Global maritime regulation is crumbling. How will Finland’s foreign trade fare amidst geopolitical crises? The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is just one example of recent challenges.
A month ago, eighteen leading maritime nations issued a warning that the rules-based system governing global shipping is eroding. This will have serious consequences for the maritime sector and global trade.
The group behind this warning included representatives from countries such as Greece, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Norway, Denmark, Germany, and the United Kingdom—nations that collectively account for more than one-fifth of the world’s merchant fleet capacity.
The prosperity generated by geopolitics and free trade relies heavily on the international division of labor and the transport of raw materials and goods. Maritime transport has historically been inexpensive compared to other modes of transport, which is why over 80 percent of the volume of international trade in goods is carried by sea.
International maritime regulation aims to ensure that common rules—covering maritime safety, environmental protection, and freedom of navigation—are upheld worldwide. Safety and security systems are becoming fragmented
Safety and security considerations have always been vital in the maritime sector. At sea, one must be prepared for accidents, storms, piracy, and even the failure of steering systems. Classification societies, flag states, and port states oversee the safety and condition of vessels—both during their construction and throughout their operational life.
Unfortunately, this system is currently fragmenting. A large portion of the world’s tonnage is registered in countries other than those where the vessel’s owner or the entity exercising effective control is based—often under “flags of convenience”—leading to weakened oversight.
Furthermore, the number of external disruptions affecting maritime transport has risen significantly in recent years. The potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz is just one example of recent crises where the freedom of navigation at sea has been compromised.
In the Baltic Sea, a “shadow fleet” poses a threat to the environment and underwater infrastructure; passage through the Red Sea has long been under threat; the Black Sea has become a theatre of war; and the Panama Canal has once again emerged as a focal point for geopolitical contention.
Even a minor disruption can halt production
Over the past few decades, Finnish society and the business sector have become increasingly dependent on imported goods, semi-finished products, and raw materials. At the same time, production has shifted further afield to countries with lower manufacturing costs. Products are increasingly composed of parts, each of which may be manufactured in a different country.
The absence of a single part or component can bring an entire complex supply chain to a standstill. The challenges in container shipping during the pandemic demonstrated that supply chains—including those reaching Finland—can be severely disrupted, even when the problems occur far from the Baltic Sea.
Finland possesses a high level of expertise in logistics-related security of supply, as evidenced by the cessation of traffic on the Saimaa Canal following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. Companies that relied on the Saimaa route were able to quickly reroute their shipments. Similarly, more traditional crises affecting the security of supply—such as port strikes—have generally been managed through measures including the use of alternative routes, emergency stockpiles, changing subcontractors or modes of transport (e.g., shifting to road or rail), and adjusting the timing of production or deliveries.
Rising insurance premiums pose a new threat
When a security threat emerges at sea, marine insurance companies monitor the situation closely and, if necessary, increase insurance premiums. Although Finland has made preparations to support its vessels in the face of rising premiums, the increasing cost—and potential availability—of insurance could still become a bottleneck for the smooth operation of Finland’s maritime traffic.
Conflicts in the Black Sea and the Persian Gulf demonstrate that factors such as a vessel’s ownership, its cargo, its route, and its connections to the various parties involved in a crisis can all influence the level of security threat a ship faces. On the other hand, vessels are constantly moving across both seas, taking significant risks in the hope of financial gain. In the event of a disruption to maritime traffic, Finland would therefore need to rely on a variety of operational models and transport chains.
As the global, rules-based maritime system faces mounting pressure, ensuring the security of supply for Finland’s seaborne foreign trade requires robust logistics expertise, flexibility, and the availability of alternative subcontractors, supply chains, and transport routes.
Road and rail connections to ports in Sweden and Norway should also be developed. We can look to the example of Ukraine, which has utilized the coastal waters and ports of its neighbor, Romania, for maritime transport during the war.
This opinion piece has been published on Kauppalehti’s Debatti column on 20th October 2026 in Finnish.
