Publications
Beyond the Battlefield: How the Weaponisation of the Strait of Hormuz Is Redefining Human Rights
Ms Tamseel Aqdas
Analysis Series
Analysis/0056/July/2026/London-Dialogue. 30 July 2026
For much of modern history, civilian harm has been understood through the lens of the geography of war. International humanitarian law and human rights discourse have traditionally focused on populations living within or immediately adjacent to armed conflict, where civilian casualties, displacement, and the destruction of infrastructure are most visible. The underlying assumption has been that the battlefield is a geographically identifiable space and that the gravest humanitarian consequences occur where military force is directly employed.
Contemporary conflict increasingly challenges that assumption.
Rather than relying solely on conventional military force, states now exercise coercion through economic infrastructure, cyber operations, financial systems, sanctions, and critical maritime chokepoints. These strategies rarely target civilians directly. Instead, they disrupt the systems upon which civilian life depends, producing consequences that extend far beyond the immediate theatre of conflict. Rising food prices, interrupted medical supply chains, energy insecurity, inflation, and constrained humanitarian operations have become indirect yet foreseeable consequences of geopolitical competition. Few places illustrate this transformation more clearly than the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of globally traded oil and significant volumes of liquefied natural gas transit each day. Recent tensions between the United States and Iran have once again placed the Strait at the centre of international attention, with concerns over commercial shipping, energy markets, and freedom of navigation dominating political debate. Yet these discussions remain overwhelmingly state-centric, concentrating on deterrence, military capability, and global energy security while overlooking the wider humanitarian consequences of disruption.
This article argues that the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz extends beyond energy security. It demonstrates how the weaponisation of critical economic infrastructure expands the geography of civilian harm, transforming maritime chokepoints into spaces where geopolitical competition undermines the enjoyment of fundamental human rights far beyond the battlefield. In an interconnected global economy, safeguarding human rights increasingly depends not only on protecting civilians from violence but also on protecting the systems that sustain civilian life.
The Expanding Geography of Civilian Harm
The Strait of Hormuz has long been regarded as one of the world’s most strategically important maritime corridors. Connecting the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea, it serves as the principal export route for major energy producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Consequently, discussions surrounding the Strait have traditionally centred upon freedom of navigation, military deterrence, and global energy markets.
This perspective, however, captures only part of the story. Energy is not merely another internationally traded commodity. Modern societies depend upon affordable and reliable energy to sustain healthcare systems, food production, transportation networks, water treatment facilities, communications infrastructure, and humanitarian relief operations. Consequently, disruptions to maritime trade affect far more than national economies, they influence the conditions necessary for people to enjoy fundamental rights. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognises health rights, an adequate standard of living, food, and development. These rights are commonly discussed within domestic policy debates, yet their realisation increasingly depends upon stable international economic systems. As global supply chains have become more interconnected, threats to maritime infrastructure now carry consequences extending well beyond the immediate parties to a conflict. The significance of the Strait of Hormuz therefore lies not simply in the volume of oil passing through it but in its role as infrastructure sustaining everyday life across multiple continents.
From State Security to Human Security
Traditional approaches to security prioritise the protection of territorial sovereignty, military capability, and national interests. While these objectives remain essential, they often overlook the experiences of individuals whose wellbeing depends upon the uninterrupted functioning of global economic systems. The concept of human security, developed by the United Nations Development Programme, offers a broader perspective by shifting attention from the security of states to the security of people. Rather than asking whether borders are protected, human security asks whether individuals possess access to food, healthcare, employment, energy, and essential services. Viewed through this lens, disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz become more than strategic events. Military escalation raises shipping insurance premiums, increases transportation costs, and creates uncertainty throughout international markets. These pressures contribute to higher fuel prices, which subsequently affect agricultural production, public transportation, electricity generation, and manufacturing. The resulting inflation disproportionately affects low-income households that spend larger proportions of their income on essential goods and services. The consequences are particularly severe for energy-importing developing countries, where governments possess limited fiscal capacity to absorb external economic shocks. Rising import costs frequently reduce public spending on healthcare, education, and social welfare while increasing the price of food and medicine. Although these consequences occur far from the Persian Gulf, they remain directly linked to instability within one of the world’s most important maritime corridors.
