Navigating Legal Rights: Can Seafarers Refuse To Sail Through Conflict Zones?

Introduction

The recent conflicts in the Middle East and ongoing tensions affecting key maritime chokepoints have forced employment law considerations into sharp focus for maritime operators. The International Transport Workers' Federation ("ITF") has advocated for seafarers' right to decline work-related transits through high-risk areas like the Strait of Hormuz. This proposal prompts significant legal considerations for shipowners and charterers concerning employment contracts, including obligations under the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 ("MLC"), flag state regulations, and ITF Collective Bargaining Agreements.

As of July 2025, the Joint War Committee lists several areas as High-Risk, including the Strait of Hormuz, Bab el-Mandeb Strait/Southern Red Sea, Gulf of Oman, and parts of the Indian Ocean. These designations carry immediate legal consequences for employment contracts, triggering enhanced wage obligations and repatriation rights.

As vessels navigate increasingly dangerous waters – from the Strait of Hormuz to the Red Sea – shipowners and charterers face complex legal obligations that extend far beyond traditional commercial concerns. The fundamental question emerges: can seafarers refuse to sail through conflict zones, and who bears the legal and financial consequences?

The legal framework: Understanding seafarer rights in high-risk areas

Maritime Labour Convention 2006: The Foundation

The MLC establishes the primary legal framework governing seafarer employment rights, including specific provisions for conflict situations. Currently, the MLC has strong state participation from 101 member countries. Under MLC regulations, seafarers possess an unqualified right to repatriation when "the ship is bound for a war zone to which the seafarer does not consent to go". Critically, the MLC provides no mechanism for suspension of these rights under any circumstances. The MLC definition of "war zone" remains deliberately flexible, relying on national laws, regulations, or seafarer employment agreements for specific criteria. This flexibility creates both opportunities and uncertainties for contracting parties seeking to define their respective obligations.

International Transport Workers' Federation Framework

The ITF, an international federation of transport workers' trade unions, has emerged as the primary advocate for seafarer safety rights in conflict zones. Through collective bargaining agreements and advisory guidance, the ITF maintains designated lists of "Warlike Operations Areas" ("WOAs") and "High-Risk Areas". In July 2025, the ITF called for designation of the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman, as WOAs, which would trigger enhanced protections for seafarers amidst the Iran-Israel conflict.

Employment contract implications: Rights and obligations

Shipowner obligations

Shipowners face multiple, sometimes conflicting obligations when operating in conflict zones. Under the Maritime Labour Convention Minimum Requirement Regulations, employers must facilitate repatriation at no cost to seafarers when voyage extensions result from rerouting due to conflict avoidance. This obligation extends beyond simple transportation costs to include accommodation, mandatory increase in security arrangements, food, and medical care in WOA territory and during extended repatriation periods.

Additionally, the MLC mandates that employers repatriate seafarers (whether they are employees or not) who become no longer capable of performing their duties or when performance becomes unreasonable to expect, particularly when vessels head toward war zones without seafarer consent. Shipowners must also ensure compliance with flag state requirements while simultaneously meeting charterer demands for voyage completion.

Enhanced compensation requirements

For vessels covered by International Bargaining Forum ("IBF") agreements, seafarers sailing through designated WOAs receive substantial protections: the right to refuse passage without employment consequences, guaranteed repatriation at company expense, double basic wages for the duration of operations in the area (minimum five days), mandatory security arrangement improvements and double compensation for death or disability.

For non-IBF vessels, compensation requirements vary based on specific employment agreement terms and flag state regulations. However, the trend toward standardized enhanced compensation reflects industry recognition of the extraordinary risks involved in conflict zone operations.

Charterparty conflicts and risk allocation

War risk clauses as contractual solutions

Modern charterparties typically incorporate express war risk clauses, such as BIMCO's CONWARTIME 2025 and VOYWAR 2025, which provide structured approaches to conflict zone operations. These war risk clauses grant shipowners discretionary authority to refuse orders to proceed through areas where the master reasonably judges the vessel may be exposed to war risks. More specifically, the BIMCO clauses define war risks, outline the obligations for owners and charterers regarding insurance, and provide mechanisms for addressing increased costs and potential route changes.

As these clauses were last revised in 2013, well before shipping attacks in the Red Sea became a common occurrence, they were generally considered in need of updating. However, the changes in the 2025 editions are incremental. Apart from several clauses becoming more "charterer friendly", much of the 2023 clauses have been kept the same.

Practical recommendations for industry stakeholders

For shipowners

Shipowners should update employment contracts to reflect current high-risk area designations and associated compensation requirements. Clear communication protocols with crew regarding routing decisions and safety provisions help ensure compliance with both legal obligations and operational necessities. Documentation of crew refusals and repatriation requests provides essential legal protection in subsequent disputes.

For charterers

Charterers must recognize that employment law obligations affect voyage economics and scheduling. Incorporating specific provisions for employment-related costs in charterparty agreements provides greater commercial certainty. Liberty clauses allowing route deviation for crew welfare reasons offer operational flexibility while maintaining legal compliance.

Conclusion

The tension between MLC employment obligations and charterparty commercial requirements creates significant practical challenges. When seafarers exercise their rights to refuse conflict zone transit, shipowners must balance repatriation obligations against charterer demands for voyage completion. This balance requires careful contract drafting and proactive risk management. Successful resolution often requires incorporating employment law considerations directly into charterparty negotiations. Parties should specify how enhanced wage obligations, repatriation costs, and crew replacement expenses will be allocated between shipowners and charterers. Regular review of crew welfare policies, insurance coverage adequacy, and contractual risk allocation ensures continued compliance with evolving legal requirements.

The maritime industry faces an increasingly complex legal landscape where traditional commercial considerations must accommodate fundamental employment rights. As conflicts continue affecting key shipping routes, successful operators will be those who proactively address employment law obligations rather than treating them as secondary concerns. The cost of compliance with seafarer protection requirements represents not merely a legal obligation, but a business imperative for sustainable maritime operations in an uncertain world.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.