HeyOn 27 May 2026, the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued its judgment in the M/T Heroic Idun (No. 2) case (Marshall Islands v. Equatorial Guinea), ruling in favor of the Marshall Islands. The Special Chamber awarded €2,000,132 ($2,322,000), representing the fine imposed on the captain, and more than $12 million in damages, including $5.9 million for loss of rent and just under $4.2 million for non-pecuniary damages suffered by the crew. It is the highest award ever given by ITLOS.
The decision is of great importance to shipowners, flag states, charterers and the wider maritime industry.
It directly addresses the limits of anti-piracy enforcement powers under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the inviolability of freedom of navigation and the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state, and warns states against detaining ship crews without legitimate reasons.
Heroic Idun is a Marshall Islands-flagged very large crude oil tanker, owned by Idun Maritime Ltd and operated by OSM Ship Management AS. On 7 August 2022, the vessel arrived near Akpo Marine Terminal in Nigeria’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to load crude oil but the required licenses were not in place and the Master therefore moved to a waiting position while the charterers arranged loading paperwork. On the evening of August 8, 2022, a small vessel approached the ship and its automatic identification system was turned off, alarming the crew that it might be a pirate ship; The captain refused to follow his instructions and proceeded offshore. In the event that the small craft turned out to be a Nigerian Navy ship, NNS Gongola. The ship then drifted into the exclusive economic zone of Sao Tome and Principe to await permits.
On 10 August 2022, Nigerian authorities sent WhatsApp messages and a note verbale to Equatorial Guinea, stating (incorrectly) that the ship had attempted to load crude oil without approval and raised a false piracy alarm to avoid interception, and requested that Equatorial Guinea “trace, arrest and hand over (the ship and crew) to the Nigerian government.” On 12 August 2022, the Tropical Navy ship Capitan David intercepted the ship in the exclusive economic zone of Sao Tome and Principe, threatened to use force, including announcing that it had received “fire orders,” and diverted the ship to the Loba Freeport on Bioko Island.
The ship and its crew were detained for 92 days in Equatorial Guinea. The skipper was fined €2,000,132 by the Ministry of National Defense of Equatorial Guinea for alleged violations of domestic maritime trade law, including sailing without a permit in Equatorial Guinea’s exclusive economic zone. On November 11, 2022, despite paying the fine in full, the ship and its crew were not released, but were forcibly transferred to Nigeria, where they were detained for another period until May 27, 2023, when a plea bargain agreement was reached and the ship and crew were finally released.
Jurisdiction, admissibility and exhaustion of local remedies
Equatorial Guinea argued that: (1) the Special Chamber did not have jurisdiction to make decisions on alleged violations, which Equatorial Guinea argued fell outside the scope of the Convention; (2) The claims made by the Marshall Islands are inadmissible on the basis of the “cash gold” (indispensable third party) principle, that is, that Nigeria is an indispensable third party and that the legality of Equatorial Guinea’s conduct cannot be determined without prior examination of Nigeria’s rights and interests; and (3) local remedies have not been exhausted in respect of damages to the crew.
The Special Chamber rejected Equatorial Guinea’s arguments on all the above points. Regarding the “monetary gold” principle, the Special Chamber explained: “The issue is not whether Nigeria is legally entitled to request assistance from Equatorial Guinea to intercept the vessel, but rather whether Equatorial Guinea, in seizing the vessel, has acted in violation of the provisions of the Convention. Such a judicial decision can be made independently of Nigeria’s conduct and the events that led to the seizure of the vessel.”
Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Special Chamber noted that the parties do not object to the basic requirement for the application of the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule, which is that: “(T)here must be a contact or jurisdictional connection between the persons suffering the injury and the State alleged to be responsible for the wrongful act that caused the damage. In the absence of such jurisdictional contact, exhaustion of domestic remedies is not necessary.”
In light of the above, the Special Chamber concluded the following:
“The presence of the crew in Equatorial Guinea was not a result of their conduct or voluntary entry, but rather the result of enforcement actions taken by Equatorial Guinea that are being challenged in this case.
The Special Chamber considers that the existence of a judicial connection cannot be established simply because of the presence of individuals in the territory of a State due to the disputed conduct of that State.
“In the circumstances in which the Heroic Idun and its crew were arrested and detained in this case, it cannot be said that the crew, by its conduct, assumed the risk that if it suffered injury it would be subject to prosecution under the domestic jurisdiction of Equatorial Guinea. Therefore, there was no jurisdictional connection between Equatorial Guinea and the crew sufficient to give rise to the exhaustion of the domestic remedies rule.”
