- Temporary visas place foreign naval personnel under Sri Lankan jurisdiction
- Questions emerge over EEZ jurisdiction, neutrality obligations, repatriation procedures
- Rohingya detention case adds a parallel humanitarian dimension
An unprecedented military strike by a United States submarine on an Iranian naval vessel within Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) has placed the island nation at the centre of a complex diplomatic and humanitarian situation.
The incident, which occurred off the southern coast, has intersected with ongoing domestic debates surrounding the housing of refugees.
The Government is now managing the immediate aftermath of the torpedo strike while attempting to maintain its longstanding policy of geopolitical neutrality, fulfil international humanitarian obligations, and address pressing regional security concerns.
The presence of hundreds of foreign naval personnel on Sri Lankan soil following the incident, coupled with the protracted detention of Rohingya refugees in Mullaitivu, has placed considerable strain on domestic legal frameworks and diplomatic channels.
Diplomatic stance on repatriation and casualties
As the situation unfolds, international attention has largely focused on the repatriation of surviving sailors and the return of the deceased to their home country. The timely repatriation of military casualties carries both humanitarian and symbolic significance for the flag state, and any delays could generate diplomatic sensitivities.
On Friday (13) evening, the remains of 84 Iranian sailors who were killed when their frigate, the IRIS Dena, was attacked and sunk by the US, were repatriated from Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport by means of a charter aircraft, which had been arranged by the Iranian diplomatic mission in Colombo.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Thushara Rodrigo confirmed that the Government was adhering strictly to established legal procedures and rejected suggestions that external diplomatic pressure had delayed the process. “There are established judicial procedures that must be followed in matters of this nature. There are no specific diplomatic obstacles,” Rodrigo said.
International humanitarian law and maritime law impose specific obligations regarding the treatment of deceased military personnel recovered at sea. Relevant principles arise from the First Geneva Convention, customary international humanitarian law, and long-standing maritime practices concerning rescue and recovery operations. These norms require Sri Lanka to recover and handle remains found within its jurisdiction with dignity, document and identify the deceased, preserve personal belongings and records, and facilitate repatriation through diplomatic channels.
Regarding the surviving personnel, the Government granted 30-day gratis visas on humanitarian grounds. This measure effectively transformed the immediate rescue operation into an administrative immigration process.
When questioned about the criteria used in issuing the temporary visas and the procedures that would apply once the visas expire, Rodrigo said: “The Controller General of Immigration and Emigration will determine the appropriate course of action depending on the nature of the case, the prevailing circumstances, and administrative requirements.”
Geopolitical flashpoint
The incident originated when two Iranian naval vessels, namely the IRIS Dena and the IRIS Bushehr, were transiting the Indian Ocean following their participation in the Milan-26 naval exercises hosted by India.
The IRIS Dena was sunk after being struck by torpedo launched from a US submarine approximately 19 nautical miles off the coast of Galle. Statements issued by the Pentagon, including remarks attributed to United States Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, confirmed that the vessel had been targeted during the encounter, effectively bringing a distant geopolitical conflict to Sri Lanka’s maritime doorstep.
The accompanying vessel, the IRIS Bushehr, an auxiliary support ship, subsequently sought emergency entry into Sri Lankan waters, citing serious mechanical difficulties. The Sri Lanka Navy was immediately deployed to coordinate search, rescue, and recovery operations in the affected area.
Navy Spokesperson Commander Buddhika Sampath outlined the initial response: “We recovered 84 bodies, which were transferred to the Karapitiya Hospital. In addition, 32 crew members were rescued and also transported to the same hospital for medical treatment.”
A discrepancy has emerged between international reporting and local records regarding the total number of casualties. While several international sources and Pentagon briefings have indicated that 87 bodies have been recovered, Commander Sampath maintained that the official count remained at 84, based solely on the number of remains physically recovered within Sri Lanka’s jurisdiction.
The situation of the IRIS Bushehr crew
Following the rescue operations, surviving personnel were separated based on their respective vessels.
Deputy Minister of Defence Major General (Retd) Aruna Jayasekara confirmed that the crew members from the IRIS Bushehr were currently being accommodated under naval supervision. “The personnel from the second vessel are currently in our custody at the Welisara Navy Camp. There are 204 individuals there. The 32 sailors rescued from the other vessel are being accommodated separately in Galle while appropriate arrangements are finalised.”
As with the casualty figures, some discrepancies have emerged regarding the number of personnel aboard the IRIS Bushehr. Certain international reports suggested that 208 sailors were on board, but the Ministry of Defence maintains that official headcounts conducted after arrival in Sri Lanka recorded 204 individuals.
Managing the environmental fallout
In the hours following the sinking of the IRIS Dena, reports emerged of a localised oil spill off the coast of Galle. Authorities quickly mobilised to contain the potential environmental hazard in order to protect the coastal ecosystem and nearby fishing communities.
Marine Environment Protection Authority (MEPA) Chairman Samantha Gunasekara confirmed that the cleanup operation had been coordinated among multiple agencies. “The cleanup operation was conducted under the authority of the MEPA. The Navy, Coast Guard, provincial authorities, volunteers, and our own personnel provided operational support. In total, approximately 60 individuals were involved in the containment effort.”
Addressing the source of the pollution, Gunasekara noted that although the timing coincided with the naval incident, definitive confirmation had not been established yet. “However, our preliminary assessment suggests that the pollution may have originated from several drums of lubricant oil, two of which appear to have been damaged,” he added.
