The Head of the Center for Attorneys, Official Experts, and Family Advisors of the Judiciary stated: "The Islamic Republic of Iran, within the framework of its legitimate right to self-defense, is authorized to exercise effective sovereignty over its territorial waters and manage traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. A U.S. blockade of this strait lacks legal legitimacy and constitutes 'maritime terrorism.'"
Hasan Abdollahianpour, Head of the Center for Attorneys, Official Experts, and Family Advisors of the Judiciary, wrote in a note:
The developments arising from the military action by the United States and the Israeli regime against the Islamic Republic of Iran are, from the perspective of international law, clearly defined as "aggression" and a fundamental violation of the principle prohibiting the use of force. This action—targeting Iran's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and critical infrastructure, while utilizing military capacities based in certain Persian Gulf states—not only violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter but also stands in clear opposition to peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens).
Under such circumstances, the Islamic Republic of Iran's inherent right to self-defense, as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, encompasses all necessary measures to repel aggression, protect national security, and safeguard vital national interests. Within this framework, exercising control and regulation of maritime traffic in areas under Iran's sovereignty and jurisdiction—particularly during armed conflict—is legitimate and grounded in international law.
The Strait of Hormuz, as one of the most important straits used for international navigation, covers a significant portion of shipping routes within the territorial waters of the Islamic Republic of Iran. According to the law of the sea conventions—including the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Continental Shelf, as well as established customary rules—the coastal state holds sovereignty over its territorial sea. Although this sovereignty is qualified by the right of "innocent passage" and, under later regimes, "transit passage," in times of war and security threats, the coastal state may take necessary measures to prevent abuse of this right and ensure its own security.
Accordingly, any action taken by the Islamic Republic of Iran to manage, purposefully restrict, or exercise effective oversight over maritime traffic in response to an imposed state of war and foreign aggression can be justified under the right of self-defense and sovereign prerogatives.
In contrast, the actions of the United States—such as large-scale military deployment, the effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, disruption of freedom of navigation, and pressure on commercial vessels and cargoes—lack any valid legal basis. Such conduct can be assessed within the framework of an "unlawful maritime blockade" and "maritime terrorism."
According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994), a naval blockade is permissible only under specific conditions and subject to stringent criteria, including official declaration, proportionality, and avoiding widespread harm to civilians and neutrals. It is self-evident that blockading an international strait, with far-reaching effects on the global economy, energy security, and the rights of third-party states, is fundamentally incompatible with these criteria and cannot be considered legitimate.
Moreover, acts such as seizing or threatening vessels, instilling fear in international shipping, and using the sea as a tool to exert political pressure can, in light of the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA), constitute unlawful acts and, in modern discourse, "maritime terrorism."
Key points of importance:
1. The military action by the United States and the Israeli regime constitutes aggression and a violation of peremptory international norms.
2. Based on its right to self-defense, the Islamic Republic of Iran is authorized to take necessary measures, including exercising effective sovereignty over its territorial waters and managing traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.
3. Any blockade or disruption of the Strait of Hormuz by the United States lacks legal legitimacy and contradicts fundamental principles of the international law of the sea.
4. Such actions can be prosecuted and claimed under the framework of maritime terrorism and the international responsibility of states.
Within this context, the responsibility of international bodies—particularly the United Nations Security Council—is doubled: to take a firm stance, prevent the continuation of flagrant violations of international law, and stop international waterways from becoming arenas of bullying and destabilization.
By Hasan Abdollahianpour — Head of the Center for Attorneys, Official Experts, and Family Advisors of the Judiciary