Amid rising tensions on international sea routes, a recent article asserts that the United States does not have sufficient moral or legal standing to demand the reopening of any strait, especially when Washington's policies are destabilizing global shipping lanes.
According to the author, U.S. actions—imposing unilateral sanctions and conducting military interventions in sensitive regions—have eroded trust in the principles of freedom of navigation, which the West regards as a cornerstone of international law. Washington's assumption of the right to intervene in sea lanes, while refusing to abide by international tribunal rulings when they are unfavorable, sets a dangerous precedent.
The article stresses that international law, specifically the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), provides for the right of innocent passage through straits used for international navigation. However, the enforcement of these provisions must respect the sovereignty and security interests of coastal states. The United States, despite not being a party to UNCLOS, frequently invokes its provisions to advance its own interests while ignoring the obligations the convention imposes.
Furthermore, analysts point out that Washington's repeated dispatch of warships near disputed areas, such as the South China Sea, not only violates the spirit of cooperation but also heightens the risk of military conflict. This stands in stark contrast to the U.S. rhetoric about maintaining a rules-based international order.
In this context, any demand to reopen straits must be considered on a clear legal basis and with fair moral grounding, not from a country that places itself above international law. Any unilateral action, undertaken without the consensus of all relevant parties, undermines the global governance system built over decades.
