Why may Hormuz not reopen as before?

(xxMT>OG>LS) A 60-day pause may be all that stands between Hormuz and a new charging regime. The US-Iran agreement gives Iran, Oman, and Gulf states 60 days to negotiate the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz and maritime services — language that shipping industry executives fear could pave the way for a new charging regime on a waterway that had no charges before the war.

The concern is less about an outright toll than a new system built around services. Industry groups are warning against any arrangement that makes passage conditional on payment, while comparisons are being drawn with the Strait of Malacca, where states voluntarily contribute to navigation aids, environmental protection, and oil-spill response rather than shipping lines being charged to transit.

The rules are straightforward: Article 38 of UNCLOS ensures unimpeded transit passage through international straits. Article 44 requires bordering states not to hamper that passage, while Article 26 prohibits charging foreign vessels simply for transiting, except for specific services actually rendered and applied without discrimination.

Charges for services, not passage? “Generally, coastal states can impose charges for services rendered within the territorial sea. One example for straits would be pilotage — having the coastal state provide a pilot and charging you for taking that pilot on board, or even having a towing ship. They can charge for that,” Sotirios Lekkas, an international law lecturer at the University of Sheffield, previously told EnterpriseAM.

Again, is it lawful? “Usually, what they say is, ‘Look, Iran is not a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and for that reason, transit passage is not applicable to Iran.’ Fine, but this has nothing to do with imposing charges,” Lekkas argued.