Home > Opinion > Columns

Hormuz transit fees raise urgent questions for Korea

Published: 13 Apr. 2026, 00:02

Lee Hyun-sang

The author is a columnist at the JoongAng Ilbo.

In 1452, Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II built the fortress Rumeli Hisarı at the narrowest point of the Bosporus. By placing cannons along a waterway only about 700 meters wide linking the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, he secured control of the route. When a Venetian merchant ship that had ignored his authority was sunk, fear spread across the sea. The blockade of the strait led, the following year, to the fall of the Byzantine Empire.

Oil tankers are anchored off the coast of Muscat, Oman, on March 7 after Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz. [REUTERS/YONHAP]

Attempts to control straits have been repeated throughout history. From the 15th century for nearly 400 years, Denmark’s monarchy blocked the Øresund connecting the North Sea and the Baltic Sea and imposed tolls known as the Sound Dues. However, such practices did not last. In 1857, maritime powers, including the United States, pressured Denmark to abolish the tolls, and the Copenhagen Convention brought them to an end. This established the principle that natural straits are a shared asset of humanity and that free passage should be the rule.

Turkey also secured sovereignty over the Bosporus and the Dardanelles under the Montreux Convention of 1936, while guaranteeing free navigation for merchant ships in peacetime. That history of free passage is now being challenged in the Strait of Hormuz.

Depending on the outcome of negotiations between the United States and Iran, the imposition of transit fees may become a reality. Iran has suggested charging as much as $2 million per very large crude carrier. What is more concerning is the position of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has even raised the idea of a joint arrangement with Iran on collecting such fees. This signals a shift from the longstanding principle of freedom of navigation that the United States has upheld.

The view that a fee of about $1 per barrel would not have a major impact overlooks the broader issue. Once transit fees are allowed in natural straits, the principle of free passage is weakened. Control over sea lanes may shift from the international community to individual states. For Korea, which depends heavily on trade, this would pose a serious risk.

Iran cites Turkey’s management of the Bosporus as justification. Turkey does collect certain fees for services such as sanitation, rescue and lighthouse operations. However, these charges are based on the Montreux Convention, a multilateral agreement signed by neighboring countries including Greece, Romania and Bulgaria, as well as major stakeholders such as Britain, France and Japan. In addition, the Bosporus is regarded as Turkey’s internal waters, while the Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway shared with Oman. Even after recent increases, Turkey’s fees remain well below the level Iran is proposing.

A more relevant model is the Strait of Malacca. Daily oil shipments there amount to about 23 million barrels, exceeding Hormuz’s roughly 21 million barrels, and congestion is more severe. Despite this, coastal states such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore do not impose direct transit fees. Instead, they cooperate with major user countries including Korea, Japan, China, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, through a cooperative mechanism focused on navigation safety.

The scenery of the Bosporus Strait is pictured in Istanbul, Turkey, Sept. 11, 2022. [XINHUA/YONHAP]

Under this system, ships do not pay mandatory fees for passage. Instead, participating countries provide voluntary contributions to support antipiracy efforts, route maintenance and safety measures. Korea has contributed about $1 million in total since the mechanism was launched in 2007. This approach allows coastal state sovereignty and the international right of passage to coexist.

The situation in Hormuz should also be addressed through a multilateral framework similar to the Malacca model. Under the mediation of the International Maritime Organization, a system based on cost sharing for safety could offer a solution. If a precedent is set in Hormuz, other key maritime routes could face similar demands for transit fees.

Korea should work with Middle Eastern energy exporters and major consumer countries to respond. The Strait of Hormuz has become another test of Korea’s practical diplomacy based on national interests.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.