6 Comments
User's avatar
Hailu Serekeberhan's avatar

Hi Yusra, Your note is very informative and clear knowledge for understanding the strait of Hormuz & the UNCLOS.

Andrew Sebiranda Kaggwa's avatar

Thank You for enlightening us in the legal paradigms of this conflict.

I share my thoughts on the derailing impact it inflicts on the already existing fragile ceasefire agreement. Now with the seizure of the Iranian tank that occurred over the weekend due to the US blockade, doesn't this exacerbate diplomatic and negotiation measures? Additionally, the thousands of troops from US that where deployed in the Middle East, what message does Iran pick from this! To me, it becomes difficult to fully trust a party that has violated the trust, no wonder the negotiations in Islamabad flopped after 21hours effort. Nevertheless, we hope ultimately that Diplomacy shall prevail.

Dr Yusra Suedi (SAIL)'s avatar

Absolutely. It’s a massive legal and diplomatic mess and difficult to get out of it once trust is eroded. Let’s see what round two of ceasefire negotiations brings.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 20Edited
Comment deleted
Dr Yusra Suedi (SAIL)'s avatar

Hi Greg!

Yes, there are solid provisions, but with a frustrating catch. The San Remo Manual (the main codification of naval warfare IHL) explicitly requires a blockading power to allow passage of medical supplies and food essential to civilian survival. Vessels on humanitarian missions are listed as specifically protected from interdiction. Customary IHL (which binds all states, treaty or not) prohibits deliberate starvation of civilians and obstruction of humanitarian relief. Starvation as a weapon in an international armed conflict is also a war crime under the Rome Statute. But the catch: IHL doesn't give humanitarian shipments an automatic right of passage that overrides the blockade entirely. The blockading power retains the right to inspect and verify cargo. And crucially, the US will likely argue its blockade is targeted at military/dual-use goods, not humanitarian supplies… putting the burden on others to prove otherwise in each instance. The 'dual-use' framing (which you rightly flag re bridges and roads) is exactly the same legal move; it doesn't eliminate the obligation, but it muddies enforcement. Hope that helps!

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 27
Comment deleted