KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • War does not suspend a shipowner’s ordinary obligations to seafarers. A conflict may require more extensive precautions and may increase the standard of care required in practice because voyage planning, manning, medical readiness, repatriation and welfare must be assessed against a materially changed risk environment.
  • The MLC 2006 contains binding Standards once implemented through the law of the flag State; its Part B Guidelines are generally recommendatory. Crucially, however, Guideline B2.5.1 expressly addresses war-zone repatriation, while national legislation, the SEA and collective bargaining agreements may make the relevant protections directly enforceable.
  • International humanitarian law principally regulates States and parties to armed conflict. Commercial shipowners remain governed primarily by maritime labour law, the SEA/CBA, national law and general maritime principles. Merchant ships and seafarers ordinarily retain civilian protection unless the vessel becomes a military objective.

SEAFARERS AND WAR ZONES

Armed conflict affecting the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea has, over the past year, disrupted shipping in general and has particularly affected seafarers operating in the region. On 16 September 2026, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) stated that it had verified 80 attacks on international shipping in and around the Strait of Hormuz, resulting in at least 22 seafarer deaths and injuries to many others, since the current conflict began in February 2026. Shipowners may also bear obligations to provide material assistance and financial protection in respect of injury or death at sea, depending on the applicable MLC implementation, SEA/CBA and national law. The practical issue is how these obligations operate during wartime, how far they extend, and whether specific protections apply when a vessel enters a war zone. This article addresses those questions by reference to the MLC, applicable national law, SEAs/CBAs and relevant maritime principles including judicial precedent.

What is a “war zone”?

No single universal definition of a war zone applies to every commercial vessel. The MLC deliberately refers to a war zone “as defined by national laws or regulations or seafarers’ employment agreements (SEA)”. The applicable definition may therefore come from flag-State legislation or guidance, the relevant SEA or collective bargaining agreement (CBA), or an industry mechanism such as the Joint War Committee (JWC) or the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). For instance, the JWC regularly updates its list of geographic areas with increased risk of war-like perils. The current list includes regions such as the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman and the Red Sea.

THE SHIPOWNER’S OBLIGATIONS

International humanitarian law principally regulates States and parties to armed conflict; it does not replace the private-law and maritime-labour obligations of commercial shipowners towards their crews. The rights protected under the MLC and its national implementation are not, merely by reason of armed conflict, suspended when a ship enters a war zone. The SEA and applicable CBA are nevertheless particularly important because they may define refusal, repatriation and compensation rights for war-zone service. Notably, the ITF-IMEC IBF International Collective Bargaining Agreement (ITF-CBA), in Article 17, provides seafarers with certain rights when entering a war zone.

In a nutshell, shipowners should consider the following before entering a war zone:

1. Safe Working Environment

The owner’s duty is not to guarantee safety but to take reasonable and legally required measures against foreseeable risks. The MLC requires sufficient manning for safe, efficient, and secure operation under the conditions of the voyage and requires the provision of adequate health protection and medical care.

2. Informed Consent

A general acceptance of employment at sea should therefore not be treated as unlimited consent to every subsequently designated war zone. Guideline B2.5.1 of the MLC specifically provides that seafarers should be entitled to repatriation when a ship is bound for a war zone to which the seafarer does not consent to go. This is treated as either a justified termination of the SEA or a situation in which the seafarer can no longer be expected to perform the contract, with shipowner-funded passage, food and accommodation, and applicable pay and allowances during repatriation. National law and collective bargaining arrangements implement the precise extent of this right. For instance, where the applicable ITF-CBA governs, a seafarer may have the right not to proceed to a designated war zone. In such cases, the agreement provides for repatriation at the Company’s cost, with benefits accrued until the date of return to the seafarer’s home or port of engagement.

