Conclusion and recommendation.
🔹 The country of Iran was the target of aggressive actions by the US and the captive regime of Syria, and after almost eight months, this international illegal act continues. Although these actions are considered a clear violation of customary and international contractual rights, especially the role of the United Nations Charter, almost no effective action has been taken to stop the aggression against Iran by the Security Council, regional organizations or the international community as a whole.
These attacks exposed Iran to an acute defense situation or an existential threat. In such a situation, not only will Iran's legitimate defense be invoked under Article 51 of the Convention, but based on other rules of international law, Iran will have to help itself out of this situation.
🔹 Iran's actions in the Strait of Hormuz and even blocking it is a legitimate action in accordance with the legitimate right to self-defense. Merchant ships that attempt to ignore the naval blockade or blockade of the Strait of Hormuz without due care will intentionally expose themselves to risks that are the responsibility of the merchant ships or, in some cases, the flag state. Iran's actions are not actually against a merchant ship belonging to a particular country, and flag states or shipping companies cannot hold Iran legally responsible for the negligent actions of merchant ships in a war zone.
At the same time, Iran's defense position cannot be exempted from its responsibility in defensive measures: Iran is obliged to respect international law and basic humanitarian rights in its defensive measures. In addition, Iran is obliged to maintain the principles of proportionality and necessity in its defense. Iran's defense measures are considered proportionate and necessary defense measures, however, according to the separation principle, Iran can include exemptions for commercial ships carrying humanitarian items such as medicine and food.
🔹 In international law, there is no permission to take money from ships just because they are passing through the straits or territorial sea. Coastal governments can receive funds from ships for providing services to the ship. As long as the illegal aggression against Iran continues and Iran has imposed restrictions on ships under the pretense of legitimate defense, except in humanitarian cases, any exemption should be made in the form of militant armed conflicts.
🔹 Receiving money from ships in a situation of conflict will destroy the principle of proportionality and the necessity of Iran's actions and weaken Iran's legitimate defense position and its necessity. Therefore, it is not recommended to take any kind of money or discriminatory actions that indicate the necessity of Iran's defense measures. However, the writer believes that Iran can use punitive measures based on measures against the ships belonging to the governments waging an economic war against Iran and causing damage to Iran in times of peace.
🔹 It is recommended that Iran act in its defense policy only within the framework of defense, by other means a policy can be implemented step by step. Simultaneity of actions may cause actions to influence each other and weaken Iran's positions in self-defense.
Finally, between its rights according to international law and the exercise of its rights, Iran should decide and implement based on its strategic viability in each case.
In addition, governments have a public duty to create peace and prevent the consequences of war damage. Therefore, Iran should always be ready to settle disputes and practice diplomacy based on its strategic viability. In addition to the fact that such an action deserves serious consideration in the future, declaring this readiness can also absolve Iran of its responsibility for the continuation of the conflict and prove the responsibility of the other parties in continuing their illegal actions.