The world’s busiest maritime chokepoints are once again at the center of international attention. Recent discussions about Iran seeking to levy charges on vessels using the Strait of Hormuz and Yemen’s Houthi movement signaling similar ambitions in the Red Sea have reignited a much larger debate: can countries—or non-state groups—control international waterways that are essential to global trade?
The answer is more complex than geography alone. While coastal nations exercise authority over their territorial waters, international law also guarantees that some of the world’s most critical maritime passages remain open for global navigation. That legal balance is now being tested by rising geopolitical tensions in West Asia.
Why These Narrow Waterways Matter to the Entire World
Although they appear as narrow strips on a map, chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandeb carry enormous strategic importance.
The Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and serves as one of the world’s busiest energy corridors, transporting a substantial share of internationally traded crude oil and liquefied natural gas. Meanwhile, the Bab al-Mandeb links the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, forming a vital gateway to the Suez Canal and one of the shortest shipping routes between Europe and Asia.
Any disruption in either passage can quickly affect oil prices, shipping costs, insurance premiums, and global supply chains.
Geography Gives Influence—Not Unlimited Authority
Countries bordering strategic waterways naturally possess significant influence because ships pass close to their coastlines. However, that geographical advantage does not automatically grant unrestricted control over international navigation.
International maritime law, particularly the transit passage regime recognized under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), is designed to ensure that ships and aircraft can continue moving through international straits without unnecessary interference. Although Iran has signed but not ratified UNCLOS, many legal experts consider the transit-passage principle to reflect customary international law that applies broadly to international navigation.
Can Iran Legally Charge Ships Passing Through Hormuz?
Iran has periodically argued that it should receive compensation or fees for managing navigation and security in the Strait of Hormuz.
Supporters of this position argue that maintaining safe navigation, environmental protection, and maritime infrastructure carries significant costs for coastal states. Critics counter that allowing unilateral transit charges would undermine long-established principles of free navigation and could encourage similar claims elsewhere.
Legal specialists note that under widely accepted maritime rules, coastal states cannot simply impose tolls on ships exercising transit passage unless those charges relate to specific services actually provided, such as port facilities or navigational assistance.
The Houthi Proposal Faces Even Greater Legal Challenges
The legal situation surrounding the Houthis is markedly different.
Unlike a recognized sovereign government, the Houthis are a non-state armed group that controls parts of Yemen but lacks international legal authority to regulate international shipping lanes.
As a result, legal experts argue that any attempt by the group to impose mandatory transit fees on vessels using the Bab al-Mandeb would have little or no basis under international maritime law.
Shipping Companies Care More About Risk Than Legal Theory
For shipping operators, legal debates often become secondary once security risks increase.
Even without formal closures, the threat of missile attacks, drones, naval confrontations, or piracy can persuade shipping companies to reroute vessels thousands of kilometers around Africa via the Cape of Good Hope.
These diversions increase fuel consumption, delivery times, freight charges, and insurance costs—expenses that eventually ripple through global supply chains and consumer prices.
A Test for International Maritime Law
The current tensions are also testing whether decades-old maritime rules remain effective in an era of regional conflicts and hybrid warfare.
International law was largely designed around disputes involving sovereign states. Today’s environment increasingly includes armed non-state groups, proxy conflicts, cyber threats, and economic pressure tactics that existing legal frameworks did not fully anticipate.
This creates difficult questions for governments, shipping companies, insurers, and international organizations responsible for protecting global commerce.
Why the World Cannot Afford Multiple Chokepoint Crises
The Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandeb are not isolated waterways. Together, they form critical links connecting Gulf energy producers with Europe, Asia, and Africa.
If disruptions occur simultaneously in both passages, the consequences could extend well beyond the Middle East. Energy markets may tighten, transportation costs could rise sharply, and manufacturers dependent on just-in-time deliveries may face fresh supply-chain disruptions.
Recent regional tensions have already highlighted how vulnerable global trade remains when a handful of narrow maritime corridors become geopolitical flashpoints.
The Bigger Question Goes Beyond Iran
The current debate is ultimately about more than whether Iran or the Houthis can collect transit fees.
It raises a broader issue that will shape international trade for years to come: should strategic waterways remain protected as shared global commons under internationally accepted rules, or will regional powers increasingly use geography as a tool of political and economic leverage?
As geopolitical competition intensifies, the future of these maritime corridors may influence not only regional security but also the stability of global commerce. The outcome will determine whether international law continues to govern the world’s busiest sea lanes—or whether control gradually shifts toward power politics, where strategic location becomes a bargaining chip in international disputes.