Maritime and legal experts warned that a proposed plan to collect transit fees from ships in the Strait of Hormuz is a flagrant violation of international law, branding the move an illegal attempt to extort payments from one of the world’s most vital waterways.
The warning follows US President Donald Trump’s approval of ten Iranian ceasefire terms, which reportedly include provisions for Tehran to collect fees as compensation for war damages sustained during the recent assault. While Trump touted the deal on Truth Social, claiming “big money will be made,” legal specialists argue the proposal functions as a “protection racket” that lacks any basis in United Nations maritime charters.
Under the two-week truce, Tehran is seeking to recoup losses from the conflict by taxing vessels in the strait it closed in early March. Trump signaled the US would assist in easing traffic congestion, noting that the military would remain “close by” to oversee the new arrangement.
Ahmed El-Shami, maritime transport consultant and professor of transport economics and feasibility studies, said that international natural passages cannot have fees imposed for transit according to international law and United Nations charters.
El-Shami told Al Manassa that international charters allow the collection of fees in natural passages only in exchange for providing actual services to ships in the economic zones belonging to those countries, such as pilotage, bunkering, or cargo handling, as happens in Oman.
He added, “Iran does not have authority to impose these fees, and the United States does not have authority to accept or reject on behalf of the international community,” noting that such a step would not be accepted by global shipping companies, especially in light of previous incidents of what he described as “fees in exchange for non-targeting.”
El-Shami also questioned the possibility of implementing previous proposals from the US President regarding the internationalization of the strait or its international management, considering them lacking a legal basis and that they would not pass at the United Nations, warning that opening this door might push other countries to move similarly in vital passages.
El-Shami’s view was confirmed by Major General Mahfouz Taha, former director of the Naval Academy and former vice-chairman of the Suez Canal Economic Zone, who said that international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, clearly distinguishes between natural straits and artificial canals.
Taha told Al Manassa that passage in international straits, such as Hormuz, is carried out according to the principle of “innocent passage,” which guarantees freedom of navigation as long as it is not used for military purposes, unlike canals such as Suez or Panama, which are industrial projects subject to the sovereignty of the states that established and manage them and collect fees from them.
Taha warned that imposing fees on natural straits might open the door to “chaos in the global navigational system,” asking “Can fees be imposed on the Strait of Malacca, through which hundreds of thousands of ships pass annually? Impossible.”
Mohamed Mahmoud Mahran, a lawyer specializing in international law, emphasized that the Iranian proposal to impose transit fees on “innocent passage” represents a flagrant violation of international law and contradicts the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees freedom of transit in international straits without restrictions.
Mahran explained to Al Manassa that Article 38 of the convention explicitly stipulates the right of all ships and aircraft to transit passage, while Article 44 prohibits coastal states from obstructing this passage or imposing fees on it, except in limited cases related to actual navigational services.
He added that any fees must be non-discriminatory and tied to specific services rendered at their actual cost, conditions that are not met by attempts to impose general transit levies.
During the war, Iran granted permission to ships from China, France, Turkey, India, and Pakistan to pass through the strait, while refusing the passage of others and directing strikes at them.
While the Iranian proposal remains within the framework of negotiation, experts warn that moving forward with such a step might push the international community to move to ensure freedom of navigation, including resorting to UN resolutions that might escalate to the use of force.
