The ongoing conflict in the Middle East is beginning to have immediate effects on international shipping, not only operationally, but also from a legal standpoint. The decision by major carriers such as Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd, and CMA CGM to reroute vessels via the Cape of Good Hope, avoiding the Suez Canal and critical areas like the Strait of Hormuz, has triggered a range of legal implications in maritime transport.
According to Víctor Hugo Vilches, associate attorney at Legal Export Abogados, “rerouting container vessels via the Cape of Good Hope involves longer distances and transit times”, which can lead to significant contractual consequences, particularly for cargo already in transit.
From an international law perspective, the situation also puts key maritime navigation principles under pressure. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), specifically Article 38, recognizes the right of transit through straits used for international navigation, such as the Strait of Hormuz. However, in practice, this principle is subject to the need to ensure minimum safety conditions for navigation.
In this context, Vilches notes that “contractual clauses related to reasonable deviation, war clauses, force majeure, or war risk surcharges may be triggered”, opening the door to different legal interpretations depending on the specific terms of each transport contract.
At the domestic level, the analysis is also supported by Articles 984 and 985 of the Chilean Commercial Code, which regulate the carrier’s obligations and the circumstances under which liability may be waived. As Vilches explains, “the unforeseeable escalation of the armed conflict in the Strait of Hormuz could justify a deviation from the originally planned route”, particularly for voyages already underway when the situation worsened.
However, this interpretation is not absolute. Vilches introduces a key consideration: “this flexibility in assessing reasonableness and due diligence diminishes in the case of new bookings made after the conflict became publicly known”. In such cases, unpredictability can no longer be claimed, placing a greater duty of care on shipping lines.
This translates into a clear requirement: “preventive measures must be adopted in advance, including more careful route planning and the implementation of reasonable actions aimed at avoiding loss, damage, or delays in cargo delivery”, he adds.
As a result, determining liability in cases of contractual breach or cargo damage cannot be generalized. “It must necessarily be assessed on a case-by-case basis”, Vilches emphasizes, ruling out the possibility of uniform solutions in a highly volatile geopolitical environment.
Beyond the legal dimension, the commercial impact of these diversions is also significant. If the situation persists, it could further strain global supply chains, affecting port planning, container availability, and delivery times.
In this context, the Middle East conflict is not only reshaping global shipping routes but also challenging the legal frameworks that govern international trade, forcing industry players to operate in an environment of increasing legal uncertainty.
Source: MundoMaritimo
