When War Hits the Shipping Lanes: The Hidden Cost of Conflict in Maritime Transport

/in , , /by

It is a well-known fact that around 80% of global trade is transported by sea; but what happens when those waters are no longer safe?

International trade does not come to a sudden halt, but it is directly affected and, in many cases, without any opportunity to react in time. Longer-than-usual shipping routes, unpredictable costs, strained contracts and a chain of liability that is not always balanced or clearly defined.

Even though they may seem far removed from us, armed conflicts in strategic locations—the Red Sea, the Gulf of Oman, the Strait of Hormuz—are not far off when we talk about international transport. They slip into the supply chain almost seamlessly: it starts with a shipowner’s decision on whether a vessel is seaworthy and ends with an importer failing to receive their cargo on time, with costs deviating from what was previously agreed, and with contracts that cannot be fulfilled.

That is what this article is about: tracing that chain of events. It looks at how war at sea sets off a chain reaction that begins with marine insurance and ultimately affects freight rates, delivery times, sales contracts and, ultimately, the global economy.

The designation of “War Zone”

It all begins with a technical decision that has devastating commercial consequences: the classification of a maritime zone as a high-risk area for warfare. This task falls primarily to the Joint War Committee (JWC), an independent body comprising representatives of insurers from the Lloyd’s of London market and the International Underwriting Association (IUA). Its role is to monitor geopolitical and security conditions in various maritime regions in order to identify which areas pose a high risk of conflict.

The JWC’s decision is not merely declaratory. It has immediate and quantifiable effects: it triggers what are known as ‘war risk premiums’, i.e. additional premiums that shipowners must pay to maintain cover for their vessels in those areas. And, in the most serious cases, when the risk is classified as extreme, insurers issue a “Notice of Cancellation”, which is a formal notice of cancellation of cover that provides only seven days of residual cover. Once that period has elapsed, the vessel sails without insurance cover, which in practice means it cannot sail. The situation in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden following the Houthi rebel attacks in late 2023 perfectly illustrates this mechanism. Within a matter of weeks, what had been a regular shipping route for trade between Asia and Europe became a de facto no-go zone for much of the world’s merchant fleet.

Marine insurance against the risk of war

At this point, it is important to have a clear understanding of the insurance framework for maritime transport, because that is where the chain of problems begins.

Standard insurance policies fall into two main categories. On the one hand, there is the shipowner’s own insurance: Hull & Machinery (H&M) cover for damage to the vessel itself, and Protection & Indemnity (P&I) cover for third-party liability. On the other hand, shippers’ own insurance policies, which are primarily based on the British Institute Cargo Clauses (ICC), clauses that are also applied in other areas of transport.

The common feature of both types of cover is the exclusion of war risk, as provided for in Article 418 of the Spanish Maritime Navigation Act (Act 14/2014 of 24 July). Por tanto, las condiciones estándar del mercado excluyen expresamente de la cobertura ordinaria los riesgos y daños derivados de situaciones de guerra (conste declarada o no, sea civil o internacional), así como de bloqueos, apresamiento, captura o terrorismo. No es una letra pequeña sin más, sino una exclusión estructural del sistema que se ha mantenido durante años.

The way to avoid this situation is to take out specific additional cover through “Institute War Clauses”, for both the vessel and the cargo. However, this additional cover, which protects against direct damage and may apply to situations such as ‘general average’, also has significant limitations: it does not cover losses arising from delay, nor the costs of re-shipping the goods when the vessel has had to unload at an intermediate port, nor any surcharges or additional costs imposed by the shipping company on the shipper as a result of the war situation it is facing.

In practical terms, war risk insurance may cover you if your container sinks or is damaged by an attack, but it does not cover the consequences of it arriving two months late (even though the delay is often the greatest actual financial loss for the shipper), the problems arising from having to unload at another port because the vessel was unable to continue its route, nor the fact that you are charged a ‘War Risk Surcharge’ of several thousand euros.

The shipowner’s response: legal and contractual rights

As has recently been the case, when a region is declared a war zone and insurance cover becomes more expensive or disappears altogether, as we have already seen, shipowners and shipping companies are faced with a number of operational options, all of which are permitted under the law.

At international level, the Hague-Visby Rules, which govern most international maritime transport contracts through bills of lading (B/L), provide in Article 4.2 for the carrier’s exemption from liability for loss or damage resulting from acts of war, acts of public enemies or detention by sovereign authorities. More importantly, the same article stipulates that any change of course that is reasonable for the purpose of saving human life or property at sea shall not constitute a breach of that convention or of the agreed contract of carriage; consequently, the carrier shall not be liable for any resulting damage. Spanish legislation, Law 14/2014 on Maritime Navigation, follows the same line of thinking by recognising the carrier’s exemption from liability for acts of war and limiting its liability for delay to a maximum of 2.5 times the amount of the freight (Articles 277 et seq.).

