Law of the Sea: Freedom of Navigation and Transit Passage

At the heart of maritime legal order is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which codifies principles that guarantee unimpeded passage through strategic straits like Hormuz. Under UNCLOS Part III, "transit passage" entitles all vessels and aircraft to continuous and expeditious transit through such waterways-regardless of whether they fly commercial or military flags - so long as they refrain from activities unrelated to transit.

Freedom of navigation, a broader customary principle recognized beyond UNCLOS, likewise protects international shipping from interference by coastal or third states, unless consistent with narrow exceptions under international law.

In the current context, threats or actions that seek to impede passage - whether through explicit closure orders, military interdiction, maritime mines, or systemic intimidation - risk breaching the normative core of the law of the sea. For Gulf states whose exports (oil, LNG) and imports (grain, essential goods) traverse the strait, obstruction not only jeopardises economic security; it infringes upon established maritime legal rights.

Furthermore, even if a coastal state imposes its own zoning rules - for example, restricting these innocent passage – these cannot legally override the transit rights of vessels passing through astrait that links the high seas or exclusive economic zones.

Legal imperative: Preserving freedom of navigation through multilateral forums and dispute-resolution mechanisms (e.g., the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or International Court of Justice) reinforces Gulf states' stance that maritime trade security is not merely pragmatic but legally mandated.

WTO Trade Rules and Economic Security

While the law of the sea governs movement of vessels, the WTO's legal framework shapes international trade flows and the permissible responses of governments when trade is disrupted.

WTO Principles and Trade Discipline

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the central WTO agreement, establishes non-discrimination and market access obligations among members. However, inserts general exceptions that permit WTO members to adopt measures to protect human, animal, or plant life or health, even if such measures conflict with trade obligations

This means that, in extreme circumstances, states may lawfully implement border measures affecting imports or exports, provided these measures are genuinely designed to protect public welfare – including food security – and are not used as arbitrary trade barriers.

Food Security as a Trade Consideration

The WTO's Agreement on Agriculture recognizes that members must factor in food security within trade obligations, including commitments to reliable market access and stability.

trade obligations, including commitments to reliable market access and stability. In practice, multilateral trade rules strive to balance liberalized trade with member states' need to ensure adequate and affordable food supplies. Disruptions to maritime trade routes, such as through Hormuz, risk breaching this balance by choking supply lines. While the WTO framework does not directly regulate maritime passage, its trade disciplines intersect with food security when supply shocks lead to price spikes or scarcity, undermining stable market access for essential goods.

Legal imperative: Gulf states can invoke WTO jurisprudence that recognises food security as a legitimate non-trade concern, arguing for multilateral cooperation to prevent disruptions that undermine the global trading system's stability.

Food Security, Supply Chains and International Legal Norms

Beyond trade law, international legal instruments - including UN guidelines related to the Right to Food - emphasize the core objective that all people should have reliable access to adequate food supplies. While Right to Food Guidelines adopted by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) are not legally binding, they reflect normative expectations within the international community to safeguard food access.

Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz now risk precipitating real food insecurity across the Middle East. Recent reports highlight that about 30 million tons of grain close to half entering the region transit this annually, with limited alternative routes available without significant economic cost

This context invokes broader international obligations of cooperation to protect economic lifelines not only in humanitarian terms but also under established trade and maritime legal orders.

From a Gulf legal and policy perspective, arguments for collective action can be framed around established international law:

Protection of Maritime Trade as a Global Public Good

Freedom of navigation enshrined under UNCLOS is a legal guarantee, not merely an aspirational standard. Thus, disruption of trade routes that underpin global markets-particularly energy and food flows-is a direct threat to the economic security of states beyond the immediate conflict.

Multilateral enforcement through both diplomatic mechanisms and international adjudication -reinforces the rule of law over unilateral coercion.

WTO Law Supports Measures to Safeguard Food Security

WTO rules recognise that maintaining access to essential goods like food during crisis is a legitimate policy objective. Gulf states, as net food importers in global markets, can argue enhanced WTO cooperation to limit trade disruption and support diversification of supply chains, consistent with the GATT exceptions and food security commitments.

Sovereignty and Neutrality

Even amidst conflict, principles of neutrality apply: non-belligerent states retain rights to engage in peaceful trade. Upholding international law to protect sovereign, trade-dependent economies position Gulf states as lawful stabilizers in a region marked by geopolitical tensions.

Conclusion

The current crisis in West Asia – centering on the Strait of Hormuz – lays bare the legal and economic interdependence of maritime passage, trade law, and food and energy security. The relevant international legal regimes - UNCLOS and WTO law - provide both a framework of rights (freedom of navigation, non-discriminatory trade) and exceptions for public welfare (food security measures).

For Gulf Cooperation Council states, advocating for multilateral action to secure maritime trade routes and stable supply chains is not simply policy preference; it aligns squarely with established international legal norms. By anchoring arguments in the rule of law, Gulf states can assert their roles as proponents of global economic stability, resilience, and collective security- even amidst regional conflict.