Legal Analysis of the Conflict between the "Right of Transit Passage" and the "Sovereignty of the Coastal State" in the Strait of Hormuz with Emphasis on the ۱۹۸۲ Convention

The Strait of Hormuz, as one of the most strategically significant international straits, has consistently served as a focal point where the rules of the international law of the sea intersect with the national security imperatives of coastal States. With the adoption of the ۱۹۸۲ United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a novel concept "transit passage" was introduced, conferring extensive freedoms upon military and merchant vessels while concomitantly restricting the regulatory authority of the coastal State. In contrast, the traditional regime of "innocent passage" provides for a more expansive supervisory authority for the coastal State (Iran). Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology and scrutinising Articles ۱۹, ۳۸, and ۴۴ of the aforementioned Convention, this study examines the legal challenges at hand. The findings indicate that Iran, by invoking the doctrine of the "persistent objector" and emphasising the contractual character of the transit passage regime, underscores the implementation of innocent passage rules in order to safeguard its national security and protect the marine environment against non-member States.

کلیدواژه ها:

Strait of Hormuz ، Innocent passage ، transit passage ، ۱۹۸۲ Convention ، Coastal State Sovereignty ، Persistent Objector