🌊 Who Is Breaking International Law in the Strait of Hormuz?
“It’s Not Iran,” Says Scholar
A silent chokepoint. A global pressure valve. And a legal argument the world keeps twisting.
In the narrow waters of the Strait of Hormuz—a passage so tight that two-thirds of the world’s oil exports pass like threads through a needle—the world is once again on edge.
Warships shadow cargo vessels. Oil prices spike on rumors. Governments trade accusations like missiles.
But behind the noise, a controversial claim is gaining attention in legal and academic circles:
“Only one side has clearly broken international law in the Strait of Hormuz—and it isn’t Iran.”
⚖️ The Scholar Who Flipped the Narrative
According to international law scholar Maryam Jamshidi, the popular Western narrative accusing Iran of “illegally disrupting shipping” is only part of a much larger—and more politically selective—legal picture.
Her argument, discussed in legal commentary and interviews, is blunt:
Iran’s actions in the Strait are often framed as unlawful restrictions on navigation
But similar scrutiny is rarely applied to U.S. and allied military actions in the region
International law, she argues, is being used selectively—depending on who is being judged
Her core warning is chilling in its simplicity:
International law is not being applied equally—it is being weaponized politically.
🌍 The Law Everyone Quotes… and Everyone Breaks?
At the heart of the dispute lies one of maritime law’s most sensitive principles: freedom of navigation.
Under international conventions like UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), ships are generally allowed “transit passage” through international straits such as Hormuz.
But here’s the complication:
Iran is not a full ratified party to UNCLOS
The United States is also not a signatory
Both sides interpret maritime rights differently based on security claims
This legal gray zone has turned the Strait into what some analysts call:
A “legal battlefield disguised as a shipping route.”
🔥 Accusations, Resolutions, and Silence
While Iran has been widely criticized for regulating passage or imposing conditions on shipping, Jamshidi points to a striking imbalance:
Multiple UN Security Council resolutions have been proposed or supported to condemn Iran
Some even suggested collective military enforcement to “open the Strait”
Yet, according to her analysis, no comparable resolution has been passed condemning U.S. or Israeli military actions in the same escalation cycle
That silence, she argues, is not neutral—it is political.
Beyond legal debates, the Strait of Hormuz is now a real-world flashpoint:
Naval confrontations have increased
Shipping companies report rising risk premiums
Oil prices fluctuate on security rumors alone
Commercial vessels are increasingly escorted or rerouted
What was once a trade artery is now treated like a live conflict zone without a declared war.
🧭 The Real Question Nobody Wants to Answer
The most uncomfortable question emerging from this crisis is not about Iran alone.
It is this:
If international law is only enforced selectively, does it still function as law—or just as power dressed in legal language?
For Jamshidi and other critics, the Strait of Hormuz is no longer just a geopolitical choke point.
It is a mirror reflecting how global power actually works:
Who defines “lawful”
Who gets exemptions
And who gets blamed first
⚡ Final Thought: A Law in Crisis or a System in Motion?
The Strait remains open—but unstable.
And as warships patrol its waters and diplomats trade accusations, one truth becomes harder to ignore:
In global conflicts, law is rarely neutral—it follows influence.
And in the Strait of Hormuz, that influence is being tested like never before.
No comments:
Post a Comment