Publication Name

Environment and Security

The main question is whether the Caspian

should be considered a sea or a lake. The

answer to this question has considerable

implications for use of the resources of both

the Caspian’s surface waters and its sea-

bed. If the Caspian counts as a sea then

the United Nations Law of the Sea – the

Montego Bay Convention of 1982 – would

be the applicable body of law. In this case,

each littoral state would be allotted a strip of

coastal waters of a few tens of kilometres,

or in other words 12 nautical miles of territo-

rial waters as well as an exclusive economic

zone where states have sovereign rights

over surface water and seabed alike.

From 1921 to 1991, the Caspian was consid-

ered a lake, and its waters were consequently

divided by extensions of the land borderlines

by consensus of the bordering states, Iran and

the USSR. The status of the Caspian was then

regulated by bilateral international treaties and

national legislation. The resources of the sea

were considered to be the joint, exclusive prop-

erty of the two littoral states (Djalili and Kellner,

2003; Granmayeh, 2004). With the break-up of

the Soviet Union, the situation changed com-

pletely. There were now five states (instead of

two) each with an interest in the Caspian and

its resources

. To date the five countries are

still negotiating a regional convention on the

legal status of the Caspian but an overarching

agreement has yet to be reached on the divi-

sion of the Caspian waters and – indirectly - its

natural and mineral resources.

Clarifying the legal status of the Caspian Sea

is one of the key issues for regulating access

to its natural resources. Clear and agreed reg-

ulations increase the predictability of the situ-

ation, while at the same time decreasing the

political risks related to possible confrontation

over access to these resources. This in turn

makes the Caspian region more attractive to

global, regional and national investors.

The fact that the legal status of the Caspian

Sea is still an open question underlines this re-

ality and the weight of political and economical

interests in finding a common solution. At the

same time, states have been able to find coop-

erative solutions not only on a bilateral or trilat-

eral basis but also in a multilateral framework.

By ratifying the Framework Convention on the

Protection of the Marine Environment of the

Caspian Sea (Tehran Convention) that entered

into force in 2006, the signatories – all five bor-

dering states – signalled that they were willing

to search for common strategies to protect

the Caspian environment. These include the

prevention of pollution, the development of

preventive measures, and access to and ex-

change of information. Progress in negotiating

and implementing the Convention’s protocols

is “mixed” and further cooperation is urgently

required to achieve efficient control of human

activities affecting the Caspian’s marine envi-

ronment. In this context environmental issues

have become the basis for planning and im-

plementing common measures, allowing the

concerned states to improve stability and se-

curity in the region.

The ratification of the Tehran Convention

and the work done within the framework

A sea or a lake?

Beyond hydrology: the uncertain status of the Caspian Sea

trialized regions and especially China. The

conflicts in the Middle East and Afghanistan

have amplified the region’s overall insecu-

rity, increasing the risk of critical infrastruc-

ture becoming a target for terrorist attacks.

Furthermore other oil rich areas are increas-

ingly prone to instability, making it imperative

to protect – including by military means – in-

vestments in the energy sector and ensure

the constant flow of energy to the markets.