Maritime law only matters when great powers choose to respect it, not when they choose military force.
One strait, two interpretations of the law
Tensions around Hormuz are not simply a show of force — they represent a dispute over who has the authority to set the rules on one of the world's most critical shipping routes. According to East Asia Forum, Iran's Revolutionary Guards have published a map claiming control over a vast stretch of the strait, including the territorial waters of Oman and the United Arab Emirates, along with plans to levy transit fees and insurance payments in bitcoin. The issue is that the right of passage through international straits is established by Article 38 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and Article 44 prohibits coastal states from obstructing transit — principles considered customary international law even though the United States and Iran are not party to the convention.
When agreements are torn apart
Tensions escalated after the U.S. conducted airstrikes against Iran on Saturday, in response to an attack by the Revolutionary Guards on a vessel transiting through Hormuz, according to politicalwire.com. Per DW, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf accused Washington of violating an agreement signed between the two countries in June 2026 — a document in which Iran committed to making "arrangements" to ensure safe passage for merchant vessels. From Tehran's perspective, Washington's use of force instead of negotiation breaches that commitment; from Washington's perspective, Iran's self-proclaimed right to levy fees and fire warning shots at civilian ships is what violates international maritime order.
Winners and losers
According to The Guardian, U.S. Central Command struck at least 140 targets including Iranian missile facilities, naval assets, and communications networks, while Iran responded with missiles aimed at a U.S. air base in Qatar. LiveNOW from FOX noted this was the third round of U.S. airstrikes, while U.S. officials insist that ceasefire negotiations cannot move forward unless the strait is secured. The most concrete cost, at least in the near term, falls on the global energy supply chain and shipping companies forced to reroute or accept higher risks — an expense that ultimately American consumers, including Vietnamese Americans, will bear through fuel prices, no different from any other demographic group.
What to watch next
On Politico, the outlet confirmed briefly that the U.S. is conducting airstrikes against Iran in response to the civilian ship attack — but the larger question is whether mediation efforts led by Oman can salvage the ceasefire agreement. At the NATO summit, according to BBC, President Donald Trump said the U.S. "could" conduct further airstrikes against Iran and suggested the operation would be swift — a statement suggesting Washington views military force as the default tool rather than diplomacy. If Iran maintains its fee collection demands and the U.S. continues military retaliation, no international legal mechanism is strong enough to force both sides to comply — maritime law only matters when great powers choose to respect it.
Readers monitoring the energy market should closely watch meetings between Iranian and Omani foreign ministers and watch for sharp oil price swings if Hormuz — a shipping route carrying roughly one-fifth of global oil and gas production — remains closed.