Addressing reports of diplomatic pressure
Meanwhile, speculation has emerged regarding possible diplomatic pressure from external actors in relation to the sailors’ temporary visas. Some reports have suggested that the US may have urged Sri Lanka to delay the repatriation of Iranian naval personnel in order to prevent them from returning to an active conflict zone.
Deputy Minister Jayasekara firmly rejected these claims: “There is no truth to those reports. Neither representatives of the US Government nor officials from the US Embassy have communicated any such request. These claims appear to be speculation circulating in certain media outlets.”
Overlapping legal frameworks
Meanwhile, legal experts noted that the situation engaged multiple areas of international law simultaneously.
University of Colombo Faculty of Law Senior Lecturer and Centre for the Study of Human Rights (CSHR) Director Dr. M.A.M. Hakeem explained that the circumstances involved three overlapping legal regimes: the law of the sea governing maritime jurisdiction and rescue obligations, international humanitarian law governing military personnel and wartime casualties, and international human rights and refugee law governing displaced civilians.
According to Dr. Hakeem, the Iranian sailors fall under a clearly defined legal category: “Iranian naval personnel are members of a foreign state’s armed forces rather than asylum seekers. Their presence in Sri Lanka arises from temporary humanitarian admission following a maritime rescue operation.”
Because they are returning to their own State rather than fleeing persecution, the refugee law principle of non-refoulement generally does not apply to their repatriation.
Dr. Hakeem further explained that the 30-day visas granted by Sri Lanka represented a form of temporary humanitarian admission under domestic immigration law. “If diplomatic arrangements are not concluded within that timeframe, their status could shift to that of administrative overstayers unless their visas are extended or their presence is formally regularised through other legal mechanisms,” he said.
He also noted that the 1907 Hague Convention (V), governing the rights and duties of neutral powers, would become relevant only if the broader circumstances qualified as an international armed conflict and the sailors were considered belligerents entering neutral territory. In such cases, a neutral state may be obligated to intern foreign combatants for the duration of hostilities.
Jurisdiction within the EEZ
The location of the attack has also prompted debate regarding maritime jurisdiction. Commander Sampath explained that the incident had occurred beyond Sri Lanka’s territorial waters.
“The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) clearly outlines the procedures governing entry into a coastal state’s territorial waters. The incident occurred within the 200-nautical-mile range of Sri Lanka’s EEZ but outside the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea,” he said.
Dr. Hakeem noted that this distinction was legally significant: “The EEZ is not sovereign territory in the same sense as the territorial sea. Coastal states possess sovereign rights relating to natural resources and certain regulatory powers, but other states retain freedoms of navigation and certain military activities.”
Consequently, while the strike occurred near Sri Lanka, it does not automatically constitute a violation of Sri Lankan sovereignty under UNCLOS, though it may raise broader concerns under neutrality law and the law of armed conflict if it threatens the coastal state’s security or marine environment.
The Rohingya detention issue
While authorities manage the maritime crisis in the south, a separate humanitarian issue continues to draw attention in the north.
More than 100 Rohingya refugees, including 57 children, have reportedly remained at the Mullaitivu Air Force Camp for over a year after the facility was designated as a temporary holding location. Restrictions on media access and limited engagement with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) have attracted criticism from human rights organisations.
Dr. Hakeem emphasised that the legal framework governing the Rohingya differed fundamentally from that applicable to the Iranian sailors. “Rohingya civilians are widely recognised as stateless persons fleeing systemic persecution. Their situation therefore falls within the protective scope of international refugee and human rights law,” he explained.
Although Sri Lanka is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the principle of non-refoulement, prohibiting the return of individuals to places where they face persecution or serious harm, is widely considered part of customary international law. Even in the absence of specific treaty obligations, states are generally expected to uphold this principle through broader human rights protections.
The limited access granted to international protection agencies has also raised legal concerns. “While there may not be a strict treaty obligation to provide access in every circumstance, international practice strongly encourages host states to allow agencies such as the UNHCR to assess asylum claims, monitor conditions of detention, and provide humanitarian oversight,” Dr. Hakeem noted.
Domestic courts may also invoke international norms through constitutional interpretation, particularly where issues involve Fundamental Rights protections or international treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
Regional security concerns
Within the defence establishment, there is growing concern that extended accommodation of foreign military personnel or long-term detention of stateless civilians could create a perception that Sri Lanka offers a safe haven for individuals fleeing regional conflicts.
Responding to concerns that tensions in the Middle East could spill over into Sri Lankan territory, Deputy Minister Jayasekara reiterated the country’s commitment to neutrality: “Sri Lanka remains a neutral party. When the incident occurred at sea, it was our responsibility as the nearest coastal state to respond in accordance with international maritime conventions. Our actions were guided primarily by humanitarian considerations,” he said.
“We maintain long-standing relations with Iran, and at the same time we have important ties with the US and other countries in the region. Our approach must therefore balance these relationships while ensuring the safety of Sri Lankan citizens working abroad,” he added.
Sri Lanka’s commitment to neutrality
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Rodrigo similarly emphasised that Sri Lanka’s response was rooted in humanitarian principles and a broader commitment to peace. “We must view the situation within a broader global context. Conflicts anywhere in the world can have serious repercussions for countries that are not directly involved. Sri Lanka supports peaceful resolution and stability,” Rodrigo said.
“Our diplomatic missions across the Middle East are actively coordinating with Sri Lankan communities abroad and providing guidance on safety measures. We are continuously monitoring developments and have contingency plans in place to respond to any emergency affecting our citizens,” he added.