by Danielle Greyman-Kennard
Though US President Donald Trump has since abandoned the idea, he suggested that vessels should pay a 20% fee on all cargo transiting the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for US military protection.
 |
The United States’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz can be legal, even if the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) demands unimpeded passage through the vital waterway, so long as it respects the terms of the San Remo Manual, Adv. Yoav Harris of Harris & Co. Maritime Law Office explained to The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.
The manual demands that belligerents and neutral states be made fully aware of the blockade, that the blockade be effective, that it be enforced impartially against vessels from all nations, that it not be established for the sole purpose of starving civilians, and that humanitarian relief be allowed to reach the civilian population if it is inadequately provided for.
The US blockade came after Iran announced its own blockade of the Strait of Hormuz on March 4, 2026, shortly after the United States and Israel began striking the Islamic Republic.
Although both countries announced blockades, the actions are not viewed as equivalent under international law.
One key factor that Harris explained could determine why a US blockade might be considered legal while Iran’s is not is that the Islamic Republic failed to distinguish between enemy and neutral vessels crossing the strait, targeting all ships that allegedly failed to coordinate with the regime.
Iran's actions in Hormuz 'very close' to definition of piracy
“If we look into what Iran did here, it was simply firing at vessels going through the Strait of Hormuz. It has no basis in international law. It is very close to what is defined as piracy under the UN Convention, which refers to acts of violence carried out by a vessel or aircraft against other vessels,” he explained.
“The only distinction is that piracy is committed by private actors or by government vessels that have been taken over by their crews. When a state engages in such actions, it is simply not in accordance with international law.”
Unaddressed by Harris, though still relevant per the terms of the manual, is that Ebrahim Jabbari, a senior adviser to the commander-in-chief of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, announced in early March that only countries friendly to the regime would be allowed to cross Iran’s blockade, violating the need for impartial application.
As part of its ambitions in the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran has been explicit about its intention to charge vessels for transiting the waterway. Iranian officials estimate the regime could generate around $40 billion annually by levying fees for security, safety, and environmental services.
The Persian Gulf Strait Authority has also claimed it reserves the right to require vessels to purchase insurance in order to pass through the strait.
Dr. Lynette Nusbacher previously explained to the Post that while charging tolls for the waterway violates UNCLOS, nations are in fact allowed to ask for fees for services rendered.
Iran, however, cannot charge fees for safety while being responsible for the insecurity ships face if they don’t pay.
Likewise, Harris explained that a blockade doesn’t permit countries to fire at vessels, and so Iran’s actions do not constitute a “real blockade.”
“In a maritime blockade, you can stop vessels that are on their way to the enemy state to provide supplies for the war or any economic benefit. But when you make a naval blockade, you cannot shoot whoever goes through.
“You have to stop the vessel. You can search it. You have to make the differentiation between vessels which are military and vessels which are merchant, between vessels which are headed to your enemy and neutral vessels. So the differentiation should be made,” Harris said.
“There is a strict difference between the behavior of Iran, which is contrary to any international or traditional law, and the acts done by the United States, which are according to international law.”
No legal ground for charging fees for compulsory services
Harris explained that another key element making Iran’s demands a violation of international law is that services, which render fees, can be offered but not forced upon vessels. “You cannot make compulsory charges,” he asserted.
“There are no legal grounds for charging for compulsory services if a vessel does not want them. As far as we know, vessels can transit the Strait of Hormuz using the route closer to Oman, where there is no need for any security services from Iran. Yet Iran has fired on vessels using that route. So there is no genuine need for Iranian services,” he outlined.
“The same principle applies to the United States. It may choose to provide security services or not, but it cannot compel vessels to accept those services and then require them to pay for them.”
Though US President Donald Trump has since abandoned the idea, he suggested earlier this week that vessels should pay a 20% fee on all cargo transiting the Strait of Hormuz to the US in exchange for protection provided by the military, a suggestion Harris said was not permitted by law.
While the proposal differed from Iran’s, as the United States was offering protection against Iranian attacks and not itself creating the issue of insecurity, Harris argued that such a fee would still not be permitted under international law.
He explained that providing protection against piracy is not an optional commercial service but a legal obligation, meaning it cannot be conditioned on financial payment.
Trump, after dropping his 20% fee demand, has since said the US will be reimbursed through trade and investment deals with the Gulf states.
Danielle Greyman-Kennard
Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-902608
No comments:
Post a Comment