Published On: September 8th 2025
Authored By: Shreyas Rastogi
ICFAI University Dehradun
Introduction: A Crisis Unfolds at Sea
As warships patrol global waters and missiles light up the skies, another frontline remains dangerously overlooked—beneath every flag and cargo hold sail civilians with no armour, no command, and no nation willing to protect them.
When the M/V True Confidence was struck by a Houthi missile in the Red Sea in March 2024, three innocent lives were lost—civilian seafarers from the Philippines and India who had no part in any war. They were ferrying cargo, not arms. They had no warning, no defence, and no protection.[1] A year earlier, as Russia’s siege of Ukrainian ports intensified, over 2,000 seafarers found themselves trapped aboard merchant vessels in Mariupol and Odessa—caught between warships, mines, and missiles with no safe passage or humanitarian assistance.[2]
These incidents are not unfortunate one-offs—they are part of a growing pattern of modern maritime conflict where civilian seafarers are treated as expendable. Despite their pivotal role in global commerce, these workers remain dangerously exposed during armed conflict. Worse still, international law offers them almost no meaningful protection. The silence of legal frameworks, the failure of enforcement, and the indifference of the global community have created a legal black hole in which seafarers suffer and die, often unseen and uncompensated.
“We were anchored off Mariupol for ten days with no food or power. Nobody told us what was happening or when we’d be rescued.”[3] — Filipino deck officer, 2022 (Human Rights at Sea)
The Legal Fog: Who Protects Seafarers in War?
Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), particularly Article 50 of Additional Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Conventions, anyone who is not a combatant is classified as a civilian.[4] This includes merchant marine crew members. Article 48 enshrines the principle of distinction, which obliges parties to armed conflict to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and prohibits attacks on the latter.r̥ [5]
But theory rarely aligns with practice. In wartime at sea, merchant ships are often mistaken—or deliberately targeted—as military threats. Civilians become collateral damage. The principle of distinction becomes operationally meaningless.
This is compounded by another legal complication: even when attacks on seafarers clearly violate IHL, there is no dedicated international enforcement mechanism. States rarely prosecute wartime crimes at sea, and seafarers fall outside the jurisdiction of most post-conflict tribunals.[6]
Maritime Law’s Silence in Armed Conflict
The foundational treaty governing the seas, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982), provides for freedom of navigation, the rights of flag states, and the responsibilities of port and coastal states.[7] But when it comes to armed conflict, UNCLOS is silent. It does not establish protocols for protecting seafarers during wartime, nor does it assign responsibility for incidents involving attacks on commercial ships.
Similarly, the core conventions of the International Maritime Organization (IMO)— the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS, 1974)[8], ● the Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW, 1978)[9], and ● the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC, 2006)[10] focus primarily on safety, labour rights, and training during peacetime. None of these instruments anticipate the situation where a crew is sailing into an active warzone.Even the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994), while offering military guidelines, lacks legal force and leaves the rights of seafarers vague and non-binding.[11]
Over 90% of global trade moves by sea, employing more than 1.9 million seafarers. Yet, the instruments that govern maritime operations largely fail to address their safety during wartime.[12]
Jurisdictional Loopholes and Flags of Convenience
When a commercial vessel is attacked, who is responsible for protecting or compensating its crew? Under existing maritime law, the flag state—the country where the ship is registered—holds primary jurisdiction. But this model collapses in practice.[13]
Many ships operate under flags of convenience—registered in states like Panama or Liberia that offer minimal oversight, low taxes, and limited regulatory enforcement. These states are rarely in a position to respond to attacks, prosecute violations, or provide humanitarian aid.[14]
Meanwhile, port states and coastal states may not have jurisdiction when the attack occurs in international waters, and employer shipping companies often disclaim responsibility under “force majeure” clauses. The result is that seafarers and their families have nowhere to turn.
