In Brief:
- The article analyses how escalating tensions and security incidents in the Strait of Hormuz, including recent attacks on commercial vessels, create operational and legal risks for international shipping, particularly affecting charterparty performance and maritime insurance coverage.
- It examines the legal consequences for shipowners, charterers and insurers when vessels are unable or unwilling to transit the Strait due to war risks, including the operation of charterparty war-risk clauses and short-notice cancellations or restrictions of war-risk insurance.
- The article explains how disputes may escalate into maritime litigation before UAE courts, including the possibility of vessel arrest in UAE ports under the UAE Maritime Law as security for charterparty or maritime claims.
The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the most strategically significant maritime chokepoints in the world. According to the International Energy Agency, approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day transit the Strait, representing around 30% of global seaborne oil trade and roughly one-fifth of global oil consumption. Any disruption to navigation through the Strait therefore has immediate consequences not only for global energy markets but also for maritime trade and shipping operations.
Recent incidents affecting commercial vessels in the region demonstrate how quickly geopolitical tensions can translate into operational risks for international shipping. Reports of attacks on commercial tankers, missile or drone strikes, and security warnings issued by maritime authorities illustrate the fragile security environment affecting navigation in the region.
In March 2026, commercial shipping in and around the Strait of Hormuz was exposed to a series of attacks and security incidents linked to escalating regional tensions. Over a period of approximately ten days, several vessels operating in or near the Strait were reportedly targeted by missiles, drones or other hostile actions, resulting in casualties among seafarers and damage to commercial ships. Maritime security organisations also reported electronic interference affecting vessel navigation systems and warned that the threat level to commercial shipping had reached a critical level.
These incidents formed part of a broader pattern of maritime security threats affecting vessels operating in the Strait of Hormuz and the wider Arabian Gulf. As security conditions deteriorated, a number of shipowners and operators reportedly suspended or diverted voyages through the area, while global energy markets reacted to the disruption of one of the world’s most strategically important maritime corridors. These developments illustrate the direct exposure of commercial shipping to regional hostilities and the significant operational and legal risks faced by vessels navigating the Strait of Hormuz.
While such developments are often analysed from geopolitical or economic perspectives, their legal implications are equally significant. Disruptions affecting the Strait of Hormuz may trigger a cascade of disputes involving shipowners, charterers, cargo interests and insurers.
In practice, disputes of this nature rarely remain purely contractual and frequently escalate into urgent applications for vessel arrest in regional maritime jurisdictions. These disputes frequently concern:
- Allocation of war risks under charterparties
- Cancellation or restriction of war-risk insurance coverage
- Operational decisions taken by shipowners and masters
- Delays in voyage performance
- Maritime claims pursued before regional courts
Given the UAE’s strategic location along the maritime routes connected to the Strait of Hormuz, UAE ports frequently become focal points for maritime disputes arising from such disruptions.
This article examines the legal implications of a potential Strait of Hormuz disruption from the perspective of UAE maritime litigation, focusing on charterparty obligations, insurance coverage and potential vessel arrest proceedings before the UAE courts.
Insurance Market Response: War-Risk Coverage and the Arabian Gulf
Periods of heightened geopolitical tension in the Strait of Hormuz are frequently accompanied by rapid responses from the marine insurance market. War-risk underwriters operating in the Lloyd’s market, together with Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Clubs through war-risk extensions and related trading warranties, may issue notices cancelling, restricting, or re-pricing war-risk cover for vessels navigating in or near the affected area. In addition, the Joint War Committee of the Lloyd’s Market Association periodically designates parts of the Arabian Gulf and surrounding waters as “Listed Areas”, reflecting elevated exposure to war-related risks and prompting insurers to reassess coverage conditions for vessels trading in the region.
Under standard war-risk terms, such notices often operate on a short notice period (commonly 48 to 72 hours), after which cover for the designated trading area may be withdrawn, materially limited, or reinstated only on the basis of additional premium or amended conditions. This short notice mechanism is designed to allow insurers to react quickly to deteriorating security conditions affecting maritime navigation in conflict-exposed regions.
