A new large-scale armed conflict broke out in late February 2026. The US and Israel launched a military operation against Iran, which responded by blocking the Strait of Hormuz: a third of the world’s liquefied natural gas, nearly a quarter of the world’s oil consumption, and many other goods are transported through this strait. Following several days of hostilities, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps stated that only vessels with specific permission from Iranian authorities could expect to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. At the time of publication, around 30 vessels of various types, including container ships, bulk carriers and tankers, had been affected by hostilities in the Strait of Hormuz.

Sanctions have radically reshaped the landscape of marine insurance, creating new challenges for international arbitration: the nature of disputes and associated risk allocation is evolving, contractual clauses are being reconfigured, and claims to handling mechanisms are being recalibrated. This article examines conflict-of-laws issues “law, jurisdiction, and public policy” and contemporary dispute-resolution practice, including the enforceability of arbitration clauses and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards under the 1958 New York Convention. Emphasis is given to the London market. Through selected examples, the article demonstrates how sanctions and compliance requirements transform the allocation of risks between insureds and insurers, including P&I Clubs.

Russian court refused to provide information to a shareholder owning 43% of the voting shares of the Russian joint-stock company Kaliningrad Commercial Seaport because the claimant was a UK resident. The UK authorities have adopted regulations allowing the imposition of restrictive measures on Russian entities operating in the transport sector and a wide range of others. The defendant carries on activities in the field of transport and is the operator of a marine terminal, therefore, the provision of documents and information to the plaintiff in accordance with the requirements of the Joint Stock Companies Act may lead to the introduction of new restrictive measures against the Port and/or other persons, of which the plaintiff learns from the documents of the defendant.

In December 2021 a bill on autonomous shipping has been introduced into the Russian State Duma. The article analyzes whether it is time to adopt legislation on this subject. The author describes international experience in the field of autonomous shipping and sets out various scenarios according to which Russian legislation on this matter can be developed. Some concerns are raised in relation to the Bill’s terminology, its provisions on classification of autonomous vessels, status of remote crew, and performance of shipping contracts. The article points out that adoption of the Bill in its current wording, especially without detailed provisions on autonomous vessels’ liability and its insurance, may result in serious problems.

Whilst numerous information in the English language is available on sanctions imposed on Russia, foreign parties are less informed on countersanctions enacted by the Russian government. The latter have serious implications on parties dealing with Russia.

The article examines the current state and the main problems of international legal regulation of combating maritime piracy. The conclusion about the necessity of implementation of provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea into the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is made. Also examined the prospects of creating an international tribunal on piracy and concluded that the creation of an international permanent tribunal on piracy would significantly improve the situation in the sphere of bringing persons who have committed acts of piracy to criminal liability. In addition, the creation of such a tribunal would ensure the security of navigation and additional protection of the constitutional rights of Russian citizens, crew members of merchant ships, as well as promote the economic interests of Russian merchant shipping entities.

Commentary to the Case No. А51-10555/2016 (“SL Marine Co., Ltd.” v LLC “Ostrov”)

According to the current legislation of the Russian Federation, if signs of violation of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are established on a ship that is on a coastal or foreign voyage, the master of a ship assumes the functions of an inquiry body. The actions of the master of a ship as an inquiry body are regulated by the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, as well as the Code of Merchant Shipping. This article analyzes the problem of the subtleties and nuances of the captain’s performance of the inquiry body functions: what laws and regulations they rely on, as well as how the process of inquiry goes on. The analysis is carried out based on the current laws of the Russian Federation. The author comes to the conclusion that the status of the master of a ship as an inquiry body in criminal proceedings needs to be changed for greater efficiency of the inquiry process on ships that are at sea.

Part 2 of this article deals with in rem arrests, known in the US as Rule C arrests. This type of proceeding means action is brought directly against the vessel as defendant in order to enforce a maritime lien. Drawing on US case law and legislation, the author considers the peculiarities of maritime liens in general and the special features of these liens in the US, in particular. The article then goes on to discuss several scenarios where Rule C arrests are most effective against one-ship companies.

Herculito Maritime Ltd. and others v Gunvor International BV and others (m/v “Polar”), [2020] EWHC 3318 (Comm)

Ruling of the Commercial Court of the Primorsky Territory dated November 25, 2020 in case No. A51-18495/2020 (FSUE Morspasluzhba v OJSC Concern ASPOL-BALTIC / NWS5 Balt Shipping Co. Ltd.)