Legal framework that governs maritime conflict

Source: The post “legal framework that governs maritime conflict” has been created, based on “Was US legally right in sinking Iranian ship? What framework governing maritime conflict says” published in “Indian Express” on  06th March 2026.

UPSC Syllabus: GS Paper-2- International Relations

Context: The sinking of the Iranian warship IRIS Dena by a US submarine in international waters near Sri Lanka has raised significant concerns about the legality of the use of force at sea. Maritime conflicts are primarily governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United Nations Charter, and customary international law relating to naval warfare.

Legal Framework Governing Maritime Conflict

(a) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

1. UNCLOS regulates maritime zones, navigation rights, and resource use primarily during peacetime.
2. It does not contain detailed provisions governing the conduct of hostilities during armed conflict at sea.
3. Therefore, during conflicts, the law of naval warfare operates alongside UNCLOS.

(b) Law of Naval Warfare

1. Under customary international law, warships belonging to an enemy state can be considered legitimate military targets during armed conflict.
2. The presence of a warship in international waters does not grant immunity from attack if hostilities exist between the states involved.

(c) UN Charter Provisions

1. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against another state.
2. Article 51 allows states to use force in self-defence if an armed attack occurs.
3. Military action may also be authorised by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter.

(d) International Humanitarian Law at Sea

1. Naval warfare must follow principles of necessity, proportionality, and distinction.
2. Attacks must be directed only at legitimate military targets and must avoid excessive harm.

Arguments Supporting the Legality of the US Action

1. If the United States and Iran were already engaged in an armed conflict, the Iranian warship could legally be treated as a military target.
2. Warships are sovereign military assets and are generally considered lawful targets during hostilities.
3. The United States may justify the strike under the right to self-defence provided under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
4. The attack occurred in international waters, where no country exercises complete sovereignty.

Arguments Questioning the Legality of the Strike

1. If the Iranian warship was on a peaceful passage and not engaged in combat operations, the attack could be considered unlawful.
2. The use of force without clear evidence of self-defence may violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
3. The absence of explicit authorisation from the UN Security Council raises concerns regarding unilateral military action.
4. Attacking a vessel outside an active conflict zone may be viewed as a significant escalation of the conflict.

Strategic Implications

1. The incident expands the theatre of the US-Iran conflict beyond West Asia into the Indian Ocean region.
2. It raises maritime security concerns for regional powers such as India.
3. The episode highlights gaps in global maritime governance during armed conflicts.

Way Forward

1. The international community should strengthen legal norms governing naval warfare to address grey areas in maritime conflicts.
2. Greater reliance on multilateral institutions such as the United Nations Security Council is required to regulate the use of force at sea.
3. Countries should enhance maritime confidence-building measures and communication channels to prevent accidental escalation.
4. Regional powers should promote cooperative maritime security frameworks in sensitive regions such as the Indian Ocean.
5. There is a need to reinforce adherence to international humanitarian law and ensure accountability for violations during maritime conflicts.

Conclusion: While the law of naval warfare allows the targeting of enemy warships during armed conflict, the legality of the strike on IRIS Dena ultimately depends on whether it can be justified under self-defence or as part of an ongoing conflict. The incident underscores the urgent need to strengthen international maritime governance and conflict-management mechanisms.

Question: In the context of the recent sinking of the Iranian warship IRIS Dena by a US submarine near Sri Lanka, discuss the legal framework governing maritime conflict in international waters. Was the action legally justified?

Source: Indian Express