Before embarkation, the carrier may delay departure or cancel the voyage. Once the voyage has commenced, the carrier may divert to a safe port, unload the goods there and charge a pro rata freight charge plus any expenses incurred, unless the state of war was already known at the time the contract was entered into. 

However, this legal framework does not operate in isolation. In line with their usual practice of shielding themselves as much as possible against the vagaries of sea voyages, shipping companies and shipowners have incorporated specific clauses into their bills of lading (B/L) and charter party agreements that considerably extend their rights in the event of war risks. A clear example of this is the measures adopted by the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), an international shipping association representing 64% of the world’s tonnage, which has updated its VOYWAR (for voyage contracts) and CONWARTIME (for time charters) clauses for 2025, providing the carrier with a very wide range of options for action.

In practice, the general terms and conditions of major shipping lines such as Maersk, MSC, CMA CGM and COSCO allow them to unilaterally alter the agreed voyage, including cancellation prior to loading (with the possibility of freight charges being levied), route diversion, temporary suspension and storage, transhipment to another vessel, and even the termination of the voyage at a safe intermediate port. All this without liability for damage or delay on the part of the shipowners, but with the right to claim the full freight and any extraordinary expenses arising from the situation.

Surcharges, diversions and disruptions

Although the legal framework is relatively clear, the commercial reality is considerably more costly and chaotic when we are faced with a conflict. This is because, when a shipping company decides not to sail through a conflict zone, the consequences of its actions and decisions are passed on directly to other operators, and more specifically to the shipper, who is ultimately the party most at risk.

Let us suppose, as happened in a recent example, that shipowners decide to take a detour around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid the route through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. According to data from UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), this detour amounts to approximately 3,500 additional nautical miles (around 6,500 km), which translates into an extra 10 to 12 days’ voyage, increased fuel consumption, the need for additional stopovers and a complete recalibration of the delivery schedules for the cargo(s) at their destination(s). Route changes that can also have other impacts on the affected areas, as demonstrated by the situation on the South African coast, where maritime traffic increased by 67% over the past year as a result of these massive diversions.

These costs take the form of specific surcharges such as the “War Risk Surcharge” (WRS), imposed by shipping lines and varying according to the route concerned, which is passed on in full to the shipper; the “Emergency Bunker Surcharge” due to increased fuel consumption resulting from the diversion; and, in the most extreme cases, the costs of unloading and storage at an intermediate port, which are borne by the shipper on the basis that they are the consequence of a force majeure event legally attributable to the state of war beyond the carriers’ control.

The concept of ‘general average’ adds a further layer of complexity to this already complex scenario. If the shipowner incurs extraordinary expenses to save the vessel and the cargo, such as taking on an emergency tow, remaining in a port of refuge, or carrying out repairs to continue the voyage, they may be obliged to declare general average and claim from the owners of the saved interests their proportionate contribution to such a situation. This mechanism, governed by the York-Antwerp Rules under most bills of lading, can result in costly settlements and lengthy arbitration proceedings to enforce them, proceedings which are usually held in London (UK).

Impact on the global economy

Given that maritime transport is the backbone of international trade, and that any disruption to it has a knock-on effect on industries and consumers far from the coast, a state of war never goes unnoticed. 

Uncertainty regarding delivery times and the final cost of the agreed route makes business planning extremely difficult. Delays in the arrival of goods impact projects and production lines of all kinds, as well as leading to breaches of contract within the supply chain. Surcharges on the final freight cost make products more expensive and affect other contracts, where transport is only one part of the agreed sale.

Furthermore, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that the war cover we have already discussed, even where it exists, has gaps that leave the most common negative consequences unprotected; for example, delays are not covered under any standard form of cargo insurance, surcharges imposed by the shipping company are not covered under the policy either, or the costs of redispatch, in the event that the goods are stranded at an intermediate port along the route, are of doubtful coverage even under the ‘Institute War Clauses’.

Undoubtedly, the situation described highlights the fact that maritime law—both international conventions (the Hague-Visby Rules) and national legislation (the Maritime Navigation Act)—is reasonably structured to protect shipowners against the risk of war, providing for broad exemptions from liability and considerable operational prerogatives, within a contractual framework (BIMCO) that further reinforces this position.

Consequently, the weak link will be the shipper, who bears the costs without having much scope to pass them on to parties further up or down the contractual chain, unless they have negotiated in detail—taking into account all possible contingencies—the sales contracts in which maritime transport is an essential component, as well as the insurance policies. Against this backdrop, we must make some specific recommendations:

When it comes to insurance, we recommend always taking out ICC (A) cover supplemented by the Institute War Clauses (Cargo). It is also advisable to check specifically that the affected routes are included in these clauses and to be aware of the exclusions set out in the policy, such as delays, surcharges and re-routing costs, which are not usually covered by war insurance.

