Erklärer: Kann der Iran legal Mautgebühren für die Straße von Hormus erheben?
http://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/can-iran-legally-impose-tolls-strait-hormuz-2026-04-16/?utm_source=braze&utm_medium=notifications&utm_campaign=2025_engagement
Erklärer: Kann der Iran legal Mautgebühren für die Straße von Hormus erheben?
http://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/can-iran-legally-impose-tolls-strait-hormuz-2026-04-16/?utm_source=braze&utm_medium=notifications&utm_campaign=2025_engagement
13 Kommentare
Seems yes
The TSS is in Omani territorial sea. To traverse the full length of the strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. Although Iran has not ratified the UNCLOS convention, most countries, including the U.S. which also has not ratified it, claim the right of passage as codified in the convention.
Legality is not the question
They must not be allowed to impose tolls on the strait, and that must be enforced by any means necessary
Is ‚legal‘ even a word in the Trump dominated world?
Internationally, no law is real unless it can be enforced. The US is the de-facto enforcer.
Just saw a report that they’ve failed to collect any payment from any of the ships that have gone through the “toll booth” so far, so looks like the answer is broadly “no”, they can’t legally or operationally.
I can’t help but feel that the US tries to have it both ways when it comes to international law. They need to choose, either interntional law is toothless and unenforcable to the point of meaningless or it should equally apply to the actions of the US and Israel.
Toll booth is illegal by maritime law. But not even relevant since the shipping lanes normally run south of Iranian waters. So what has happened is Iran has let it slip that they may have lost track of some mines which may just happen to be in the shipping lane area, therefore you should avoid that by shifting north and through our tool booth. It’s not really working out well for them.
Obviously Iran can’t impose a toll on the Oman side of the strait.
If a country owned both sides like Turkey it’s more unclear. This treaty would be redundant if it was a simple no.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits)
>The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which entered into force in November 1994, has prompted calls for the Montreux Convention to be revised and adapted to make it compatible with UNCLOS’s regime governing straits used for international navigation. However, Turkey’s longstanding refusal to sign UNCLOS has meant that Montreux remains in force without further amendments.
Legally? There is no such thing as legally in international relations. International law is a suggestion.
Legality is and has always been a joke at the international level. The UN has tried but Russia invading Ukraine with China playing proxy daddy was the nail in the coffin for the international rule of law illusion.
In a January 2026 interview, Trump adviser Stephen Miller stated that the real world is governed by „strength, force, and power“ rather than „international niceties“. Miller argued these are the „iron laws of the world“, asserting U.S. dominance over weaker nations, such as in Venezuela and in potential takeovers like Greenland, because they cannot defend themselves.
If Miller, who is Trump’s closest advisor, is correct, then Iran can charge any toll they like if they are strong enough to enforce it.
Legality is only a concept that exists within an organized government. Internationally, for all intents and purposes, legality doesn’t really exist when it comes to what countries actually do. Illegal actions can provide casus belli for actors wanting to counter-check moves, but I don’t believe it exists as anything more than a concept for a moral justification framework, normal power games, or to assist in enforcing local laws through international cooperation.
Asking if it’s legal or not is the wrong question. The correct question is “Which power prevails—the one imposing the tolls or the one resisting them?”
Kind of irrelevant. According to whose law? They can legally wage war, so they can legally trap and monitor a strait.