If the current situation continues for a long time, is it possible that in the future free navigation of the seas will be agreed on regionally or in bilateral agreements between countries? Hopefully not.
It is clear to those of us working in the shipping industry that our current prosperity is based on world trade. The history of Haapasaari Island in the eastern Gulf of Finland tells us that once, for one barrel of herring, the people of Haapasaari received three barrels of grain from Estonia. Finnish-Estonian trade improved prosperity when different parts of the Gulf of Finland focused on producing the food for which there were the best conditions, and the surplus was exchanged with the neighboring country. The prosperity of both countries increased and people remained healthier.
On the other hand, even if one country produced both goods more cheaply and efficiently, it still makes sense for countries to focus on certain products and trade with each other. One of the founders of modern economics, the British David Ricardo (1772–1823), presented an example almost 200 years ago in which Portugal and England both produced wine and clothing. Portugal produced both goods more cheaply than England. However, Portugal was better off focusing on producing wine and leaving the production of clothing to England, because wine production is much cheaper in Portugal than making clothes.
However, such trade requires that ships be able to pass freely from one country to another. Throughout history and even today, ships, carrying valuable goods over long distances, have been attractive targets for criminals. Piracy is probably as old as seafaring itself.
Free shipping has been a topic of discussion a lot lately. The Strait of Hormuz is closed, and it does not seem likely that it will open anytime soon. The world is suffering more and more from the oil shortage every day, the price of gasoline is rising, and the first airline has already gone bankrupt. The Grey Fleet operates in the Baltic Sea without insurance or a flag state. In the Black Sea, Ukrainian shipping has long been the target of attacks. The world is debating whether the principles of free navigation are under threat. Can we trust free world trade in the future?
International maritime law is based on the principle of free navigation. However, it was originally created to justify the seizure of a ship, i.e. #piracy. How on earth? How on earth?
The principle of free navigation is based on the case of the Portuguese sailing ship Santa Catarina in 1603. The Santa Catarina, a Portuguese merchant ship, was captured off Singapore by an attack by smaller Dutch ships.
The Santa Catarina and its valuable cargo of silk, porcelain and other goods were quickly sent to Amsterdam and sold. The Portuguese naturally wanted their treasure back, while many in the Netherlands were concerned about the legality and morality of the seizure. The attack on Santa Catarina could be interpreted as piracy.
In response to the simmering domestic and international scandal, the Dutch Chamber of Commerce hired a rising young lawyer named Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) to draft a document defending the seizure of Santa Catarina. Grotius cleverly argued in his treatise “Mare Liberum” that the attack on Santa Catarina had legally challenged Portugal’s unfair monopoly on Asian trade.
He explained that the Portuguese had not only prevented the Dutch from accessing Asian ports and markets, but had also used illegal force against other Europeans and Asians to maintain their dominance in Asian trade. Thus, the capture of Santa Catarina was a just punishment for Portuguese transgressions and a defense of freedom of navigation between Europe and Asia.
Mare Liberum has been the basis for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), signed in 1982. According to it, ships sailing on the high seas are generally subject to the jurisdiction of the flag state and therefore have the right to freedom of movement. There are certain exceptions to this, such as piracy or a situation where the ship may pose an environmental threat.
Against the background of the Santa Catarina case, it is easy to understand why the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is completely contrary to international maritime law. After all, it prevents all Gulf countries from engaging in free trade.
However, if the situation continues for a longer period, is it possible that in the future the freedom of navigation of the seas will be agreed on a regional basis or in bilateral agreements between countries? Hopefully not, because abandoning the principle of freedom of navigation would significantly increase the safety and environmental risks of shipping, as well as transport costs, and would undermine the legal basis for international shipping.
The article was previously published in Finnish in Navigator Magazine, an online magazine for maritime professionals, on May 8, 2026.
Kuva: Mika Martikainen
Tales of Talsinki 