In contractual matters, we recommend including specific clauses in sales contracts that set out who bears the risk of delays or disruptions caused by war, and that expressly allocate liability for any extraordinary surcharges that may arise. Provision should also be made for the right to terminate the contract should the situation persist over time.

When it comes to Incoterms, we recommend assessing the implications of each term and choosing the one that best suits your needs, as, in sales under terms such as CIF or CIP, the seller is obliged to take out insurance, but the minimum cover required may prove insufficient in a conflict situation such as the one we are currently experiencing.

Sadly, war at sea is not a historical anomaly or an unlikely eventuality. History shows us that it is a systemic, recurring risk with far-reaching legal and economic consequences. Therefore, ignoring this phenomenon in contractual and insurance planning is, quite simply, a luxury that international trade cannot afford.

Key regulatory references
The 1924 Brussels Convention on Bills of Lading, as amended by the 1968 and 1979 Protocols (The Hague-Visby Rules)
Law 14/2014 of 24 July on Maritime Navigation (Spain)
Institute Cargo Clauses (A), (B) y (C)
Institute of London Underwriters
Institute War Clauses (Cargo)
BIMCO VOYWAR 2025 and CONWARTIME 2025 clauses
York and Antwerp Rules 2016

Access the article…

October 2026: The Digitalisation of Land Transport Begins

/in , , , /by

The road transport sector, which has for years been calling for innovation and improvements, both to optimise operations and to enhance the quality of life of its workers, is now driving transformation across a wide range of areas. Promoting more sustainable vehicle fleets, regulating autonomous vehicles and ensuring more efficient and safer monitoring of road transport are now among the top priorities in Europe and Spain, whilst at the same time presenting new challenges in the regulatory sphere.

In line with this roadmap, the legal framework set out in Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 on electronic freight transport information (eFTI), designed to facilitate the electronic communication of regulatory information relating to the carriage of goods within the territory of the European Union.

The eFTI Regulation sets out rules for the electronic sharing of freight transport information between businesses and authorities, without requiring a specific document, but rather a common method of accessing the shared data. Furthermore, the aim of this systematisation is to ensure that all information is reliable and verifiable, with guarantees of authenticity, integrity, traceability and clarity, whilst minimising delays caused by paperwork and redundant or avoidable administrative procedures.

Digitisation of the Administrative Control Document (DeCA)

Act 9/2025 of 3 October on Sustainable Mobility (published in the Official State Gazette No. 291 of 4 December 2025, and in force since 5 December 2025), stems from the aforementioned European regulation, and one of its aims is to facilitate the establishment of an efficient, sustainable and resilient multimodal freight transport system, harnessing the potential of digitalisation and technology.

In its eighth transitional provision, concerning the digitisation of the administrative control document required for the provision of public road haulage services and the journey log required for the provision of public road passenger transport services, it states that the administrative control document must be in digital form within ten months of the law coming into force. It is worth remembering that this document must be issued for all public goods transport, except in certain specific cases such as removals or light parcel deliveries, amongst others.

Therefore, the administrative control document must be in digital format from 5 October 2026(although it appears that some companies and self-employed workers have already been using it on a voluntary basis since mid-2025, in order to gradually adapt to electronic systems).

The requirements and characteristics that administrative control documents must meet, in their capacity as a mandatory administrative record accompanying goods transported by road and containing details of the shipper, the carrier and the vehicle, as well as the date, the origin and destination of the load, the characteristics of the goods or any observations to be included, are already regulated by Order FOM/2861/2012 of 13 October (amended by Order TRM/282/2026 of 25 March). This Order is supplemented by the Resolution of 22 May 2023 issued by the Directorate-General for Land Transport, which sets out the specific requirements for the electronic version of that document (DeCA).

A document that incorporates the details of the consignment note and the CMR contract, as set out in Article 2.2 of the aforementioned Order FOM/2861/2012: “2. In cases where the transport is documented in a consignment note or other supporting documentation in accordance with the relevant national, European Union or international legislation in force, this shall serve as an administrative control document provided that it contains all the information set out in Article 6 of this Order.”

Order FOM/2861/2012 also states that the contractual shipper and the actual carrier are responsible for ensuring that the control document exists and is correctly completed, as well as for the obligation to carry it in the vehicle. According to the document, the shipper was responsible for data relating to the cargo and the contract, whilst the carrier was responsible for information relating to the performance of the transport. However, following the amendments introduced by the recent Order TRM/282/2026 of 5 March (Article 2), responsibility for ensuring that the control document exists and is correctly issued is now shared between shippers and carriers. Although Order TRM/282/2026 does not specify who is responsible for producing it, it does confirm that both parties will be jointly and severally liable if the document is missing or contains errors.

In any case, regardless of who issued it, the document must be available in digital format before the vehicle leaves its point of origin.

