Ceasefire Talks Between Iran, US, and Israel: Legal Implications of the Strait of Hormuz

The ongoing ceasefire negotiations between Iran, the United States, and Israel have raised critical questions about the legal ownership of the Strait of Hormuz. As discussions are set to continue in Islamabad, the implications of international maritime law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, come into focus. This article delves into the legal frameworks governing maritime navigation, the positions of the International Maritime Organization, and the contrasting arguments presented by Iran. With a significant coalition of nations condemning the blockade, the situation remains precarious, highlighting the need for adherence to international law to maintain global peace and trade stability.

By Narendra Chaudhary Apr 15, 2026, 20:57 IST

Ceasefire Extension and Ongoing Negotiations

The ceasefire agreement involving Iran, the United States, and Israel appears to have been prolonged for an additional two weeks. This development comes as the second round of discussions is anticipated to take place in Islamabad within the next couple of days, amidst the ongoing tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz. Countries affected economically by the blockade are increasingly aligning themselves with one side or the other in this escalating crisis. While these negotiations are crucial for global stability, a pressing question remains: who has jurisdiction over the waters that have become the focal point of this conflict?

Legal Framework Governing the Strait

Understanding International Maritime Law

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), established in 1982 after extensive negotiations, serves as the foundational legal framework for international maritime law. Article 44 explicitly states that nations bordering an international strait cannot obstruct maritime traffic, suspend this right, or impose tolls. This obligation is unwavering, irrespective of wartime conditions or national security claims.

This provision was not included by chance; it was a result of negotiations where coastal nations sought to extend their territorial waters. Major naval powers, including the United States and the Soviet Union, agreed to this extension but insisted on a guaranteed transit passage regime for straits within the newly defined territorial limits. The Strait of Hormuz, measuring approximately 21 nautical miles at its narrowest point, falls within these parameters, with Iran and Oman asserting sovereignty over these waters.

International Maritime Organization's Stance

IMO's Clear Position on Navigation Rights

In March, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) convened an extraordinary session, reaffirming that attacks on vessels in the Strait of Hormuz are unlawful and that the right to free navigation must be upheld. This message was reiterated by Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez in April, emphasizing that no nation has the authority to block an international strait. Iran's demand for tolls was also deemed a violation of international law, as was the blockade imposed by the United States.

On April 15, following the announcement of the blockade, former President Trump claimed on social media that he was facilitating the opening of the Strait of Hormuz for China and the world, suggesting a cooperative approach while also asserting military readiness if necessary. However, the situation remains uncertain, with no vessels currently enjoying free passage through the strait.

Iran's Justification and Legal Challenges

Iran's Defense and Legal Implications

Iran has argued that its actions are necessary to prevent aggressors from exploiting the strait. However, legal experts have pointed out that the term 'supporters' lacks a legal basis, allowing Iran to arbitrarily decide which vessels can pass. The tolls imposed by Iran further complicate matters, as they do not align with the provisions of UNCLOS, which only permits charges for specific services rendered without discrimination.

Iran's fee structure appears to favor ships from nations it considers friendly while imposing exorbitant charges on those it does not, which constitutes coercion rather than legitimate port fees.

Global Response and Legal Consequences

International Consensus and Ongoing Violations

In March, 135 nations co-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 2817, marking the largest coalition for a single resolution in history, which declared the blockade of the Strait a threat to global peace. Despite this, the United States subsequently announced a naval blockade of Iranian ports in the same region, leading to mutual violations of international law by both parties. The legal framework established in 1982 was designed to prevent such crises, yet major powers continue to disregard it.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has warned that further escalation could lead to a long-term energy crisis affecting humanity as a whole. The legal principles established to maintain open trade routes are crucial, as disruptions can have widespread economic repercussions. Ultimately, the strait belongs to the sea, which is not owned by any single nation.