Strait of Hormuz Crisis Exposes Fragility of Maritime Law and US Naval Dominance

The escalating US-Iran standoff over the Strait of Hormuz reveals deep ambiguities in maritime law and the waning of US naval hegemony. Neither the US nor Iran has ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), yet both invoke competing legal interpretations. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, meeting with South Korean envoy Chung Byung-ha, justified Tehran's actions as self-defense under international law against US and Israeli aggression. The crisis has slashed traffic through the strait, which carries 25% of global seaborne oil and 20% of LNG. US forces seized an Iran-bound container ship on April 19; Iran retaliated by seizing two vessels on April 22. A $40 billion US maritime insurance fund has failed to restore confidence. The standoff echoes the 1980s Iran-Iraq war but now faces new threats from Iranian drones and ballistic missiles. Meanwhile, Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, Somali piracy resurgence, and Black Sea disruptions from the Ukraine war further stress the global maritime order. The Trump administration's transactional approach, including threats to halt Ukraine aid unless Europe opens the strait, has exposed allied divisions. China's vast port investments ($24 billion across 168 ports in 90 countries) contrast with its limited naval projection. The crisis may accelerate a shift from US-led global maritime governance to fragmented regional blocs.