Alarm for Mediterranean and Adriatic Ports

The issue of free passage through the Strait of Hormuz remains largely overlooked in mainstream media, despite its direct impact on energy supplies from the Persian Gulf and global maritime trade routes, particularly those heading to Mediterranean and Adriatic ports.

With ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran, it appears Iran has secured the right to impose fees for passage through Hormuz, albeit disguised as contributions for infrastructure maintenance and security. The fifth article of the memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran stipulates the restoration of previous traffic volumes for the first 60 days, requiring designated shipping lanes due to mine presence. Crucially, this article also grants Iran and Oman the right to determine navigation routes and establish internal regulations "in accordance with international law and the sovereign right of the coastal states of the strait."

“

In this formulation lies the key legal dilemma.

This phrasing presents a significant legal dilemma. While Article 42 of the UNCLOS convention allows coastal states to adopt regulatory measures that may partially restrict freedom of navigation for reasons such as safety, environmental protection, or fishing, its interpretation is contentious, especially in a shifting international landscape where free trade principles are increasingly challenged by national sovereignty claims. The core question is whether this change in the practical implementation of free transit rights could expand globally, setting a dangerous precedent.

The strategic weight of this precedent becomes evident when considering other vital chokepoints. The Bab-el-Mandeb strait, at the southern entrance to the Red Sea, has already seen reduced traffic due to attacks on merchant ships. Implementing a similar fee structure as proposed for Hormuz would add further costs to vessels already paying Suez Canal transit fees. The cumulative effect could force trade routes to detour around the African continent, significantly impacting maritime logistics and the economies reliant on them.

“

The central question is whether such a change in the actual realization of the principle of free navigation can be extended globally and establish a dangerous precedent – especially since the provision in question can be meaningfully linked to a more or less tacit agreement between Russia, China, and the United States, whose influence marked a large part of the content of the memorandum.