Can neutral ships be lawfully attacked?
This article examines the legal complexities surrounding the targeting of merchant vessels in conflict zones, specifically following U.S. Navy strikes on tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. It explores the intersection of the law of naval warfare and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Why it matters
The incident raises urgent questions about the protection of civilian seafarers and the enforcement of international maritime law during active geopolitical conflicts.
R ecently, the U.S. Navy carried out Hellfire missile strikes against three merchant tankers — Marivex, Settebello and Jalveer — all carrying Indian seafarers. While Marivex and Jalveer escaped without casualties, three Indians aboard Settebello — the chief engineer, an engine fitter, and a deck cadet — were killed. Although U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed an MoU on June 17, intended to end the conflict and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, this fragile peace has already been breached by fresh confrontations between U.S. and Iranian forces. Beyond these shifting geopolitical tides, the fundamental legal questions surrounding the attacks on neutral shipping and the accountability for civilian lives lost in these combat zones remain unresolved.
The article focuses on legal frameworks and international law, maintaining an objective tone despite the sensitive geopolitical subject matter.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in