3. Medical care, injury, death and financial protection

Regulation 4.1 of the MLC requires adequate health protection and prompt, adequate medical care. Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2 require national measures under which shipowners bear specified costs arising from sickness and injury and provide financial security for death or long-term disability connected with occupational injury, illness or hazard. War does not, of itself, suspend these obligations. Under the applicable ITF-CBA provisions, a seafarer who consents to remain employed while entering a war zone may also be entitled to enhanced compensation, including double compensation for disability and death where the agreement so provides.

4. Repatriation, Abandonment, Wages and Welfare

Repatriation is one of the clearest MLC obligations. Standard A2.5.1 requires flag States to ensure repatriation rights and prevents the cost from being imposed on the seafarer except in limited circumstances. The MLC also requires financial security. If an owner fails to arrange or fund repatriation, the competent authority may arrange it and recover the cost; the MLC contemplates mechanisms to recover from the shipowner, including, where applicable, detention of ships until reimbursement.

Conflict conditions can rapidly become abandonment situations through port closures, detention, loss of communications or insolvency. The abandonment regime addresses essential needs including food, drinking water, survival fuel and necessary medical care, as well as repatriation. Where the MLC abandonment criteria are met – for example, where wages remain unpaid for at least two months, repatriation costs are not met, or necessary maintenance and support are not provided – the crew may seek assistance under the applicable financial-security arrangements. The obligations of any recruitment and placement service depend on the applicable implementing law and placement framework; for Indian RPSL companies, the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025 creates a specific joint-and-several statutory frameworks.

THE SCOPE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

International humanitarian law (IHL) regulates the conduct of hostilities and seeks to protects civilians and belligerents involved in war, as well as designated war criminals. Its principal rules bind States and parties to armed conflict; it does not displace a commercial shipowner’s separate labour, contractual and safety obligations. The San Remo Manual, a non-treaty restatement prepared by legal and naval experts, reflects the general position that merchant vessels are civilian objects unless they qualify as military objectives. Merchant vessels may lose protection from attack where they satisfy the applicable military-objective test. Accordingly, seafarers aboard an ordinary commercial vessel ordinarily remain civilians. A merchant vessel may, however, lose civilian protection if used for belligerent acts or as an auxiliary to armed forces. IHL also contains specific protections for the wounded, sick and shipwrecked.

WHAT OWNERS AND RPSL COMPANIES SHOULD DO

Before entering an affected area, the owner should identify the applicable flag-State definition of war zone; review the SEA/CBA for refusal, consent and repatriation provisions; obtain current threat intelligence; confirm MLC certification and financial security; assess manning and fatigue; verify medical and emergency arrangements; document the decision-making process; and give the master clear escalation authority. Revisit the assessment whenever the threat changes.

For RPSL companies, the recruitment file should demonstrate that the seafarer received material contractual and risk information and that the placement agency performed the checks required by its licence and applicable law. For Indian RPSL companies, section 57 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025 places those responsibilities within a joint-and-several statutory framework with the shipowner for specified obligations.

The most defensible position after a casualty is contemporaneous evidence showing that the risk was identified, reasonable alternatives were considered, material information was communicated, medical and emergency capability was maintained, repatriation rights were respected, and financial security remained effective. The casualty itself may be unavoidable; a process failure is considerably harder to defend.

CONCLUSION

The duty of care during wartime is best understood as a layered obligation. Maritime law does not ordinarily make a commercial shipowner an insurer against war. It does, however, require the owner to comply with applicable manning and safety obligations, provide medical care and financial protection, respect applicable repatriation rights, prevent abandonment and respond reasonably to materially increased risks.

For Indian operators, these questions are particularly important following the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025, which came into force on 15 March 2026. Section 57 applies MLC standards to Indian vessels and requires MLC certification. It also provides that the shipowner and RPSL company are jointly and severally liable to discharge the shipowner’s responsibilities, with the RPS provider treated as the shipowner for specified offences and penalties. The practical consequence is that war-zone placement should be treated as a compliance and evidence issue as well as a crewing decision.

This material is intended solely for general information purposes and does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Specific legal advice should be obtained on the facts and circumstances of each matter.