The Legal Regime of the Strait of Hormuz

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the legal regime governing passage through the Strait of Hormuz and evaluate the persistent tension between coastal-state sovereignty and the rights of international navigation. To achieve this, the study employs a doctrinal-analytical methodology supplemented by descriptive and comparative elements, examining the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), customary international law, judicial precedents (such as the Corfu Channel case), and official state practice. The results indicate that for States Parties to UNCLOS, the strait is strictly governed by the regime of transit passage; meanwhile, for non-parties like Iran, the fallback customary rule of non-suspendable innocent passage remains a decisive safeguard, firmly rejecting any legal basis for unilateral closure, discriminatory restrictions, or unilateral toll schemes, while preserving the coastal states' limited regulatory authority over navigational safety and environmental protection. Based on these findings, the study recommends framing the legal discourse around the concept of "constrained sovereignty," operationalizing Article 43 cooperative frameworks for safety and pollution response, calibrating Freedom of Navigation operations (FONOPs) to prevent accidental escalation, and anchoring all legal claims in official texts rather than political shorthand. The originality of this study lies in its comprehensive analytical framework, which synthesizes previously fragmented legal analyses—spanning treaty law, judicial precedent, state practice, and energy-security data—into a unified model that bridges the gap between abstract legal doctrine and the practical, strategic realities of one of the world's most critical maritime chokepoints.