HIGHLIGHTS

Blood in the Strait: Indian Sailors, the US Blockade, and the Limits of Maritime Warfare under International Law

Introduction

The deaths of three Indian sailors aboard foreign-flagged oil tankers in the Arabian Sea have triggered one of the most serious diplomatic confrontations between India and the United States in recent years. The incident raises difficult questions about the legality of naval blockades, the protection of civilian shipping, and accountability under international maritime law.

At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental legal question: Can a military lawfully target civilian merchant vessels in international waters merely because they are suspected of violating unilateral sanctions?

The answer may have far-reaching implications for the future of maritime security and the rule of law at sea.

The Incident: A Series of Deadly Strikes

Between 8 and 11 June 2026, three merchant tankers carrying Indian crew members were struck during the United States' naval blockade aimed at preventing the transport of Iranian oil.

The Vessels Involved

• MT Marivex (Palau-flagged) – struck on 8 June 2026.
• MT Settebello (Palau-flagged) – struck on 9 June 2026, resulting in the deaths of three Indian sailors.
• MT Jalveer (Guinea-Bissau-flagged) – struck on 11 June 2026.

Importantly, none of these vessels was Indian-owned, though they carried Indian nationals as crew members.

Omani military helicopters rescued survivors from the first attacks, while criticism emerged over the alleged failure of nearby US naval vessels to conduct immediate rescue operations.

The Legal Framework Governing the Seas

1. UNCLOS and Freedom of Navigation

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes the principle of freedom of navigation and guarantees transit passage through international straits such as the Strait of Hormuz.

Ships traversing these waters generally enjoy protection from interference unless international law specifically authorises restrictions.

2. Protection of Civilian Vessels

Under the Law of Armed Conflict at Sea and broader International Humanitarian Law (IHL):

• Merchant ships are presumed to be civilian objects.
• Civilian vessels may not be attacked unless they become legitimate military objectives.
• Parties to a conflict must always distinguish between civilian and military targets.

The principles of distinction, necessity, and proportionality remain central to any lawful use of force at sea.

3. Limits on the Use of Force

Even where a vessel is suspected of sanctions evasion or blockade-running, international law requires that force be:

• Necessary;
• Proportionate; and
• Used only as a last resort.

The use of lethal force is never unlimited.

The United States' Justification

Washington defended its actions as part of enforcing a naval blockade against Iranian oil exports.

US officials asserted that:

• MT Settebello ignored nearly 60 warnings and 8 shows of force over two weeks;
• Crew members were allegedly given 15 minutes to evacuate the engine room before the strike;
• The vessel formed part of a so-called "shadow fleet" transporting Iranian oil.

The US has broadly relied on Article 51 of the UN Charter, invoking the right of self-defence against perceived threats from Iran.

However, self-defence under international law requires necessity and proportionality and does not automatically authorise attacks on civilian shipping.

The Legality of the Blockade: A Contested Question

The most contentious issue is whether the US blockade itself was lawful.

Traditionally, naval blockades are lawful only when:

1. Conducted during an armed conflict;
2. Properly declared and enforced; and
3. Comply with international humanitarian law.

Critics point out that the blockade lacked explicit authorisation from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Former Indian Naval Chief Admiral Arun Prakash argued that, absent a UNSC mandate, the blockade's legality remains highly questionable.

If the blockade itself was unlawful, subsequent attacks carried out in its enforcement may also face legal scrutiny.

Could the Strikes Constitute War Crimes?

International humanitarian law prohibits attacks directed against civilians or civilian objects.

A strike may amount to a war crime if:

• The targeted vessel retained civilian status;
• The attack was disproportionate to the anticipated military advantage, or
• Adequate precautions to protect civilians were not taken.

Some legal experts have therefore argued that the deaths of the Indian sailors warrant an independent international investigation.

Whether these strikes legally amount to war crimes would ultimately depend on evidence regarding targeting decisions, military necessity, and proportionality.

India's Diplomatic Response

India reacted forcefully:

• The United States' senior diplomat in New Delhi was summoned twice.
• The Ministry of External Affairs described the attacks as "unacceptable."
• External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar stated that lethal action against civilian shipping was "not justified."
• India demanded that attacks on commercial vessels carrying Indian nationals must cease immediately.

Political leaders across party lines also criticised the US response, particularly the absence of condolences following the deaths.

Compensation and State Responsibility

Families of the deceased sailors and maritime unions have demanded compensation of at least USD 5 million for each victim.

Under international law, a state may incur responsibility if:

1. It commits an internationally wrongful act; and
2. The act causes injury to foreign nationals.

Possible remedies include:

• Compensation;
• Diplomatic protection by India; and
• Litigation before domestic or international forums, where jurisdiction exists.

However, sovereign immunity and jurisdictional barriers may complicate legal claims against the United States.

The Peace Deal and the End of the Blockade

On 15 June 2026, US President Donald Trump announced a peace agreement with Iran and ordered the lifting of the naval blockade, reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

While the agreement ended the immediate crisis, it did not resolve the legal and moral questions raised by the deaths of the Indian sailors.

Conclusion

The tragedy in the Arabian Sea illustrates the fragile intersection of geopolitics, economic sanctions, and international law. The deaths of civilian mariners highlight an enduring principle: the oceans cannot become law-free spaces where unilateral power overrides legal protections.

Whether these strikes were lawful acts of blockade enforcement or unlawful attacks on civilian shipping remains a matter for legal scrutiny. Yet one truth is beyond dispute: the protection of civilian seafarers is not merely a humanitarian obligation—it is a cornerstone of the international legal order.

As global tensions increasingly spill into maritime spaces, the incident serves as a stark reminder that even in conflict, the rule of law must sail alongside power.

Reference

• India's Telegraph
• Hindustan Times
• The Daily Pioneer
• ABC News (Australia)
• The Indian Express