Europe Chooses Iran's Felony Edge Over Strait of Hormuz Instead of Rule of Law

Iran’s selective closure of the Strait of Hormuz—allowing passage only to nations that pay a tribute of $2 million per ship and/or are allies or not regarded as supporters of the United States’ and Israel’s war on Iran—is testing the willingness of the world’s nations to enforce international maritime law. So far, except for a few nations including Israel, the United States, and a few Persian Gulf allies, no one seems interested in enforcing it.

It is illegal under international law for any party to stop civilian ships from passing through the Strait of Hormuz. With Iran on one shore and Oman on the other, Iran holds a clear geographic advantage. Oman tries to remain neutral out of fear of Iranian invasion, as Iranian positions are just 30 miles away. Since Oman would be the natural, logical location for gun emplacements (think The Guns of Navarone) to keep the strait open for non-Iranian vessels—by threatening to blast Iranian positions with modern artillery—it will be challenging for Oman to stay truly neutral. Perhaps Saudi Arabia will eventually buy Oman.

European unwillingness to enforce gross violations of international maritime law is an indicator of their preference to pay tribute to—or cooperate with—Iran rather than enforce laws as a matter of principle. Europe is like the merchant that pays protection money instead of funding law enforcement. Europe’s choice is like the “defund the police” movement in the United States. They feel safer by paying tribute to nations able to control key global waterways rather than fighting to keep them free. The United States could have let Germany win the First and Second World Wars and Communist China take South Korea by remaining neutral, if it had wanted to follow Europe’s example. Europe may tolerate Chilean gun emplacements to control the Strait of Magellan, Moroccan artillery and mines to control entry to the Mediterranean Sea, New Guinean control of the Torres Strait with help from China, Indonesian tolls on the Strait of Malacca, and joint U.S.-Russia and Canadian control of the Northwest and Northeast Passages as Arctic ice continues to melt. Europe has shown callous disregard for U.S. and Israeli security and believes the United States should have allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons and missiles to attack Israel and the United States.

It does seem that the world is largely choosing to ignore international law when it is convenient to do so. The issue of war does not entitle a nation to unilaterally stop free passage of shipping through international waterways by force, except perhaps against opposing force vessels. Here are the reasons why Iran’s practices of mining the Strait, charging a toll, and attacking neutral civilian shipping are illegal. Europe’s preference to attack or seize Russian vessels or ships of other nations carrying Russian oil to market is consistent with the principle of rule of force, piracy, and fealty to perpetrators.

Gemini-"Blocking international waterways like the Strait of Hormuz is illegal under international law, specifically the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), because they are recognized as essential straits used for international navigation. Under international law, such straits are governed by a "right of transit passage," which guarantees that ships of all countries have the right to freely navigate through them, meaning coastal states (like Iran and Oman) cannot legally close or suspend this passage.

Key Reasons for Illegality:
UNCLOS Articles 37-44: These articles dictate that all ships and aircraft have the right of transit passage through straits used for international navigation.
The Law of the Sea: While territorial waters extend into the Strait, the right of passage cannot be suspended for innocent transit, and blockades are not permitted in international straits.
Economic Impact: The Strait of Hormuz is a critical global artery, with roughly 20% of the world's oil consumption passing through it, making its blockage a violation of international economic stability.
Prohibition on Threats: International law prohibits the use of force or threats to block or harass commercial ships navigating these crucial waters.

While bordering countries like Iran can regulate navigation for safety or act against threats within their waters, they are restricted by this international legal framework from closing the strait to international traffic."

As of April 2026, Iran is restricting the Strait of Hormuz by forcing ships into a "tollbooth" system, demanding passage fees, conducting vessel inspections, and creating navigational risks with alleged mine laying. These actions violate international law, specifically the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) article on freedom of navigation and transit passage, by disrupting the movement of roughly 20% of the world's oil. 

