Bola A. Akinterinwa
The Vie Internationale of last week Sunday provided an analysis of why there will never be international peace and security in the world. The central argument was that national interests are generally conflicting. Quests for global leadership are rooted in flagrant disregard for international law at the level of the big powers. Russian special military intervention in Ukraine and Israelo-U.S. aggression on Iran are quite illustrative of this point. Thus, national interests are, at best, very conflicting. Even when it is purported that States share common values in inter-state relations, the extent is, at best, limited. The conflict of interest and the need for self-preservation largely explains the rationale for the lack of regard for the Law of Nations.
For instance, the United States and Israel are contented that they have fought and won the battle with Iran in the strong belief that the road to permanency of peace is smooth or that the end of war has come. Iran responded with a new diplomacy of Strait of Hormuz which the United States and Israel did not bargain for in their war calculations. True, the Strait of Hormuz falls within the territorial waters of Iran. There is no disputing the fact that the geo-political location of the Strait in terms of international transportation of energy and strategic resources prompted the classification of the Strait as international waters in order to ensure free passage of international vessels. Iran not only signed, but also ratified, some international agreements to the effect. But, apparently considering that neither the United States nor Israel bother to respect international law in the protection of their national interests, Iran saw nothing wrong in also disrespecting the international maritime conventions guiding the Strait of Hormuz.
And true enough again, the U.S. is so annoyed that Iran was not only re-territorializing the Strait, but was also commercializing it. The U.S. therefore also blocked access to and from the Strait, as well as threatened all oncoming and ongoing vessels from and to the Strait of Hormuz of stoppage, attachment, or destruction in the event of disregard for its blockade. China responded that the United States did not have any right of interference in Chinese domestic energy affairs and that its vessels would sail through accordingly. On Tuesday, 14 April, 2026 Chinese vessels sailed out of the Strait disregarding U.S. threats. This is the background to today’s choice of international law and diplomacy of Strait of Hormuz as topic.
International Law and Strait of Hormuz
Grosso modo, straits are geographically narrow and chokepoints. They are connecting passages for vessels carrying global energy resources. They are generally less than 24 nautical miles and often lie within a state’s territorial waters. The international Right of passage and national Right of sovereignty over territorial waters conflict with one another, especially when war vessels are passing through. Littoral states do not always take kindly to this in the absence of prior authorization for transit.
The geo-political locations of straits are best explained by the resources carried through any given strait. In order to ensure international safety and economico-security, international law has to regulates straits. For example, while the Strait of Malaca is a critical East-West trade route, so is the Bab el-Mandeb enables access to the Suez Canal. The Strait of Hormuz is particularly noted for oil movement. There are also the Turkish Straits (Dardanelles and Bosphorous, specifically governed by the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of Straits, done on 20 July 1936 at the Montreux Palace in Switzerland.
The Montreux convention granted Turkey sovereign authority over the straits of Bosporus and Dardanelles which serve as links between the Black and the Mediterranean Seas, as well as for free passage of civilian merchant vessels during peacetime. Article 19 of the Convention restricted the transit of military warships. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Turkey (now Turkiye) not only invoked Article 19 to block the passage of belligerent warships into the Black Sea, but also, in April 2026, when it denied passage to the minehunters donated by the UK to Ukraine. In the enforcement of the Montreux Convention, only merchant vessels are allowed total freedom of navigation and passage during peacetime.
During wartimes. Merchant vessels that are neutral and are not assisting the enemy have freedom of passage. Warships can pass through the straits in peacetime if the tonnage is not more than 15,000 tons on aggregate and the warships are not more than a maximum of 9. In wartime, Turkiye decides whether to close the straits to belligerent warships. These conditions are considered valid for the littoral states, Russia and Ukraine. As for the non-littoral states, vessels with not more than 30,000 tons can pass through the straits in peacetime and can also stay as long as 21 days. In war time, there is no passage if Turkiye is not involved in the war. In fact, submarines and aircraft are prohibited from transiting in peace and wartime unless they are returning to their base. The foregoing is to underscore the extent to which straits are internationally regulated.
More important, maritime passage can be innocent (Innocent passage) or transitory (transit passage), as provided for in 1982 under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Innocent passage is the general regime that enables all foreign ships to pass through the territorial sea of the coastal states. ‘Innocent passage’ falls squarely under territorial sea. This means that prior authorization is always required for any passage and air flight. All submarines must navigate always on the surface with clear display of their registered flags, to avoid their right of navigation from being suspended. In terms of extent of right and for reasons of security concerns, the passage is often very restrictive.
On the contrary, a ‘transit passage’ has a special character: the straits are specifically used for international navigation. The transit must be continuous and expeditious. ‘Innocent transit’ or ‘passage’ does not have the right of overflight, but ‘transit passage’ has the right. ‘Transit passage’ also has the right for submarines to transit submerged in consonance with their normal code of operation. In fact, transit passage cannot be obstructed by States bordering a strait in light of the universality of application of the rule of transit passage to all vessels, including warships and military aircraft.
