The Legal Framework Governing Maritime Conflict

The Legal Framework Governing Maritime Conflict
  • Context:

  • A recent military incident has brought the legalities of maritime conflict sharply into focus.

  • A United States submarine torpedoed the Iranian warship IRIS Dena off the coast of Sri Lanka, striking the vessel outside its recognized nautical boundaries.

  • The Iranian frigate was returning home after actively participating in the International Fleet Review and MILAN-2026—a major multilateral naval exercise organized by the Indian Navy off the coast of Visakhapatnam just last month.

  • The sinking of the frigate resulted in the tragic deaths of at least 80 sailors and has significantly widened the theatre of the ongoing US-Israel-Iran war.

  • The conflict has now expanded beyond West Asia and the Gulf, reaching directly into India's immediate neighbourhood

  • Maritime Security and International Waters:

  • The incident has ignited a robust debate in India concerning maritime security within the Indian Ocean, a strategic region where New Delhi maintains a very significant naval presence.

  • However, several Indian Navy officers have pointed out a stark reality:

  • Once a ship enters international waters, there is very little role any other sovereign country can play in protecting that vessel from an adversarial force.

  • Although the attack occurred in international waters, it took place within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Sri Lanka.

  • This geographical proximity to the border enabled Sri Lankan authorities to rapidly deploy and get into search and rescue operations.

  • An official noted that the ship's position so close to the border might indicate that the crew was already aware of a potential threat.

  • The Governing Legal Framework:

  • UNCLOS:

  • International maritime law primarily falls under the purview of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

  • Notably, the United States is not a signatory to this foundational maritime treaty.

  • Presumption of Unlawfulness:

  • Addressing the legal nuances, Rear Admiral Sudhir Pillai NM (Retd) articulated in a recent essay that the use of military force against a foreign warship on the high seas is "presumptively unlawful".

  • Such an action can only be considered lawful if it is clearly justified as an act of self-defence or if it occurs as part of an established armed conflict.

  • UN Charter Article 51:

  • He further noted that a military strike under these specific circumstances on the high seas could be deemed valid if it successfully met the strict grounds for self-defence outlined under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

  • Escalation and Tactical Surprise:

  • Peaceful Passage:

  • A senior Indian Navy official characterized the US submarine attack as a "big escalation" in the ongoing war.

  • He stressed that the Iranian warship was on a "peaceful passage" and was entirely outside any active conflict zone when it was targeted.

  • Even though modern warships are equipped with defensive measures to counter incoming torpedo attacks, the official stated that the Iranian ship was likely taken completely by surprise.

  • Because the strike occurred early in the morning in international waters, during a peaceful transit, the crew would not have anticipated such an aggressive maneuver.