Dr. Garima Tiwari, Associate Professor of Law, National Law University Delhi

Himani Jha, Research Associate, National Law University Delhi

Over the past two months, a series of attacks on commercial vessels in and around the Strait of Hormuz has killed and injured Indian seafarers, forced crews to abandon ships, and repeatedly disrupted one of the world’s most important shipping routes. The vessels involved, from MT Marivex, MT Settebello and MT Jalveer to GFS Galaxy, MT Al Bahiyah and MT Mombasa, were different; so were the circumstances and also the parties alleged to be responsible. What connects them is the growing exposure of civilian seafarers to a conflict in which they have no part. Among these was the attack on MT Settebello, in which three Indian seafarers were reportedly killed in June. While U.S. officials have maintained that the vessel failed to comply with instructions issued during blockade operations, the ship’s operators dispute that account, leaving the precise circumstances of the strike unresolved. Beyond endangering seafarers, disruptions in the Strait threaten the movement of energy supplies and other essential cargo. These developments raise a broader question: what protections does international law provide to civilian mariners caught amid expanding hostilities at sea?

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most important shipping routes in the world. Its narrow waters are crossed by a large amount of oil and liquefied natural gas every day. During periods of armed conflict, control of such chokepoints becomes indisputably important. Blockades, which are recognised by the law of naval warfare, have been used by belligerents to interfere with supplies, to limit an enemy’s economic power, and to gain strategic advantage. It does not, however, allow for military convenience to outweigh humanitarian concerns. The present crisis illustrates that the contest is no longer confined to military objectives alone. It also concerns who controls access to one of the world’s most vital sea lanes and on what legal basis commercial shipping may be regulated or restricted during conflict.

These incidents are of special importance to India. Indian nationals are one of the largest merchant marine communities in the world. They are the backbone of the global supply chains, but their vulnerability to armed conflict is not often a topic of political discussion and Indian lives cannot be considered collateral damage of strategic competition. For Indian seafarers, this danger has ceased to be episodic. Indians have been killed, injured or reported missing in successive attacks in the Strait of Hormuz. The attacks have neither all occurred in identical circumstances nor have they been attributed to the same actor.

Across regions, from the Black Sea to the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz, merchant vessels have become exposed to risks created by conflicts in which strategic imperatives increasingly test the limits of legal restraint. The identity of the attacker may change; the legal restraints do not. The rules governing distinction, proportionality, precaution and the protection of civilian shipping bind the conduct of hostilities irrespective of which belligerent is using force and where.

The Blurring Line Between Merchant and Military

The legal position of merchant vessels during armed conflict is central to understanding these incidents.  Under international law, civilian merchant sailors are protected as civilians and may not be deliberately targeted unless they directly participate in hostilities or are serving aboard a vessel that has become a lawful military objective. Further, customary rules of naval warfare, reflected in instruments such as the Newport Manual or the San Remo Manual, recognize that merchant vessels may in limited circumstances become liable to capture or attack, including where they breach a lawful blockade or make an effective contribution to military operations. Currently, it is not known if those conditions were met in the case of MT Settebello or others that followed. Regardless, there are several legal issues that come to mind. Is the blockade lawful? This is where one may turn to the classical law of blockades, developed through nineteenth and early twentieth-century state practice, reflected in instruments such as the Paris Declaration of 1856 and the London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War of 1909. Subsequently these rules are further crystalised through customary International law. Under these rules, blockades must be declared, effective and impartially applied. If these conditions were met and a lawful blockade existed, did the vessel’s conduct render it liable to attack under the law of naval warfare? Was there sufficient warning, communication and understanding? Was there another way to interdict that could have been used before resorting to force?

The Sea as a Lawless Zone?