Actions Violating International Law 

• Imposing Illegal Tolls: Iran is demanding payment for passage through the strait, which experts state violates maritime law and customary freedom of navigation.
• Forced Rerouting and Inspection: Iran has established a "tollbooth" system, forcing vessels, particularly those departing from the middle of the strait, to deviate to its Larak Island for inspection and extortionate, forced "service" charges.
• Laying Sea Mines/Attacks: Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) have been reported to be laying mines and attacking commercial vessels, creating an insecure environment and restricting transit.
• Limiting Daily Transit: Under a self-imposed "ceasefire" arrangement, Iran has restricted the number of vessels permitted to pass through the waterway daily. 

Legal Violations Explained

• Freedom of Navigation: The actions violate the principle of "transit passage" and "innocent passage" for ships that do not threaten coastal states, as established by UNCLOS.
• Right to Transit: While Iran has not ratified all parts of UNCLOS, it is bound by customary international law regarding the right of innocent passage.
• Military Action: Striking commercial ships and restricting civilian traffic is illegal, as international law limits a nation's right to defend itself to military targets. 

These actions, taken in response to the war with the US and Israel, have created significant global economic disruption and blocked critical supply routes

 

Preponderantly, Western Europe Doesn't Support of Defend Rule of Law Over Strait of Hormuz

 Western European nations don’t support the rule of law over international waters. The Strait of Hormuz is an international strait and it is illegal to force ships to pay protection money to pass it. Western European nations; especially France, are willing to pay tribute to Iran to let their ships pass, rather than to make the least effort to defend the rule of law that would also be convenient for them in this case.

Iran's ten point 'peace plan' is loaded with criminal propositions that make it implicitly void. It is interesting that the media and governments seem to be ignoring the illegality of Iran's document. Illegal contracts are invalid. Iran can't charge tolls over international waters.

Gemini summarized the rule of law paradigm for the Strait of Hormuz…

Gary-Isn’t the strait of hormuz supposed to be free to transit according to international maritime law?

Gemini-Yes, under international maritime law, the 

Strait of Hormuz is considered an “international strait” that should be free for transit passage. However, this legal status is currently at the center of a major geopolitical dispute involving differing interpretations of the law. 

1. The Right of Transit Passage (UNCLOS)

The primary framework is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which established the Transit Passage regime. 

• Non-Suspendable: Unlike “innocent passage” in other territorial waters, transit passage through international straits cannot be suspended by coastal states, even during armed conflict.
• Unimpeded Access: All ships and aircraft enjoy the right to continuous and expeditious passage without needing prior permission.
• Prohibition of Tolls: Article 26 of UNCLOS explicitly prohibits states from charging fees for mere passage. 

2. Iran’s Legal Counter-Argument

Iran’s position challenges this global consensus based on its specific treaty status: 

• Non-Ratification: Iran signed UNCLOS in 1982 but never ratified it. Tehran argues that transit passage is a “quid pro quo” for treaty members only and does not apply to non-parties.
• Innocent Passage vs. Transit Passage: Iran maintains that only the more restrictive Innocent Passage regime applies. This would legally allow them to:
  • Require prior authorization for warships and submarines.
  • Temporarily suspend passage for national security reasons.
• Wartime Justifications: Recently, Iranian officials have argued that ongoing hostilities (the 2026 Strait of Hormuz crisis) allow for “wartime rules” that supersede peacetime treaties. 

3. Current 2026 Crisis Developments

As of April 2026, Iran has taken several steps that most legal experts from organizations like Just Security and TRT World view as violations of international law:

• Selective Passage: Iran has reportedly blocked ships linked to the U.S., Israel, and their allies while allowing “friendly” nations like China and Russia to pass.
• Transit Tolls: Reports indicate Iran is drafting legislation to charge tolls (reportedly up to $2 million per transit) for “maritime security” services.
• Naval Mining: Allegations of naval mining have surfaced; while not strictly illegal in war, mining an international strait in a way that blocks neutral shipping is widely considered a violation of the San Remo Manual and Hague Convention.