The presence of Iranian-flagged merchant vessels facing shortages of food, water, fuel, or other essential provisions raises a complex legal challenge at the crossroads of the Law of the Sea, international humanitarian law (IHL), neutrality, maritime safety, and sanctions. For Sri Lanka, this issue holds profound significance as both a coastal State with sovereign rights over defined maritime zones and a State whose ports may be called upon to assist vessels facing severe humanitarian or navigational distress.
The core legal question is not whether Sri Lanka has an unconditional duty to service every requesting Iranian vessel — international law establishes no such general rule. Nor does an international armed conflict automatically transform every civilian Iranian merchant seafarer into a protected person under all provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Instead, the crucial question is whether international law permits, and under proper circumstances supports, a controlled humanitarian response. Granting access to safety, life-preserving assistance, and maritime services, without compromising neutrality or extending military and prohibited commercial support.
Substantial legal space exists for such a response, provided precise legal distinctions are maintained: Civilian versus military vessels; Humanitarian assistance versus commercial trade; Territorial waters versus the exclusive economic zone (EEZ); Armed conflict law (IHL) versus the ordinary Law of the Sea; and International law obligations versus foreign sanctions regimes.
Civilian protection in armed conflict
Geneva Convention IV relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (GC IV) governs the protection of civilians in wartime, defining protected persons based on their relationship to a party to the conflict or an occupying power. It cannot be applied as a blanket rule protecting every civilian national of an adversary everywhere. Similarly, Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (GC II) specifically targets the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked at sea. A civilian merchant crew experiencing provisions shortages due to war-related logistics cannot automatically be classified as a GC II shipwrecked group.
The robust legal basis lies in customary IHL regarding humane treatment, the law of neutrality, the Law of the Sea, and distress assistance rules. When civilian lives face genuine danger, their humanitarian plight is not legally irrelevant simply because their vessel flies the flag of a conflict-involved state. GC IV and GC II offer crucial context, a Sri Lankan humanitarian response should not rely on asserting non-existent treaty obligations.
Civilian merchant vessels and the law of naval warfare
Merchant vessels must be strictly distinguished from warships, naval auxiliaries, or military objectives. A vessel's nationality alone does not render it a lawful military target; legality depends on its status, conduct, and naval warfare rules.
A civilian merchant ship does not become a military target merely by flying the Iranian flag, carrying Iranian cargo, or facing conflict-related sanctions. While the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea is an influential expert restatement rather than a binding treaty, its framework underscores the vital distinction between civilian shipping and military objectives.
Stranded civilian vessels in neutral maritime space
An Iranian vessel's flag does not strip Sri Lanka of its rights and duties as a coastal and neutral State. While ordinary commercial entry can be refused for regulatory or security reasons, genuine distress or danger to life demands a different evaluation.
Though a commercially stranded vessel may not be legally "shipwrecked" under GC II, it may still face maritime distress if a lack of fuel, water, or medical supplies threatens life or the environment. Sri Lanka can thus differentiate between ordinary commercial assistance and emergency humanitarian intervention to preserve regulatory control.
Neutrality and the protection of SL’s maritime space
Neutrality prohibits belligerents from using neutral territory or territorial waters as military bases, it does not require neutral states to ignore civilian safety. Hague Convention XIII concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War rules concerning belligerent warships in neutral waters should not be mechanically extended to civilian merchant ships.
Furthermore, a clear legal line must be drawn between Sri Lanka's territorial sea (where full sovereignty applies under peacetime law) and its EEZ, which involves sovereign rights for specific economic and jurisdictional purposes.
Humanitarian protection and the problem of deprivation
While prohibiting starvation as a method of warfare is a core humanitarian principle, not every commercial shortage or sanctions-induced deprivation constitutes illegal starvation. Factual evidence must establish a link to prohibited military conduct.
Practically, if shortages of food, water, fuel, or medicine endanger civilian mariners, the humanitarian urgency rises regardless of the underlying commercial or logistical cause. Sri Lanka should assess each request based on the evidence of actual danger, onboard conditions, and environmental risk rather than issuing categorical assumptions.
Elementary considerations of humanity
Recognised repeatedly in International Court of Justice jurisprudence, elementary considerations of humanity provide a normative background when human life is at risk. While not creating an unlimited legal duty to supply foreign merchant vessels, this principle ensures that sovereign and regulatory powers are balanced against the preservation of human life. Controlled humanitarian responses reflect an exercise of state authority informed by international humanitarian goals rather than an abandonment of neutrality.
The inapplicability of peacetime UNCLOS frameworks to armed conflict
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is primarily a peacetime Convention which is not applicable here as it deals only with a peacetime situation. Consequently, routine peacetime maritime mechanics cannot be automatically transposed to govern neutral states during an active international armed conflict.
While Article 98 normally governs rescue and search-and-response operations in a peacetime regime, its direct application is superseded or complicated when dealing with vessels entangled in wartime logistics and neutrality dynamics. The legal basis for action must instead rest on the law of neutrality and customary humanitarian law.
Places of refuge under IMO instruments and peacetime limitations
International maritime practice recognises places of refuge for vessels in need of assistance, but, the UNCLOS and port-of-refuge provisions in International Maritime Organisation (IMO) instruments are not applicable here as they deal only with a peacetime situation.
