Key Takeaways:
- Escalating conflicts—from Russia’s war in Ukraine disrupting Black Sea grain shipments, to Houthi attacks forcing diversions around the Cape of Good Hope, to the post-28 February 2026 US-Israel-Iran confrontation—have turned major maritime routes including the Strait of Hormuz into conflict zones, trapping approximately 6,000 seafarers and causing deaths, vessel attacks, and prolonged strandings.
- International maritime law (UNCLOS, Maritime Labour Convention, San Remo Manual) and naval operations such as Operation Prosperity Guardian provide limited protection, as enforcement is weak, crews face multinational accountability gaps, and militarisation of distress channels and waterways endangers civilian lives and the environment.
- The crisis exposes a core contradiction in which global trade relies on roughly two million seafarers, many from developing countries, yet prioritises oil prices and strategic interests over their safety, evacuation rights, and human security, underscoring that freedom of navigation is incomplete without protecting those who sustain it.
The world’s oceans have become ever more dangerous for commercial shipping and the millions of seafarers who sustain international trade.
The war in Ukraine, the continuing Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and the military confrontation involving the United States, Israel and Iran have made some of the world’s busiest maritime routes into conflict zones.
Merchant vessels carrying oil, food, fertilisers and other essential commodities have come under missile and drone attacks.
Shipping companies have been forced to abandon traditional routes, while thousands of seafarers remain exposed to dangers over which they have little control.
The situation has deteriorated considerably since the United States and Israel launched
attacks on Iran on 28 February 2026.
The subsequent confrontation has placed the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy corridors, at the centre of a growing maritime crisis.
The consequences sprawl beyond rising oil prices, disrupted supply chains and higher insurance costs.
They raise critical questions about the safety, dignity and rights of civilian seafarers caught in military conflicts.
From the Black Sea to the Persian GulfThe maritime crisis acquired a new dimension following
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
The Black Sea became a major theatre of military operations, threatening commercial vessels transporting grain, energy and other commodities.
The disruption of Ukrainian grain exports contributed to global food insecurity, particularly in countries dependent on imports from the region.
The Black Sea Grain Initiative, negotiated in July 2022 with the involvement of Türkiye and the United Nations, temporarily facilitated the movement of Ukrainian agricultural exports.
However, Russia’s withdrawal from the agreement in July 2023 renewed uncertainty over commercial navigation.
Missile attacks, naval mines and strikes on port infrastructure continued to threaten merchant vessels and their crews.
The war demonstrated how fast civilian shipping could become vulnerable when major powers resorted to military force.
Seafarers from countries having no direct involvement in the conflict found themselves exposed to attacks, prolonged confinement and uncertainty over evacuation.
The crisis subsequently spread to another vital maritime region.
Following the outbreak of the Gaza war in October 2023, Yemen’s
Houthi movement began attacking commercial shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.
The Houthis presented their operations as part of their campaign against Israel and its supporters.
However, attacks on merchant vessels placed civilian crews of different nationalities in danger.
The Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait form a crucial link between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal.
Before the disruptions, the Suez route carried approximately 12–15 per cent of global maritime trade.
Houthi attacks involving anti-ship missiles, drones and other weapons forced major shipping companies to divert vessels around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope.
These diversions added thousands of nautical miles to voyages between Asia and Europe.
Depending on the route, shipping times increased by one to two weeks.
Additional fuel consumption, insurance premiums and operational expenses increased the cost of maritime transportation.
The effects were felt across the conflict zone and the countries dependent on imported food, energy and industrial materials faced additional costs.
The longer voyages also increased greenhouse gas emissions, undermining efforts to reduce the environmental impact of international shipping.
The Strait of Hormuz: A Humanitarian EmergencyThe confrontation involving Iran, Israel and the United States has created another serious crisis in the Strait of Hormuz.
The narrow waterway connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea.
It is indispensable to the transportation of oil and liquefied natural gas from the Gulf.
According to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), approximately 6,000 seafarers remained trapped aboard commercial vessels in the region in October 2026.