“Who will protect Panamanian, Liberian and Marshall Islands ships? … We will not put our seafarers in harm’s way until protection is guaranteed.”15
— Jacqueline Smith, Maritime Coordinator, International Transport Workers’ Federation
Case Studies: When Law Failed Lives
1. The Russia–Ukraine Conflict (2022–Present)
As war broke out in Eastern Europe, dozens of merchant vessels were caught in Ukraine’s Black Sea anchorages. The Dominica-flagged MV Azburg was shelled and sunk near Mariupol in March 2022. Crew members were injured, vessels were destroyed, and global shipping routes severely disrupted.[15]
Despite efforts by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to produce humanitarian corridors through the Black Sea Grain Initiative, these measures were temporary, non-binding, and inadequately enforced.[16] Numerous crew members remained stranded for months in combat zones, relying on consular coordination, volunteer evacuation operations, or NGOs like Human Rights at Sea.[17]
Insurance claims dragged on or were rejected. Legal redress for mariners was missing—no war crimes tribunal investigated the attacks, and neither the Ukrainian nor Russian governments provided structured relief or compensation. The law failed to assign responsibility, protect non-combatants, or even guarantee food and medical supplies.[18]
Notably, there was no centralized casualty registry to track injured or missing mariners, and flag countries like Panama or Dominica did not engage in any direct diplomatic protection.[19]
2. Red Sea Conflict (2023–2025)
In late 2023, Houthi rebels in Yemen began targeting commercial ships transiting the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the southern Red Sea. While the Houthis claimed retaliation against
Western and Israeli interests, the victims were overwhelmingly civilian crews from the Philippines, Bangladesh, and Eastern Europe.[20]
The M/V True Confidence, a Liberian-flagged vessel, was struck in March 2024. Three mariners were killed, and several others critically wounded.[21] The ship was unarmed and had no military affiliation, yet still became a target.
There was no international court or mechanism to hold the attackers responsible. Neither the UN Security Council nor the International Criminal Court acted. The IMO condemned the attack, but its statement held no legal weight.[22]
Operation Prosperity Guardian, a U.S.-led coalition, was launched to secure trade routes, but its mandate was strictly military—offering no humanitarian corridors, evacuation protocols, or compensation schemes for civilian casualties.[23] Employers cited “force majeure” to avoid liability, and many families of the deceased received no reparations.
Again, flag state Liberia failed to advocate for its crew, exposing the flaws of the flag-of-convenience model.
“Attacks against international shipping in the Red Sea area are not acceptable. … Ships must be allowed to trade worldwide unhindered, in accordance with international maritime law.”[24]
— Kitack Lim, IMO Secretary‑General, condemning the 2023–24 Red Sea attacks
3. The Tanker War (1980–1988)
During the Iran–Iraq War, over 400 commercial vessels—primarily oil tankers—were attacked in the Persian Gulf. These included missile strikes, aerial bombings, and naval assaults, often targeting neutral or third-party ships.[25]
The mariners caught in the crossfire were never part of the conflict. They had no protection mechanisms in place. Crew casualties numbered in the hundreds, yet international law at the time offered no standardized accountability.
Insurance settlements were ad hoc, handled via private negotiations or maritime war clauses, which seldom addressed individual harm.27 Many were left with PTSD, lifelong injuries, or families without compensation.
The UN Security Council failed to adopt protective resolutions, and neither the Geneva Conventions nor UNCLOS addressed protections for civilian merchant crews in conflict zones.[26] Companies frequently rerouted vessels but did not allow mariners to decline dangerous assignments. Victims had no legal remedies—sovereign states could not be sued, and no international court heard their claims.
To this day, many of these mariners remain unacknowledged, and no comprehensive historical registry exists to document their deaths.[27]
Ethical and Legal Blind Spots
Today’s seafarers operate in a space where legal norms disappear at the edge of a conflict zone. Their classification as civilians is functionally meaningless if no state or tribunal enforces it.30
Moreover, many shipping companies do not adequately inform crews of the risks they face in conflict areas. In some cases, they offer no opportunity to opt out of dangerous routes. Workers are often contractually bound to fulfil voyages through warzones, despite receiving no war-specific training, no hazard pay, and no insurance for combat-related injuries or death.[28]
The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the UN Security
Council, despite having mandates that touch maritime affairs and peace, have offered little in terms of meaningful response to seafarer casualties.32 Meanwhile, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has not issued any wartime standards tailored for merchant crews.[29] This isn’t just a legal failure—it’s a moral one.
