17JUN

EU rejects Trump's Hormuz toll venture

2 min read

10:21UTC

Brussels cited UNCLOS transit rights to dismiss a US-Iran joint venture on strait fees.

← Back to Three records fall in one afternoon Jump to analysis ↓

SportDeveloping

Key takeaway

Europe sees Hormuz tolls as a threat to the entire maritime order, not a single waterway dispute.

The European Union rejected Donald Trump's suggestion of a US-Iran "joint venture" on Hormuz toll collection. Under UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), which applies as customary international law to non-signatories including both Iran and the United States, ships enjoy transit passage that "shall not be impeded" and fees may only be charged for specific services rendered, not by reason of passage alone.

No post-1945 precedent exists for a coastal state imposing mandatory tolls on a natural international strait. Just Security assessed Iran's blanket selective toll as a "clear violation" of international norms. Iran's Islamabad proposal included a fee structure tied to vessel passage, as detailed in the Hormuz traffic event above.

Trump had previously called the toll concept "a beautiful thing." That language sits uncomfortably alongside the US's historical role as guarantor of freedom of navigation. The EU's rejection is a legal rebuke, but it has no operational teeth: Russia and China co-vetoed the UNSC Hormuz reopening resolution 11-2, blocking the only multilateral enforcement route for free navigation.

If tolls are formalised, the precedent extends far beyond Hormuz. Turkey could apply the same logic to the Bosphorus, Egypt could renegotiate Suez terms, Indonesia and Malaysia could toll the strait of Malacca. The EU's objection is not about Iran alone; it is about preventing the rewrite of a maritime order that underpins European trade.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Trump suggested that the US and Iran could run a 'joint venture' together to collect fees from ships passing through the strait of Hormuz. He called the idea 'a beautiful thing'. The EU immediately rejected it. Under international law, countries cannot charge ships simply for passing through international straits. Ships have a right to pass freely. Fees are only allowed for specific services, like a pilot to navigate a difficult channel. Iran charging a blanket toll for permission to pass is, in the view of almost every international law scholar, illegal. The EU's rejection matters because European ships are among those currently stranded or blocked. But the EU has no military means to enforce its legal position in the strait, so the rejection is a principled statement rather than an operational one.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

The EU's UNCLOS position reflects a genuine institutional commitment to rules-based maritime order that European states depend on for trade flows through multiple global chokepoints.

Trump's willingness to entertain a toll joint venture reflects a transactional approach to international law: rules are useful when they serve US interests and renegotiable when they do not. The US's own freedom-of-navigation programme, which has operated since the 1970s, was built on exactly the principle the Hormuz toll would undermine.

What could happen next?

Precedent
Trump's positive framing of a US-Iran Hormuz toll joint venture, if pursued, would be the first US endorsement of a coastal state transit fee on a natural international strait, directly undermining the freedom-of-navigation doctrine the US has defended militarily for 70 years.
Consequence
The transatlantic split on the Hormuz toll question, US treating it as potentially 'beautiful', EU rejecting it as UNCLOS-incompatible, reduces the coherence of any Western negotiating position and gives Iran leverage to play the two sides against each other.

Source Landscape

This story draws on centre-leaning sources from United States

United States

LeftRight

Primary parallel: The 1956 Suez Crisis produced a similar transatlantic fracture: the US refused to support UK and French military action to retake the canal, forcing a humiliating withdrawal. The current EU-US split on Hormuz tolls is a mirror image, with Europe holding the legal principle and the US entertaining practical arrangements with the adversary.

Counter-parallel: The 1979 Iranian nationalisation of the oil industry (preceded by the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo) showed that US energy interests can override legal principles when the economic pressure is severe enough. Trump's 'beautiful thing' comment suggests a similar calculus: if a US share of Hormuz toll revenue secures energy flow, legal concerns become negotiable.

The UNCLOS violation is not merely a point of principle. If a Hormuz toll regime were accepted as legitimate, even in a US-Iran 'joint venture' format, it would create a precedent that coastal states can monetise transit passage through any international strait.

The Malacca Strait (handles 30% of global trade), the Bab el-Mandeb (approximately 6m barrels of oil per day), and the Taiwan Strait would all face analogous claims from coastal states. The global shipping industry's War Risks Committee estimates that if every major chokepoint adopted similar toll structures, annual insurance and transit costs for global trade would rise by $200-400 billion.

Trump's 'joint venture' framing also has a US fiscal angle: a shared toll regime with Iran would generate hard-currency revenue for Tehran while simultaneously giving Washington a political claim to managing global shipping infrastructure.

First Reported In

Update #66 · Islamabad collapses: 10 days to expiry

Just Security· 12 Apr 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

This Event

EU rejects Trump's Hormuz toll venture

The EU rejection exposes a transatlantic split: Trump entertained a toll concept that violates the maritime law framework Europe considers binding.

Led to

Paris drafts the Hormuz passage mission

The EU UNCLOS rejection of Trump's toll joint-venture (ID:2243) established the European legal ground the Paris conference is operationalising.

Occurred 17 Apr 2026

Read story →

Different Perspectives

French Football Federation

The FFF called an 11:00 CEST press conference for 28 July, at its Paris headquarters, following an extraordinary executive committee meeting, at which Zinedine Zidane is expected to be presented as head coach succeeding Didier Deschamps. As of this writing no communique confirms the appointment, contract length or start date.

Morocco

Morocco is pushing for the 2030 final at its Grand Stade Hassan II in Casablanca, a planned 115,000-seat venue that would be the world's largest football stadium on completion. The venue is contested by a Spanish petition for the Santiago Bernabeu, and FIFA has fixed neither the venue nor the tournament's proposed 64-team format.

FIFA

FIFA's first tournament report, published 27 July, itemises nearly 300,000 accredited personnel, 73,700 security staff and 300,000 square metres of custom-grown turf, with no revenue or cost figure attached. As a Swiss association answering to its own Congress rather than a treasury, FIFA has followed the same operational-before-financial sequence it used after Qatar 2022.

Javier Tebas / La Liga

La Liga president Javier Tebas said on 21 July that FIFA's system is rotten from the root and that Gianni Infantino's time as president has, in his words, concluded. Tebas has no vote in FIFA's process, so days after the IOC declined jurisdiction over a separate ethics complaint, he used the only instrument he has.

Mexico City government

Head of government Clara Brugada presented a closing report on 22 July crediting the tournament with 44 billion pesos of economic activity, 2,000-plus accelerated public works and 100,000 formal jobs in June alone. The city has not published the method behind that figure, and three other Mexican bodies count the same five weeks differently.

Town of Foxborough

Foxborough answered Kraft Group's June lawsuit on 7 July with a 61-page counterclaim, calling the stadium's owners 'a collection of multibillion-dollar corporations' trying to shift its $7.8 million security bill onto taxpayers. The town says its licensing power and its billing power run through the same board, and it wants the court to award its own costs too.