The organisation’s Secretary-General, Arsenio Dominguez, described the situation as critical and warned that safe navigation could no longer be guaranteed.
Reports published on 22–23 October indicated that the IMO had confirmed approximately 100 maritime incidents as of 9 October, while at least 24 seafarers had been killed since the conflict began on 28 February.
Another 24 commercial vessels were reportedly attacked within approximately two weeks.
These figures reveal the seriousness of the situation.
They also indicate the limitations of available information.
The actual human consequences may be greater because smaller commercial vessels, fishing boats and other maritime workers are not always adequately represented in international reporting.
The
attacks on the Singapore-registered vessels GFS Pride and GFS Giselle on 13 and 14 October validated the dangers.
GFS Pride reportedly sank after being struck by a projectile, although its 21 crew members survived.
GFS Giselle suffered hull damage, and its 22 crew members were evacuated.
The immediate question concerns the fate of thousands of seafarers who remain stranded.
They are unable to leave their vessels safely, return home or determine when normal commercial operations will resume.
The IMO has advised shipping companies to avoid transiting the Strait until credible safety guarantees become available.
Yet this warning provides little immediate relief to those already trapped in the conflict zone.
Seafarers as Victims of Geopolitical ConflictsInternational maritime trade depends on approximately two million
seafarers.
A substantial proportion comes from developing countries, including India, the Philippines, Indonesia and other Asian nations.
Their labour sustains the movement of commodities that support industrial production and everyday consumption across the world.
However, seafarers remain among the most vulnerable workers during international conflicts.
They spend long periods away from their families, often under difficult working conditions.
When war breaks out, they face dangers that are unimaginable, going beyond the normal risks of maritime employment.
The current crisis has exposed them to missile attacks, drone strikes, naval mines, detention and prolonged confinement.
Many experience anxiety over their families, uncertainty about wages and difficulties accessing medical assistance.
Evacuation may become impossible when ports are closed or surrounding waters are militarised.
The multinational composition of commercial crews creates additional complications.
A vessel may be owned by a company in one country, registered in another, operated from a third and staffed by workers from several countries.
This complex arrangement makes accountability difficult when emergencies arise.
For Indian seafarers, the crisis has particular significance.
India is among the major suppliers of maritime labour to international shipping.
Indian nationals serving aboard foreign-flagged vessels may be exposed to conflicts in which India has no military involvement.
Their safety depends on shipping companies, flag states, coastal authorities and diplomatic intervention.
When these institutions fail to coordinate, the seafarer becomes the weakest party in an increasingly complicated international system.
The problem also concerns the right of workers to refuse dangerous assignments.
Maritime employment should never require civilian workers to accept the possibility of death merely because commercial contracts must be fulfilled.
Maritime Law and Its LimitationsInternational law contains several provisions intended to protect commercial navigation and civilian seafarers.
However, the present crisis has exposed serious weaknesses in their implementation.
The
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes important principles governing navigation.
Article 87 recognises freedom of navigation on the high seas, while Article 38 provides for transit passage through straits used for international navigation.
These provisions are essential to the functioning of international maritime trade.
But they cannot, by themselves, prevent missile attacks, naval blockades or the seizure of commercial vessels.
International humanitarian law also requires parties to armed conflicts to distinguish between military objectives and civilian persons and objects.
Merchant vessels ordinarily enjoy civilian protection, although they may lose protection against attack under specific circumstances recognised by the law of armed conflict.
The 1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea provides further guidance concerning naval warfare, blockades and the protection of merchant shipping.
However, it is not a binding international treaty, and its provisions depend substantially on compliance by states and other parties to conflicts.
The Maritime Labour Convention of 2006, adopted under the International Labour Organization, establishes standards concerning seafarers’ employment, health, safety, welfare and working conditions.
Nevertheless, the convention was not designed to resolve military confrontations between states.
Its effectiveness depends on implementation by flag states, port authorities and shipping companies.
In active war zones, these mechanisms are frequently inadequate.