Electronic Consignment Note (eCDP) and Digital CMR (eCMR)

Digital consignment notes or CMR contracts are the electronic version of the paper document that supports the transport of goods by road (domestic or international) agreed between the shipper and the carrier, and their main purpose remains to prove the existence of a transport contract (and its terms and conditions), as well as the carrier’s receipt of the goods. Although their digitisation is not yet mandatory, this is also a feasible option given their link to the administrative control document.

In fact, a domestic consignment note must include the minimum information required by law, as set out in Article 10 of Law 15/2009 of 11 November on contracts for the carriage of goods by land; similarly, the content of a CMR contract must meet certain minimum requirements under the CMR Convention for international transport (Article 6). However, this does not prevent them from including the information required for the administrative control document (Article 6 of Order FOM/2861/2012), thereby facilitating the issuance of a single digital document that complies with the parameters and requirements for the carriage of goods by road.

Conclusions

Among the most significant improvements expected to result from the proposed document digitisation project are key aspects such as:

  • To facilitate administrative inspections of transport operations.
  • To assist interested parties in issuing and obtaining copies of transport-related documents.
  • To ensure security by guaranteeing that documents (reports, terms and conditions, cargo details, reservations or ‘remarks’, etc.) cannot be altered.
  • To facilitate real-time monitoring of transport.
  • Enable modifications to be made during transport.
  • To streamline the service billing processes.
  • Reduce administrative costs.
  • To obtain reliable and accurate evidence for use in legal proceedings.
  • Facilitate the claims process.

Undoubtedly, the ultimate aim is to improve efficiency and traceability, but this will also require strict compliance with data protection and confidentiality regulations, as the information shared must be underpinned by an ecosystem of certified and interoperable platforms.

Focusing on our sector, it is worth noting that this approach also aims to facilitate the resolution of disputes between carriers and shippers, thanks to its immutability and digital security. We must not forget that, in any claim or incident arising in the context of a road transport contract, the admissibility of evidence is an essential and decisive factor in the defence of the positions of the parties involved.

Access the article…

The Strait of Hormuz Under International Law: Sovereignty and Freedom of Navigation in Conflict

/in , , , /by

Author: Verónica Meana Larrucea / AIYON ABOGADOS S.L.P.

The Strait of Hormuz has once again taken centre stage in the international maritime legal debate. Since the outbreak of the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran on 28 February 2026, Tehran has been progressively tightening its control over transit through the area, imposing prior authorisation requirements, selective restrictions and transit fees on certain vessels. The escalation intensified from 13 April onwards, when the United States launched Operation Epic Fury, which involves coercive naval actions against vessels linked to Iran and has led to the mass diversion of commercial traffic and the immobilisation of several Iranian oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

The strategic importance of the strait is beyond question: approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil and a substantial proportion of liquefied natural gas pass through it every day. Any disruption to this vital artery has immediate consequences for energy markets, maritime transport and global trade. But beyond the geopolitical dimension, the conflict raises a legal controversy of the first order regarding the limits of state control in international straits and the scope of the principle of freedom of navigation.

The relevant legal framework is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, Montego Bay, 1982), which distinguishes between the regime of innocent passage—applicable to territorial waters and granting the coastal State a wider scope of control—and the special regime of transit passage set out in Articles 37 to 44 for certain international straits. The latter recognises a right of continuous and expeditious transit which coastal States may not impede or suspend.

Iran maintains that the context of armed conflict entitles it to adopt control measures comparable to the regime of innocent passage. The majority of the international community argues, on the basis of Article 44 of UNCLOS, that the special regime of transit passage applies to the Strait of Hormuz, which precludes the imposition of prior authorisations or general restrictions on maritime traffic.

The dispute also involves a legal paradox of considerable significance: neither the United States nor Iran has ratified UNCLOS. Washington, on the one hand, considers that its fundamental provisions form part of customary international law and are therefore binding even on non-party states. Iran, on the other hand, invokes the doctrine of the persistent objector: having expressed constant and systematic opposition to the regime of transit passage since the very negotiations of the Convention, it denies that this regime is enforceable against it as a rule of customary law.

However, a significant body of legal scholarship holds that the freedom of navigation through international straits existed even before UNCLOS. In this regard, the International Court of Justice had already recognised in the Corfu Channel case (1949) the right of passage through international straits without prior authorisation from the coastal State, a principle it reaffirmed in Nicaragua v. United States (1986) by confirming that freedom of navigation remains in force as a customary rule regardless of its subsequent codification in treaties. However, the Corfu judgment also established a key limitation: unilateral actions by a State in foreign waters — in that case, the Royal Navy’s mine clearance in Albanian waters — infringe upon the territorial sovereignty of the coastal State even if carried out in the name of freedom of navigation. That unresolved tension between sovereignty and freedom of passage remains at the heart of the problem in the Strait of Hormuz today.

