Sovereign water ways versus international water ways. (on straits)

Rule based world order in where the rules are forced by the powerful and/or victorious ones.

The core tension in multi polar world order  maritime geopolitics resurfaced and will continue to be a serious issue. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the sea waterway rights (territorial sea ) of a country are limited to a maximum of 12 nautical miles (approx. 22.2 kilometers or 13.8 miles) from its coastal baseline. Within this 12-mile zone, the coastal state exercises full sovereignty, including control over the airspace, water, seabed, and subsoil, although foreign vessels are allowed passage under certain conditions. A state can enforce laws regarding customs, immigration, and sanitation up to 24 miles from its baseline which is called “Contiguous Zone”. In addition, a state has exclusive rights to explore and exploit natural resources (fishing, oil, mining) up to 200 nautical miles from its baseline and may have rights to the seabed and subsoil up to 350 nautical miles under specific circumstances, such as when the continental margin extends beyond 200 miles.

The terminology and definitions all through the history is written through peace agreements- in most cases capitulation serving the interests of the “victorious” countries in some cases, by subjugation of the other in other cases. That is why the “law” that a  waterway is legally “international” , obligating the coastal state to permit passage has been forced upon the others by letting the “ports, land, and terminals” that service it are subject to “national sovereignty and commercial contracts” which can be bought, leased, or adjudicated. The double edged agreement is that the “sovereignty” over the waterways of a country has been violated either by military or designed to be subjugated by economic power. The legal theory of "international waterway" in most cases clashes with the concrete reality of "port control" either through military bases or ownership of the ports.

Comparative Analysis in general

“Natural Strait vs. Artificial Canal” is a critical distinction. Artificial canals like “Suez and Panama” are allowed to charge tolls as part of their operational model, whereas charging a fee for simple transit through a natural strait like Hormuz is prohibited under international law. In other words, if it is “naturally” under the sovereign rights it may be overridden by some forms of forced “laws”, if it is artificial the sovereignty rights of given country is overridden by the Finance Capital who economically “owns” it.

“Sovereignty vs. International Rights”: In treaty-based regimes, the host state retains sovereignty but agrees to binding international obligations determined and written by the superpowers regarding freedom of passage.

“Legal Status vs. Reality”: A waterway's imposed legal  status as an international strait can be undermined by de facto threats. The “Strait of Hormuz” faces periodic challenges to its UNCLOS rights from Iran, while the “Bab el-Mandeb” has seen its transit rights violently disrupted by non-state actors.

Fundamental  Contradictions

When comparing these eight waterways, the tension between "International Waterway" and "Sovereign Rights" manifests in two distinct ways:

1.  “The "Lease" Contradiction” (Malacca, Suez, previously Panama): The water is sovereign, but the “land” is a commercial asset. This creates the perception that a foreign power "owns the mouth" of the strait without paying a toll for the water itself.

2.  “The "Enforcement" Contradiction” (Hormuz, Bering, Bab el-Mandeb): The law says the water is international. “Reality” is that the state with the biggest navy, the most aggressive militia, or the closest military base determines who actually passes.

Comparison of specific Straits

“Strait of Malacca” is sovereign . But conditioned within UNCLOS Transit Passage I where vessels cannot be stopped or taxed for simply transiting. Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore jointly manage traffic separation and environmental protection. They can regulate “access to ports”, but not “transit through the water”. Joint ventures with foreign state-owned enterprises dominate terminal operations. The “Contradiction” is that the bordering states cannot charge tolls for ships passing through the water, but they “can” lease the docks to a foreign power for 30+ years. Sovereignty over water is “absolute”; sovereignty over land is “commercialized”, meaning “sovereignty” is on paper and  subjected to be violated by economic power.

   “Port Ownership Realities”  is a prime example of "water sovereignty" vs. "port control." Ports are often commercial ventures with significant foreign investment.  

 “Singapore”: The state-owned PSA International is dominant, but key terminals are operated as joint ventures with Chinese shipping giant COSCO, such as the COSCO-PSA Terminal.       

 “Malaysia”: Ports like “Kuantan” have Chinese companies holding substantial stakes, while “Port Klang” maintains close cooperation with Chinese firms.

