When war hits shipping: Hormuz and the global fight over sea lanes | DW News

Key Concepts

• Maritime Choke Point: A narrow channel of water that is critical for global trade, particularly for oil and gas.
• UNCLOS (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea): The foundational treaty governing maritime rights, including "innocent passage."
• Transit Regime: Rules established by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for safe passage through international straits.
• Customary Law: Unwritten legal norms that states often revert to when formal treaties are contested or deemed inapplicable during wartime.
• Belligerent States: Nations actively participating in a conflict, whose shipping may be subject to blockade under wartime legal interpretations.
• Rules-Based Order: The international framework of laws and institutions governing state behavior at sea.

1. The Crisis in the Strait of Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz is a vital global artery, facilitating the transport of approximately 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas. Currently, it is the site of a "de facto double blockade": Iran is exerting control over shipping, while the United States has implemented a naval blockade targeting Iranian ports. This situation has effectively paralyzed a critical trade route and highlighted the fragility of maritime security when geopolitical conflict overrides international law.

2. Legal Frameworks and Their Limitations

Professor Christian Bueger of the University of Copenhagen identifies two primary legal regimes that govern maritime activity:

• UNCLOS: Guarantees "innocent passage," provided the vessel does not endanger the coastal state.
• IMO Transit Regime: Provides specific technical rules for safe passage through straits.

The Core Problem: These frameworks are designed for peacetime. Once a "warlike situation" emerges, the applicability of these rules becomes highly contested. States often pivot to customary law, which is far more ambiguous. The central legal dilemma involves defining when a commercial vessel is "linked" to a belligerent party. Because modern shipping is highly globalized—with ships often flagged, owned, insured, and operated by different nations—determining a vessel's status in a conflict is legally complex and prone to political manipulation.

3. Geopolitical Implications and Precedents

The current instability in the Strait of Hormuz is not an isolated incident but part of a broader trend of states asserting political control over vital waterways.

• Historical Context: The U.S. has previously asserted similar control over the Panama Canal.
• Global Risk: The lack of clear, modern legal provisions regarding naval mines, blockade boundaries, and transit rights creates a dangerous precedent. If not addressed, this instability could spread to other critical choke points, such as the Strait of Malacca, the Suez Canal, and the Taiwan Strait.

4. Proposed Solutions and Strategic Outlook

Professor Bueger argues that military solutions alone are insufficient to resolve what is fundamentally a structural legal problem.

• Short-term: European nations and other allies are organizing naval coalitions to provide escorts and mine-clearing capabilities to reassure the shipping industry.
• Long-term: There is an urgent need for a new, stable governance regime. This could involve a new treaty mechanism similar to those used in the Strait of Malacca or updated transit protocols via the IMO.
• Realistic Timeline: While planners often suggest short-term missions (3–6 months), Bueger suggests that naval operations in the region will likely persist for 2 to 5 years.

5. Synthesis: Erosion vs. Evolution

While the current situation represents a period of "heavy contestation," it does not necessarily signal the total collapse of the international order. The fact that the U.S. continues to seek legitimacy through the UN Security Council suggests that international institutions remain relevant.

Conclusion: The crisis in the Strait of Hormuz serves as a critical "stress test" for maritime law. Rather than returning to the pre-conflict status quo—which was already unstable—the international community has an opportunity to develop more robust, realistic, and transparent rules for maritime governance that can withstand the pressures of modern geopolitical conflict.