• Sri Lanka has a duty to assist seafarers under international law: Sabry 
• Maritime expert warns of humanitarian crisis, environmental threats, requests for refuge
• Legal questions emerge over UNCLOS obligations, US secondary sanctions

Sri Lanka faces an increasingly complex legal, humanitarian, and diplomatic dilemma over Iranian vessels stranded off its southern coast, with questions emerging over whether the Government’s refusal to provide essential supplies could conflict with international maritime obligations, even as authorities maintain that assisting US-sanctioned vessels could expose the country to economic and diplomatic consequences.

The situation has brought into focus the competing demands of international maritime law, humanitarian responsibilities, geopolitical neutrality, and US secondary sanctions, raising concerns over the safety of multinational crews aboard the vessels and the potential environmental consequences of their prolonged presence near one of the world’s busiest shipping corridors.

While Foreign Affairs Minister Vijitha Herath has maintained that Sri Lanka is under no obligation to supply vessels operating outside its territorial waters, former Minister of Foreign Affairs Ali Sabry argues that the country has responsibilities under international law when seafarers require humanitarian assistance.

Meanwhile, maritime law expert Dr. Dan Malika Gunasekera warns that continued uncertainty surrounding the vessels could eventually compel Sri Lanka to intervene, particularly if their crews face a humanitarian emergency or the ships seek refuge in Sri Lankan ports.

Govt. maintains position

Herath has confirmed that approximately 47 foreign vessels are positioned beyond Sri Lanka’s 12-nautical-mile territorial limit, including around 19 Iranian vessels that have remained in the region for an extended period. The Government has maintained that the vessels are outside Sri Lanka’s territorial sea and that it has not provided supplies or logistical services to those subjected to US sanctions.

As reported last week, Herath confirmed that Iranian authorities had requested essential supplies, including food and water, but said the Government had declined to provide them. He also cautioned that private companies supplying sanctioned vessels could face US secondary sanctions, potentially affecting their access to American financial institutions and business relationships.

However, responding to allegations of external interference, Herath rejected suggestions that the United States had pressured Sri Lanka to deny humanitarian supplies. He maintained that the Government was making decisions independently while protecting the country’s sovereignty, neutrality, and national interests.

The Minister nevertheless stressed that Sri Lanka remained prepared to intervene when genuine humanitarian needs arose. He cited the Government’s assistance to the Iranian vessel IRIS Bushehr, currently in Trincomalee, where 13 crew members remain under Sri Lankan care.

The distinction between refusing routine supplies to sanctioned vessels and providing assistance during humanitarian emergencies has consequently become central to the legal debate.

Challenges to legal interpretation

Meanwhile, Sabry, speaking to The Sunday Morning, maintained that Sri Lanka had international legal responsibilities concerning the welfare of seafarers aboard the stranded vessels. He argued that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provided a framework governing maritime navigation and assistance to persons in distress.

According to Sabry, the fact that the vessels are located within Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), rather than its territorial waters, should not automatically prevent humanitarian intervention. “If it is in the economic zone itself, it is our responsibility when somebody makes a call for it,” he said.

Sabry stressed that the circumstances should be considered primarily from a humanitarian perspective, particularly as the vessels reportedly carried multinational crews. He noted that seafarers could include Sri Lankan, Pakistani, and other foreign nationals, making their welfare a matter extending beyond the political dispute involving Iran and the US.

The former Minister also questioned the implications of unilateral sanctions. “Any sanction should be UN sanctioned,” he said, arguing that restrictions imposed by individual countries should not automatically determine Sri Lanka’s response to humanitarian requests.

Sabry further suggested that Western countries, potentially including the US, may have exerted pressure on Sri Lanka, although he did not identify evidence establishing such intervention. His suggestion stands in contrast to Herath’s categorical denial of US pressure.

Nevertheless, Sabry maintained that providing essential assistance to civilian seafarers should not be interpreted as supporting either side in an international dispute. “I feel there is an obligation on the part of Sri Lanka to help them out,” he stressed.

What does int’l law require?

The legal controversy centres primarily on Article 98 of UNCLOS, which addresses the duty to render assistance to persons in danger at sea. 

Article 98(1) requires states to oblige masters of vessels flying their flag to assist persons in danger of being lost at sea and to proceed to rescue persons in distress, subject to specified conditions. Article 98(2) requires coastal states to promote adequate and effective search-and-rescue services and cooperate with neighbouring states where necessary.