The 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation also addresses serious acts of violence against shipping.
Its application to particular incidents depends on the treaty’s jurisdictional provisions and exclusions, including those relating to armed conflict.
The major difficulty is therefore one of enforcement.
International maritime law recognises important rights and obligations, but there is no effective global mechanism capable of guaranteeing the physical safety of every merchant vessel during armed conflict.
The IMO can issue warnings, coordinate assistance and facilitate negotiations.
It cannot compel belligerent states or armed groups to cease attacks.
Similarly, international labour standards offer protections that become difficult to enforce when commercial shipping enters militarised waters.
Militarisation and the Failure of Maritime SecurityThe international response to maritime insecurity has relied heavily on naval deployments.
The United States and its allies established
Operation Prosperity Guardian in December 2023 to protect commercial shipping in the Red Sea.
European naval forces have also undertaken defensive operations, while the Indian Navy has maintained a substantial presence in the Arabian Sea and surrounding waters.
These deployments have helped protect some commercial vessels and respond to emergencies.
However, they have failed to eliminate the threat.
The continuing Houthi attacks demonstrate the limitations of military responses against armed groups operating from coastal territories.
Similarly, the confrontation in the Persian Gulf shows how commercial shipping can become vulnerable when naval operations themselves form part of a wider military conflict.
The reported dispute over the use of
VHF Channel 16, the internationally recognised maritime distress and safety communication channel, illustrates another disturbing development.
Iran has accused American naval forces of using the channel to intimidate civilian crews.
The United States maintains that its communications were intended to enforce its naval blockade and provide warnings.
The Iranian allegations have not been independently substantiated.
Nevertheless, the controversy raises serious questions about the use of maritime safety systems during military operations.
Communication channels intended to protect lives at sea must remain reliable and accessible to all vessels.
The militarisation of international waterways also creates environmental dangers.
Attacks on oil tankers and vessels carrying hazardous materials can cause serious pollution.
The sinking of cargo ships threatens marine ecosystems, fisheries and coastal livelihoods.
Longer shipping routes further increase fuel consumption and emissions.
Thus, the consequences of maritime conflicts extend from commercial trade and labour rights to the environmental security of coastal communities.
The Forgotten Human Dimension
International discussions of maritime security frequently concentrate on oil prices, freight rates, insurance premiums and the strategic interests of major powers.
The human consequences receive much less attention.
The suffering of seafarers rarely attracts the international concern associated with other categories of civilian victims of war.
Their isolation at sea, the multinational character of their employment and the commercial interests surrounding shipping contribute to this neglect.
The present crisis calls for a different approach.
Protecting commercial navigation should begin with protecting the people who operate commercial vessels.
Governments, shipping companies and international organisations must ensure that seafarers receive timely information about security threats, effective evacuation assistance, medical support and access to their families.
Their right to refuse assignments in designated warlike or high-risk areas must be respected in accordance with applicable agreements.
Compensation and insurance arrangements should provide meaningful protection when workers suffer injury, detention or death.
There is also an urgent need for stronger international coordination to secure humanitarian evacuation corridors and prevent civilian crews from becoming instruments of military pressure.
Finally, the crisis reveals a major contradiction in the international maritime order.
Global commerce depends on the freedom of the seas, but the protection of those who sustain that commerce remains inadequate.
International law contains provisions intended to safeguard navigation and civilian lives, but political and military interests frequently override these obligations.
The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have exposed this contradiction with disturbing clarity.
The oceans cannot remain secure merely through the deployment of additional warships.
Their security depends equally on diplomacy, restraint, respect for international law and recognition of the rights of those who work at sea.
For the thousands of seafarers stranded in the Persian Gulf and other conflict zones, these are immediate questions of survival.
Their predicament should remind the international community that maritime security is ultimately about human security.
The freedom of navigation loses much of its meaning when those responsible for keeping the world’s trade moving are denied the basic freedom to return home safely.
Links :
(Credit: Sir Francis Canker Photography)