Is This the End of ‘Freedom of Navigation’? Global Order Buckling Under Transit Tolls [Editorial News Analysis]
- Input
- 2026-04-15 18:12:34
- Updated
- 2026-04-15 18:12:34
■ Freedom of Navigation and the Ban on Transit Tolls
Freedom of navigation. Under international law, all states have the right for their vessels to sail freely on the seas without interference from other states. The basic principle is that every state enjoys freedom of navigation on the high seas and within another state’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This norm is codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), concluded in 1982 and in force since 1994.
Even within a coastal state’s territorial sea, foreign ships enjoy the right of innocent passage, meaning they may pass through so long as they do not harm the coastal state’s peace, public order or security. In straits used for international navigation, such as the Strait of Hormuz, there is an even stronger regime known as the right of transit passage. Coastal states may not impede or suspend such passage, and they are prohibited from charging transit tolls as a condition for passage.
Article 26 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), paragraph 1, clearly states that "no charge may be levied upon foreign ships by reason only of their passage through the territorial sea." However, under paragraph 2, a coastal state may impose charges for specific services actually rendered to the ship, such as pilotage or port services.
■ Transit Tolls and the Birth of the U.S. Navy
Until the early 18th century, the seas were a stage of disorder. Some states issued letters of marque to private vessels, effectively licensing them to seize and plunder other ships as state-sanctioned pirates. The United States of America (U.S.) was among the countries that suffered heavily. The Continental Navy, which had played a key role in the American War of Independence, was disbanded soon after the war because the young republic could not afford the cost. With no navy to protect them, U.S. merchant ships were left exposed at sea.
At the time, states along the Mediterranean coast preyed on passing merchant ships and enslaved their crews. Many countries decided it was cheaper to pay transit tolls than to wage war, and they paid large sums in exchange for safe passage. In the U.S., fierce opposition grew as roughly 20% of the federal budget was being handed over each year as "transit tolls" or "protection money."
In response, President George Washington signed the Naval Act of 1794, authorizing the construction of six warships. President Thomas Jefferson, under the slogan "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute," dispatched the navy to the Mediterranean. In 1805, U.S. forces won a victory against the pirates of Tripoli. The fact that resistance to states and pirates charging tolls at sea led directly to the creation of the U.S. Navy and its first overseas deployment is highly symbolic.
■ Mahan and the U.S.-Led Maritime Order
Alfred Thayer Mahan’s 1890 work The Influence of Sea Power upon History had a decisive impact on modern U.S. naval strategy and foreign policy. Analyzing how the British Empire rose to great-power status in the 17th and 18th centuries by dominating the seas, Mahan argued that a nation’s prosperity and security depend on its "sea power." He identified three pillars of strong sea power: naval strength, a large merchant marine, and overseas markets and bases.
Mahan’s theory transformed the then coast-defense‐oriented U.S. Navy into a blue‐water fleet and paved the way for the rising United States to become a superpower. His ideas particularly influenced President Theodore Roosevelt Jr., underpinning policies such as construction of the Panama Canal, acquisition of overseas naval bases, and deployment of the Great White Fleet. Commentators say that the recently mentioned "Golden Fleet" of President Donald Trump was inspired by Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet.
Today, the United States Navy (USN) acts as a kind of "global police" on the world’s major sea lanes. Some describe the USN as "the pillar that supports the massive edifice of Pax Americana." The "U.S.-led maritime order" signifies the transformation of the seas from a lawless zone into global public goods. As the dangers of seaborne trade diminished, insurance premiums fell, and a global economic system emerged in which about 90% of world trade by volume moves by sea. This system represents a civilizational advance that turned the oceans from battlefields ruled by raw power into highways for shared human prosperity.
■ The Strait of Hormuz Transit Toll Proposal
The current war with the Islamic Republic of Iran vividly illustrates how severely global supply chains could be hit if the U.S.-led maritime order collapses. With the Strait of Hormuz choked off, the entire world is suffering. That is why the international community breathed a sigh of relief, however tentative, at the fragile two‐week ceasefire agreement. Amid the torrent of wartime rhetoric, talk of "Strait of Hormuz transit tolls" has been especially shocking. The Islamic Republic of Iran is reported to have passed legislation in its parliament to impose a transit toll of roughly 3 billion won per ship passing through the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. President Donald Trump has also said he is considering jointly collecting such tolls. His remarks about "making a lot of money" and even partnering with Iran on the scheme appear to have been sincere.
The idea of "Strait of Hormuz transit tolls" is, first of all, a clear violation of the law of the sea. If it sets a precedent, there is a real risk that the global maritime order could seize up. Around 20% of the world’s seaborne crude oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, so imposing tolls there would trigger a surge in energy prices and chaos in supply chains, inflicting enormous damage on the global economy, including South Korea. In particular, if the U.S.—which has long styled itself as the guardian of freedom of navigation—were to agree to such tolls, it would spell the collapse of the U.S.-led order governing international navigation.
