The Strait of Hormuz Crisis and International Law

Anas Al-Tayeb Al-Jilani

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz as a result of the Israeli–American war against Iran, which began on the morning of Saturday, February 28, 2026, has led to massive economic repercussions. Its negative impacts are no longer confined to the countries of the region; rather, they have extended to global energy security and supply chains. No country in the world remains immune from its adverse effects on national economies. The energy crisis and rising prices are expected to persist even after the war ends, due to the damage and destruction inflicted on oil and gas facilities and the petrochemical industry.

Major Asian countries such as China, India, Japan, and South Korea had been importing approximately 90% of their energy needs from the Gulf and the Middle East through the Strait of Hormuz. According to the latest statistics from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the Middle East accounts for 48% of the world’s oil and gas reserves—nearly half of global reserves—while liquefied natural gas reserves represent about 40% of the global total.

The Middle East is also home to some of the world’s most critical maritime routes. In addition to the Strait of Hormuz, there are the Bab al-Mandab Strait and the Suez Canal. The region’s geostrategic location facilitates the passage of the largest volume of trade flows between Asia and Europe. However, the crisis and its security and political ramifications have raised numerous questions from the perspective of international law. Here, I focus on the legal dimension of closing the Strait of Hormuz.

A logical question arises these days: following the United States’ acceptance of Iran’s ten conditions as a framework for negotiations, do the two countries have the right to decide on the movement of commercial vessels, impose fees on them, and share the revenues between the coastal state and the United States? Or is there an established body of international law governing this matter? What are the mechanisms of international law that regulate navigation in international waterways and territorial seas, while also addressing disputes and methods of settlement?

In fact, the development of an international legal framework governing the law of the seas and oceans dates back many years. International law has gone through multiple stages of evolution until the international community began formal negotiations in 1973. These deliberations continued for ten consecutive years, culminating in the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in Jamaica on December 10, 1982. The Convention consists of 320 articles, in addition to annexes and amendments that form an integral part of it.

One of the most important objectives of UNCLOS is to define the rights and duties of both coastal and landlocked states, regulate the use of seas and oceans in a fair and peaceful manner, protect the marine environment, organize and exploit seabed resources, and define maritime zones such as territorial waters, exclusive economic zones, continental shelves, and the high seas.

This leads to the conclusion that any attempt to conduct bilateral negotiations in which the United States and Iran unilaterally decide—without involving the Gulf states and other countries of the Middle East, and without regard for international agreements and maritime law—would establish a dangerous legal precedent. Its consequences would be devastating, potentially encouraging other coastal states to act in kind, thereby undermining international law and stripping its dispute-resolution mechanisms of their effectiveness.

Imposing fees on maritime routes would not only affect national economies but would also directly impact ordinary citizens in all countries—developed, developing, and least developed alike.

UNCLOS comprehensively regulates international waterways and grants states the right of what is known as “transit passage,” as in the case of the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Gibraltar. The Convention guarantees the right of ships to pass without obstruction from coastal states, as these straits are considered natural maritime corridors connecting the high seas with the exclusive economic zones of coastal states. It also allows passage through straits linking territorial seas of different states, provided that such passage does not pose a security threat to coastal states.

Adherence to the Convention is crucial because it governs maritime navigation and trade, which constitute a lifeline for all peoples of the world. It also provides mechanisms for resolving maritime disputes through legal means. The Convention established the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, headquartered in Hamburg, Germany, as well as the International Seabed Authority, based in Kingston, Jamaica.

Article 26 of UNCLOS clearly and unambiguously addresses the issue of imposing fees on foreign vessels. It states: “No charge may be levied upon foreign ships by reason only of their passage through the territorial sea; nor may charges be levied upon a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea except as payment for specific services rendered to the ship. These charges shall be levied without discrimination.”

Furthermore, Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter, particularly Article 33, provides ample scope for the peaceful settlement of international disputes in order to avoid the destruction resulting from the use of force. International law and the law of the sea offer a comprehensive framework for resolving disputes and regulating maritime navigation. Any deviation from these standards would plunge the world into a dark tunnel, creating chaos with no benefit, leaving nations to reap nothing but devastation, ruin, and hardship.