Importantly, Article 58(2) makes relevant UNCLOS provisions, including Article 98, applicable within the EEZ. However, these provisions do not automatically require a coastal state to provide commercial supplies to every foreign vessel experiencing operational difficulties.

International maritime law distinguishes between vessels stranded because of sanctions or logistical restrictions and those whose crews face genuine threats to life or safety. If seafarers experience severe shortages of drinking water, food, or essential medical supplies, the circumstances could potentially engage maritime rescue obligations.

Conversely, the mere presence of Iranian vessels within Sri Lanka’s EEZ does not automatically create a legal duty to accommodate them. This distinction is particularly important because Sri Lanka exercises sovereign rights and limited jurisdiction within its EEZ, rather than the full sovereignty applicable to its territorial sea.

Environmental risks cannot be ignored

Dr. Gunasekera warned that the continued presence of the Iranian vessels could create humanitarian and environmental risks requiring Government attention. 

Speaking to The Sunday Morning, he observed that the vessels had remained in the region for a considerable period, with uncertainty surrounding their ability to return to Iran. He said that prolonged delays could affect the welfare of multinational crews, particularly if essential supplies became insufficient.

Dr. Gunasekera also highlighted the vessels’ proximity to Sri Lanka’s southern maritime routes, which accommodate substantial international shipping traffic, including container vessels and oil tankers. 

He warned that an accident involving the stranded vessels could potentially result in marine pollution, depending on their condition and the substances remaining aboard. Although some vessels have reportedly been identified as empty crude oil tankers, the possibility of fuel, oil residues, or other pollutants being released in an incident remains a relevant environmental consideration.

Dr. Gunasekera stressed that Sri Lanka should remain vigilant rather than wait for the situation to deteriorate. 

He also emphasised the importance of diplomatic engagement with both Iran and the US. “In the first place, I think Sri Lanka has to make some diplomatic intervention with the respective countries, with the US on the one hand and with Iran on the other,” he said.

According to Dr. Gunasekera, Sri Lanka’s longstanding neutrality should not prevent the Government from exploring practical solutions to protect human life and the marine environment.

Could vessels seek refuge?

Another concern is whether the Iranian vessels could eventually seek entry into Sri Lankan territorial waters or ports.

Dr. Gunasekera warned that deteriorating conditions aboard the ships could lead their masters to request a place of refuge. “The thing is, even if we don’t take them, if circumstances arise, the ships might come into our waters and into a port, seeking a place of refuge,” he said.

UNCLOS Article 18(2) recognises stopping or anchoring during passage through territorial waters when necessary because of force majeure, distress, or the need to assist persons in danger. However, this does not automatically establish an unrestricted right to enter a foreign port.

The International Maritime Organization’s guidelines on places of refuge, adopted under Resolution A.1184(33), recognise the importance of assessing requests involving vessels experiencing difficulties. Such assessments must consider the safety of those aboard, potential environmental consequences, and risks to the coastal state.

The guidelines do not establish a general obligation to grant port refuge, while obligations concerning the rescue of persons in distress remain separately applicable. Dr. Gunasekera cautioned that Sri Lanka could therefore face difficult decisions if the vessels’ circumstances developed into an emergency.

“For the moment, the Government can say we are not interfering in this matter and want to maintain neutrality, but there will come a time when we will have to act with diligence,” he said.

Sanctions vs. humanitarian obligations

The dispute also raises questions about the relationship between unilateral US sanctions and international maritime responsibilities. Mandatory sanctions adopted by the UN Security Council may create binding obligations for member states, while unilateral US sanctions do not automatically carry equivalent legal force in Sri Lanka. 

Nevertheless, US secondary sanctions can create significant commercial and financial risks for foreign businesses dealing with designated vessels or entities. These consequences may include restrictions on access to the US financial system and business relationships. 

At the same time, US sanctions regulations contain certain humanitarian exemptions and licensing arrangements, although their applicability depends on the specific transactions and parties involved. Consequently, the legality of providing food, water, medicine, or other supplies would require an examination of the relevant sanctions provisions rather than an assumption that all humanitarian assistance is prohibited.

The central legal question is whether the crews are experiencing ordinary logistical difficulties or circumstances amounting to genuine maritime distress. While the former does not automatically create a rescue obligation, the latter could require Sri Lanka to consider more immediate action under international maritime law.