Turkish Straits 2026: From Legal Text to Operational Reality

Beyond a Simple Waterway

Describing the Turkish Straits as merely a waterway connecting two seas understates the reality. The Bosphorus and the Dardanelles carry dense international traffic through narrow, current-driven waters immediately adjacent to major populated areas. As a result, the cost of an incident in the Straits is rarely confined to the vessel alone; shoreline infrastructure, population density, and sensitive ecosystems are all part of the same risk equation.

What the industry experiences in 2026 is not a rewriting of the legal regime, but the earlier activation and more cautious application of safety-driven measures. Freedom of passage continues in principle. In practice, however, whether a passage proceeds is increasingly conditioned by real-time, on-the-ground risk assessments. This shift is particularly visible for tankers and vessels carrying hazardous cargo, where the gap between advance voyage planning and traffic management decisions has widened.

Foundations: Reading the Straits Through Three Layers

To understand the Turkish Straits correctly, three legal and regulatory layers must be read together.

The Montreux Convention

The first layer is the Montreux Convention. For merchant vessels in peacetime, the fundamental principle is freedom of passage. However, the Convention does not establish an “automatic passage” concept detached from safety considerations. The optional nature of pilotage and towage is also a core feature of the Montreux regime, reflecting a balance between navigational freedom and risk awareness.

IMO Assembly Resolution A.827(19)

The second layer is IMO Assembly Resolution A.827(19). For the Bosphorus, the Dardanelles, and the Sea of Marmara, this resolution introduces a technical framework for routing and traffic organisation. It expressly recognises that measures such as temporary suspension of two-way traffic and the regulation of one-way traffic may be employed on safety grounds.

Türkiye’s Domestic Regulations and Implementing Practice

The third layer consists of Türkiye’s domestic regulations. The first comprehensive framework entered into force in 1994, was updated in 1998, and applied for many years as a by-law. As of 2019, the by-law period ended and the

Turkish Straits Maritime Traffic Regulations entered into force (Official Gazette 15.08.2019, No. 30859).

Current practice is shaped not only by the regulations themselves, but also by implementing directives. The Implementing Directive approved by ministerial decision in 2023 and effective from 01.01.2024 explicitly aims to enhance navigational safety and protect life, property, the sea, and the environment. It operationalises how rules are applied on a daily basis.

Most delays and disputes arise not from the wording of legal provisions, but from which safety criterion was triggered on a particular day and how it was applied. In the Turkish Straits, knowing the text is not enough; reading the practice is essential.

Practice in 2026: Narrowing Risk Tolerance

The defining trend in 2026 is not a lowering of safety standards, but a narrowing of risk tolerance. The same weather, current, or vessel profile previously considered manageable may now attract earlier intervention. Interpreting this as arbitrary tightening is often misleading. The primary operational question for authorities is not efficiency, but the consequences of a potential accident.

Several operational outcomes are increasingly common:

  • Stricter waiting and queue management. Slot discipline is applied more conservatively, and a plan that appears feasible on paper may be deferred in practice.
  • More frequent one-way traffic. When currents, visibility, local traffic density, and higher-risk vessel profiles converge, suspending two-way traffic becomes a practical safety tool, consistent with both IMO A.827(19) and domestic regulations.
  • Greater practical weight of pilotage and tug services. Services described as “recommendatory” in legal texts may, for certain tonnage, cargo, or manoeuvrability profiles, become de facto standard components of a safe transit.
  • Narrower interpretation of weather and current thresholds. Meteorological and hydrological factors drive real-time decisions in the Straits.
  • Direct impact of documentation and technical compliance. Reporting accuracy and the completeness of technical files can directly affect passage planning.

Reporting is particularly critical. Under TSVTS/TUBRAP practice, passage plan notifications and additional checklists are required days in advance for certain vessel and cargo profiles. Late or inaccurate submissions may lead to delays or exclusion from the daily traffic plan.

Black Sea War Risk: A Separate Discipline

A Straits transit is complex on its own; when a Black Sea leg is added, risk management becomes a distinct discipline. In the context of the Russia–Ukraine war, risks to commercial shipping in the Black Sea are expected to persist throughout 2026. The threat profile has evolved beyond the classical “war zone” concept, with higher-precision systems and methods increasingly affecting maritime security.

