Navigating a Critical Issue: The Legal Status of the Strait of Hormuz in International Law

The Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and is indispensable to international energy trade. Its legal status remains contested because Iran signed but did not ratify the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), while Oman is a party. This article examines three questions: the treaty and customary rules governing passage; the rights and duties of coastal, belligerent, and neutral states during armed conflict; and the implications for maritime security and economic stability. Using doctrinal legal analysis, the article examines UNCLOS Part III, the 1958 Geneva Convention, the Corfu Channel judgment, the 1994 San Remo Manual, and documented state practice in Hormuz and comparable waterways. It argues that Iran’s 1982 declaration is relevant to, but does not conclusively establish, persistent-objector status, and that the customary minimum of non-suspendable innocent passage cannot simply be displaced by unilateral security claims. The transit-passage regime affords additional rights whose customary reach requires careful evaluation. The analysis distinguishes lawful navigation-safety and pollution controls from discriminatory tolls, indiscriminate interdiction, and closure, while recognizing the jurisdictional limits of UNCLOS dispute settlement vis-à-vis non-parties. It concludes that cooperative incident management, evidence-based restraint, and enforceable environmental safeguards provide a more legally defensible policy response than unilateral restrictions on international navigation.