“Strait of Hormuz” is similar. According to  UNCLOS Transit Passage, “legally”  Iran cannot tax or impede traffic which has been disputed by Iran since it’s initiation, Iran has repeatedly attempted to assert de facto control. Iran claims a right to "manage" security and had proposed tolls. Oman adheres to so called “international law.” Ports are strictly “state-owned”. No foreign ownership. The contradiction is that the waterway is assumed to be international, but Iran has the “de facto” military capacity to make it “permission-based”. The contradiction is between the imposed  “legal theory” (free passage),  and “geographic chokehold reality”.

 “Suez Canal” based on the  Constantinople Convention (1888) always free and open." Egypt has full sovereignty. The canal is an “Egyptian-owned waterway” open to all.  “Tension over Adjacent Land”: The “Suez Canal Economic Zone (SCZONE)” is operated in partnership with UAE entities. The “contradiction” is that Egypt insists the “water” is 100% sovereign Egyptian territory. Yet the “land around it” is developed and operated by foreign state capital. The government denies this impacts sovereignty, but dished out perception is that it is  a "lease to the banks."

 “Panama Canal” based on the  Neutrality Treaty (1977), it is open to all nations in peace/war. Sovereignty is  “absolute” (since 1999) on paper and Panama is the “sovereign” administrator and defender of the canal. Terminal ports (Balboa/Cristobal) were operated by “CK Hutchison (Hong Kong)” until a “2026 Supreme Court ruling declared the contract unconstitutional”. This is the most extreme example of the tension. The “water” was international and Panamanian sovereign. The “docks” were foreign. Panama's courts “used sovereignty over the waterway” as justification to annul the foreign port leases. |

“Bering Strait” . Status is  “ambiguous”. US says claims Transit Passage; Russia's position is restrictive (likely Innocent Passage only). There is “no agreed international regime” for the strait itself. No major international ports. Facilities like Provideniya (Russia) are remote, state-controlled bases. The lack of legal clarity means the bordering states “exercise maximum sovereign discretion”. The "international" nature exists only on paper; in reality, it is treated as a “bilateral border crossing”.

“Turkish Straits”. Its status is sovereign with a twist. “Montreux Convention (1936)” supersedes UNCLOS. Freedom for merchant ships. Turkey has the “explicit sovereign right” to close the straits to foreign warships during war or threat of war. Ports are “Turkish-owned”. No foreign control. The state owns the infrastructure and water. Here, “sovereign rights explicitly override international transit rights” for warships. It is the only waterway where the bordering state legally has the final say over who enters the water.

 “Strait of Magellan”. Based on the Treaty of 1881 & 1984 it is “Permanently Neutralized”. Sovereignty is “absolute but bound”. Chile has sovereignty but “cannot fortify or close” the strait to any peaceful vessel. Ports like Punta Arenas are under full national control. Chile's sovereignty is “inalienable”, but its right to “exclude” is “zero”. The treaty solved the contradiction by saying: "You own it, but you can never use it as a means of  weapon."

 “Bab el-Mandeb”. Based on the UNCLOS Transit Passage its sovereignty is “Fragmented/Nominal”. Yemen, Djibouti, Eritrea have territorial claims, but “non-state actors (Houthis)” and “foreign bases” dominate reality. Djibouti hosts “both US and Chinese military bases”. Commercial ports are secondary to the presence of expeditionary forces. Legally, the bordering states have sovereign rights but in reality, the waterway is “policed by foreign navies” and “local militias”. The concept of "bordering sovereign right" is fiction here.

The reality of "sovereignty" versus "control" at these waterways is often more complex than the legal frameworks outlined by the previous superpowers. The key tension lies in the difference between “sovereignty over the water” which is often internationally limited and “control over the land-based infrastructure, ports that services it, which can be acquired commercially and can be turned into a violation of national rights. This gives external powers a significant ability to influence or protect maritime traffic in the straits, challenging the traditional notion of coastal state control.

All eight are vital for international trade, they are not governed by a single set of rules decided and imposed on others. Their legal status is determined by an interplay between two primary frameworks: the general rules of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and in specific, long-standing international treaties both of which dominated by the superpowers.

In simple terms, the “rule based world order” era of unipolar world order in where the “rules” are determined, written, and revised as it fits the interests of superpower, the “sovereignty” of a country over its land and sea was only on paper and fallacy.  It seems that in the era of multi polar world order we will be witnessing a gradual direction to “sovereignty rights” of the strait-bordering countries in reality starting with the Strait of Hormuz.

Erdogan A
April 13, 2026