The concept of International Law is often misunderstood. Many people perceive it as an all-powerful global rulebook that governs the world with strict authority, while others hold the opposite view and dismiss it as merely symbolic. The truth lies somewhere in between, but with the rise of geopolitics’ influence on supply chains over the past few years, it’s an important distinction to understand.
The “Rule of International Law” affects global trade, but it’s not a black-and-white concept. And here’s why that matters to your supply chain.
The Myth of a World Government
Probably the most persistent misconception is that international law functions like domestic law, backed by an authority capable of enforcing rules. In reality, there is no global government that compels companies or countries to comply. International law is instead a system built on consent and mutual interest.
Lately, compliance often feels like it’s done out of convenience and when it suits a certain group more than anything. It did not take the trade disruptions of the past year and the current conflict in the Middle East to teach us that countries agree to treaties and other formal agreements because doing so benefits them at the time, but also that everything is up for change.
Rather than functioning as a framework of enforceable rules, international law operates within the limits of state power and strategic interest. Nowhere is this more visible than in maritime law and ocean freight shipping, where the gaps between legal principles and reality become especially clear.
The Expectation vs. Reality of Maritime Law
At the heart of international maritime law lies the principle of freedom of navigation.
From the U.N. website:
Article 87 – Freedom of the high seas
- The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States.
The idea is that all ships should be able to transit international waters without interference. This concept underpins global trade, because modern supply chains depend on predictable, uninterrupted shipping that connects their suppliers and customers globally.
However, this expectation assumes a level of compliance. In reality, control over key maritime chokepoints can override what appears to be legal (or in some cases, just). The recent disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea illustrate this.
Example: The Strait of Hormuz
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most critical arteries in global trade, handling a significant share of the world’s oil and energy shipments. Under international law, it is classified as a strait used for international navigation, where passage should not be impeded.
From a legal perspective, the actions to control traffic through the Strait conflict with established rules. From a practical perspective, however, they demonstrate that a state’s ability to exert control over a strategic waterway can outweigh what’s considered the law.
For ocean freight shipping, the consequences of the ongoing closure were immediate and measurable. And ships continue to be delayed, insurance costs remain high, and entire supply chains are disrupted. The law, while still formally in place, has done nothing to prevent these outcomes.
The Illusion of Uniform Enforcement
Global supply chains are among the best examples of international cooperation. Within that network, ocean freight shipping depends on a mix of legal agreements that govern safety, liability, environmental standards, and commercial practices. In stable conditions, these rules are widely followed because they create efficiency and reduce risk.
However, the assumption that these rules are uniformly enforced is misleading.
When disruptions occur for any reason, carriers need to adapt quickly. Routes are altered, contracts renegotiated, and risks reassessed. Compliance with international law can become secondary to companies’ interests. This leads businesses with goods on impacted ships to complicated decisions.
For example, when the Red Sea disruption began in late 2023 with the Houthis’ attacks, a major shipping lane became unsafe, and the alternatives to this day remain very expensive. In those circumstances, companies do not rely on legal guarantees to restore access. Instead, they reroute vessels, absorb higher costs, or suspend operations entirely. In moments of stress, the supply chains can often respond faster than the legal system.
What This Means for Ocean Freight Shipping
For the ocean freight industry, the current disruption in the Middle East illustrates how international law provides structure, but not certainty. And, how supply chains operate in an environment where legality coexists with geopolitical risk.
This has several implications for global logistics operations:
- Risk management is more complex: Companies must account for political and security risks alongside legal compliance.
- Flexibility and resilience are essential: Routes, suppliers, and logistics strategies must adapt quickly to changing conditions.
- Costs are inherently unstable: Disruptions in key regions can rapidly increase shipping rates, transit times, and insurance costs.
In effect, the ocean freight market must treat international law as one factor among many in supply chain strategy. It is not a guaranteed safeguard in any sense.
Rethinking the Power of International Law
Recent disruptions in critical maritime routes demonstrate that international law does not function with absolute authority. Instead, it is a flexible system shaped by geopolitics, economics, and strategic considerations that are often beyond any one company’s or country’s control.
International law is not meaningless, but its role is never certain or authoritative. In other words, it is not a guarantee of order but a tool for managing it, strongest when supported by shared interests and weakened when they conflict.
