DAMAGES BEYOND THE BATTLEFIELD: NAVAL BLOCKADES, THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ, AND THE INTERNATIONAL LIABILITY OF STATES FOR DAMAGES TO NON-COMBATANT THIRD PARTIES

Abstract

This study examines the challenges of attributing international responsibility for indirect economic damages arising from the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz during the 2026 conflict, highlighting the inadequacy of traditional collective security mechanisms in light of UN Security Council paralysis and the systemic vulnerability of non-belligerent States. It is hypothesized that the closure of the waterway constitutes an internationally wrongful act under UNCLOS and customary law, granting third-party nations, such as Brazil, legal standing to seek full reparation as "specially affected States" based on the 2001 ILC Articles on State Responsibility. Methodologically, a qualitative and exploratory analysis of treaties, customs, and international jurisprudence is conducted, specifically the standards established in the Chorzów Factory and Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros cases, alongside governance proposals inspired by international environmental law. The investigation demonstrates that while the transit passage regime has a cogent nature, there remains a deficit of effectiveness in the state responsibility system regarding the assessment of diffuse financial losses and the resolution of jurisdictional and political barriers during acute geopolitical crises. It concludes by proposing an integrated and equitable maritime governance model capable of safeguarding trade routes as global commons and ensuring the Global South has meaningful access to compensatory mechanisms against supply shocks triggered by military hostilities at vital global chokepoints.