Strait of Hormuz Tanker Fires Test GCC ‘Force Majeure’ Law, Wasel & Wasel Warns
Following fresh Strait of Hormuz tanker strikes and naval blockade congestion, Wasel & Wasel outlines how energy traders, shipowners, and sovereigns must distinguish statutory impossibility from wartime hardship across Gulf civil codes.
PRWire: ABU DHABI, UAE, Nov. 11, 2026 — Maritime security exposure across the Strait of Hormuz escalated on November 10 and 11 as United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) independently logged commercial vessel Incident 201-26 northeast of Lima, Oman [UKMTO] and Warning 202-26 involving a tanker in the Strait [UKMTO]. Separately, statements by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy on November 10 claimed three oil tankers caught fire, including a supertanker that allegedly struck a naval mine and a second vessel allegedly transiting under U.S. military escort [Arab News], followed by an Iranian military statement on November 11 claiming another tanker struck a mine and caught fire in a restricted zone [Arab News]. Amid ongoing U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) naval blockade enforcement against ships entering or departing Iranian ports and Gulf of Oman interdictions [CENTCOM], the Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC) maintains a ‘SEVERE’ Hormuz threat rating under Advisory Note Update 112 (Nov. 8, 2026) and estimates roughly 208 commercial vessels stationary across eastern anchorages in Fujairah, Khor Fakkan, Sohar, and Musandam [UKMTO]. Meanwhile, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) confirmed 133 maritime incidents across the Strait of Hormuz and the Middle East as of November 10, 2026 [IMO], intensifying default risks as physical shipping bottlenecks collide with paper delivery commitments.
International law and geopolicy consultancy Wasel & Wasel examines this operational divide in its War Series briefing, ‘Paper Barrels and Physical Constraints – The Limits of Force Majeure in the 2026 GCC Energy Shock’ [Wasel & Wasel]. Analyzing Gulf civil codes, the briefing highlights the statutory boundary between absolute impossibility and economic hardship. In the United Arab Emirates, Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 Promulgating the Civil Transactions Law (effective June 1, 2026) governs force majeure requiring impossibility under Article 236 and exceptional general circumstances permitting judicial adaptation or rescission under Article 224, while preserving non-retroactivity for preceding acts under Article 4(1) [UAE], leaving repealed Federal Law No. 5 of 1985 (Articles 273 and 249) applicable to pre-June 1, 2026 legal facts and completed transactions [UAE]. Comparable statutory divides govern supply contracts under Articles 188, 256, 258, and 171 of the Qatari Civil Code (Law No. 22 of 2004) [ALMEEZAN], Articles 172 and 159 of the Omani Civil Transactions Law (Royal Decree No. 29/2013) [MJLA], and Articles 215 and 198 of the Kuwaiti Civil Code (Decree-Law No. 67 of 1980) [MOJ].
“Wartime price spikes in the Strait of Hormuz rarely constitute force majeure on their own,” said Mahmoud Abuwasel, Partner – Disputes at Wasel & Wasel, a licensed Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia) and qualified arbitrator [AAA]. “Depending on governing law and contract terms, suppliers generally must continue performance where physically feasible while formally notifying counterparties with published military orders or government decrees when sovereign restrictions legally prevent delivery, and buyers should audit blanket default notices.”
Subject to specific contractual force majeure clauses, governing law, and factual circumstances, unilaterally halting cargo deliveries without establishing objective impossibility or binding sovereign restriction can expose suppliers to substantial delay damages, making early forum strategy essential. Through its Global Arbitration practice [Wasel & Wasel – Global Arbitration], Wasel & Wasel brings regional conflict dispute experience, including advising a global oil and gas supplier in a USD 30 million insurance dispute arising out of the Yemen War [Insurance Business]. Acting directly before arbitral tribunals under ICC, LCIA, DIAC, UNCITRAL, and ICSID rules and in registered jurisdictions including the ADGM Courts and Part I of the DIFC Courts [Jus Mundi], and coordinating with locally admitted counsel where required before onshore UAE Federal, ADGM, English, New York, and Swiss Courts, the firm publishes additional conflict-zone briefings on its Intelligence hub [Wasel & Wasel – Intelligence].
About Wasel & Wasel: Wasel & Wasel is an international law and geopolicy consultancy operating at the intersection of commerce and sovereignty across Washington D.C., Abu Dhabi, Melbourne, and Toronto [AGRC]. The firm represents corporations, institutional investors, private wealth, and sovereign entities across major litigation, global arbitration, critical transactions, and sensitive geopolicy, with its practitioners having advised on complex dispute mandates involving over USD 10 billion in cumulative value [Lexis Nexis]. Learn more at waselandwasel.com.
Disclaimer: This press release is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice.
Media Contact: Wasel & Wasel, business@waselandwasel.com
