Can a seafarer simply refuse to sail through a conflict zone?
As the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted shipping and energy supplies, much of the international attention has focused on vessels, trade routes and economic consequences. A recent article by BlueRights members Patricia Kennedy, Anita Rayegani and Eka Siradze asks a different question: what does the crisis mean for the people aboard those ships?
Originally published in The Conversation and subsequently republished by the Irish Examiner, the article examines how danger and prolonged uncertainty can affect the mental health of seafarers already working in an environment characterised by isolation, demanding schedules and long periods away from family.
The authors draw attention to the cumulative effects of fear, uncertainty, disrupted sleep and prolonged time at sea, arguing that mental health cannot be separated from physical safety or working conditions.
But the article also raises a more difficult question about choice.
Whether a seafarer can refuse to enter or remain in a hazardous area is shaped by employment contracts, nationality, economic circumstances and the protections available to them. Differences in working conditions can therefore translate into differences in exposure to danger: not everyone aboard the world’s merchant fleet has the same practical ability to say no.
Seen through a BlueRights lens, the Hormuz crisis therefore raises questions extending beyond immediate physical safety. When someone’s workplace becomes a conflict zone, who determines what level of risk is acceptable — and how meaningful is consent when refusing that risk may carry consequences for employment and income?
The article highlights why protecting people at sea requires looking at mental health, physical safety, labour conditions and individual agency together, particularly when geopolitical crises transform ordinary maritime work into exposure to extraordinary risk.
Read the original articles