Strait of Hormuz Crisis — UNCLOS Transit Passage, Maritime Law & India’s Energy Security

CURRENT AFFAIRS | 11 APRIL 2026

CLAT GK + INTERNATIONAL LAW

Retired Navy Chief Admiral Arun Prakash has written a penetrating analysis of the Strait of Hormuz crisis through the lens of international maritime law. Following the US-Israeli attack and Iran’s subsequent closure of the Strait, the world’s most critical oil chokepoint has become the site of a collision between geopolitical leverage and legal principles that govern the freedom of the seas.

The Strategic Importance of Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz, connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, is barely 33 kilometres wide at its narrowest point. Yet roughly one-fifth of global oil supply passes through it daily. For India, the stakes are particularly high: the country depends on the Strait for approximately 40% of its oil imports, making any disruption a direct threat to national energy security.

The economic impact has been immediate and devastating. Maritime insurance rates have jumped from $0.40 to $6.00 per cent of cargo value — a fifteen-fold increase that translates directly into higher costs for imported goods, particularly petroleum products. This insurance spike alone adds billions to India’s import bill.

UNCLOS: The Constitution of the Oceans

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982) — often called the “Constitution of the Oceans” — establishes the legal framework governing maritime spaces. Two concepts are central to the Hormuz crisis:

Transit Passage (Article 38): This right applies to straits used for international navigation. Ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which means continuous and expeditious passage through the strait. Crucially, transit passage cannot be suspended by the strait state — unlike innocent passage, which can be temporarily suspended. The strait state may adopt laws relating to safety, pollution prevention, and fishing, but cannot impede transit passage.

Innocent Passage (Articles 17-19): This is a more limited right applying to territorial seas. Passage must be continuous, expeditious, and not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state. Unlike transit passage, innocent passage can be temporarily suspended by the coastal state for security reasons.

The Corfu Channel Precedent

The Corfu Channel Case (ICJ, 1949) — one of the first cases decided by the International Court of Justice — is directly relevant. The ICJ held that Albania could not prevent British warships from passing through the Corfu Channel (an international strait) during peacetime. The Court established that states bordering international straits cannot deny passage to ships of other nations, even in situations of political tension.

Iran’s position challenges this precedent by arguing that closure is justified as self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter following armed attack. This creates a direct conflict between the right of passage under UNCLOS and the right of self-defence under the UN Charter — a conflict that international law has not definitively resolved.

India’s Maritime Zones Act 1976

India’s own maritime legislation — the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 — defines India’s maritime zones consistent with UNCLOS. The Act establishes India’s territorial waters (12 nautical miles), contiguous zone (24 nautical miles), and EEZ (200 nautical miles). India has consistently supported freedom of navigation in international straits, a position that aligns with its dependence on Hormuz.