These questions must be evaluated in light of international humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the law of armed conflict. IHL regulates the conduct of hostilities and seeks to balance military necessity with humanitarian considerations. Its core principles, military necessity, distinction, proportionality and precaution, apply not only on land and in the air, but also to naval operations conducted during armed conflict. Under the principles of military necessity and distinction, attacks are only allowed against military objectives and only if necessary. The principle of proportionality does not allow strikes that are likely to result in incidental civilian damage that is disproportionate to military gain. In an attack, precautions must be taken to reduce the risks to civilians as far as practicable. These principles and protections do not erode simply because the conflict is taking place at sea.

The loss of civilian crew members also raises broader humanitarian concerns. Merchant mariners are the lifeline of global trade, yet they increasingly find themselves exposed to conflicts in which they are neither participants nor decision-makers. International law has long recognized obligations towards wounded, sick and shipwrecked people at sea, including through the Second Geneva Convention. The legality of an attack and the humanitarian obligations that arise after it are distinct questions. Even where force is lawfully employed, civilian casualties cannot simply be treated as an inevitable consequence of war and left beyond scrutiny.

The fact that the vessel sailed under the flag of the Pacific Island state of Palau further highlights the complexity of contemporary maritime commerce. Merchant vessels are often registered in one state, owned in another, managed from a third, and crewed by nationals of several countries. Incidents involving civilian casualties at sea therefore engage a broader international interest in the protection of navigation and the application of IHL.

Accountability, therefore, matters. It is not about laying blame too soon; it is about maintaining trust in the laws that states impose on themselves. Competing narratives about the incident only reinforce the need for an independent fact-finding mechanism that can determine what happened. If international law is to have credibility beyond rhetoric, such inquiries become essential.

The Imperative for India

India’s response has, appropriately, become more pronounced as the attacks have continued. New Delhi has lodged diplomatic protests following attacks affecting Indian seafarers and has now raised the issue at the United Nations Security Council. On July 29, India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Parvathaneni Harish, condemned attacks on commercial vessels in the Strait, called for immediate de-escalation, and urged the restoration of free and unimpeded navigation and commerce in accordance with international law. The safety of Indian seafarers is not simply a consular question to be addressed after an attack has occurred. It sits at the intersection of India’s maritime security, its energy interests, its large workforce at sea, and its stated commitment to international law. The challenge for New Delhi is to translate diplomatic condemnation into a consistent position that civilian shipping must be protected regardless of which party to the conflict is responsible for placing it at risk.

India’s response should go beyond diplomatic engagement alone. It should support a credible, independent, and objective investigation into the incident while continuing to advocate for respect for international humanitarian law and the protection of civilian shipping during armed conflict. India has already described attacks on commercial shipping as unacceptable. The logical extension of that position is to insist consistently on accountability where civilian vessels and crews are harmed, irrespective of the belligerent involved. The issue extends beyond the fate of individual vessels. It concerns the growing normalization of risks to civilian shipping in contemporary armed conflict and India’s interest in ensuring that the laws governing naval warfare are respected.

As a maritime nation dependent on secure sea lanes, uninterrupted energy supplies, and the stability of global commerce, India has a clear interest in ensuring that military operations at sea remain subject to established legal constraints. Nor are these interests abstract: India’s trade, energy security and the welfare of millions of Indians living and working across the Gulf are intimately tied to stability in the region.  Tentative diplomatic efforts to secure safer passage through the Strait offer some hope, but they do not diminish the need to account for what has already occurred or to clarify the legal limits governing future operations against commercial shipping.

International law cannot eliminate war. It can, however, continue to insist that in war, civilians and civilian objects are not treated as expendable. For India, whose seafarers keep global commerce moving, demanding accountability at sea is not an abstract defense of a rules-based order. It is a demand that the lives of its citizens not be rendered invisible in distant conflicts fought amongst others.

As armed conflict increasingly spills into the world’s shipping lanes, protecting civilian seafarers will be a critical test of whether international law can still place meaningful limits on the conduct of war. For New Delhi, the concern is no longer confined to a single tragic incident. It is about ensuring that Indian seafarers do not become recurring casualties of conflicts in which India is not a belligerent.

The authors can be reached at their emails:

garima.tiwari@nludelhi.ac.in and himani.jha@nludelhi.ac.in