Iran says it struck ships in Strait of Hormuz after US launches new strikes

Recent reports indicate that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) claims to have struck ships in the Strait of Hormuz, purportedly in response to new US military strikes on Iran. This development raises critical questions under international law, particularly concerning the prohibition on the use of force, the right of self-defence, and the fundamental principle of freedom of navigation through international straits. The incident underscores the volatile geopolitical landscape of the region and the complex interplay of treaty law and customary international law governing maritime conduct and state sovereignty. Legal practitioners must consider the implications for international shipping, state responsibility, and the potential for escalation in an already tense global environment.

For legal professionals, understanding the multifaceted legal framework governing such incidents is paramount. This article will delve into the relevant principles of international law, including the United Nations Charter's prohibition on the use of force and the right to self-defence, as well as the intricate regime of maritime passage through international straits under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and customary international law. It will examine the potential legal ramifications of Iran's alleged actions and the US strikes, considering issues of state responsibility and the broader impact on international legal order.

Beyond maritime law, the legality of the reported strikes is governed by the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter concerning the use of force. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter unequivocally prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. The primary exception to this prohibition is the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence, as enshrined in Article 51, which may be exercised in response to an "armed attack." The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the *Nicaragua* case clarified that only the "most grave forms of attack" qualify as an armed attack for the purposes of Article 51, and any self-defence measures must be both necessary and proportionate to the armed attack.

The implications of such actions extend beyond the immediate parties. The Strait of Hormuz is critical for global energy supplies, and any disruption impacts numerous states. Under the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, obligations relating to freedom of navigation in international straits are considered to have an *erga omnes* character, meaning that not only directly affected states but also other maritime and trading nations may invoke responsibility. This could lead to collective responses, including diplomatic pressure, economic measures, or even recourse to the UN Security Council.

Attorneys advising clients involved in international shipping, trade, or regional security must closely monitor developments and be prepared to assess potential liabilities, insurance implications, and compliance with international sanctions or countermeasures. The international community, through diplomatic channels and potentially the UN Security Council, will be pressed to de-escalate the situation and uphold the rule of law to prevent further disruption to global commerce and maintain regional stability. The ongoing dispute over the legal status of the Strait of Hormuz and the interpretation of customary international law will continue to be a focal point for international legal discourse and state practice.