Page 282 - Demo

Middle East conflict:War risk & charterpartyimplicationsThis article seeks to explain how war risk clauses in shipping charterparties operate, especially BIMCO%u2019s CONWARTIME (for time charters) and VOYWAR (for voyage charters), against the backdrop of conflict-related navigation threats, including those associated with transiting the Strait of Hormuz.Charterparty war risk clauses typically make provisions to address risks such as blockades, piracy, terrorism, and actual or threatened war. Usually, they allow owners %u2014 in the reasonable judgment of the owner and/or master %u2014 to refuse to proceed to a nominated port if the voyage is considered dangerous and may shift certain additional costs to charterers. The most common are BIMCO%u2019s standard clauses: CONWARTIME and VOYWAR. BIMCO has long published these clauses (notably the 2013 editions) and has now issued updated 2025 versions, which are recommended for use. However, it should be noted that war risk clauses can be overridden or reshaped by other charterparty terms. For example, in the case of the %u201cEleni P%u201d (Eleni Shipping Ltd v Transgrain Shipping BV [2019] EWHC 910 (Comm), [2019] 2 Lloyd%u2019s Rep. 265), a separate piracy clause narrowed rights that would otherwise have arisen under CONWARTIME. Therefore, it is crucial that charterparty contracts be read as a whole.CONWARTIME, BIMCO%u2019s standard war risk clause for time chartering, permits owners to refuse to proceed to (or to cease proceeding to) a port if, in the reasonable judgment of the master and/or owners, the vessel, cargo, crew, or others onboard %u201cmay be exposed to war risks%u201d, whether such risks existed at the time of contracting or arise subsequently. The focus is on whether exposure may occur and whether it may be, or become, dangerous. %u201cReasonable judgment%u201d relates to the soundness of the decision, and a judgment can still be %u201creasonable%u201d even if not every possible enquiry has been made.CONWARTIME requires the presence of a genuine appreciable danger, but does not require proof of how likely harm is to materialise %u2014 only that exposure may occur and may be dangerous. Owners are not required to demonstrate a material increase in risk since the time of contracting; if a port later becomes, or appears likely to become, dangerous, the vessel may depart. CONWARTIME generally shifts additional war risk costs to the charterer, by Alexandra Davison,Head of FD&D Claims %u2013Greece at NorthStandardMaritime risksSince the end of February 2026, the conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran has created major uncertainty for the shipping industry and global trade due to the continued threats to ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, a key passage through which an estimated 20% of global oil and gas travels. At the time of writing, there is still considerable confusion, with the situation changing on a near-daily basis, as to whether the Strait is effectively %u201cclosed%u201d and whether vessels attempting transit may be subject to attack. Shipowners and charterers therefore face urgent questions: what contractual rights allow them to avoid risks to their vessels, crew, and cargo, and who ultimately bears the costs of safety-driven decisions?276 NX