The practical implication is that risk is not limited to physical damage. Four risk streams operate simultaneously:

  • Physical damage and crew safety risk
  • Voyage disruption, delay, and deviation risk
  • Sanctions and compliance risk
  • Insurance coverage and claims execution risk

Incidents and warnings involving commercial vessels in late 2025 and early 2026 have shown that keeping security assessments current is no longer best practice, but a baseline requirement.

Insurance and War Risk Management

Where a Black Sea operation is contemplated, insurance does not end with the purchase of a policy. If the structure is not set correctly from the outset, disputes following an incident often shift from the existence of cover to the scope of cover.

Common pressure points include:

  • Different operational logic of war risks. In H&M and P&I structures, exclusions and additional cover mechanisms for war risks function differently, with potential exposure for loss of hire and environmental liability.
  • Notice and approval requirements. The Black Sea and Sea of Azov are often treated as “Listed Areas,” triggering underwriter notice, additional premiums, and special terms.
  • Compliance alignment. Transactions incompatible with sanctions regimes may jeopardise not only commercial relationships but also insurance performance.

War risk management is therefore incomplete if treated solely as a broker or operations issue. Policy terms, voyage planning, charterparty provisions, and reporting obligations must be integrated into a single, coherent file.

First Steps After an Incident

When an incident occurs, the actions taken in the first hours shape the claims trajectory for months. The rule is straightforward: safety first, evidence second, claim third.

Key steps include:

Crew and Vessel Safety

Immediate focus on crew welfare, medical needs, fire or flooding control, vessel stability, and emergency procedures. Claims discussions follow, not precede, the duty to mitigate loss.

Mandatory Notifications

Prompt notification of VTS and relevant authorities; flag state and class society; company crisis teams; P&I correspondents and insurers; brokers; charterers, sub-charterers, and cargo interests.

Preservation of Evidence

Securing VDR and ECDIS data, AIS records, radar images, VHF/VTS communications, photographs, videos, logbooks, and crew statements. Consistency and clarity in early reporting materially affect later coverage debates.

Damage Assessment and Expert Appointment

Appointment of surveyors, separation of war and marine perils, and management of salvage, towage, and port-of-refuge considerations.

Building the Claims File

Early separation of cost heads—physical damage, salvage, port expenses, delay-related costs, crew expenses, third-party and environmental liabilities—is essential. Coordination among multiple stakeholders requires familiarity with local practice, particularly where Türkiye is involved.

Charterparty and Commercial Consequences

When war risk materialises, charterparty disputes often escalate faster than insurance claims. Damage to the vessel disrupts the entire voyage chain. Typical dispute areas include off-hire, deviation and safe port issues, war and sanctions clauses, laytime and demurrage, cancellation, rerouting, and cost allocation.

If contractual and insurance language do not describe the same risk picture, being “right” in principle is less important than how that right translates into cost. Effective management reads contracts and policies together.

Pre-Transit Preparation Checklist

For operations involving the Straits and the Black Sea, a concise checklist is critical:

  • Is the voyage risk assessment current?
  • Are war risk cover, listed area notices, additional premiums, and special conditions clear?
  • Are P&I and H&M scopes, exclusions, and notice procedures documented?
  • Are charterparty war and sanctions clauses operationally aligned?
  • Are TSVTS/TUBRAP reporting and technical checklists complete?
  • Is there a defined “first six hours” incident workflow?
  • Is the evidence set standardised and accessible?

Treating these steps as paperwork often results in higher costs—first at anchorage in the Straits, and later in the Black Sea claims file. In shipping, post-incident disorder is frequently more expensive than the incident itself.

Closing Note

As of 2026, freedom of passage through the Turkish Straits continues. What has changed is the intensity of the safety posture and the commercial uncertainty it creates. Once Black Sea war risk is added, that uncertainty must be managed simultaneously across insurance, contracts, compliance, and operations. No single department can carry this burden alone.

At Esenyel & Partners, we regularly support clients in disputes arising from Straits transits, TSVTS/TUBRAP compliance, charterparty risk allocation, and—within the context of the Russia–Ukraine war—war risk insurance structuring, notifications, and incident-time claims management. The differentiating factor is not reacting after an event, but building the file before anything happens.

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.