Two further issues merit attention in this dispute. Firstly, Iran’s proposal to impose tolls on maritime transit is in direct conflict with Article 26 of UNCLOS, which prohibits the imposition of charges for the mere passage of vessels, except where such charges are in return for services actually rendered to the vessel. Unlike artificial canals such as Suez or Panama, the Strait of Hormuz is a natural strait whose legal regime is based on freedom of transit. Oman, also a coastal State and a party to UNCLOS, has publicly rejected this possibility.

Secondly, and conversely, Article 39 of UNCLOS imposes on ships in transit themselves an obligation to refrain from any threat or use of force against coastal States, a particularly sensitive issue in light of the US naval operations currently underway.

The situation in the Strait of Hormuz demonstrates that international maritime law remains, ultimately, a delicate balance between state sovereignty and freedom of navigation. The dispute pits not merely two conflicting legal interpretations against one another, but two distinct conceptions of the limits of state control in one of the world’s most strategic maritime corridors. Its resolution — or its prolongation — will have consequences that extend far beyond the waters of the Persian Gulf.

Access the article…

Enrique Ortiz Outlines the Legal Status of the Vessel “MV HONDIUS” in Light of the Serious Health Crisis Unfolding on Board

/in , , /by

We would like to thank the local media outlet “La Voz de Canarias” for turning to our firm to gather and report on the situation regarding the vessel “MV HONDIUS,” which is currently conducting its evacuation operation from the port of Granadilla on the island of Tenerife.

Enrique Ortiz Bastos, our partner and colleague at the Cádiz office, provided a detailed response to the legal issues raised by the situation in the context of the law of the sea, the actions of public health authorities, and the division of responsibilities among institutions. Enrique thus emphasized the importance of implementing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which must, in this case, be applied in conjunction with the International Health Regulations of 2005  of the World Health Organization (WHO). He also emphasized the need for the various institutions and agencies involved to work very closely with the Captain in order to find the best solution to this serious situation.

The “Certificate of Free Practique” takes on particular importance in this scenario; we discussed this certificate in our October 2021 article, “Impact of COVID-19 on Ship Operations in Spanish Ports” when we were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This certificate consists of a sworn statement made by the ship’s captain regarding the health situation on board. In any case, however, the final decision on whether to authorize the ship’s entry into port will always rest with the Ministry of Health, through the Foreign Health Service, acting in coordination with the Tenerife Port Authority.

Our partner emphasized that the flag state would not bear direct responsibility for the actions of the captain or the shipowners in the event of an epidemic or infection on board, although this does not preclude the captain and the shipowners from being held accountable for the statements they make and the actions and measures they take. Therefore, both parties could face administrative, civil, or criminal liability if they fail to provide the necessary information accurately, fail to comply with onboard protocols, or fail to cooperate with the relevant authorities, thereby minimizing the serious impact of the situation on their passengers, crew, and any third parties who may be affected.

AIYON Abogados commemorates its 10th anniversary at its headquarters in Bilbao, marking the culmination of a great year of celebrations

/in , , , , , /by

AIYON Abogados celebrates its 10th anniversary at its headquarters in Bilbao, after a decade in which it has consolidated its position as a national and international leader in maritime and transport law, reaffirming at all times its commitment to professional excellence and personalised service to its clients.

Our boutique firm celebrated its tenth anniversary with a wonderful event held at La Torre de Iberdrola on 2 October, attended by clients and partners, as well as representatives from the logistics and transport sector at national and international level. An event that brings a great year of celebrations to a close, after a decade of hard work and shared enthusiasm.

Founded in 2015 by a team of expert lawyers, all specialising in maritime law, transport, international trade and insurance, the firm has grown to have offices in Madrid, Cadiz and Algeciras, in addition to its headquarters in Bilbao, which hosted the event. Its multidisciplinary team of solicitors, with an average of more than twenty years’ experience in the sector, offers a comprehensive 360º legal service (24/7) within its areas of expertise, as well as in any other area of law with the help of its regular collaborators.

During these ten years of work, the AIYON team has demonstrated its ability to adapt to the challenges of the sector. Over the years, the firm has advised companies and professionals of all kinds, handling both small queries and actively participating in large-scale projects. In addition to being appointed to assist in major maritime accidents occurring at sea, the firm’s solicitors are at the forefront of new technologies being implemented in the sector, such as offshore platforms and, more specifically, floating offshore wind farms. Our close collaboration with local engineering firm SAITEC Offshore Technologies is proof of this.

AIYON Abogados has not only consolidated its presence in the domestic market, but we are also one of the main collaborating firms for numerous companies in the sector based in other countries, including multinationals and insurance companies with an international presence, prestigious law firms and P&I Clubs, and institutions such as the IOPC Funds (IMO). In this way, we position ourselves as a leading law firm, offering tailored legal advice and solutions.