In practice, such mechanisms are not merely theoretical. During periods of escalating tensions in early March 2026, several Protection and Indemnity Clubs, including members of the International Group of P&I Clubs, reportedly issued 72-hour notices cancelling certain war-risk covers applicable to vessels trading in the Arabian Gulf and Iranian waters following instructions from reinsurers. These developments illustrate how quickly insurance conditions affecting vessels navigating near the Strait of Hormuz can change during periods of geopolitical escalation.
The practical consequence is that a voyage which was commercially and contractually viable at fixture may become operationally imprudent at short notice, as the shipowner may face the prospect of transiting the Strait without adequate war-risk protection or at a significantly increased cost. This can quickly trigger disputes on:
- whether the shipowner is entitled to refuse or delay transit under the charterparty’s war-risk framework;
- who bears the cost and risk of any additional premium or “buy-back” cover; and
- whether time consequences (delay, off-hire, demurrage) and downstream losses are recoverable.
In that context, the insurance position is not merely a background fact; it often becomes a decisive driver of the master’s risk assessment and the parties’ legal positions once performance through the Strait becomes contested.
Crew Safety and Potential Liability for Crew Claims
Security incidents affecting commercial vessels navigating in or near the Strait of Hormuz may also give rise to claims by crew members who suffer injury, psychological trauma or other harm as a result of attacks, missile strikes, drone incidents or other hostile acts affecting the vessel.
Under established maritime law principles, shipowners owe a duty of care to provide a reasonably safe working environment for seafarers. This obligation is reflected in several international regulatory instruments governing the protection of seafarers, including the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (MLC 2006), which requires shipowners to ensure the safety, health protection and welfare of crew members while serving on board vessels. The Convention also provides protections relating to medical care, repatriation rights and financial security for seafarers where service conditions become unsafe or unsustainable.
In addition, international maritime safety frameworks such as the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code require ship operators and masters to conduct security risk assessments and adopt appropriate protective measures when vessels operate in areas exposed to armed conflict or maritime security threats.
Operational decisions relating to navigation through conflict-affected maritime areas are frequently informed by maritime security advisories issued by organisations such as UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) and guidance issued by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). These advisories form an important part of the master’s risk assessment when vessels operate in or near the Strait of Hormuz.
A different set of legal issues may arise where a vessel becomes stranded in a port located within the Arabian Gulf because it is unable to safely transit the Strait of Hormuz due to security risks or the withdrawal of war-risk insurance cover.
In such circumstances, vessels may remain anchored or berthed in ports located within the Arabian Gulf for extended periods while shipowners, charterers and insurers assess whether the vessel can safely exit the region. A prolonged delay of this nature may give rise to additional legal exposure in relation to the vessel’s crew.
From a crew liability perspective, prolonged immobilisation of the vessel may generate claims relating to continued payment of crew wages during the delay, maintenance and welfare obligations owed to the crew, medical assistance or repatriation requests, and allegations that the crew were exposed to unnecessary danger by remaining in a conflict-affected maritime region.
In practice, claims relating to crew injury, repatriation and employment liabilities are commonly handled through Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Clubs, which provide liability cover for shipowners in relation to crew claims and employment-related obligations.
In the UAE context, incidents occurring within UAE territorial waters or UAE ports may engage provisions of Federal Decree-Law No. 43 of 2023 on Maritime Commercial Law, which modernised the UAE’s maritime legislative framework. Under the Maritime Law, claims relating to the wages and employment entitlements of the master, officers and crew are recognised as maritime claims and benefit from privileged status. These claims constitute maritime debts secured against the vessel itself, reflecting the strong protection afforded to seafarers under maritime law. Importantly, maritime creditors holding such claims may apply to the competent UAE courts for the arrest of the vessel as security for maritime debts, including claims arising from crew wages and employment obligations.
In practical terms, this means that if a vessel remains stranded in a UAE port for an extended period and the shipowner fails to satisfy the crew’s wage entitlements or related employment obligations, crew members may seek legal remedies which could ultimately lead to applications for vessel arrest before the UAE courts to secure payment of their claims.
