Obstacles to the Implementation of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Many issues have arisen during the conflict between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other, including Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz—one of the most important waterways for international trade—which has raised questions about the international laws governing maritime navigation in such waterways.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), adopted in 1982 and entered into force in 1994, serves as the international legal framework governing all maritime rights and obligations of states. Its 320 articles and nine annexes are comprehensive, and it currently has 170 state parties.
Before delving into the controversial issues surrounding that convention—which is misused by some countries, including Iran, to threaten maritime navigation in violation of its provisions—the irony lies in the fact that, although the seas have existed since the beginning of creation, that convention was not adopted until that year. The treaty was the subject of one of the longest international negotiations in history, spanning the years 1973 to 1982. The explanation for this lies in the fact that, although the nations of the world are keen to regulate international relations through binding legal frameworks, it is natural for each state to seek to maintain a comparative advantage within those relations. A case in point is the United States of America, which signed the convention but did not have it ratified by its legislature; consequently, it is not bound by its provisions and regards it as “customary international law”; Given that it possesses several naval fleets stationed at vital chokepoints in waters around the world, this grants it an enormous strategic advantage, both in safeguarding its interests and in its conflicts and rivalries with other global powers. Nevertheless, the United States declares its customary commitment to a number of the Convention’s most prominent provisions, such as freedom of navigation on the high seas, territorial sea limits (12 nautical miles), recognition of states’ exclusive economic zones (up to 200 nautical miles), combating piracy on the high seas, search and rescue operations, and protection of the marine environment.
Despite the importance of this convention, there are five obstacles that hinder its implementation in a manner that ensures the security of maritime navigation, whether in the Strait of Hormuz or other international waterways.
First: The absence of an international authority capable of compelling states to respect international law in general—including the provisions of that convention—since the matter hinges on each state’s ability to protect its maritime interests in accordance with its naval forces and influence. Second: Territorial disputes between states and their impact on the implementation of the Convention; some states calculate their territorial waters based on maritime points under their control, and disputes regarding these points persist.
Third: The impact of technological advancements in the military sphere on maritime security. While it is true that the Convention addresses maritime crimes in detail—such as piracy—the success of certain non-state actors in employing modern technology to threaten maritime security makes it difficult to prove such crimes and establish mechanisms for holding perpetrators accountable. Fourth: Given the maritime domain’s abundance of resources and the efforts of maritime states to exploit them, this raises the issue of maritime boundary disputes. Fifth: States continue to view maritime access as a source of influence and power. Consequently, landlocked states strive to secure maritime access through neighboring countries, which is a source of tension and instability in relations among states within that geographical region.
Between 2021 and 2026, international waterways faced two threats; The first was an accidental incident in which the giant Panamanian container ship *Ever Given* ran aground in the Egyptian Suez Canal for six days due to adverse weather conditions and a miscalculation by the crew; the canal serves as a passageway for approximately 12% of global trade. The second was due to the recent war (2026) and Iran’s attempt to use the Strait of Hormuz as a tool for pressure and bargaining during the conflict, which harmed the economies of many countries. These two events, among others, highlight the importance of securing maritime navigation in these waterways; the issue lies not only in compelling the riparian states to respect the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but also in the willingness and cooperation of the world’s nations to secure these waterways through collective efforts.
To return to the beginning, the aforementioned convention requires a collective international effort to put it into practice, given the importance and centrality of international waterways and the mutual dependence among them; the closure of the Strait of Hormuz was not the first incident of its kind, nor will it be the last, which compels the international community to take further collective steps and adopt policies to prevent the recurrence of such incidents, which harm global economies in both the short and long term.
Note: This article has been automatically translated, the full article is available in Arabic.
Dr. Ashraf Mohammed Keshk Director of International and Strategic Studies Program