What is important to note here is that transit passage does not apply to ‘longstanding international conventions,’ such as the Turkish Straits governed by the 1936 Montreux Convention; the Danish Straits (The Sound and the Belts), which are governed by the 1857 Copenhagen Treaty; and the Strait of Magellan, located in between Chile and Argentina, which is governed by the 1881 Boundary Treaty. In the context of our main focus of concern, the Strait of Hormuz, does it fall under ‘innocent passage’ classification or ‘transit passage’?
Unlike the many other straits, the Strait of Hormuz is of two different legal regimes: the UNCLOS categorises the Strait of Hormuz as an international strait, and therefore subject to ‘transit passage.’ For Iran, it is not transit passage but ‘innocent passage,’ which is more restrictive in character. In the eyes of Iran, the 1982 UNCLOS does not obligate it because Iran only signed, but never ratified the convention. And to a great extent, signing may not be sufficient to obligate a signatory unless the signatory belongs to the Monist school of thought. For a country like Nigeria which belongs to the Dualist school and for which ratification is still insufficient, insisting on further domestication before an international agreement can be part of municipal law, signing ordinarily is not a big deal.
On the contrary, the United States posits that it is transit passage that obtains in the Strait of Hormuz, because it is customary international law that applies to all Member States of the international community, regardless of the status of the treaty. Oman, which shares the Strait of Hormuz with Iran only recognizes ‘transit passage’ in its own territorial waters.
Consequently, with the acceptance of only ‘innocent passage,’ Iran, in our eyes, has been exercising lawfully the right of a coastal state to suspend passage for security reasons but cannot legally suspend traffic or close the strait. If the U.S. and Israel have the penchant to always disregard international law, it is wrong to condemn Iran for ensuring her survival in the face of unprovoked Israelo-American aggression on Iran. The Iranian government consistently made it known that the Strait of Hormuz was never closed except to the ‘enemy countries.’ Strongly believing in ‘innocent passage,’ Iran promulgated a law in 1993 requiring foreign warships to first get an authorization before entering the territorial waters of Iran. This may be considered a negation of the transit passage regime. For Iran, it is not a negation. The problem raised in this case is not only the extent to which Iranians can dispute the non-applicability of international customary law to them. Admittedly, Iran signed the UNCLOS 1982, but did not ratify it. Why have the U.S. and Israel not been obligated by international customary law when they engage in and condone genocide in exchange for national protectionism and survival? Besides, why should any sovereign state be forcefully obligated by international customary law? How do we understand the U.S. quest and threat to wipe out Iranian civilization? International law should not only be respected when it is convenient. If Iran is not obligated by the UNCLOS, Iran cannot be obligated when the rule of law is respected on the basis of whims and caprices of the big powers even if ‘transit passage’ has the character of a long-standing customary law. The crisis of Strait of Hormuz is more of politics than law.
True, the concept of a strait was a derivation from politics of law and law of politics, because it was made a quid pro quo: the maritime powers only accepted the extension of the territorial seas to 12 nautical miles in exchange for guaranteed transit passage. Without this, the more than 100 straits in the world would have been restricted to international navigation. This is what Nigeria should first bear in mind in its future strategico-political calculations.
Opportunity and Challenge for Nigeria
The politics of Israelo-U.S conflict with Iran creates a number of opportunities and challenges for Nigeria, but Nigeria must first learn lessons from it, especially from the international perspectives. First, how is the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz seen by world leaders? China believes that the U.S.-led blockade of Iranian ports is ‘dangerous and irresponsible.’ It is seen as exacerbating regional tensions and undermining global energy. Based on this perspective, China has recommended a comprehensive ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran and the restoration of normal maritime navigation before there can be peace. Put differently, there must be an immediate ceasefire, diplomatic negotiations, protection of non-military targets, ensuring security of shipping lanes, as well as complete rejection of unauthorized unilateral military actions not approved by the UN Security Council.
More importantly, China has refused to send troops to support the U.S.-led maritime security operations, considering that the Strait of Hormuz belongs to the regional people and ‘no foreign troops should be involved. This is one major rationale for the Chinese and Russian veto on UN resolution that sought defensive escorts and coordinated efforts in solving the political lull. In short, China wants the root causes of the conflict first addressed rather than first promoting one-sidedness in the approach.
The policy attitude of the European Union and the U.K. is also concerning. The EU attitude is largely predicated on the 2020 French-initiated European Maritime Awareness in the Strait of Hormuz (EMASoH), which was put in place to promote safe passage in the region. Following the devastation of Iran by the U.S. and Israel, the Government of Iran decided to block the free passage of the Strait of Hormuz and to also subject the authorized passage to payment of about $2m. In disagreement with the policy, the United States also decided to block access to and access from the Strait. In light of this, the EU opted to push for a ‘strong international coalition’ that will be only European-led and that will put an end to the security crisis. In this regard, France and the U.K are providing the leadership in seeking the protection of the shipping lanes and clearing the likely mines. Belligerent States like the U.S., Israel, and Iran are not meant to be involved in the EU design. Can this solve the problem?
