Hormuz,
after April.
A King's Counsel, a board director of the DMCC and a former US Marine officer sit down with the Centre to read the legal, strategic and commercial consequences of the closure.
Twelve months ago the question was whether sanctions on Iranian oil would hold; today the question is whether the Strait of Hormuz itself remains a shippable waterway and, if so, on whose authority. In April the United States declared a formal blockade. The legal architecture for that declaration — UNCLOS as customary international law, the San Remo Manual, the Newport Manual — was already in place.
What is new is the speed at which the contract jurisprudence is moving. London Arbitration 8/2026 has confirmed that, where war-risk clauses already allocate the risk, the doctrine of frustration does not engage. Vessels entering the Strait today carry self-induced exposure under The Eugenia [1964].
The OFAC guidance issued on 2 May removes any remaining amnesty for vessels paying IRGC tolls. The compliance question for the City is no longer due diligence; it is provenance intelligence. Eight in ten cross-border shipping disputes elect English law and London seat; the Centre's record is the place to argue them.