From a litigation perspective, this introduces an additional layer of risk for shipowners and operators. A vessel already delayed due to security conditions affecting the Strait of Hormuz may face further operational disruption if arrest proceedings are initiated in relation to crew wage claims, particularly where the vessel remains physically present within UAE jurisdiction.
These issues demonstrate that disruptions affecting navigation through the Strait of Hormuz may generate legal exposure extending beyond charterparty disputes and cargo claims, potentially involving complex questions relating to the safety, employment rights and financial protection of seafarers aboard vessels operating in the region.
A further issue that may arise concerns the payment of war-risk bonuses and additional protections for seafarers operating in designated conflict-affected maritime zones. In March 2026, the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) and the Joint Negotiating Group (JNG), acting through the International Bargaining Forum (IBF), designated the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Gulf as a “Warlike Operations Area” following heightened security risks affecting vessels navigating in the region. Under IBF collective bargaining agreements, seafarers serving on vessels covered by those agreements may be entitled to enhanced protections when operating in the designated area. These protections may include the payment of a war-risk bonus, enhanced compensation in the event of death or disability arising from incidents in the area, and in certain circumstances the right for seafarers to refuse to enter the designated area and request repatriation at the company’s expense.
However, these arrangements arise from collective bargaining agreements negotiated between shipowners and seafarers’ unions and do not apply universally across the global fleet. A significant portion of vessels trading in the region operate under private crew employment contracts or crewing arrangements that are not subject to IBF agreements. In such cases, the payment of war-risk bonuses or similar additional compensation will depend primarily on the terms of the applicable crew employment agreements, any relevant collective bargaining arrangements, and the policies adopted by the ship operator. UAE labour legislation likewise does not contain specific provisions requiring the payment of war-risk bonuses in these circumstances.
In practical terms, where vessels become stranded within the Arabian Gulf due to security risks affecting navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, shipowners may therefore face a combination of operational and employment-related considerations, including requests for additional compensation, repatriation arrangements, or crew refusal to continue service in the designated area depending on the contractual framework governing the crew. Shipowners operating in or near designated warlike areas should therefore carefully review their crewing arrangements and insurance coverage to assess whether any additional obligations toward their crews may arise.
War Risk Clauses in Charterparties
Most voyage and time charterparties allocate geopolitical risks through contractual provisions commonly referred to as war-risk clauses, frequently based on industry forms such as VOYWAR. These provisions generally allow the master or shipowner to refuse to enter or remain in areas where the vessel, crew or cargo may be exposed to war-related dangers including hostilities, military operations, acts of terrorism, missile or drone attacks or blockades or other security threats affecting navigation.
The purpose of such clauses is to balance the commercial expectations of charterers with the overriding duty of shipowners and masters to protect the safety of the vessel and those on board. Where the risk environment deteriorates, the contractual framework may allow the vessel to delay departure, deviate from the intended route, discharge cargo at an alternative safe port, or suspend or terminate the voyage.
The interpretation of these provisions frequently becomes central in disputes arising from disruptions affecting strategic maritime routes such as the Strait of Hormuz.
Operational Decision: Transit Through the Strait or Delay the Voyage
When tensions escalate in the Strait of Hormuz, shipowners and masters must assess whether it is legally and operationally reasonable to continue the voyage.
This decision is typically influenced by insurance availability, maritime security advisories, charterparty obligations, and safety considerations for crew and vessel.
If adequate war-risk insurance remains available and the threat environment appears manageable, shipowners may elect to proceed through the Strait subject to risk mitigation measures.
Where war-risk insurance has been cancelled or security risks become unacceptable, shipowners may invoke charterparty war-risk provisions and suspend the voyage until conditions improve or alternative instructions are provided.
However, such decisions often trigger disputes concerning delay, demurrage, off-hire, freight entitlement or alleged breach of charterparty obligations.
Legal Framework under UAE Law
Disputes arising from Hormuz-related disruptions may be assessed under both the UAE Civil Transactions Law and the UAE Maritime Law.
Under Article 273 of the UAE Civil Transactions Law, contractual obligations may be extinguished where performance becomes impossible due to a force majeure event beyond the control of the parties.
