UN Security Council Positions Reflect Differences of Law Based on Alliances
April 9, 2026—A trickle of shipping traffic went through the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday after a tenuous two-week ceasefire came together through last-minute negotiations mediated by Pakistan. Iran maintains control over the narrow passage, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil supply and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies once flowed.
On Tuesday, in the 10130th meeting of the UN Security Council, delegates considered a draft plan to “compel Iran to implement” a UN resolution, 2817, which condemned attacks on the Gulf states and reaffirmed the “exercise of navigational rights and freedoms by merchant and commercial vessels, in accordance with international law.”
The meeting revealed the vastly different viewpoints of the situation, based on alliances and the interpretation of international law. It revealed ruptures in a commitment to global trade in the wake of war.
It came the same week as London held a teleconference on the Strait of Hormuz that resulted in a call to end the war, include Lebanon in a ceasefire, and to open the Strait of Hormuz.
Gulf States
Bahrain sponsored the draft resolution, S/2026/273, to force an opening of the Strait of Hormuz for freedom of navigation. It later dropped language calling for binding enforcement.
China, Russia Veto
China and Russia vetoed the draft resolution on the Strait of Hormuz, citing a need to focus on root cause. S, concern over “ambiguous” legal language, and double standards.
China said the draft resolution was a “one-sided condemnation” that ignored that the United States and Israel launched military strikes on Iran against the UN Charter. China’s representative said he “did not go along” with Iran’s attacks on Gulf states or its closure of the Strait of Hormuz. However, the draft text included language that “is highly susceptible to misinterpretation and even abuse.”
Russia went much further in its critique of the draft text. Russia’s Amb. Vassily Nebenzia cited the root cause as “illegal and reckless acts by the United States and Israel.” He asserted that part of the Strait of Hormuz is in Iran’s territorial waters and that the Law of the Sea does not apply to situations involving armed conflict.
He complained of “egregious double standards.” Futhermore, he added that the text included deceptive language that could “leverage sanctions pressure.” Finally, he said it is not possible to resolve the issue without Iran.
Columbia and Pakistan Abstain
Columbia’s delegation raised concerns that the text “remains selective, unbalanced, and ambiguous.” She also said the language could risk expanding the conflict with more actors.
China and Pakistan’s 5-Point Initiative
Pakistan emphazied that without a negotiated solution, the suffering will spread beyond the region. Pakistan and China are putting forward a five-point initiative based on the following:
- An immediate halt to hostilities;
- Peace talks;
- Protection of civilians and infrastructure;
- Restoration of maritime security; and
- A reaffirmation of the UN charter and international law as the “indispensable framework” for a lasting political settlement.
Europe’s View
Meanwhile, European countries supported the resolution, calling for freedom of navigation for the sake of the global economy.
Iran’s Position is Defense of its Territory
Finally, Iran contends that it is defending its territorial integrity. In its March 22 letter to the council, Iran said it had “taken necessary and proportionate measures to prevent the aggressors and their supporters from exploiting the Strait of Hormuz to advance hostile operations against Iran.” It asserted:
“As the coastal State bordering the Strait, the Islamic Republic of Iran, in full conformity with established principles and rules of international law, has restricted the passage of vessels belonging to or associated with the aggressors and those participating in their acts of aggression.”
