![\"Who](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-130172122,imgsize-58990,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/us-launches-strikes-against-islamic-state-group-in-nigeria-after-attacks-target-christians.jpg\" "\\"Donald")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nThe TOI correspondent from Washington:<\/span> US President Donald Trump has warned Iran to stop charging fees on ships going through the Strait of Hormuz, reversing his earlier position where he appeared to endorse such tolls and even wanted a cut of the spoils for Washington in a deal with Tehran. \u201cThere are reports that Iran is charging fees to tankers going through the Hormuz Strait \u2014 They better not be, and if they are, they better stop now!\u201d Trump said in a post on Friday, following up with \u201cIran is doing a very poor job, dishonourable some would say, of allowing oil to go through the Strait of Hormuz. That is not the agreement we have!\u201dThe US President has now managed to articulate three distinct positions on one of the most sensitive questions in global maritime law: whether Iran can charge tolls in the Strait of Hormuz. First came the provocation. Asked if he would end the conflict tied to Iran\u2019s reported toll collection, Trump, amplifying his view that \u201cto the victor goes the spoils,\u201d shot back: \u201cWhat about us charging tolls? I\u2019d rather do that than let them have it. Why shouldn\u2019t we? We\u2019re the winner.\u201d Hours later, he floated a deal with Iran, saying \u201cWe\u2019re thinking of doing it as a joint venture\u2026It\u2019s a way of securing it — securing it from lots of other people,\u201d calling it a \u201cbeautiful\u201d idea.The contortions have left diplomats, shipping companies, and legal scholars grappling with a question that cuts to the heart of the global trading system: who, if anyone, has the right to charge for passage through the world\u2019s maritime chokepoints?Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the answer\u2014at least on paper\u2014is unambiguous. The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow passage connecting the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea, qualifies as an \u201cinternational strait.\u201d Under Article 44, coastal states bordering such straits\u2014in this case Iran and Oman\u2014are obligated not to \u201champer or suspend\u201d transit passage. A narrow exception: states can charge fees for specific services like pilotage, tug assistance, or emergency repairs, but these must be tied to actual services, not levied as a blanket \u201cnavigation tax.\u201dIran\u2019s reported move to extract toll \u2014 allegedly now in cryptocurrency\u2014 has therefore drawn swift condemnation from maritime law experts, who see it as a direct violation of both treaty law and long-standing customary practice. By some accounts, Iran can generate up to $240 million a day, given the roughly 120 vessels that transit the strait daily. Part of the confusion stems from a fundamental distinction in maritime law: the difference between natural straits and man-made canals. Artificial waterways like the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal are widely accepted as toll-based systems. Egypt and Panama, respectively, charge transit fees because these are engineered passages requiring constant dredging, maintenance, and security. The tolls are not only legal but essential to the canals\u2019 operation, and they are applied on a non-discriminatory basis under established treaty frameworks.Natural straits, by contrast, are governed by the principle of free transit. They are not owned infrastructure but geographic inevitabilities\u2014chokepoints through which global commerce must pass. Allowing unilateral tolls in such waterways would effectively convert geography into a tool of economic coercion. That is precisely the fear now rippling through maritime circles. If Iran succeeds in enforcing tolls in Hormuz\u2014even partially\u2014it could set a precedent with far-reaching consequences.Attention is already turning to the Strait of Malacca, another critical artery through which a significant portion of global trade flows. Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia have long adhered to the principle of free passage under UNCLOS, but one analyst warned this week that by destabilising Hormuz and bullying Panama, the US has shattered the maritime order that kept Malacca\u2019s shipping lanes free for decades. The implications extend even further. India could, in theory, seek to impose charges on shipping routes crisscrossing the Indian Ocean, while China\u2014already assertive in the South China Sea\u2014might attempt to formalise \u201cadministrative fees\u201d for passage through waters it claims as sovereign. In an era of fraying international norms, it now appears the temptation to extract revenue\u2014or exert leverage\u2014could prove irresistible. For the global economy and shipping, including for India, the stakes are enormous. The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly a fifth of the world\u2019s oil supply, while accounting for 40 per cent of India\u2019s imports (down from 55 per cent in 2020 as New Delhi has diversified to Russia, USA, and now Venezuela) and 90 per cent of its LNG. Even the hint of tolls\u2014or the threat of enforcement\u2014can send insurance premiums soaring and disrupt supply chains from Rotterdam to Mumbai to Tokyo (also vulnerable). Japan and other energy-dependent economies have already voiced concern, warning that the combination of conflict and commercial exploitation could destabilise markets. \u201cIf you hadn\u2019t started this war, the Strait of Hormuz would still be peaceful and free,\u201d one angry critic told Trump on X, capturing a sentiment widely shared among US allies even as vice-president JD Vance was flying over the region into Pakistan.<\/div>\n\n