Recently, Evangelos Marinakis, the president of Capital Group, one of the largest members of the Greek Shipowners Association, proposed a controversial suggestion at a shipowners forum. Marinakis stated that if paying a certain fee could help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, then this form of "passage fee" might be a price worth paying. This statement immediately sparked extensive discussions and controversy within the industry.

From a legal perspective, according to Articles 37 to 44 of Part III of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), straits used for international navigation are subject to the transit passage system. The core provisions include: All ships and aircraft have the right to transit passage, and such passage should not be obstructed; It is explicitly prohibited to levy tolls on foreign ships, and only fees can be charged for providing specific services.

UNCLOS strictly defines the jurisdictional scope of coastal states: The matters that can be regulated include navigation safety and traffic management, prevention of ship pollution, protection of fishery resources, customs / immigration / health quarantine; the prohibited matters include not being allowed to suspend the right of transit passage, not being allowed to charge fees for mere transit activities, and not being allowed to implement discriminatory treatment; the exceptions for charging include only being able to charge reasonable fees for actual services provided such as pilotage, VTS traffic management, and navigation aids.

The Strait of Hormuz fully complies with Article 37 of the UNCLOS regarding international straits: it has geographical features with the narrowest point being only 21 nautical miles, and it is entirely within the 12-nautical-mile territorial waters of both Iran and Oman; its functional positioning is to connect the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, being the most important global energy transportation route, handling approximately 30% of global maritime oil trade; and its legal characterization is that the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United Nations, and the vast majority of countries have clearly recognized it as an international navigation strait.

Iran's challenge to the transit passage system is based on two points: first, Iran has not ratified UNCLOS; second, Iran advocates applying a more restrictive transit passage regime, requiring ships to apply in advance and undergo supervision. However, the right of transit passage has become an international customary law, and even countries that have not ratified UNCLOS are bound by it.

Panama / The Suez Canal is an artificial excavation project that requires continuous huge maintenance costs. The toll is the service price. The Strait of Hormuz is a naturally formed public waterway. Iran has not made any artificial modifications and thus lacks the legal basis for charging.

Iran argues that the toll collection in the Strait of Hormuz is a negotiation strategy. They use the toll collection as a bargaining chip to force the US to lift sanctions and recognize its regional influence. The US stance is to refuse to recognize the toll collection rights and insist that Iran unconditionally open the strait. Middle countries seek a balance of interests, while declaring their commitment to maintaining freedom of navigation and avoiding direct confrontation with Iran.

Iran's idea of charging for vessel passage through the Strait of Hormuz lacks legal basis at the international law level and faces multiple fundamental obstacles in practical implementation, making it difficult to become a commonly recognized regular system by the international community. The "pay-to-access" proposal put forward by Greek shipowner Marinakis is merely a temporary measure under specific conflict circumstances and does not represent the legal feasibility or long-term sustainability of this charging claim.