In a global and constantly evolving environment, the solicitors at AIYON know that the sector always requires dynamic measures tailored to each case and each client. The five partners, Mikel Garteiz-goxeaskoa, Verónica Meana, José Antonio Domínguez, Enrique Ortiz and Zuberoa Elorriaga, whose work has been recognised by specialist British directories such as The Legal500 and Chambers & Partners, lead a team of young professionals who aspire to contribute to the firm’s growth in the coming years so that, in another decade, we can all once again commemorate the good work of our firm and its hallmark, which combines the serious, professional and dedicated practice of its profession with an approach that is always friendly and attentive.

Go to press article…

MORUs and Maritime Law: A New Legal Challenge from a Spanish and International Perspective

/in , , , /by

Mikel Garteiz-goxeaskoa, partner of AIYON Abogados S.L.P.

In recent years, the shipbuilding and energy industry has witnessed a profound transformation driven by the transition to sustainable energy sources. In this context, MORUs (Mobile Offshore Renewable Units) emerge as one of the key elements for the exploitation of renewable resources in the sea. These floating structures, designed to generate wind, solar, wave or tidal energy, represent a considerable technical advance, a challenge for the shipbuilding industry, but also, without doubt, a major legal challenge.

The Comité Maritime International (CMI), a non-governmental organisation in consultative status with the United Nations, has positioned itself as one of the main forums for the development of a uniform international legal framework for maritime affairs. Founded in 1897, the CMI’s main objective is the progressive harmonisation and unification of maritime law. In 2023, in view of the growth in the navigation of our seas by these new offshore structures, the CMI set up an international working group to study the legal status of MORUs and, in order to gather information on how these units are treated in different legal systems as part of this process, launched a questionnaire addressed to national maritime law associations.

The Spanish Maritime Law Association actively participated in this initiative, constituting a group of legal experts coordinated by Jose Sánchez-Fayos and myself. Its aim was to analyse the legal treatment of MORUs within the Spanish regulatory framework, the conclusions of which were presented at the Spanish Maritime Law Association National Congress held in Madrid in June 2025.

One of the central questions that arises when dealing with the MORU phenomenon is their legal status: are they legally ships or not? This is not a purely technical question as the answer will depend on whether or not essential maritime law regimes apply to them, such as the Convention on the Arrest of Ships, the LLMC maritime claims limitation regime, the rules on nationality and flag, maritime privileges or the possibility of being registered and mortgaged as a ship – essential for financing their construction. Ultimately, their legal qualification determines not only their administrative treatment, but also the legal architecture that guarantees their operation, financing, insurance and conflict resolution.

In the Spanish case, Law 14/2014 on Maritime Navigation establishes a typology of shipping vehicles that distinguishes between ships, vessels, naval artefacts and fixed installations. Most MORUs, not being self-propelled and not intended for navigation in the strict sense of the word, cannot be considered as ships. They do not easily qualify as vessels either. Thus, it can be concluded that most MORUs should be classified as naval craft, defined as floating structures not intended to sail, but capable of being towed and of accommodating persons or equipment.

This classification has important practical consequences as MORUs, identified as naval artefacts, can be entered in the Register – although this will require adjustment to accommodate them – and can benefit directly from the ship mortgage regime foreseen for ships. However, the 1999 Convention on Arrest of Ships does not apply to them, which prevents them from being arrested according to the procedures established for ships, something that we believe should be changed given the mobility of these artefacts.

On the other hand, as far as insurance is concerned, Article 406 of the Maritime Navigation Act admits the application of marine insurance to naval artefacts if they are subject to risks inherent to navigation, which opens the door to coverage during phases such as towing, installation or operation at sea.

Looking at the responses from other countries, France, for example, has recently passed the APER Law (2023), which explicitly excludes these structures from the concept of ship and creates a specific legal framework for them, recognising their stationary nature. Denmark, on the other hand, adopts a broader interpretation of the concept of ship, allowing MORUs to be registered as such in the Danish maritime register, which facilitates their insurance and financing. In the United States, the case law of the Supreme Court in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach has set a standard by considering any structure that is reasonably capable of being used as a means of maritime transport to be a vessel, which has allowed some MORUs to be classified as such. In China, although the legal concept of ‘maritime mobile unit’ could be applied to MORUs, in practice there is still no possibility to register them as property in a public register. Brazil, on the other hand, allows their registration only if they are construed as vessels under the guidelines of the maritime authority.

As far as the registration aspects in Spain are concerned, it is noted that, for the time being, there is no specific framework in Spain that allows the registration of MORUs in the ship register of the Directorate General of the Merchant Navy as a category of its own, except by means of an analogue application. This is a major constraint that the DGMN should address as soon as possible so as not to prevent them from accessing financing through ship mortgages and using them as collateral in transactions. Furthermore, the absence of express recognition as ships limits their access to limited liability regimes, but not to the rights of innocent passage or transit through the sea, which are regulated by conventions such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The conclusions reached underline the need to adapt part of the Spanish -and in general, the international- legal framework to this new technological reality. It is proposed to review the registration regime and clarify its status in relation to liability, seizure and navigation rules. In short, the aim is to provide these units – essential for the energy transition – with the necessary legal security to operate effectively in international waters and in the exclusive economic zone of coastal states, as well as to ensure that there are no obstacles to their constructive financing, which is essential for their acceptance by the shipbuilding sector.

