Maritime Legal Update – February 2026
U.S.–Iran tensions and the Strait of Hormuz:
operational risks and English law charterparty implications
(prepared
by Marek Czernis & Co. Law Office, based on Skuld’s analysis published 20
Feb 2026)
Marek
Czernis & Co. Law Office | www.czernis.pl
1. Background – rising operational risk
Escalating
U.S.–Iran tensions have increased risks for transits through the Strait of
Hormuz, including attempted coercion into territorial waters,
seizure/confiscation, mines/drones/missiles, and a marked rise in GPS/AIS
jamming and spoofing, potentially causing off-course navigation,
collision/grounding and inadvertent entry into national waters.
Skuld notes
a MARAD advisory (9 Feb 2026) urging U.S.-flagged vessels to avoid Iranian
territorial waters when transiting, refuse boarding if requested, and keep AIS
operational unless otherwise directed by the U.S. Navy.
2. Legal status of Hormuz
Under
UNCLOS, Hormuz would qualify as a strait used for international navigation
(transit passage), but Iran has not ratified UNCLOS and disputes transit
passage rights under customary international law—making navigational freedoms
in the Strait legally contested.
3. Core English law charterparty implications
3.1. War risks clauses (CONWARTIME/VOYWAR –
2013/2025)
A blockade
would fall within “war risks” under CONWARTIME; threats against
U.S./allied-linked vessels may likewise trigger war risks clauses. Whether
AIS/GPS interference engages war risks is less clear but may, in some
circumstances, amount to an “act of hostility.”
Owners may
refuse to proceed where, in their/master’s reasonable judgement, the
vessel/crew/cargo may be exposed to war risks, with alternative
nomination/discharge mechanisms and cost allocation (time limits differ between
2013 and 2025 forms).
3.2. Reasonable judgement and assumed risks
The refusal
right depends on good faith and objective reasonableness and should be
supported by evidence (risk assessments, flag liaison, records). Clauses like
“Hormuz always allowed” may make refusal harder absent a qualitative
change in risk since fixture.
3.3. Safe port warranty
Port safety
encompasses physical and legal/political risks (including arbitrary detention).
Disputes are likely over ports requiring Hormuz transit as risk evolves.
4. Consequences of proceeding
Additional war risks premiums: reimbursement mechanics differ between CONWARTIME 2013 and 2025 (proof/“excessive premium” challenge).
Blocking & trapping insurance: consider for Persian Gulf trade where exit may be prevented by blockade/detention/confiscation.
AIS/GPS spoofing: may drive deviation/utmost despatch issues and even apparent entry into excluded/sanctioned places; seaworthiness preparedness should be assessed.
BIMCO AIS Switch Off Clause 2021: allocates roles and remedies regarding AIS use and breaches, including refusal/termination rights and evidentiary burden on alleged “intent to hide.”
5. Remedies and termination
Damages and implied indemnity may be available where illegitimate charterer orders cause loss (subject to causation and assumed risk).
Frustration requires radical change (cost/time alone insufficient); war risks clauses usually reduce frustration likelihood. Force majeure depends on express wording; cancellation rights may arise under VOYWAR.
6. Practical checklist
Safety
first; voyage-specific risk assessment; cooperation; strict notice compliance;
and bespoke additional clauses for Hormuz transits.