‘international law’
Bro international law doesn’t exist. if it did the US would have been militarily eliminated in the 1800s and Israel would not have come into existence, period.
Oman and Iran, the two countries that border the straight want recompense for the international community’s failure to control the rabid dog that is the United States. That’s more than fair.
If you want tankers through their waters, which the straight is, then just pay. Otherwise stop buying avocado toast and paying for overland shipping to any of the other water ways.
Don’t pay the toll and get attacked? Insurer’s will go for that! Let’s sail!
Even if insurers do pay, it’ll be at current valuations, and the shipyards responsible for these massive things are on like a decade plus wait. Insurers at this scale do not insure future expected income. So the owners will be able to pay off the loans and reimburse the suppliers and then hang around for 10 years with their thumbs up their asses. Yeah, no established capital is taking that risk.
Yep, the Demented one has really caused a big mess that’s beyond his control.
Intertanko is saying this…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_of_Independent_Tanker_Owners
They’re third party shippers and if tankers have to pay, that’s their profits.
But the oil companies are gonna pay it anyways, be ause they get the increased profits from the price of oil.
What international norm says you can’t charge people for using your territory?
That would be UNCLOS, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
And honestly I really like the dry humor that some Wikipedia entries (strait of Hormuz in this case) are written:
To traverse the full length of the strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. Although Iran has not ratified the UNCLOS convention,[19] most countries, including the U.S. which also has not ratified it,[20] claim the right of passage as codified in the convention.
That’s hilarious. Just pure historical irony.
I learned sth new! Pretty funny indeed
I wonder if insurers already listed clauses to contracts protecting themselves from claims resulting in the destruction of tankers whose owners might choose to navigate through dangerous war zones.
And, if so, I would imagine the owners of those tankers would be well aware of this.
There’s a common clause in most commercial B2B agreements called “Force Majeure” which protects one or more parties in case of an unforseen event. War is usually one of the points in such a clause.
Fun fact, war is a commonly excluded cause of loss in insurance policies.
Pretty sure most ship insurers have suspended coverage for vessels around that area.
