Will Iran block the Hormuz Strait

The Section 4 of the same Article states: "Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with these articles and with other rules of international law."

It is also stipulated in the Section 1 of Article 16:

"The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent."

The Section 3 of Article 16 reads:

"Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the coastal State may, without discrimination amongst foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published."

Those principles have been repeated in the articles 17 to 23 of the 1982 Convention on Law of Sea, with minor modifications. But the latter made a fundamental change on the ruling governing international straits which Tehran has not yet accepted.

As those articles (of the Geneva Convention) indicate: ships which are crossing the Strait of Hormuz would only be allowed, if the "security, order, comfort and rights of littoral state (here Iran)" is considered and the innocent passage of the ships should be verified. Section 4 of Article 14, and Section 1 of Article 16 of the Geneva Convention (1958), emphasize that verifying the status of innocent passage of ships through the waterway (here the Strait of Hormuz) is up to the coastal state (Iran).

For those reasons, Iranian politicians concerned about the possibility that Iran's oil exports may be disrupted by the United States, the European countries and their Asian allies such as Japan, question whether the passing ships carrying oil for those countries can be accounted as "innocent".

Tehran believes that the answer is definitely, no. Iran indicates that it has a legal right to block the enemy's vessels, thereby preventing the assumption of power to threaten Iran. The passage of vessels belonging to the likely enemies through Iranian territorial waters, especially military vessels and those carrying armaments is considered prejudicial to a coastal state's (Iran) security and that blocking them is an Iranian inalienable right.

It may be reasoned that such blocking would only be temporary, but even if temporary it would be disastrous for the world economy and peace. which unfortunately the hawks are careless about it. The trend of events support Seumas Milne's assertion that two ideologically opposed sides are engaging in brinkmanship, with the potential of proceeding to crippling sanctions or war.