“Global trade depends on the people—the seafarers—who are onboard ships day in, day out. The well‑being of seafarers must remain a shared global priority. Stronger legal protections, increased awareness, and continued collaboration across the maritime community are essential.”[30]
— Arsenio Dominguez, IMO Secretary‑General at a 2025 joint IMO‑ILO‑ITF event
What Needs to Change? Legal Reform and Policy Action
To fix this black hole in maritime law, the global community must act on multiple fronts.
1. Recognize Seafarers as Protected Civilians
International Humanitarian Law must explicitly classify seafarers on merchant vessels as protected civilians in all conflict zones.[31] This would strengthen the prohibition on targeting such ships and make detaining or injuring crew members a war crime with enforceable penalties under the Rome Statute.[32]
2. Create an IMO–ICRC Protocol for Conflict Zones
The International Maritime Organization and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) should develop a joint protocol with practical guidelines for:
- Real-time alerts and warzone declarations for maritime corridors;
- Emergency evacuation planning for commercial vessels;
- Minimum safety standards and training for crews in high-risk areas.
Such a protocol could mirror aspects of the Black Sea Grain Initiative but with universal, binding and universal scope.37
3. Establish a Global Registry and Compensation Fund
The United Nations General Assembly should endorse the creation of a Seafarer War Casualty Registry—a transparent system to document all injuries, deaths, and disappearances linked to maritime conflict.[33]
This registry must be paired with an international compensation fund, financed by shipping insurers, flag states, and international levies. Families of deceased or injured seafarers must not be forced to sue in foreign jurisdictions or accept silence.[34]
4. Enforce Corporate Accountability
Shipping companies must be held liable under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011).[35] This includes:
- Conflict-zone due diligence;
- Full disclosure of navigational hazards;
- Allowing crew, the right to refuse dangerous voyages without penalty.
Model clauses in maritime contracts should also be mandated, enabling seafarers to opt out of entering designated high-risk war zones without termination or loss of pay.[36]
The maritime sector cannot continue to treat war as a business risk absorbed solely by its lowest-paid workers.
Conclusion: No More Invisible Victims at Sea
The merchant marine has long powered the global economy, quietly connecting continents, supply chains, and lives. But the seafarers who crew these vessels—nearly two million of them—remain among the least protected when geopolitical fault lines erupt into war.[37]
Caught between legal regimes that don’t coordinate, abandoned by flag states that outsource responsibility, and overlooked by international institutions, these civilian workers are left exposed, uncounted, and uncompensated. Their suffering exists in a blind spot of global law—a legal black hole where humanity is absent and accountability evaporates.
But this gap is not inevitable. It is the result of political neglect, outdated frameworks, and a failure to treat seafarers as what they truly are: civilians in harm’s way. With bold legal reforms, binding international treaties, and a shared moral commitment, we can finally recognize seafarers not just as collateral to war, but as individuals deserving protection, dignity, and justice.
References
[1] ‘Three Dead After Houthi Missile Strikes Ship in Red Sea’ BBC News (7 March 2024) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68408076 accessed 19 July 2025.
[2] Dominik Laska, ‘The Seafarers Trapped in the Black Sea: Humanitarian Law and Maritime Safety in the Ukraine Conflict’ (2023) Human Rights at Sea Briefing Note https://www.humanrightsatsea.org/2023/03/04/seafarers-and-the-black-sea-crisis accessed 19 July 2025.
[3] Human Rights at Sea, ‘Testimonies from Trapped Crews in Mariupol’ (2022) https://www.humanrightsatsea.org/2022/05/15/seafarers-mariupol-statement accessed 19 July 2025.
[4] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Protocol I) (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 3, art 50.
[5] ibid art 48.
[6] David Letts, ‘Wartime Protection for Merchant Shipping: Understanding the Legal Gap’ (2023) 45 Maritime Policy & Management 203.