Freedom of navigation on the high seas
The Marshall Islands stated that by intercepting the ship on 12 August 2022 in the exclusive economic zone of Sao Tome and Principe, forcing it to divert to Anchorage Loba, and detaining it there, Equatorial Guinea violated the Marshall Islands’ rights to freedom of navigation and exclusive flag State jurisdiction in contravention of Articles 87(1), 90 and 92(1) of UNCLOS, subject to Article 58(2). The Chamber unanimously supported this request. It found that Captain David caused the ship to change its intended course by threatening to use force, which constitutes a violation of freedom of navigation unless justified by the Convention or other international treaties.
Equatorial Guinea claimed that its seizure of the vessel was made in accordance with its obligation to cooperate to suppress piracy under UNCLOS, and that the interception and arrest occurred as a result of cooperation pursuant to the Yaoundé Code, which seeks to give effect to the obligation of cooperation under Article 100 of the Convention in Central and West Africa.
The Special Chamber rejected this defense. It held that the Yaounde Code could not give its signatories powers beyond those provided for in the Convention vis-à-vis ships flying its flag and could not provide a legal basis for taking measures inconsistent with UNCLOS. Although the duty to cooperate in the suppression of piracy under Article 100 exists, it does not provide an independent basis for confiscation; Rather, any arrest must comply with Articles 101 to 107 read with Article 110.
Treating the crew and the principle of humanity
In addressing the treatment of crew resulting from Equatorial Guinea’s actions, the Special Chamber commented: “Equatorial Guinea bears responsibility for the harm resulting from its internationally wrongful action, including ill-treatment of crew and procedural injustices imposed on them while they were detained in Equatorial Guinea, attributable to the acts and omissions of the Equatorial Guinean authorities.”
Accordingly, the Special Chamber found the following:
“The treatment of the crew by the Equatorial Guinean authorities while in detention, including their forced transfer to a third country, was a violation of the rights of the Marshall Islands under the Convention.”
The decision thus reinforces the principle that, under UNCLOS, flag State rights extend beyond the ship itself and include the protection of those working on board. It further emphasizes that coastal States, when exercising enforcement powers, must do so in a manner consistent with international law standards of due process and humane treatment. The ruling is an important reminder that departures from those standards may entail international liability and expose countries to claims for damages under the Convention.
Practical considerations
The Special Chamber’s decision in favor of the Marshall Islands has several important implications for flag States, shipowners and coastal States regarding the operation of UNCLOS and its impact on the maritime industry.
1) Strongly reaffirm freedom of navigation. The Special Chamber unanimously held that Equatorial Guinea’s interception of the ship in the exclusive economic zone of Sao Tome and Principe, including by threat of force and its diversion into the Loba Freeport, violated freedom of navigation under Articles 87(1), 90 and 92(1) of UNCLOS (as applicable to EEZs via Article 58(2)). Any physical interference with the navigation of a foreign-flagged ship, including forcing it to change course under threat, is a violation of freedom of navigation unless justified by the Convention or other international treaties.
2) The principle of “monetary gold” (indispensable third party) does not protect the respondent State. The Special Chamber rejected the argument that the case was inadmissible because Nigeria was not a party, holding that the legality of Equatorial Guinea’s conduct could be assessed independently of Nigeria’s rights and interests. A State that takes enforcement action against a foreign-flagged ship at the request of another State cannot avoid accountability by arguing that the requesting State is an indispensable party.
The duty to cooperate in suppressing piracy does not provide independent enforcement powers.
3) The duty to cooperate in suppressing piracy does not provide independent enforcement powers. The Special Chamber emphasized that any enforcement action on the basis of piracy must strictly comply with Articles 101 to 107, read with Article 110. A coastal State or third State may not rely on the generalized duty of State cooperation to prevent piracy as a basis for boarding, seizing or diverting a ship without fulfilling the enforcement conditions specified in the Convention.
4) The forcible transfer of a ship and its crew to a third country constitutes a separate violation. The forced transfer of the ship and its crew to Nigeria constitutes another violation of the rights of the Marshall Islands. The detaining State cannot shirk its responsibility by transferring the ship and its crew to a third country. The flag State’s rights remain in effect, and such a transfer complicates rather than resolves the original violation.
5) Flag states can demand crew treatment. Ill-treatment of the crew in custody is attributable to Equatorial Guinea and constitutes a violation of the flag state rights of the Marshall Islands. There was no need to exhaust local remedies because the crew’s presence was a direct result of the disputed enforcement actions in Equatorial Guinea and not of any voluntary action. This confirms that the flag State has the right to bring claims for mistreatment of crew, and that the exhaustion of remedies requirement does not apply when individuals are present in a State’s territory solely because of that State’s unlawful conduct.
Source: Reed Smith, Baltic Exchange
