Turkey Restarts Black Sea Straits Transits—While a Turkish Shipowner Turns to the ICC

Turkey has resumed allowing merchant vessels to transit the Bosporus and Dardanelles toward the Black Sea after earlier, unexplained delays for some ships amid heightened security. The resumption follows a period in which certain transits were slowed, creating uncertainty for shipping schedules and regional logistics. At the same time, a Turkish dry cargo vessel, MV Reyhan Sari, has become the center of a legal escalation tied to the Black Sea war environment. Reporting indicates the shipowner is preparing to file a case at the International Criminal Court (ICC) over an attack that killed a person. Strategically, the juxtaposition of renewed straits throughput and intensifying accountability efforts underscores how Turkey is trying to balance maritime control with pressure from both sides of the conflict. Turkey’s straits management is a lever that affects Russia’s and Ukraine’s maritime exposure, but it also shapes Turkey’s own security posture and diplomatic room for maneuver. The planned ICC action—framed around an attack on a Turkish-flagged commercial asset—raises the stakes for international legal and reputational battles, potentially hardening positions in future negotiations or incidents at sea. Russia, Ukraine, and Turkey are all implicated in different ways: Russia as the origin point of the cargo route, Ukraine as the alleged attacker, and Turkey as the transit gatekeeper and claimant state. Market implications are likely to be concentrated in Black Sea shipping risk premia, coal and bulk freight flows, and insurance pricing for vessels operating in the region. The MV Reyhan Sari route described in the reporting—coal from Taman to Trabzon—connects directly to regional energy and industrial supply chains, where even short disruptions can ripple into contract timing and spot rates. If delays at the straits persist or security scrutiny tightens again, bulk carriers and dry cargo indices could see near-term volatility, with insurers and reinsurers adjusting war-risk and kidnap-and-ransom style clauses. In the short run, the legal dispute may not immediately change physical flows, but it can increase the probability of future claims, documentation demands, and operational caution by shipowners. What to watch next is whether Turkey’s straits policy remains steady or reverts to intermittent delays, and whether authorities provide any formal explanation for the earlier slowdown. On the legal front, the key trigger is the actual submission and admissibility posture of the ICC filing, including how evidence is gathered and whether additional incidents involving Turkish shipping are referenced. For markets, the near-term indicators are changes in vessel tracking patterns through the Bosporus/Dardanelles, war-risk insurance renewals, and any public statements by shipping insurers or major charterers about Black Sea exposure. Escalation risk would rise if further attacks on commercial vessels occur during periods of tight straits control, while de-escalation would be signaled by sustained transit normalization and a lack of new incidents over successive weeks.

Geopolitical Implications

• 01

  Turkey’s straits management remains a strategic lever under wartime conditions.

• 02

  ICC litigation over maritime attacks can intensify legal and reputational pressure on Ukraine.

• 03

  Commercial energy routes are increasingly exposed to security-driven disruptions and accountability politics.

Key Signals

• —Whether Turkey provides explanations for the earlier transit delays.
• —Changes in Bosporus/Dardanelles throughput and waiting times.
• —Status and admissibility of the ICC filing by the shipowner.
• —War-risk insurance premium adjustments for Black Sea routes.