Over 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas pass through the Strait of Hormuz, making this narrow waterway one of the most strategically important maritime chokepoints in the global energy system. Due to its vital role in international trade, the Strait has come under increased scrutiny as international legal and diplomatic frameworks face renewed challenges. Rising tensions in the region, especially after U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, have further escalated with Iran’s parliament approving a motion to close the Strait. This article critically evaluates the feasibility and legality of Iran’s potential actions regarding the closure of the Strait from the perspective of international law, especially concerning the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). While Iran may assert strategic and legal justifications based on notions of economic self-defense and sovereignty, it is argued that such actions would likely breach the non-suspendable right of transit passage that is essential for global maritime navigation. Furthermore, any attempt to close the Strait could lead to serious diplomatic tensions, substantial financial costs, and even possible military responses from the international community. Given these challenges, the paper concludes by proposing a comprehensive new maritime law framework. This framework would include multilateral diplomacy, strong management of strategically vital chokepoints, and flexible responses to evolving threats from both states and non-state actors. Strengthening international maritime security requires cooperative strategies to navigate these complex geopolitical issues.
Rafiq et al. (Wed,) studied this question.