■ The Prospect of De Facto Transit Tolls
After facing a storm of criticism for mentioning "transit tolls," President Donald Trump abruptly reversed course. Following the breakdown of the first ceasefire talks and his move to reimpose a counter‐blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, Trump is now warning that any ship paying tolls to the Islamic Republic of Iran will be subject to search and interdiction. Even so, the possibility that tolls will become a reality has not disappeared.
John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago predicts that instead of paying war reparations demanded by the Islamic Republic of Iran, the U.S. will end up tolerating the collection of transit tolls. Reparations premised on U.S. defeat are something Washington can never accept. However, if Tehran agrees to abandon uranium enrichment, Washington could recognize the tolls as a form of postwar reconstruction funding for Iran, he argues. For President Trump, this could be an easy "deal." Some analysts say that even if Strait of Hormuz transit tolls become a reality, the burden on oil‐producing states would not be excessive compared with the production cost of Middle Eastern crude. Others have floated a model similar to the Strait of Malacca, in which the states concerned make voluntary contributions in the form of shared funding rather than formal tolls.
■ The Symbolism of Strait of Hormuz Tolls
Whatever the final outcome of the Strait of Hormuz transit tolls, change in the U.S.-led order is inevitable. The fact that Washington has failed to force the Islamic Republic of Iran into outright capitulation is, in effect, a U.S. defeat. For the U.S., the decline of the world’s preeminent naval power—which was built on opposing maritime tolls and defending freedom of navigation—is a bitter reality. The message is that, even if it serves to maintain global hegemony, the U.S. no longer intends to shoulder the financial burden of upholding the international maritime order on its own.
It is also symbolic that the Islamic Republic of Iran is reportedly demanding payment of Strait of Hormuz transit tolls not in dollars, but in cryptocurrencies or Chinese yuan. Washington will never accept a complete replacement of the dollar. The petrodollar system—in which oil transactions are settled in U.S. dollars—has been crucial to sustaining U.S. hegemony. Yet in one form or another, both the dollar and America’s global standing are bound to be shaken.
The erosion of the U.S.-led maritime order means the end of an era of free and safe seas and cheap energy. We must recognize that the benefits of inexpensive Middle Eastern oil and ocean‐based logistics networks have been possible only because the U.S. has borne enormous costs. Whether we pay tolls directly, have oil‐producing countries shoulder them, or contribute through some burden‐sharing scheme, the cost will clearly be higher than it is now. Because of the uncertainty in the Middle East, efforts to find alternative routes or regions for oil transport will also translate into higher costs. Judging from President Trump’s threats, depending on how events unfold, South Korea’s navy may well be called upon to participate in some form of operation near the Strait of Hormuz.
■ K‐Diplomacy and K‐Politics
In wartime, when power speaks first, international law can appear powerless. Even so, it remains vital. Principles such as freedom of navigation and the right of innocent passage are not just abstract rules; they are norms agreed upon by most of the world’s states—currently 160 countries. Many say that as the U.S.-centered international order wobbles, we are entering an era in which each country must fend for itself. That is only half true. What we are really seeing is the birth of a new order to replace the old system propped up by U.S. unipolar dominance. Chung Duck-koo, chair of the North East Asia Research Foundation (NEAR Foundation), describes this in The Revival of Diplomacy as a period of power transition, a time of shifting balances. UNCLOS itself was the product of long negotiations beginning with the first conference in 1958. As a new order takes shape through similarly protracted talks, this is precisely the moment when South Korea needs active diplomacy to ensure its voice is reflected.
The concern, however, lies with domestic politics. South Korea’s national power and international standing have grown, but inward‐looking nationalism and deep ideological bias in domestic politics have been projected directly onto foreign policy. The result is that the country’s diplomatic compass swings every five years, undermining the accumulation of diplomatic trust in the international community. In the turbulence of a power‐transition era, we must not repeat the folly of transplanting South Korea’s internal political conflicts wholesale into international relations. We need diplomatic capacity and social cohesion befitting a country with top‐ten economic power and one of the world’s five strongest militaries. Our approach to the U.S. and China alike must be grounded in an independent perspective and guided by our own national interests, as The Revival of Diplomacy argues.
The Republic of Korea (South Korea) is often described as the only country to have become an advanced nation without a history of imperialism. That is one reason its image is positive in the international community. Yet both politicians and the public remain unfamiliar with international and strategic thinking. It is hard to break out of politics tailored solely to the domestic audience and the limitations of domestic‐minded politicians. Even in this grave emergency, the daily spectacle of our politics defies description; calling it disappointing would be an understatement. In this period of power transition and new order‐building, a fundamental transformation of our diplomacy and politics is urgently needed. K‐culture, including Korean popular music (K-pop), is flourishing, and the rise of the K-defense industry is equally remarkable. For now, it may seem far‐fetched, but one day, we may be able to speak with pride of K‐diplomacy and K‐politics as well.
dinoh7869@fnnews.com Reporter