Context: Escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz have raised critical questions about the legality of maritime interceptions, blockades, and restrictions on global shipping routes, with implications for global trade and energy security.
Legal Framework Governing International Waters
- The UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) (1994) establishes that oceans are global commons governed by shared rules.
- Freedom of navigation: Merchant ships enjoy unhindered passage on the high seas, which are beyond national jurisdiction.
- Interference is allowed only in specific cases such as UNSC authorisation, piracy, stateless vessels, or flag-state consent.
- Ships may pass through territorial waters as long as they do not pose a security threat to the coastal state.
- Thus, the international law seeks to balance sovereignty with global mobility of trade.
Special Legal Status of the Strait of Hormuz
- Transit passage regime: Since the strait is narrow and overlaps with Iran and Oman’s territorial waters, UNCLOS provides for “transit passage” instead of full freedom of navigation.
- Rights of ships: All vessels have the right to continuous and unhindered passage through the strait.
- Limitations on coastal states: Iran cannot block, regulate, or impose tolls on transit of merchant ships.
- Permissible restrictions: Ships must follow designated routes, avoid delays, and not engage in activities beyond transit.
- The strait remains an international passage, not a controlled national waterway.
Assessment of U.S. and Iran Actions
- U.S. actions:
- Imposed a blockade of Iranian ships, largely through deterrence and interception. It has seized vessels (e.g., Touska, Tifani) in international waters citing sanctions.
- However, U.S. sanctions are unilateral and not backed by UN authorisation, raising legal concerns.
- Iran’s actions:
- Attempted to control transit and impose tolls in the strait.
- Detained ships and fired upon vessels, including those with Indian links.
- Such actions violate UNCLOS provisions guaranteeing free transit passage.
- Therefore, both sides operate in a grey zone, but Iran’s restrictions on transit directly challenge international law.
Key Issues and Implications
- Weaponisation of chokepoints: Strategic waterways like Hormuz are increasingly used as tools of geopolitical leverage.
- Threat to global trade and energy security: Disruptions reduced ship traffic from ~100 vessels daily to a handful, affecting oil supply chains.
- Impact on India: India, heavily dependent on West Asian energy, faces direct risks to energy imports and maritime trade.
- Erosion of multilateral norms: Increasing unilateral actions undermine rules-based global order.
Way Forward
- Strengthen adherence to UNCLOS principles and freedom of navigation.
- Engage through institutions like IMO and UN platforms for conflict resolution.
- Both state and non-state actions must avoid militarisation of trade routes.
- Ensure strategic chokepoints remain neutral and accessible to all nations.
- Maintain strategic neutrality while ensuring energy security and safe maritime passage.
Conclusion
- The Strait of Hormuz crisis highlights the fragile balance between national interests and international legal norms. Thus, sustaining a stable global order requires reinforcing the principle that global commons must remain free, open, and governed by shared rules and not unilateral control.