Strait of Hormuz Between Media Interpretations and International Law – An Article by H.E. Dr. Abdulla Belhaif Al Nuaimi
In recent times, the Strait of Hormuz has witnessed a surge in media narratives and a wide range of interpretations, some accurate and others far from precise. The strait has increasingly become a focal point for rapid analyses that are not always grounded in international legal frameworks or in a well-established historical understanding. This confusion has been further amplified by certain media outlets drawing comparisons between the Strait of Hormuz and other straits that differ fundamentally in their legal nature—particularly those governed by the Montreux Convention, such as the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles.
Given the spread of these comparisons, it has become essential to clarify the fundamental differences between these straits, and to explain what applies—and what does not—to each. This includes the fact that the Strait of Hormuz is not subject to the 12-nautical-mile territorial limit rule, as its navigational channels lie entirely within the territorial waters of coastal states. Nevertheless, it remains governed by the right of transit passage, which supersedes such limitations.
From this standpoint, I found it important to present an analytical perspective based on my experience as a former UAE official responsible for maritime transport, as well as on the clear principles established by the International Maritime Organization regarding freedom of navigation and transit rights in international straits.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) emphasized in its statement issued on March 16 that any violation of transit freedom in the Strait of Hormuz constitutes a breach of international maritime law. It stressed that the strait is governed by the regime of transit passage, which must not be obstructed or restricted through unilateral measures. The organization also called for adherence to international navigation rules, the protection of commercial vessels and seafarers, and the avoidance of any actions that could threaten maritime safety or the stability of global trade. This position comes amid a global context of increasing reliance on vital maritime routes, accompanied by growing risks of inaccurate interpretations that may mislead public understanding of such straits.
The Strait of Hormuz serves as the primary maritime outlet of the Arabian Gulf to the Indian Ocean, with nearly one-fifth of the world’s oil trade passing through it—making it an indispensable artery for the global economy. At its narrowest point, it measures between 33 and 39 kilometers in width, while the designated navigational lanes do not exceed 6 kilometers. Although these lanes lie within the territorial waters of Iran and Oman, international law grants vessels the right of transit passage—a right that cannot be suspended even during periods of tension. This renders the strait an international passage by virtue of usage and necessity, not because it lies outside coastal sovereignty. Accordingly, sovereignty over the strait entails international responsibility, and safeguarding navigation within it is a global duty.
Historically, Arab and Islamic geography recognized this strait by several names reflecting its commercial significance and its connection to major Gulf ports. Among these were Bab Al-Salam, Bab Al-Basra, Bab Al-Bahr, Bahr Makran, and Bahr Fars. These names appeared in the works of Arab geographers such as Ibn Khordadbeh, Ibn Hawqal, Al-Ya‘qubi, Al-Idrisi, and Yaqut Al-Hamawi, within the context of describing maritime routes between India and Mesopotamia. The modern name “Hormuz” is linked to the Kingdom of Hormuz, which flourished between the 10th and 16th centuries. Portuguese forces adopted this local name during their occupation of the island in 1515, contributing to its global dissemination through European maps, though they were not the originators of the name.
In contrast, the Bosphorus represents a model of a strait fully controlled by a coastal state within a defined international legal framework. It connects the Black Sea to the Sea of Marmara and is entirely governed by Turkey, operating under the Montreux Convention of 1936. This convention regulates the passage of commercial vessels, imposes clear restrictions on warships, and grants Turkey broad authority during wartime or when facing direct threats. The same applies to the Dardanelles, making both straits legally distinct from the Strait of Hormuz, which is not governed by a specific treaty but rather by the general provisions of the law of the sea.
Meanwhile, the Strait of Malacca—located between Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore—is one of the busiest maritime routes in the world and a central axis of Asian trade. Despite its importance, it is not governed by a transit passage regime but rather by joint management among the three states, with key security challenges such as piracy. Bab Al-Mandeb, on the other hand, serves as the gateway between the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean and represents a critical chokepoint for trade between Europe and Asia. Its sensitivity stems more from regional stability than from its legal framework, as it is governed by general principles of international navigation without a specific treaty.
This comparison highlights that the Strait of Hormuz possesses a unique composition that combines global economic significance, geographic narrowness, and navigation within territorial waters, while remaining subject to a legal regime that guarantees freedom of navigation. In contrast, the Bosphorus, Dardanelles, Malacca, and Bab Al-Mandeb each have their own legal and political particularities that shape their governance and roles within the international maritime system.Ultimately, despite their differences, these straits remain pivotal nodes in geopolitical balances and sensitive indicators of global economic stability. This underscores the necessity of returning to legal frameworks and historical context to understand their present and future—away from the noise of media interpretations.