Without jot of doubt, peaceful coexistence cannot but be a rarity with the situational
reality of U.S.-Israeli, and Iranian, belligerence. The 1958 Geneva Conventions – Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone; Convention on the High Seas; Convention on the Continental Shelf; Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas – have become meaningless. So has become the purpose of the 1982 UNCLOS. For instance, the U.S. was vehemently opposed to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran, a vehement opposition that has also prompted the U.S. to block the Strait.
The problematic in this case is that, in the strong belief that the crisis in Iran should be addressed holistically, Iran accepted to remove its blockade of the Strait. Iran is interested in a comprehensive ceasefire, arguing that the direct ceasefire entente to be reached with the U.S. in Islamabad should also cover Lebanon. The closure and opening of the Strait of Hormuz should also have the same comprehensive character in resolution. However, the U.S. that was vehemently opposed to the Iranian blockade has now refused to stop its own blockade of the Strait. The refusal of the U.S. to remove its own blockade prompted Iran to set aside its earlier policy decision to reopen the Strait. Iran has renewed the blockade of the Strait.
This is one reality of international politics from which Nigeria must learn lessons. First, is there anything wrong for any sovereign nation to seek to be strong, be self-reliant, or have a mastery of technological know-how? In a normal society, why should there be a double standard in policy: one policy allowing some countries to develop nuclear capability and another policy disallowing others wanting to develop it? This is the crescendo of international injustice, unfairness, and unclean hands. For how long should Africa accept to be re-enslaved? When will Nigeria be truly independent, especially in terms of mentality?
Africa, led by Nigeria, has three possible options to consider in the post-U.S.-Iran saga: promote general nuclearisation which directly negates the spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If every nation is allowed to develop itself to the level of a nuclear power, there will not be any harassment of any state by another state. The second option is to accept total nuclear disarmament. No one should have nuclear weapons. Most unfortunately, the method of producing or enriching uranium for nuclear weapon purposes is not much different from the process of producing for peaceful purposes. In this regard, let all nations develop nuclear capability for peaceful uses. Let no state be holier than thou. All States are sinners. They are state terrorists. They are all legally empowered to use force in international relations. Consequently, it is not acceptable for any particular civilization to be preaching again a new version of ‘mission civilisatrice’ in the 21st century. The U.S. and Israel cannot have an aspiration and be preaching that others cannot have their own aspiration. This brings us to the third option.
Nigeria should return to the Professor Akinwande Bolaji Akinyemi’s conception of Concert of Medium Powers (CMP). There is the need to put all the big powers in constant check. True, Professor Akinyemi did not want a CMP that would be confrontational, but one that would be consultative and advisory in the conduct and management of international questions. However, the way the U.S. of Donald Trump has proved Hillary Clinton very correct in her evaluation of the personality of Donald Trump is much thought-provoking. Hilary Clinton warned Americans and advised them against attempting to vote in Donald Trump as U.S. President. The warning was to no avail. How many Americans listened to her? Today Donald Trump is more of an international burden than an asset to Americans. This is why there is the need for a new CMP. It has become a desideratum now as Professor Akinyemi is still much alive and healthy. A CMP that can provide counter intellection processes and assist Nigeria and Africa their self-projection undertakings.
What the U.S. of Donald Trump wants is simply making the whole world sub-servient to the whims and caprices of the United States by manu militari. This is re-colonisation by military might and technology harassment which is unwanted. Self-made proponents of democracy preach the sermons of democracy but refuse to accept the need for democratization of the United Nations. If there was the need for a UN Security Council of Nuclear Weapons States or 5-Permanent Members of the UNSC today, the need is of no usefulness anymore. Why? The reform of the UN is generally wanted. This has been made impossible because of the casting vote of the UNSC P-5 countries: China, France, Great Britain, Russia, and United States. Additionally, Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter subject any review of the UN Charter to two-thirds majority which must include the votes of the P-5. When people argue that a tree does not make a forest, they are right in terms of geography, but wrong in international law and diplomacy, where a tree necessarily makes a forest with the right of veto. It is because of this problem of veto which the holders do not want done away with, that has not made possible the reform of the UN. The issue now is the determination of the extent to which the UN is useful in the maintenance of international peace and security? Does Africa still really need the United Nations? How should Nigeria, in particular, and Africa, in general, respond to the efforts of President Trump in trying to make a nonsense of the UN and seeking to replace it with his Board of Peace? What strategies are being put in place to respond to a world without the United Nations? What is Nigeria’s position if the United Nations is replaced?
