Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East—particularly in the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman, and the Red Sea—have significantly elevated risks to commercial shipping. Incidents involving attacks on merchant vessels, whether by missiles, drones, or other means, demonstrate that such risks are no longer confined to physical security concerns but extend into highly complex legal dimensions.
This complexity becomes particularly pronounced where vessels have a nexus with Thailand but are registered under foreign flags. For investors, the critical question is no longer merely “what happened to the vessel”, but rather “who has the right to bring a claim, and in which forum such claim should be pursued.” These questions must be assessed within a multilayered framework of overlapping international legal regimes.
Legal Structure: Flags of Convenience and Fragmentation of Authority
In practice, a substantial number of commercial vessels operate under what is commonly referred to as a “flag of convenience,” whereby a vessel is registered in a jurisdiction other than that of its beneficial owner. This structure is primarily designed to enhance cost efficiency and reduce regulatory burdens.
However, such arrangements create a fundamental separation between legal identity and economic ownership. Under international law—most notably the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea—the flag State retains primary jurisdiction over a vessel on the high seas. Accordingly, the key legal nexus is not the nationality of the beneficial owner, but the flag the vessel flies at the relevant time.
For Thai investors holding interests through such structures, the implication is clear: Thailand may lack direct jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that the economic loss is ultimately borne by Thai stakeholders.
Context: Attacks on Vessels in the Middle East
Attacks on commercial vessels in the Middle East differ fundamentally from conventional commercial risks. They are deeply intertwined with political and security considerations, making attribution of responsibility inherently complex and often diplomatically sensitive.
As a result, direct legal action against a State or perpetrator is frequently impractical. Where a vessel has Thai connections—whether through ownership, management, or crew nationality—the legal inquiry extends beyond the existence of damage to whether such damage can be translated into enforceable rights within a particular legal system and jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional Analysis: A Multi-Layered Framework
Jurisdiction in such cases does not reside in a single forum but arises from the interaction of multiple legal systems, each potentially asserting concurrent authority.
At the primary level, the flag State retains jurisdiction in incidents occurring on the high seas, reflecting a foundational principle of the law of the sea. Conversely, where the incident occurs within territorial waters, the coastal State may assert jurisdiction based on territorial sovereignty—although, in practice, such assertions may be constrained by geopolitical realities.
Separately, States connected to the victims—such as the State of nationality of the shipowner or crew—may assert jurisdiction on the basis of nationality or exercise diplomatic protection. However, such mechanisms are indirect and subject to State discretion.
From a private law perspective, the most effective mechanisms typically arise from contractual arrangements. Governing law clauses, jurisdiction clauses, and arbitration agreements play a decisive role. In particular, institutions such as the London Maritime Arbitrators Association are widely recognized as neutral forums capable of delivering enforceable awards across multiple jurisdictions.
Where State responsibility can be established, claims may escalate into the domain of public international law, potentially reaching adjudication before bodies such as the International Court of Justice. However, such proceedings are often protracted and subject to significant procedural constraints.
Standing to Sue: Who Has the Right to Bring a Claim?
In scenarios where vessels connected to Thailand are attacked abroad, the question of jurisdiction must be complemented by a deeper analysis of standing. In international shipping, the right to initiate legal proceedings is not centralized but distributed among multiple stakeholders depending on the nature of the loss and the legal structure of the transaction.
First, the registered shipowner—being the legal owner under the flag State—has direct standing to claim damages for physical damage to the vessel, loss of income, and other commercial losses. Such rights are generally recognized under both domestic law of the flag State and international maritime law principles.
Second, in cases involving time charter or voyage charter arrangements, charterers may have independent standing to claim for economic losses, including supply chain disruption or downstream contractual liabilities. These rights are highly dependent on the terms of the charterparty, and disputes are commonly resolved through arbitration, often under LMAA rules.
Third, insurers play a critical role through the doctrine of subrogation. Upon indemnifying the insured, insurers acquire the right to pursue recovery against responsible parties, which may include States, non-state actors, or other liable entities. The scope of such rights is governed by the insurance policy and applicable law.
Fourth, crew members injured or deceased as a result of such incidents may pursue claims under tort law and maritime employment contracts. Jurisdiction may be established based on nationality, place of contract, or forum selection clauses. In certain cases, dependents may also have derivative rights of action.
Finally, at the State level, claims may arise in the form of State-to-State disputes. The flag State possesses direct standing to assert claims for violations of international law affecting its vessels, while other States may exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of their nationals. However, access to international adjudication—such as before the ICJ—is limited to States, requiring private parties to rely on their respective governments.
Crucially, the existence of legal standing does not equate to practical enforceability. Factors such as attribution, jurisdictional viability, enforceability of judgments, and economic cost-benefit considerations must all be assessed. Accordingly, structuring legal rights should be viewed as a proactive risk management tool rather than a reactive remedy.
Strategic Implications for Investors
For investors, the choice of vessel registration structure must not be driven solely by cost considerations. Equal weight must be given to the ability to enforce rights and secure legal protection in adverse scenarios.
While flags of convenience may offer short-term efficiencies, they often introduce long-term legal complexities. Contractual protections—particularly governing law and dispute resolution clauses—are therefore critical, as they remain within the investor’s control, unlike geopolitical risks.
In addition, war risk insurance constitutes a key risk mitigation mechanism in such environments.
Ultimately, the legal structuring of vessels and related transactions should be designed to withstand uncertainty, rather than merely comply with legal requirements under normal conditions.
Conclusion
Attacks on vessels with Thai connections—particularly those operating under flags of convenience—underscore that jurisdiction is not a purely technical issue detached from business operations. Rather, it is a strategic variable that directly impacts the ability to enforce rights and manage risk.
For investors, a sophisticated understanding of these structures, combined with careful legal planning from the outset, will be essential in preserving value and ensuring business continuity in an increasingly uncertain global environment.
Disclaimer
This article is prepared for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Any reliance on the information herein should be made with due consideration of specific facts and circumstances on a case-by-case basis. All rights are reserved under the Thai Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994).
Prepared by: Pinprapus Chartikavanich
Date: 16 April 2026