Similarly, Article 249 of the Civil Transactions Law allows courts to intervene where exceptional public events render contractual performance excessively burdensome, permitting the court to rebalance contractual obligations where necessary.
In maritime disputes arising from geopolitical disruptions, UAE courts may therefore examine whether the disruption constituted an exceptional external event, whether contractual war-risk provisions allocated the relevant risks and whether the shipowner’s operational decisions were reasonable under the circumstances.
Potential Surge in Vessel Arrest Proceedings in UAE Ports
A disruption affecting navigation through the Strait of Hormuz may lead to a surge in maritime disputes before the UAE courts. The UAE occupies a strategic position along the maritime routes connected to the Strait, and UAE ports frequently serve as operational hubs for vessels trading through the Arabian Gulf.
During periods of geopolitical instability, vessels may divert to these ports to seek safe anchorage, conduct inspections, obtain bunkers or await operational instructions. Once a vessel enters UAE territorial waters, maritime creditors may seek security through vessel arrest proceedings before the UAE courts.
Under Article 53 of the UAE Maritime Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 43 of 2023), a vessel may be arrested in the UAE in respect of a maritime debt. Such maritime debts include claims arising from charterparty disputes, cargo damage, bunker supply debts, ship repair services, crew wage claims, or maritime accidents.
Furthermore, Article 54 of the Maritime Law permits the arrest of the vessel to secure the maritime claim pending resolution of the underlying dispute. The availability of vessel arrest therefore represents a powerful legal mechanism for creditors seeking security for maritime claims in the UAE.
Hypothetical Litigation Scenario before UAE Courts
Consider a scenario in which a vessel is located in Jebel Ali Port in Dubai, within the Arabian Gulf. The vessel receives instructions to proceed through the Strait of Hormuz to its destination. Shortly before departure, the vessel’s insurers issue a notice cancelling war-risk cover applicable to the Strait of Hormuz region.
After assessing the security environment and the absence of adequate insurance protection, the shipowner invokes the charterparty war-risk clause and requests alternative voyage instructions from the charterer. The charterer disputes this decision and alleges breach of the charterparty. The vessel remains in Dubai awaiting further instructions.
The charterer subsequently files an application before the UAE court seeking the arrest of the vessel as security for damages allegedly caused by the delay. The resulting proceedings may involve complex questions concerning:
- the reasonableness of the shipowner’s decision
- interpretation of war-risk clauses
- the legal impact of insurance cancellations
- allocation of risk under the charterparty
Shipowners navigating disruptions affecting the Strait of Hormuz should anticipate potential litigation risks in UAE ports.
Operational decisions should therefore be supported by clear documentation including maritime security advisories, insurance notices, communications with charterers, and records of the master’s navigational assessments. Such evidence may become critical in defending vessel arrest proceedings before UAE courts.
For maritime creditors, geopolitical disruptions affecting the Strait of Hormuz may create opportunities to secure claims through vessel arrest proceedings in UAE ports. Creditors monitoring vessel movements may identify vessels associated with disputed charterparties or unpaid maritime debts. Once such vessels enter UAE territorial waters, arrest proceedings may provide effective security for the creditor’s claim.
Given the concentration of maritime traffic in UAE ports during regional disruptions, the UAE may therefore become a central jurisdiction for maritime litigation arising from Hormuz-related disputes.
Conclusion
As vessels seek operational certainty in nearby ports, the UAE courts are likely to play an increasingly significant role in resolving maritime disputes arising from Hormuz-related disruptions.
For shipowners, charterers, insurers and maritime creditors alike, understanding the legal implications of such disruptions under UAE law will be essential in navigating the disputes that may arise from instability affecting this critical maritime corridor.
The Dispute Resolution team at Hadef & Partners advises shipowners, charterers, insurers and maritime creditors on shipping disputes before the UAE courts. Our team regularly assists clients with vessel arrest proceedings, enforcement of maritime claims and litigation arising from charterparty and maritime disputes, helping clients assess legal risks and protect their commercial interests in the Arabian Gulf.