Protect Seafarers, and the Maritime Order

Why in the News:

A Russian missile strike on the merchant vessel MV Golden Leo while departing Ukraine’s Odesa port killed 10 seafarers, including four Indians, marking the first Indian deaths in the Russia Ukraine war after earlier deaths in the Iran war. India summoned Russia’s chargé d’affaires and, for the first time, named Russia in its protest, a step it had avoided for four years of diplomatic balancing with Moscow.

What happened, and why does it extend the threat to Indian seafarers into a new theatre?

1. The strike: Russian forces launched three cruise missiles at the MV Golden Leo, a Turkish owned vessel flagged to Guinea Bissau, while it was departing Odesa. The strike killed 10 people, including four Indians, while one more Indian sailor was hospitalised in critical condition.
2. Prior Hormuz deaths: Indian seafarers, including three aboard the MT Settebello, were killed in and around the Strait of Hormuz amid the Iran war.
3. Diplomatic response: India summoned Russia’s chargé d’affaires Vladimir Ladanov and explicitly named Russia, calling the targeting of commercial shipping unacceptable.

On what legal basis is targeting merchant shipping unlawful, and why is that basis under strain?

1. Governing principle: Merchant vessels engaged in civilian commerce cannot lawfully be attacked unless they are being used for military purposes.
   • Term: International Humanitarian Law (IHL): The body of law that seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict by protecting non combatants.
2. Cargo detail: The MV Golden Leo was reportedly carrying grain, reinforcing its civilian character.
3. Stakes for global trade: Ukraine remains a leading global grain exporter to Europe, North Africa, and Asia. Disruptions through the Strait of Hormuz have separately exposed the vulnerability of global energy supplies.

Why does India’s protest coexist with continued exposure of its seafarers, and what does that expose about its leverage?

1. India’s outsized stake: More than 10% of the world’s seafarers are Indian, many serving aboard foreign flagged vessels such as the MV Golden Leo and MT Settebello, placing them outside direct Indian jurisdiction.
2. Risk avoidance, not norm enforcement: Following the deaths of Indian seafarers in West Asia, the Directorate General of Shipping advised against deploying Indian seafarers on voyages through the Strait of Hormuz, reducing risk exposure rather than enforcing the underlying international norm.
3. Significance of naming Russia: Summoning and explicitly naming Russia is significant because India has generally maintained strategic balance and avoided directly criticising Russia during the conflict.

Conclusion:

The deaths of Indian seafarers in two separate conflict zones highlight the growing vulnerability of civilian shipping and the weakening of protections under International Humanitarian Law (IHL). While India’s diplomatic protest demonstrates a willingness to call out violations even by a strategic partner, its immediate response remains focused on risk mitigation rather than norm enforcement. The broader challenge of ensuring compliance with International Humanitarian Law by major military powers remains unresolved.