The emergence of MORUs is an opportunity for maritime law to evolve in step with technology. The work of the CMI and national contributions, such as in this case that of the Spanish Maritime Law Association group, constitute a fundamental first step in building a clear, predictable and future-proof legal framework for the sea.

Access the article…

The Role of the Spanish Ports in Today’s Global Landscape

/in , , , /by

In a context of geopolitical uncertainty marked by international conflicts and some crises inherited from 2024, Spanish ports have acquired a strategic role. Spain, with its consolidated maritime tradition, has become a key logistics hub within Europe, positioning itself as a global trade reference due to its geographical location and connectivity.

This is reflected in the growing economic impact of Spain’s general interest ports, which have significantly increased their contribution in recent years. According to a study on the economic impact of Spanish ports, they generate 24.3 billion euros and support 250,000 jobs, accounting for 2.2 percent of national GDP and 1.4 percent of total employment. Spain’s strategic position, at the crossroads of Europe, Africa and America, further reinforces its global logistics significance. The Strait of Gibraltar alone handles between 10 and 25 percent of global maritime trade, consolidating Spanish ports as critical infrastructures in international shipping routes.

Among the Spain’s main ports, the following stand out:

  • Santander/Bilbao: Essential for trade with the UK and Northern Europe.
  • A Coruña/Vigo: Key connections with the Americas, while facilitating north-south trade between Europe and Africa.
  • Algeciras: Spain’s largest port and one of Europe’s top transshipment hubs, maintaining critical links with Africa, the Americas and Asia.
  • Valencia: A leading container port, with strong commercial ties to China and Southeast Asia.
  • Barcelona: A crucial gateway to the Mediterranean and North Africa, with historically high cargo volumes.

This being so, recent geopolitical changes have significantly impacted Spanish ports, compelling them to redefine strategies and adjust priorities in response to new global challenges.

  1. US-China tensions. The expansion of China’s Maritime Silk Road has reinforced Beijing’s presence in the Mediterranean, reshaping trade dynamics. In 2025, new sanctions and ongoing technological disputes could disrupt trade flows, potentially affecting Spanish exports to Asia.
  1. The war in Ukraine and NATO expansion. The energy crisis has shifted trade benefits toward Mediterranean ports, often at the expense of Northern European hubs. Spain has capitalized on this shift by positioning itself as a key LNG importer from the Americas and Africa, leveraging agreements such as the EU-Egypt-Israel trilateral memorandum on natural gas exports to Europe.
  1. The Panama Canal crisis. A potential political crisis or rising transit costs through the Panama Canal could pose challenges for Valencia, Barcelona and Algeciras, which rely heavily on the canal for trade with South America’s Pacific coast. Any disruption could affect rout viability and overall trade volumes.
  1. Decarbonisation and the EU Green Deal. The shift towards a more sustainable maritime transport presents challenges. Spanish ports must adapt to stricter CO₂ regulations while ensuring they remain competitive in global trade.

In order to maintain their global position, Spanish ports must focus on key strategic areas.  Investing in modern infrastructure and digitalisation will be essential for adapting to evolving technological and environmental regulations. Strengthening rail and logistics connectivity will enhance landside efficiency and improve cargo distribution. Additionally, expanding the Green Maritime Corridor in 2025 will further consolidate Spain’s role in sustainable global trade.

Spanish ports must continue evolving towards a more sustainable, technologically advanced mode, fully integrated into international logistics networks.

Only by doing so will they successfully face current and future geopolitical and economic challenges, consolidating their position as key players in global trade.

Access the article…

Algeciras Hosts the First Celebration of the 10th Anniversary of AIYON Lawyers

/in , , , , , , /by

On Thursday, 29 May, the entire AIYON Abogados team celebrated the firm’s 10th anniversary at an event held at the Hotel Alborán in Algeciras, attended by our clients and friends, as well as our regular collaborators, with whom we form a solid team of lawyers and experts.

At this pleasant event, we brought together leading operators and various stakeholders from the logistics and transport sector in Algeciras and the rest of the province of Cádiz, as well as some local authorities, to commemorate a significant milestone in our professional career.

Multiple local media outlets reported this news, which undoubtedly fills us with pride for the effort and dedication that the team has put into achieving this goal, but above all for its five partners, Enrique Ortiz (head of the Cadiz office), Verónica Meana (head of the Madrid office), Mikel Garteiz-goxeaskoa and Zuberoa Elorriaga (heads of the Bilbao office) and José Antonio Domínguez (head of the Algeciras office); partners who work side by side with the rest of the team in handling all kinds of matters related to their specialities.

Founded in 2015 in the city of Bilbao, AIYON Abogados is one of the few specialist law firms currently operating in Spain that provides advice in the areas of maritime law, transport law (both land and air), insurance law and international trade, addressing all of its clients’ legal needs thanks to a highly qualified and multidisciplinary team of lawyers and a network of trusted collaborators in other areas of law (criminal, tax, commercial, and labour), enabling them to offer a 360º legal service. In fact, last March, we were once again highlighted by the prestigious British legal guide Chambers & Partners in the category of ‘Shipping – Maritime Law’ for Spain, and we also contributed to the chapter on Maritime Law in Spain for the guide The International Comparative Legal Guides, 2025 (ICLG).

This is the firm’s first celebration in this momentous year 2025, which will be followed by a second celebration in Bilbao after the summer, serving as the grand finale to commemorate a decade of work and joint effort, with all eyes set on the next 10 years. Congratulations, AIYON Abogados!

Read more in Diario El Canal…

Read more in Diario El Puerto…

Read more in El Estrecho Digital…

Read more in Transporte XXI…

Read more in La Voz Digital…

How is the Arrival of Stowaways in Spanish Ports Managed?

/in , , , /by

We would like to thank the Catalan newspaper El Nacional.cat  for the collaboration of our colleagues Jose Antonio Dominguez Castro and Zuberoa Elorriaga for their article on stowaways.

Specifically, the Catalan newspaper reports on the arrival of stowaways in the Port of Barcelona on different ships, which poses a challenge for the different actors affected by this eventuality. Although the newspaper points out that the arrival of stowaways in the Port of Barcelona is scarce, it confirms that this does not mean that this phenomenon does not exist, but that it generally does not transcend despite the fact that it is a reality which, in the 21st century, is still present in maritime life and in the different Spanish and European ports. According to data from the Ministry of the Interior to which the publication had access, between 2016 and 2024 a total of 137 stowaways arrived at the Port of Barcelona: 11 (2016); 20 (2017); 15 (2018); 47 (2019); 15 (2020); 13 (2021); 9 (2022); 3 (2023), and 4 (2024). The authorities state that their provenance is unknown and point out that ‘they have embarked through unregulated procedures unknown to the ship’s captain’.

As El Nacional.cat points out, our firm, in collaboration with the shipowners involved, the responsible authorities, shipping agents and P/I clubs, has managed complex situations arising from this reality in Europe, which undoubtedly always pose a challenge for our team. In this sense, our partner José Antonio Domínguez , a lawyer from the Algeciras office with accredited experience in cases of management of stowaways arriving at the Port of Algeciras, explained in detail to the newspaper the multiple steps and actions that must be taken with all the agents affected once stowaways are detained on a ship on its arrival at a Spanish port, without forgetting the human factor that all this entails, as we are talking about people in an irregular and precarious situation who must be treated with respect and humanity.

Enrique Ortiz, Partner of AIYON Cadiz, Participates in the Round Table Organised by the Propeller Club of Algeciras

/in , , , , /by

On the 29th of April, an interesting meeting took place in Algeciras, organised by the Propeller Club of Algeciras, which brought together many of the most relevant members of the maritime and transport sector in the Bay of Algeciras, including Enrique Ortiz), our partner responsible for the Cadiz office.

The round table was attended by the presidents of the three major associations of companies operating in the Port of Algeciras, such as the Association of Service Companies of the Bay of Algeciras (AESBA), the Association of Freight Forwarders, International Forwarders and Similar of the Bay of Algeciras (ATEIA-OLTRA) and the Port Community of the Bay of Algeciras (Comport), and was moderated by Mr. Manuel Piedra.

During the meeting, José Antonio Fernández, Manuel Cózar and José Manuel Tejedor analysed the current situation, as well as the future of the logistics-port community of the Port of Algeciras. In general, the participants agreed in demanding better tools for the port facilities and the region in the form of better infrastructures, more space for the activity of the companies in the sector, as well as adequate and up-to-date training to improve the service provided.

The dismissal of Mr. Álvaro Rodríguez Dapena as president of Puertos del Estado, considered a strategic ally for Algeciras, also had a place in the round table. The president of Comport regretted that it is a ‘huge loss for the Port’.

Another recurring theme that was also discussed, and which not only affects the Port of Algeciras but all areas of logistics and transport at national level, was the shortage of qualified personnel in sectors such as consignment, customs or port services. The lack of a maritime-port training centre in the region was highlighted, as well as the urgent need to promote dual training, improve technical training and provide companies with more customs representatives.

In relation to the so-called ‘Green Strategy’ followed by the Port of Algeciras, the speakers advocated the need to advance in compliance with European regulations, but pointed out that some of the measures should have a ‘more practical’ sense in order to be able to adapt better to the needs of the operators.

In general, it was a very complete and pleasant meeting in which Enrique Ortiz was able to take note of the different aspects discussed, as well as to reinforce the links that our firm has with the community of the Bay of Algeciras, and its different actors.