The current international system is theoretically built upon common rules, norms, and legal frameworks. Various international organizations, particularly the United Nations (UN), are responsible for ensuring the implementation of these rules in order to regulate interstate relations and prevent conflicts. However, in practice, the selective application and unilateral interpretation of international rules stand out as one of the main problems undermining the legitimacy of the system. Thus, this situation increases the likelihood of a “war of all against all,” which is not uncommon today.
The practical application of norms in international law is often not independent of power balances. When it comes to various issues in different parts of the world, solution negotiations are either postponed or neglected. In particular, major powers tend to adhere strictly to international rules when they align with their interests, while ignoring them when they contradict their interests. This situation weakens the assumption that international law is universal and binding.
For example, there are significant differences in the implementation of United Nations Security Council decisions. While some decisions are supported by rapid and strict sanctions, others remain ineffective due to political objections (veto). This factor demonstrates that the principle of equality does not prevail in the international order and leads to a decrease in confidence in the assurance of international justice.
Another important problem of international rules is that states interpret these rules in line with their own interests. In particular, the following concepts are interpreted differently by various geopolitical actors:
● Self defense
● The law of war or the legality of war
● Humanitarian intervention
● Neutrality
● Sovereignty
● Use of force
● Recognition
● Equality of states
● International responsibility (state responsibility, compensation, countermeasures)
● Non intervention in internal affairs
The war conducted by the United States and Israel against Iran constitutes an important example. While the war has been legitimized by some states on the grounds of security, it has been evaluated by others as a violation of international law. Such events demonstrate that political interests, rather than objectivity, are decisive in the interpretation of international law.
It is considered that the current international legal system requires significant change. Crises experienced in the Middle East have also contributed to the acceleration of this process. Since it is not realistic to completely abolish international law on the grounds of its dysfunction and replace it with a new system, it has become necessary to make certain changes within the existing system. Therefore, the transition to a new order or a departure from the current system can be carried out gradually.
The new access arrangement concerning the Strait of Hormuz will determine the rules governing the passage of both military and commercial vessels. However, it can be stated that it is still too early to speak about possible fees. In an interview given to Sputnik Radio on 2 April 2025, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi stated that these issues are currently being worked on and that once an agreement is reached with Oman, it will be announced.[1] According to claims, this document, which is currently being prepared, will also include the responsibility of the littoral states to ensure the safe passage of vessels.[2]
The negotiations conducted between Iran and Oman may be evaluated as an effort to reinforce the sovereign rights of littoral states over their maritime jurisdiction areas. Indeed, the statements made by Kazem Gharibabadi show that the arrangement is not merely a technical maritime issue, but also a multidimensional process requiring diplomatic consensus. Thus, it is possible to say that Oman is involved in the great geopolitical game. In the geopolitical context, the emphasis on the need for Iran and Oman to assume joint responsibility is noteworthy in terms of regional power sharing and the security architecture. This situation serves the development of a cooperation-based model between the two countries regarding the control and security of the Strait of Hormuz. In the coming period, the content of the agreement to be reached between Iran and Oman will be decisive not only for regional maritime security, but also for global trade and energy supply security.
The implementation of a pricing arrangement has the potential to directly affect the volume of international trade passing through the Strait of Hormuz and especially energy markets. Therefore, this initiative is important not only in regional terms but also in terms of global economic balances. Taking the current situation into account, Iran needs to rebuild a foreign policy in its relations with its neighbors that includes the principles of honesty and reliability, to which it had not previously attached sufficient importance.
Another issue worth mentioning is whether the document being prepared is contrary to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), signed on 10 December 1982. Pursuant to Article 21.1 of the Convention:
- Under this provision, the coastal state may, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law, adopt laws and regulations relating to innocent passage through the territorial sea.
In addition, pursuant to Articles 25.1 and 25.3:
- The coastal state may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.
- The coastal state may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, temporarily suspend in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security, including weapons exercises. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published.
It should be recalled that since the Iranian side has not ratified the convention in question, its provisions are not considered binding for Iran. On the other hand, from the perspective of the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda, the non-ratification of the treaty may bring certain limitations for Iran. Thus, the legitimacy of the new passage arrangement planned by Iran in the strait remains open to debate.
This change is related to the crisis that has emerged regarding the Strait of Hormuz. The law of the sea, which is a branch of international law, and the field of maritime transportation in general may now be accepted as the starting point of this change. This is because resorting to the balance of power in terms of the implementation or limited regulation of international law is not a rare situation. In the crisis that has emerged around the Strait of Hormuz, this becomes even more understandable when the geopolitical interests of different countries are considered.
Selective application and unilateral interpretation are causing a crisis of trust and legitimacy in the international system. As small and medium sized states increasingly believe that major powers shape the rules in their own favor, they lose confidence in international institutions. This, in the long term, weakens international cooperation and increases the risk of lawlessness.
The solution to this problem requires not only a legal but also a political transformation. First of all, international institutions need to be made more transparent and accountable. In this context, the reform of the veto mechanism of the United Nations Security Council is a frequently discussed issue. In order to establish a fairer and more stable international order, rules must be applied equally, consistently, and impartially. Otherwise, the international system will continue to become increasingly unpredictable and prone to conflict.
[1] “Iran revealed details about the new access regime in the Strait of Hormuz”, Izvestia, https://en.iz.ru/en/2071665/2026-04-02/iran-revealed-details-about-new-access-regime-strait-hormuz, (Date Accessed: 04.04.2026)
[2] Ibid.
