The global shipping industry is urging the United Nations and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to oppose any attempt to impose compulsory tolls or transit fees in the Strait of Hormuz, warning that such a move would undermine international law, disrupt global trade, and set a dangerous precedent for other strategic waterways.
In a joint open letter addressed to UN Secretary-General António Guterres and IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez, eight of the world’s leading shipping organizations said the principle of freedom of navigation through international straits must not become a bargaining chip in ongoing regional negotiations.
The letter comes amid reports that Iran and Oman are negotiating a new framework governing shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, with discussions reportedly including some form of Iranian oversight of vessel movements. While details remain under negotiation, industry groups moved quickly to draw a red line against any mandatory charges for transit.
“Introducing compulsory charges for transit, or service fees that are a toll in all but name, through the Strait of Hormuz would represent a significant departure from established international practice,” the organizations wrote.
The shipping industry’s intervention follows weeks of uncertainty over the future management of the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S.-Iran memorandum signed in June calls for Iran and Oman to negotiate the Strait’s future administration and maritime services, but does not define what that would entail. That ambiguity has fueled industry concerns over everything from vessel traffic management and reporting requirements to the possibility of future transit fees, prompting shipowners and maritime organizations to insist that any new framework preserve freedom of navigation and Hormuz’s longstanding toll-free status under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Signatories to the letter include the Asian Shipowners’ Association (ASA), BIMCO, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), European Shipowners (ECSA), International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO, and the World Shipping Council (WSC).
The groups argue that mandatory transit fees would extend far beyond shipping, ultimately raising transportation costs throughout global supply chains and contributing to higher energy prices, inflation, and broader economic uncertainty.
Beyond the economic impact, the industry says the larger concern is the precedent such a move could establish under international maritime law.
“The ability of merchant ships to navigate international waterways safely, predictably and without unnecessary impediment is fundamental to resilient supply chains, economic stability and energy security,” the letter states. It adds that once a precedent for compulsory charges is established in one international strait, “it becomes increasingly difficult to resist similar measures elsewhere.”
The organizations also note that the shipping industry has already paid a heavy price during months of conflict in the region.
“As the International Maritime Organization has highlighted repeatedly, since the beginning of the conflict seafarers have been operating in an environment of heightened uncertainty, with some sustaining injuries and tragically losing their lives while carrying out their work at sea,” the letter states. “The safety of seafarers who make global trade possible should be non-negotiable.”
The latest intervention builds on guidance the industry issued in May, when BIMCO, ICS, INTERTANKO, OCIMF, INTERCARGO, and IMCA published a comprehensive operational guide for vessels transiting Hormuz during the conflict. That guidance warned operators to consider both security and navigational risks, citing threats ranging from missile attacks and electronic warfare to GNSS jamming, AIS spoofing, mine risks, and extreme traffic congestion.
Critically, it also cautioned that alternative routing outside the Strait’s established Traffic Separation Scheme could present significant navigational challenges because surrounding waters were not designed to accommodate large volumes of opposing commercial traffic.
While the May guidance focused on safely navigating an active conflict zone, the new letter shifts attention to preserving the legal framework governing maritime chokepoints. In April, an IMO spokesperson said imposing tolls on ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz would “set a dangerous precedent,” noting there is no international agreement permitting such charges for passage through international straits.
“We stand ready to work with the International Maritime Organization and the wider United Nations to ensure that long-established legal principles governing international straits, that are protected under international law, most notably through the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), are not weakened or altered,” the organizations wrote.
Editorial Standards · Corrections · About gCaptain
Facts Only
* Eight world shipping organizations addressed the UN Secretary-General and IMO Secretary-General regarding compulsory tolls in the Strait of Hormuz.
* The organizations warned that imposing such charges would undermine international law and disrupt global trade.
* The intervention followed reports of negotiations between Iran and Oman concerning a new framework for shipping through the Strait, reportedly including Iranian oversight of vessel movements.
* The organizations argued against mandatory transit fees, stating it departs from established international practice.
* Industry groups contended that compulsory charges would raise transportation costs globally, affecting supply chains and energy prices.
* The industry emphasized that freedom of navigation is fundamental to resilient supply chains and energy security.
* Shipping organizations noted the need to preserve Hormuz’s toll-free status under UNCLOS.
* A May operational guide warned operators about security and navigational risks during transit, including threats like missile attacks and electronic warfare.
Executive Summary
Eight leading shipping organizations urged the United Nations and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to oppose imposing compulsory tolls or transit fees in the Strait of Hormuz. They argued that freedom of navigation through international straits must remain unrestricted, asserting that any move to impose charges would undermine international law and disrupt global trade. This intervention followed reports of ongoing negotiations between Iran and Oman regarding a new framework for shipping through the Strait, which reportedly included discussions about Iranian oversight of vessel movements. The industry groups contended that mandatory transit fees would extend beyond shipping costs, ultimately increasing transportation expenses across global supply chains and contributing to economic instability.
The intervention stems from uncertainty surrounding the future management of the Strait, particularly in light of the U.S.-Iran memorandum signed in June, which called for negotiation on maritime services without defining specifics. Shipping organizations insisted that any new framework must uphold freedom of navigation and the Strait's status under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). They also emphasized the safety of seafarers operating in the region amidst ongoing conflict.
Full Take
The conflict between the immediate security concerns of navigating a critical chokepoint and the long-term legal framework governing international waterways reveals a tension between geopolitical negotiation and established international maritime law. The industry’s argument is not merely economic; it posits that establishing compulsory tolls in one strait sets a dangerous precedent, creating a slippery slope where other strategic waterways could face similar demands, thereby eroding the principle of unimpeded navigation. This perspective frames freedom of navigation as an essential pillar for global economic stability and energy security, suggesting that legal adherence must prioritize systemic resilience over localized bargaining power.
The pattern observed is the consistent framing of maritime transit rights—an established legal right under UNCLOS—as a negotiable commodity subject to external imposition based on current geopolitical conditions. The industry leverages the concept of precedent: once a principle is compromised in one location, resistance becomes legally and practically harder to sustain elsewhere. This suggests that future negotiations over maritime governance will hinge on whether international bodies prioritize stability through established legal structures or concession based on immediate geopolitical leverage.
What are the long-term implications for global governance when entities seek to redefine access rights across shared international spaces? If precedent is established in a high-stakes zone like Hormuz, how does this shift the perceived boundaries of state sovereignty versus transnational maritime freedom? What mechanisms exist to ensure that the legal protections provided by UNCLOS remain immune from temporary geopolitical pressures when managing critical maritime chokepoints?
Sentinel — Human
This text appears to be a well-structured summary of a formal industry position, synthesizing established legal principles and operational concerns regarding maritime transit in the Strait of Hormuz.