The ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel has significant commercial and legal consequences for maritime transportation in and around the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait has not been officially closed yet. MarineTraffic data shows that tanker traffic was visibly ongoing as of June 2025. The region is perceived as being “semi-closed” in practice, and both ports and insurers have adjusted their pricing accordingly.
According to BIMCO reports, many shipowners are avoiding the area, risk premiums are rising, and certain freight rates are being negotiated again. In addition, the increased risk of attacks has caused insurance premiums to rise substantially. The Strait of Hormuz handles 17–20 million barrels of oil per day and this is approximately 18–20% of global LNG trade. Gas prices in Europe and Asia have already started to rise with TTF contracts reaching their highest levels since April.
Safety of the Crew and Shipowner Responsibility
Shipowners and captains are responsible for ensuring the safety of their crew According to the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC 2006). If sailing through a dangerous area poses a risk to crew members’ lives, shipowners may be entitled to refuse the voyage. The International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) has also made it clear that seafarers cannot be forced to work in active conflict zones.
Legal Status of the Strait of Hormuz
The Strait of Hormuz is considered an international strait according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). That gives all vessels the right of innocent passage (Articles 37–44). However, this right can be suspended during times of war or serious conflict risk, or cen be limited by coastal states as a security measure (Articles 25/3 and 38/1).
Iran may justify temporary restrictions on passage as legitimate security measures based on its territorial waters and domestic security concerns. In 2025, Iran has occasionally imposed temporary passage restrictions due to military exercises or vessel inspections. These actions have caused disruptions in international shipping and lengthened transit times.
Regional Implications for Turkey
Turkey might not directly affected by rising freight and fuel costs as an energy importing country but it is indirectly impacted. Higher oil and gas prices are likely to place pressure on inflation and exchange rates. On the other hand, infrastructure projects like TANAP and BOTAŞ’s FSRU terminals may provide Turkey with strategic opportunities as part of alternative energy corridors.
Legal Assessment of Charter Party Agreements
The current situation can be assessed under clauses found in time and voyage charter party agreements such as “war risk,” “force majeure,” “deviation,” and “safe port.” These clauses may allow greater flexibility in interpreting or suspending the obligations between shipowners and charterers.
War risk clauses can give a chans to shipowners for avoiding a voyage or be released from obligations when there is a threat of conflict. If the Strait of Hormuz or surrounding areas have been mentioned as a “war risk area” by insurers, shipowners may have the right to refuse to send their vessels into those waters. Force majeure clauses may excuse performance when events beyond the parties control occur. The specific wording of force majeure provisions is crucial, some contracts only recognize actions such as blockades or embargoes. BIMCO’s updated 2025 war risk clause templates have started to define such scenarios more clearly, and parties are encouraged to take these into account.
If the port or route is not considered “safe” by the shipowner, the master and owner may rely on the safe port clause to reject the voyage or request an alternative port. The Ocean Victory decision under English case law emphasized that the concept of a “safe port” includes also political and operational risks. In this environment, a deviation from the planned route may also become necessary. If the deviation is made for safety reasons and is considered a “reasonable deviation,” it will not be considered a breach of the carriage contract. However, cargo interests must be informed of any deviation, and it is essential to ensure that insurance coverage remains in effect, otherwise, the carrier may be held liable.
Last but not least, where contractual provisions concerning loading or delivery times are breached, claims for delay-related damages may rise again depending on whether the delay is attributable to the conflict. For this reason, it is strongly recommended that contracts be revisited and renegotiated in light of current conditions. In particular, revising and clearly defining force majeure and war risk clauses will be essential to enhance the legal protection available to shipowners.