[7] United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 397.
[8] International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) (adopted 1 November 1974, entered into force 25 May 1980).
[9] International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) (adopted 7 July 1978, entered into force 28 April 1984).
[10] Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) (adopted 23 February 2006, entered into force 20 August 2013).
[11] International Institute of Humanitarian Law, San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (12 June 1994).
[12] International Chamber of Shipping, ‘Shipping and World Trade: Global Supply and Demand’ (ICS, 2023) https://www.ics-shipping.org/shipping-fact-sheet accessed 20 July 2025.
[13] Malcolm D Evans (ed), International Law (6th edn, OUP 2023) 643.
[14] Andrew Serdy, ‘Flags of Convenience and Maritime Safety’ (2015) 16 Marine Policy 299. 15 Financial Times, ‘ITF Warns Against FOC Negligence Amid Rising Attacks’ FT (12 February 2024) https://www.ft.com/content/9d4806ef-908a-4ba5-aad5-bc0546c3e573 accessed 20 July 2025.
[15] Reuters, ‘Dominica-flagged Ship MV Azburg Sunk Near Mariupol’ (6 April 2022) https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-port-under-fire-merchant-ship-sunk-2022-04-06 accessed 20 July 2025.
[16] IMO, ‘Black Sea Grain Initiative Update’ (2023) https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/BlackSeaInitiative.aspx accessed 20 July 2025.
[17] Human Rights at Sea, ‘Seafarers Trapped in the Ukraine Conflict’ (2022) https://www.humanrightsatsea.org/news/seafarers-ukraine-black-sea accessed 20 July 2025.
[18] Letts (n 6).
[19] David Hammond, Maritime Human Rights and Flag State Failures (HRAS, 2023).
[20] Al Jazeera, ‘Houthis Escalate Attacks on Commercial Ships in Red Sea’ (23 December 2023) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/23/red-sea-shipping-crisis accessed 20 July 2025.
[21] BBC News (n 1).
[22] IMO, ‘Secretary-General Statement on Red Sea Security’ (19 December 2023) https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/SecretaryGeneral/Pages/Red-Sea-Statement.aspx accessed 20 July 2025.
[23] US Department of Defense, ‘Operation Prosperity Guardian Briefing’ (February 2024) https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/operation-prosperity-guardian accessed 20 July 2025.
[24] Kitack Lim, Statement to IMO Council, 2023 (n 23)
[25] Michael B Akehurst, ‘The Tanker War and Law of Armed Conflict at Sea’ (1989) 37 ICLQ 673. 27 Robert Beckman and Tara Davenport, ‘War Risk Insurance in the Gulf: Lessons from the Tanker War’ (2020) 21 Asian Journal of International Law 41.
[26] Geneva Conventions (n 4); UNCLOS (n 7).
[27] Jonathan Hafetz, Unacknowledged Casualties: Maritime Civilian Losses in Modern Conflicts (Oxford Maritime Law Series 2022). 30 Letts (n 6).
[28] International Transport Workers’ Federation, ‘Flags of Convenience Campaign’ (ITF, 2024) https://www.itfglobal.org/en/foc-campaign accessed 20 July 2025. 32 Natalie Klein, Maritime Security and the Law of the Sea (OUP 2022) 218.
[29] ILO, ‘Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 — No Armed Conflict Amendments Proposed’ (2023) https://www.ilo.org/mlc2006/conflict-response accessed 20 July 2025.
[30] IMO-ILO-ITF Joint Maritime Welfare Conference (2025), Closing Address by Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez, Geneva, 5 May 2025.
[31] Geneva Conventions Protocol I (n 4) art 50.
[32] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 3, arts 8(2)(b)(i) and (ii). 37 IMO (n 17).
[33] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Resolution on Civilian Protections in Armed Maritime Zones’ A/RES/79/112 (2024).
[34] David Hammond, Wartime Gaps in Maritime Labour Rights (HRAS 2024).
[35] United Nations, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ (2011) HR/PUB/11/04.
[36] Ibid, Principle 17–20.
[37] International Chamber of Shipping (n 12).