Because the IMO Guidelines on Places of Refuge for Ships in Need of Assistance and standard UNCLOS access provisions are designed for ordinary peacetime maritime administration, they do not directly regulate the unique constraints of neutrality and armed conflict. Sri Lanka's authority to grant refuge in this context must therefore derive from its sovereign rights as a neutral State balancing humanitarian imperative against the laws of naval warfare, rather than from peacetime treaty frameworks.
Humanitarian assistance vs Belligerent support
Neutral states must distinguish life-saving assistance from material support for military operations. Supplying operational fuel or military material differs fundamentally from providing drinking water, food, medical aid, or safe anchorage to civilian crews.
Institutional controls — such as documentary verification, restricting assistance to approved categories, banning military resupply, and record-keeping — demonstrate that Sri Lanka's actions prioritise humanitarian protection over belligerent backing.
The San Remo Manual and impartiality
The San Remo Manual helps distinguish civilian shipping from military assets by evaluating actual vessel status and conduct over mere nationality. Sri Lanka's mechanism must operate impartially: criteria should apply equally to vessels of any nationality facing similar emergencies, ensuring that Iranian vessels receive neither unfair military favours nor unjust denials of life-preserving aid.
Separating sanctions and international law
International law permissibility and foreign sanctions are distinct domains. Permissible humanitarian aid does not automatically bypass foreign sanctions, nor do sanctions make all humanitarian assistance illegal.
To protect private companies, banks, and suppliers from compliance risks, Sri Lanka should centralise screening through a State-authorised mechanism while keeping three categories distinct: Life-saving humanitarian assistance; Ordinary commercial supply; and Military or dual-use support.
A SL humanitarian maritime corridor
Sri Lanka could operationalise these principles via a controlled humanitarian maritime corridor — functioning as an administrative mechanism rather than a permanent wartime zone.
This framework would encompass: Emergency communications via the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre and port authorities; Designated anchorages, medical assessments, and provisions of food and water; Emergency fuel strictly limited to safety needs with strict oversight; and Technical inspections, pollution-prevention measures, and clear exclusions for weapons, intelligence, or military resupply.
Environmental protection as a legal consideration
A disabled vessel lacking fuel, propulsion, or steering poses severe navigational and environmental pollution risks, meaning that the total refusal of assistance can heighten ecological danger. Integrating environmental risk assessments into a framework allows authorities to mandate pollution-control equipment, tug assistance, and emergency repairs as conditions for access.
Conclusion and specific recommendations
International law does not impose an unconditional right of entry for Iranian merchant vessels, nor does it automatically mandate Sri Lanka to supply them via the Geneva Conventions. Because peacetime instruments such as the UNCLOS and IMO place-of-refuge rules are not applicable to this wartime situation, the justification for a response rests upon customary humanitarian principles, neutrality laws, and sovereign discretion.
Rather than total openness or complete exclusion, Sri Lanka should adopt a controlled humanitarian framework based on individualised assessments.
Key recommendations
Offer a controlled port of refuge and humanitarian assistance
Establish formal procedures for vessels facing genuine danger, navigational hardship, or environmental risks to request controlled access to a designated port or place of refuge.
Provide technical services at controlled anchorages
Permit monitored medical care, water, food, repairs, and pollution-control services subject to inspection.
Maintain neutrality through supervised corridors
Keep assistance nationality-neutral, documented, and strictly separate from military resupply or intelligence support.
Formal notification through multilateral diplomatic channels
Formally notify the international community — specifically transmitting a Note Verbale to the Secretary-General (SG) of the United Nations (UN) and the President of the UN Security Council (SC) — affirming that Sri Lanka, as a sovereign and neutral State, acts strictly in accordance with international law and customary humanitarian principles, and that civilian and commercial vessels facing genuine distress will be granted humanitarian assistance without compromising Sri Lanka's neutrality.
The Permanent Mission of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka to the UN presents its compliments to the SG of the UN and the President of the SC, and has the honour to communicate the principled position of the Sri Lankan Government regarding the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilian and commercial vessels facing distress in maritime spaces adjacent to Sri Lanka.
As a sovereign, non-aligned, and neutral State, Sri Lanka remains steadfastly committed to upholding the rules of public international law, the law of neutrality, customary IHL, and the fundamental duties of maritime safety.
The Government wishes to clarify that where any civilian or commercial merchant vessel — irrespective of flag or nationality — is demonstrated to face a genuine danger to human life, serious navigational difficulty, or a material risk of marine pollution, competent Sri Lankan authorities may assess requests for access to a controlled place of refuge or for specified life-preserving emergency services (including potable water, food, medical assistance, and emergency safety repairs) on a strict, case-by-case basis.
The Government emphasises that such humanitarian measures are executed entirely pursuant to Sri Lanka's sovereign authority and international obligations concerning the preservation of human life and the protection of the marine environment. These actions do not constitute participation in hostilities, military support, the endorsement of any belligerent policy, or the circumvention of foreign sanctions regimes. All assistance is maintained under strict institutional supervision, keeping life-saving humanitarian support operationally distinct from ordinary commercial trade and entirely separate from any form of military resupply, weaponry, or intelligence support.
The Permanent Mission avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the SG of the UN and the Members of the SC the assurances of its highest consideration.
The writer is an attorney-at-law and chartered shipbroker
-------------------------
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication