Statement by Mr. Yahya Aref Representative at the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations Thirty-Sixth Meeting of State Parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea New York, 18 June 2026   In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful   Mr. President, At the outset, we would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as the president of the Meeting. We would also like to thank the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea for their efforts and support throughout this process. The delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as an observer, would like to touch upon a few points. Mr. President, History attests to the profound contributions of the Iranian civilization to the prosperity of the Persian Gulf region, culminating in the positive and constructive role of the Islamic Republic of Iran in maintaining order and security in the Strait of Hormuz. Guided by a firm commitment to the preservation of oceans, seas, and their resources, and to ensuring the safety and security of navigation, Iran has consistently been motivated to pursue constructive cooperation in light of the applicable international law of the sea. Over decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran, as a responsible State, has continuously upheld the freedom of navigation as well as the safety and security of maritime navigation, and has actualized them in marine areas, including the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Sea of Oman. This is an irrefutable fact that no amount of politicization, selectivity, and disinformation can ignore or distort. At the same time, we should bear in mind that the very presence and the agenda of foreign forces in the Persian Gulf region, irrespective of how phrased, including through military buildup and establishment of military bases for unlawful purposes throughout recent decades have consistently undermined the peace and security of the region, threatened the safety and security of navigation, and increasingly heightened the risks to maritime trade and navigation while being purposefully aimed at disrupting friendly relations among countries in the Persian Gulf. We have always cautioned against such presence in the region, including during relevant debates in the United Nations General Assembly, particularly under the oceans and law of the sea agenda item. This has become more evident and more acutely felt in light of the aggressions committed against my country around the same time last year, in June 2025, and from late February 2026 onwards; which report has been reflected, among others, in document A/80/720-S/2026/201 submitted before the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly. Mr. President, The Strait of Hormuz has undergone a fundamental change of circumstances resulting from the recent aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, an aggression that constitutes a flagrant violation of the fundamental principle of the prohibition of the use of force enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and a breach of the prohibition of aggression, a peremptory norm of international law. The aggressors' use of the Strait of Hormuz and the maritime space to commit attacks against Iran and to supply military bases placed at their disposal in the region has turned the Strait of Hormuz into a battlefield. Under these circumstances, the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the coastal State of the Strait of Hormuz, has strived to ensure the safety and security of navigation and properly manages vessel passage through its territorial waters, and for preventing any passage that threatens its security, territorial integrity, and vital interests. Evidently, under the law of the sea, passage through such straits must have due respect for the sovereignty of the coastal States of the Strait, in such a manner that passage does not threaten the security and sovereignty of those coastal States. Regarding the regime of passage through the Strait of Hormuz, we must once again emphasize Iran’s established legal position: given that Iran has not ratified the Convention, Iran considers itself bound only by those provisions that it considers part of customary international law. In this respect, we would like to underline, in particular, the following points: First, the customary nature of the “transit passage” regime set forth in Part III of the Convention remains contested. UNCLOS III plenary discussions indicate that transit passage was not a codification of existing customary law, but rather the product of a negotiated compromise (quid pro quo). The contextual necessities or circumstances that led to the inclusion of such provisions in the Convention in the course of the negotiation and elaboration thereof cannot be ignored, nor could such references be construed as the codification of customary international law. Second, Iran's interpretative declaration upon signing the Convention in 1982 expressly emphasized this very point. We declared that certain provisions, including those relating to transit passage, are merely the result of a quid pro quo and do not necessarily codify existing custom nor represent established practice regarded as having an obligatory character. Therefore, Iran does not consider itself bound by the rules of transit passage. Third, as my delegation has highlighted, including during the third UNCLOS SPLOS, from the beginning, one of the main objectives of Iran has been to avoid eventual future interpretations of certain provisions of the UNCLOS in a manner incompatible or inconsistent with the original intention and the prior position of the Islamic Republic of Iran or inconsistent with its national laws and regulations. Fourth, even if some believe that the right of transit passage forms part of customary international law, the Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently acted as a “persistent objector”. Iran's consistent legislative and diplomatic practice, including its interpretative declaration upon signing the Law of the Sea Convention and the 1993 Act on Marine Areas, clearly demonstrates the non-recognition of transit passage and affirms that the Strait of Hormuz is subject only to the regime of “innocent passage”. Accordingly, passage through Iran's territorial waters, including the Strait of Hormuz, is subject to the condition that it does not harm the peace, good order, or security of Iran. Fifth, in light of the foregoing, Iran possesses the necessary rights and authority to manage passage and to prevent any passage that is not innocent. This is particularly important given the recent armed conflict and acts of aggression committed against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which heightened risks of any such conflict or situations having a similar impact on Iran in future. Mr. President, The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it seeks stability, security, and safe passage in the Strait of Hormuz. All measures taken by Iran since the outbreak of the war have been, and will continue to be, in compliance with applicable international law. To this end, Iran is engaged in cooperation and bilateral talks with the friendly and brotherly State of Oman to establish a framework for the joint management of the Strait of Hormuz. Such a framework will ensure the safe passage of vessels through the Strait while also safeguarding the peace and security of the coastal States. Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, Given remarks made in relation to the Strait of Hormuz by a few delegations, we would like to also underline the following: From a factual perspective: the unprovoked, premeditated, and unjustified aggression of the United States and the Israeli regime against the Islamic Republic of Iran, in particular, on 28 February 2026 and onwards, deliberately targeting civilians, civilian objects, and densely populated areas in multiple large cities across Iran, has been the cause of the situation in the Persian Gulf. This sobering fact cannot be ignored, nor could the place of aggressors and victims be altered. From a circumstantial standpoint: ignoring the formidable threats arising from acts of aggression conducted against the Islamic Republic of Iran in June 2025 and the very condonation thereof eventually emboldened the aggressors to commit further crimes for the second time in a year; the very silence of the international community in the face of such blatant aggression against Iran was readily exploited by the aggressors again at the expense of maritime security in the region. From a contextual standpoint: the aggression did not just threaten the national security and vital interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran but also undermined maritime security by directly creating and increasing risks of navigation in the Persian Gulf and endangering the lives of seafarers and commercial shipping, including those of Iran. This was further followed by the “blockade” against Iran in the Persian Gulf. From a moral and legal perspective: one cannot preach international law and maritime security and insist unilaterally on the freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz while simultaneously violating the principle of good neighborliness and placing their territory at the disposal of others to carry out armed attack against Iran, which killed thousands of Iranian people, including 168 schoolgirls, schoolboys and teachers. From a juridical perspective: the jus cogens character of prohibition of aggression indicates the fundamental importance and special character of obligations arising thereunder; statements in relation to a situation of war of aggression against Iran, that singles out a specific area of international law of the sea and even so with erroneous and selective interpretations, assertions, and references, suggests a selective approach that seeks to acquiesce in violations of jus cogens obligations and insinuate an undue sense of primacy over peremptory norms of general international law. Eventually, this very selectivity and invocation of international law when it fits for unjust political purposes is actually undermining the provisions of international law. And from a humane perspective: statements that are deliberately detached from reality under the guise of technical discussion reflect a prioritization of property over humanity; a reprehensible approach that demonstrates the unjust political objectives sought in the interest of aggressors, not that of the rule of law and justice. This is more deplorable, taking into account that thousands of Iranian civilians, inter alia, children and women were killed through horrendous crimes and acts of aggression that were planned, organized, carried out or otherwise supported, including through military buildup in the Persian Gulf and beyond. We call on responsible delegations to stand on the right side of history and respect the very elementary consideration of humanity. Mr. President, On a sperate note regarding statement of the distinguished delegation of Iraq on purported lists of geographical coordinates of points accompanied by an illustrative chart regarding the maritime zone referred to in the circular of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs, dated 18 February 2026, we stress that our position on this matter has been reflected in document A/80/733 submitted as a document of the General Assembly. The Islamic Republic of Iran does not recognize the position of the aforementioned points, nor the maritime boundary and the extent of the maritime zones claimed by the Republic of Iraq, and thus considers them null, void and without any legal effect. Mr. President, We express our regret that a few delegations attempted to turn this meeting into a politicized discussion, leveling unfounded allegations against my country and, in bad faith, baseless accusations which we categorically reject. Obviously, we reserve our rights of reply. Our position on the so-called resolution 2817 referred to by a few delegations is clear and has been reflected, including in document S/2026/389 submitted before the UN Security Council. Mr. President, To conclude, we would like to reiterate our principled position regarding the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) and to reemphasize that the participation of my delegation in this meeting, does not affect or prejudice the legal status, rights, and prerogatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a non-party to the UNCLOS or any related agreements, nor does it in any way prejudice Iran’s sovereign rights and principled positions. We reiterate that the Persian Gulf is the only true geographical designation for the body of water lying between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula, which has been used since the dawn of history and endorsed by the United Nations System and should therefore be respected by all. We request that our statement be duly reflected in the report and records of this meeting. We will submit a full version of this statement to the secretariat. I thank you.