Weaponising Economic Interdependence
One of the defining characteristics of twenty-first-century conflict is the growing weaponisation of economic interdependence. Increasingly, states seek strategic leverage not only through conventional military superiority but also by exploiting globally interconnected systems. Financial sanctions, cyberattacks, attacks on energy infrastructure, disruptions to maritime shipping, and restrictions on critical supply chains have become instruments through which states impose costs without necessarily engaging in sustained conventional warfare. The Strait of Hormuz exemplifies this transformation. Its strategic value derives not simply from geography but from global dependence. Even limited disruptions create uncertainty throughout international markets, encouraging higher insurance costs, shipping delays, speculative trading, and increased energy prices. Unlike conventional military operations, these consequences are dispersed globally, affecting states and populations with no direct involvement in the conflict. This represents an important shift in how civilian harm is produced. Rather than inflicting damage through direct military violence, contemporary conflicts increasingly generate humanitarian consequences indirectly by undermining the economic systems upon which civilians rely. Hospitals may continue operating without suffering physical attack, yet shortages of fuel or medical supplies can nevertheless reduce healthcare capacity. Humanitarian organisations may retain access to conflict zones while simultaneously confronting dramatically increased transportation costs that limit relief operations. Food insecurity may emerge not because agricultural production has ceased but because higher energy costs increase the price of cultivation, transportation, and distribution. Civilian suffering therefore increasingly arises through economic disruption rather than physical destruction.
Can Human Rights Law Respond to Indirect Harm?
International law has developed extensive protections governing the conduct of armed conflict. The Geneva Conventions, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and international human rights treaties establish important legal principles protecting civilians, regulating maritime navigation, and safeguarding fundamental rights. Yet these legal frameworks were largely developed in response to conflicts in which civilian harm resulted primarily from direct military action. Contemporary geopolitical competition increasingly operates differently. The indirect humanitarian consequences of disrupting globally significant economic infrastructure receive comparatively limited attention despite their potential to affect millions of civilians. Existing legal frameworks remain more comfortable regulating bombs than inflation, military occupations than disrupted supply chains, and attacks on civilian infrastructure than the foreseeable humanitarian consequences of economic coercion. This does not imply that every disruption to maritime commerce constitutes a violation of international law. Rather, it suggests that policymakers should broaden discussions surrounding international security by recognising that the protection of critical economic infrastructure increasingly forms part of protecting human rights themselves.
Conclusion
The Strait of Hormuz will undoubtedly remain one of the world’s most strategically significant maritime corridors. Yet its importance cannot be measured solely through the language of oil markets, naval deployments, or military deterrence. Its greatest significance lies in what it reveals about the changing nature of conflict. The battlefield has expanded beyond territory. Contemporary conflicts increasingly produce civilian suffering not only through direct violence but also by disrupting the economic systems that sustain everyday life. Maritime chokepoints, financial networks, digital infrastructure, and global supply chains have become arenas through which geopolitical competition generates humanitarian consequences extending far beyond the immediate theatre of war. Recognising this transformation requires a corresponding shift in how we understand human rights. Protecting civilians today is no longer solely about preventing physical violence; it is increasingly about preserving the global systems upon which rights to food, health, development, and an adequate standard of living depend. The Strait of Hormuz is therefore more than a strategic waterway. It is a reminder that in an interconnected world, the protection of human rights begins long before the first shot is fired—and often far beyond the battlefield itself.
Ms Tamseel Aqdas
Related posts
The Maritime Blockade and the Strategic Calculus of the U.S., Iran, and Israel Toward a Renewed Armed Confrontation
Understanding Asim Munir’s Doctrine: Regime Security in Place of a National Goal
The Data Dilemma: Navigating the AI Systems Matrix
The Anatomy of a Shortfall: Europe’s Nine Capability Areas and the Lessons for Pakistan
From Quiet Diplomacy to Attempted Maritime Security Governance: Oman’s Role and Limits in the 2026 Strait of Hormuz Crisis
Anatomy of Asymmetry: How a Weaker State Converts Vulnerability into Leverage
Integration for Stability: The SDF’s Dissolution and Syria’s Security Order
The Western Flank Unravelled: Cross-Border Militancy, TTP Resurgence, and Afghan Taliban Governance
The Time of Guards Tank Divisions is Gone, or Maybe It is Not?
Re-pricing Israel’s Corridor: The Mecca Alliance and IMEC
The SCO at 25: From Regional Security Mechanism to Platform for a Multipolar Eurasia
Imran Khan: The Last Hope of a Nation
