China urges US, Iran to avoid return of war, backs ‘lawful rights’ of coastal nations in Hormuz

China urges the US and Iran to avoid war over the Strait of Hormuz and backs Iran's “lawful rights” as a coastal state, a position that is grounded in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

China Urges Diplomacy in Hormuz Strait Amid Rising Tensions

China has called for restraint and diplomatic solutions to prevent escalation in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping artery. Beijing’s Foreign Ministry emphasized the need to avoid military conflict between the U.S. and Iran, while reaffirming support for Iran’s “lawful rights” as a coastal state. The stance aligns with China’s broader strategy to protect its energy interests and trade routes, which carry over 20% of the world’s oil.

U.S.-China-Iran Dynamics and Shipping Implications

The U.S. has publicly accused China of “funding” Iran and urged Beijing to pressure Tehran to reopen the strait after recent disruptions. Meanwhile, China has rejected U.S. demands, stressing that Iran’s sovereignty must be respected. For seafarers and operators, this tension raises risks of rerouting, delays, and increased insurance premiums.

• Key Risk Factors: Vessel transits through Hormuz require heightened security protocols, including armed guards and reduced speeds.
• Cost Impact: Rerouting via the Cape of Good Hope adds 12-14 days and 5,000 nautical miles to Middle East to Europe routes.

Legal and Operational Trade-Offs

China’s position hinges on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which grants coastal states rights while ensuring freedom of navigation. However, this creates a balancing act: enforcing Iran’s sovereignty risks blocking vital trade, while prioritizing open shipping lanes could undermine regional states’ legal claims. Operators must weigh compliance with local regulations against the economic costs of delays.

A common mistake is underestimating the cascading effects of political tensions. Crews should monitor updates from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and regional coast guards for real-time transit advisories.

Industry Response and Mitigation Strategies

Shipping companies are diversifying routes and increasing bunker fuel reserves to hedge against Hormuz disruptions. The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) recommends: Route Optimization: Use the Suez Canal or Cape of Good Hope as alternatives, though these add time and fuel costs. Insurance Adjustments: Secure additional coverage for piracy and political instability in the region. Crew Training: Conduct emergency drills for potential strait closures or security threats.

Ports in the U.S., UK, and Singapore are also collaborating with maritime security agencies to streamline cargo inspections and reduce bottlenecks if Hormuz becomes unstable.

Why This Matters for the Shipping Industry

A prolonged standoff in Hormuz could trigger a global energy crisis, with liquefied natural gas (LNG) and crude oil shipments particularly vulnerable. For seafarers, this means extended voyages, increased stress from security threats, and potential crew rotation challenges. Operators must prepare contingency plans, including alternative cargo storage and vessel redeployment strategies.

Why there is no way around the strait

Rerouting is not an option for cargo that starts inside the Gulf. Hormuz is the only sea exit, so a ship loading at Ras Tanura, Basrah or Kharg Island cannot reach open water any other way. The Cape of Good Hope is an alternative to Suez, not to Hormuz.

The only bypasses are pipelines. Saudi Arabia's East-West line carries crude from the Eastern Province across the country to Yanbu on the Red Sea, and the UAE's Habshan to Fujairah line reaches the Gulf of Oman outside the strait. Between them they move a fraction of what normally passes through Hormuz, and they do nothing at all for LNG, refined products or containers.

What UNCLOS says about a strait like Hormuz

The convention treats Hormuz as a strait used for international navigation. Ships and aircraft have a right of transit passage which, unlike innocent passage through a territorial sea, cannot be suspended, and UNCLOS Article 44 requires the states bordering a strait not to hamper or suspend it. That is the ground both sides of this dispute stand on.

The complication is who is bound. China ratified the convention and argues from inside it. Iran signed in 1982 but never ratified, and the United States is not a party either, though both treat the transit passage rules as customary law. Three states in three different relationships to the same text is why the legal argument does not settle quickly.