The Strait of Hormuz has once again moved to the center of global attention. Linking the Persian Gulf with the open ocean, it carries a substantial share of the world’s traded oil and liquefied natural gas. Any disruption—real or perceived—reverberates through energy markets, shipping lanes, and national economies. Yet beyond the headlines lies a crucial question: what does international law actually permit in Hormuz, and how far can coastal states go in controlling it?
Geographically, the strait is narrow. Iran to the north and Oman to the south each claim up to 12 nautical miles of territorial sea. This means the entire waterway falls within sovereign jurisdiction. At first glance, this would suggest that these states should be able to regulate, restrict, or even monetize passage. However, international maritime law takes a different view.
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Hormuz is classified as an international strait used for navigation. This classification triggers the regime of transit passage. Transit passage grants all ships and aircraft the right to move through such straits continuously and without hindrance.
This right is stronger than innocent passage. Coastal states retain sovereignty, but it is qualified sovereignty. They can adopt measures for safety and environmental protection, but they cannot suspend or deny passage, nor make it conditional.
This framework answers a key question: can Iran or Oman charge tolls? The answer is no. Transit passage is a right, not a service. Charges are allowed only for specific services such as pilotage or towing—not for simple passage.
In practice, law and geopolitics often diverge. Tensions can lead to disruptions without formal closure. A complete shutdown would be illegal, but partial interference is possible.
In conclusion, the Strait of Hormuz represents a delicate balance between law and power. International law guarantees passage and prohibits tolls, but real-world functioning depends on geopolitical stability.
