LONDON – U.S. investment bank JPMorgan has concluded that Iran and Oman’s plan to impose mandatory “navigational safety” fees on vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz may be legally justified under international law, the Financial Times reported.
In a research memo reviewed by the Financial Times, JPMorgan analysts Natasha Kaneva, Lyuba Savinova, and Artem Fakhrutdinov examined the legal framework surrounding potential Iranian fees on ships passing through the strategic waterway. 
The memo argues that while international law prohibits charging tolls for mere transit through territorial waters, fees for specific navigational and security services may be permissible.
The JPMorgan analysis draws a crucial legal distinction: international law grants ships the right of “innocent passage” through territorial waters, making it illegal to charge fees simply for transit. However, charging for specific services—including navigation assistance, traffic management, security protection, emergency response, and environmental safeguards—could be legally defensible.
“By structuring the measure as a service fee rather than a transit toll, and by coordinating with Oman as the other littoral state, Iran could attempt to
 create a legal framework that appears consistent with international maritime law,” JPMorgan analysts wrote in a previous note published in May.
To support its analysis, JPMorgan cited examples from Denmark and Turkey, both U.S. allies and NATO members, where similar service fee systems are already in operation.
Denmark’s Pilotage Act makes pilotage mandatory for vessels carrying hazardous cargo—such as oil, chemicals, or gases—or more than 5,000 metric tons of bunker oil. Pilotage fees, paid to the Danish Ministry of Business, range from $10,000 to $25,000 per transit for a Balticmax tanker.
Turkey operates what JPMorgan describes as “a de facto tollbooth” on oil tankers transiting the Turkish Straits. 
Under the 1936 Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits, Turkish authorities have broad regulatory powers and can charge for services including lighthouses, channel buoys, sanitary controls, and emergency rescue operations. 
Ankara charges a Suezmax oil tanker approximately $130,000 for a round-trip passage, roughly $0.13 per barrel of crude.
Iran and Oman have been engaged in intensive negotiations to establish a joint framework for managing shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. The proposed arrangement would combine the existing northern and southern routes into a single two-way corridor, with Iran granted oversight of vessels entering the Persian Gulf.
Iranian officials have made clear that the Strait of Hormuz will not return to its pre-war status. Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi has stated that vessels transiting the strait will be required to pay for security, rescue, and pollution cleanup services—explicitly distinguishing these from transit tolls or passage taxes.
At its narrowest point, the Strait of Hormuz measures just 21 nautical miles across. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), coastal nations may claim territorial waters extending 12 nautical miles from their shores. 
This creates a mathematical reality that neither side disputes: the territorial waters of Iran and Oman overlap or abut, leaving no high-seas corridor where international transit passage is unambiguously guaranteed.
Critically, Iran has signed but not ratified UNCLOS, meaning it is not bound by the convention’s provisions regarding transit passage through straits used for international navigation. 
Instead, Tehran maintains that the legal regime applicable to the Strait of Hormuz is that of “innocent passage” under customary international law—a regime that recognizes the sovereign rights of coastal states to regulate navigation within their territorial waters.
The U.S.-Israeli war of terrorism has prompted Iran to put aside its longstanding diplomatic hesitation and fully enforce its sovereign authority under international law.
Rear Admiral Mohammad Akbarzadeh, political deputy of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Navy, announced that Iran has fundamentally redefined the operational boundaries of the strategic waterway. 
“In the past, the Strait of Hormuz was defined as a limited area around islands such as Hormuz and Hengam, but today this has changed,” he said. 
What Iran now considers the scope of the strait has expanded from a width of 20 to 30 miles to over 200 to 300 miles—approximately 500 kilometers—stretching from the coasts of Jask and Sirik to beyond Qeshm Island and Greater Tunb.
This redefinition reflects Iran’s intent to administer, regulate, and control maritime traffic within its expanded territorial waters, under the framework of international law.
Iran has rejected Oman’s initial proposal for a 50-50 division of the strait, insisting instead on a framework that would give Tehran oversight of both inbound and outbound maritime traffic. 
According to Iranian officials, the new arrangement must protect the country’s sovereignty, national interests, and security—and must reflect the reality that the strait forms part of the territorial waters of both Iran and Oman.
The proposed agreement would combine the two existing routes—the northern lane in Iranian waters and the southern lane in Omani waters—into a single two-way corridor. Iran would be granted oversight of vessels entering the Persian Gulf in exchange for reopening the strait to global trade. 
As the war continues and the Islamic Republic enforces its sovereign authority over the Strait of Hormuz, the legal framework governing one of the world’s most vital maritime chokepoints is being fundamentally rewritten. 
Unsurprisingly, the United States remains intransigent. Trump has intensified his rhetoric over the Strait of Hormuz, claiming that the United States exercises “total control” over the strategic waterway. 
Iran’s argument—that mandatory fees for navigational services, structured as service charges rather than transit tolls, are consistent with international law—has received surprising validation from JPMorgan, a pillar of the U.S. financial establishment.