (power)—Dr. Kneissl traced the historical evolution of meritocracy from the imperial examination system in China to the French civil service. She argued that meritocratic governance is based on transparent selection through knowledge, talent, experience, and achievement rather than personal connections. Referring to the French administrative model, she stressed that career advancement should depend on hard work, competitive examinations, and professional competence, while warning that bureaucracy, corruption, and nepotism undermine the effective implementation of laws and public institutions.
The lecture also examined the relationship between meritocracy and the rule of law. Dr. Kneissl emphasized that equal opportunities—not equal outcomes—should remain the guiding principle of a healthy society, where social mobility is earned through individual achievements. Drawing on historical examples, including the administrative practices of Genghis Khan, she illustrated how merit-based selection has contributed to effective governance across different civilizations. At the same time, she argued that theoretical knowledge alone is insufficient, as leadership also requires practical experience, judgment, and responsibility.
Concluding her lecture, Dr. Kneissl highlighted that an effective civil service is essential for the functioning of any state. Referring to Montesquieu’s The Spirit of Laws, she underlined the enduring importance of the separation of powers and transparent legal institutions.
She concluded that the quality of governance ultimately depends not only on legal frameworks but also on the ability of states to promote talented individuals on the basis of merit.
#SPILF2026 #Meritocracy #RuleOfLaw #PublicAdministration #LegalEducation
👏3❤2🆒2
Today, the G.O.R.K.I. Centre of St. Petersburg State University hosted the debate “What Has Happened to the Fundamental Principle of Law Pacta Sunt Servanda (‘Agreements Must Be Kept’): Current Assessment in the Light of the Anti-Russia Sanctions Imposed by the EU.” Moderated by Dr. Karin Kneissl, the discussion brought together legal scholars and practitioners to examine how sanctions have affected one of the fundamental principles of international law.
The debate focused on whether the principle of pacta sunt servanda continues to provide a reliable foundation for international legal and commercial relations in the current geopolitical environment. Participants discussed the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under sanctions, the impact of restrictive measures on contractual obligations, and the growing tension between legal certainty and political decision-making. Particular attention was paid to the relationship between European Union law and the obligations arising from international treaties, as well as the broader implications of sanctions for the stability of the international legal order.
The discussion also addressed the increasing politicisation of international law and the tendency to treat legal norms as instruments of policy rather than binding rules. Speakers reflected on the challenges this poses for international cooperation, emphasizing that selective application of legal principles weakens trust in legal institutions and undermines the predictability of international relations.
Concluding the debate, participants stressed that respect for international legal obligations remains essential for preserving confidence in international agreements and dispute resolution mechanisms. The discussion underscored that maintaining legal certainty and the consistent application of legal principles is crucial in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical landscape.
#GORKICentre #InternationalLaw #Sanctions #Arbitration #RuleOfLaw
The debate focused on whether the principle of pacta sunt servanda continues to provide a reliable foundation for international legal and commercial relations in the current geopolitical environment. Participants discussed the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under sanctions, the impact of restrictive measures on contractual obligations, and the growing tension between legal certainty and political decision-making. Particular attention was paid to the relationship between European Union law and the obligations arising from international treaties, as well as the broader implications of sanctions for the stability of the international legal order.
The discussion also addressed the increasing politicisation of international law and the tendency to treat legal norms as instruments of policy rather than binding rules. Speakers reflected on the challenges this poses for international cooperation, emphasizing that selective application of legal principles weakens trust in legal institutions and undermines the predictability of international relations.
Concluding the debate, participants stressed that respect for international legal obligations remains essential for preserving confidence in international agreements and dispute resolution mechanisms. The discussion underscored that maintaining legal certainty and the consistent application of legal principles is crucial in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical landscape.
#GORKICentre #InternationalLaw #Sanctions #Arbitration #RuleOfLaw
❤4👍3🍾3