Navigating the new Türkiye-Israel restrictions: what members need to know

The new restrictions

In response to recent developments in Türkiye–Israel relations, Turkish port authorities have introduced a series of restrictive measures targeting Israeli-flagged, Israeli-operated, and Turkish-flagged vessels trading with Israel. These measures, though not yet formalised in official written notifications, are being enforced with immediate effect according to a recent circular issued by the Association’s Correspondents Omur Marine.

Omur Marine circular 22 August 2025: Restrictions on Israeli-Flagged, Israeli-Operated Vessels and Prohibition of Turkish-Flagged Vessels Trading with Israel (pdf)

Summary of restrictions as outlined in Omur Marine Circular 22 August 2025[1]:

The new restrictions may affect various charterparty and bill of lading contracts in different ways, depending on the facts. Below are some likely consequences for these contracts under English law.  

Time charterparties

Legitimate voyage orders

Although time charterers have commercial control over the employment of the vessel, owners are only obliged to comply with legitimate voyage orders. Owners would not be obliged to comply with orders that would be illegal to perform.

As such, owners of Turkish-flagged vessels, for instance, would not be obliged to comply with orders to proceed to an Israeli port (or vice versa). Nor would other owners be obliged to proceed directly to discharge in Türkiye, having loaded in Israel (or, again, vice versa). In such cases, owners can insist on alternative voyage instructions from time charterers. Should charterers persist in their illegitimate orders, they may themselves be in repudiatory breach of contract.[2]

The above would, however, be subject to the doctrine of frustration as well as any specific charterparty provisions which may govern the position, some of which are considered below.

Frustration

The recently implemented restrictions mean that Israeli vessels will not be able to engage in cargo operations at Turkish ports, and Turkish-flagged vessels will similarly be unable to call at Israeli ports. These measures also restrict all vessels from travelling directly between and Israel while the restrictions remain in effect. The duration of these restrictions is currently indefinite, which may result in certain voyages becoming impossible due to supervening illegality.

Supervening illegality may frustrate a charterparty if it makes performance impossible or fundamentally alters the nature of the service as originally agreed upon by the parties.[3]

If frustration occurs, both parties are typically released from their contractual obligations, including the responsibility for damages and future hire payments.[4] However, unless the contract involves a time charter trip requiring a vessel to carry cargo between Israel and (or vice versa) or involves a Turkish vessel loading or discharging in Israel (or vice versa), it is unlikely that these restrictions alone would frustrate a time charterparty.

A charterparty will not be considered frustrated if non-performance arises from a breach of contract by either party or if the contract contains comprehensive provisions addressing such circumstances.

Sanctions and other protective clauses

There is some uncertainty as to how sanctions clauses interact with new restrictions, particularly as the Turkish government has not itself issued official orders on the new restrictions, which are being practically implemented by port authorities.

For example, the BIMCO Sanctions Clause for Time Charter Parties 2020 could apply even if it was not drafted with these rules in mind; if either party is in breach of such a sanctions clause, the contract is unlikely to be frustrated. Disputes could arise from the definitions used in the Clause. For instance, Turkish authorities might be considered a “Sanctioning Authority” if a vessel is ordered to load or discharge in Türkiye, making such an order a “Sanctioned Activity.” The Clause prohibits charterers from giving these orders and doing so would breach the contract.

Similarly, owners of a Turkish-flagged vessel sent to Israel could be classified as a “Sanctioned Party,” breaching their warranty and allowing charterers to terminate the contract and claim damages.

Disputes may occur about which party is ultimately responsible, but if there is a breach of the Clause by either party, the contract will probably not be frustrated.

Voyage charterparties

Port nomination

If the charterparty provides for charterers to nominate a port from a range, charterers will not be entitled to nominate a port at which discharge would be impossible (in the sense of being illegal).

However, once a port is nominated, it will be treated as if it were named in the charterparty: charterers will neither be entitled nor obliged to change the nomination even if it became illegal to load at that port e.g. because of the new restrictions (although in such cases, the charter may be frustrated, as considered below).

Frustration

A voyage charterparty for an Israeli-owned vessel to proceed to a named Turkish port (or vice versa), or for any vessel to load in Israel and discharge in Türkiye (or, again, vice versa) is likely to be frustrated by the new restrictions. This would however still depend on the precise wording of the charter terms. For instance, there may be a sanctions clause or other provision permitting discharge at an alternative port or place.

If a voyage charterparty is frustrated, the losses simply lie where they fall, and neither party will be entitled to claim damages from the other.[5] If freight has been earned, owners will be entitled to it; if it has not, owners will not be entitled to it.

Sanctions and other protective clauses

As with time charters, there may be complicated arguments about the effect of the sanctions clauses. The BIMCO Sanctions Clause for Voyage Charter Parties 2020, adopts the same definitions and similar warranties as its Time Charter Parties counterpart, which was considered above. Therefore, disputes as to which or both parties are in breach of the standard sanctions clause may be expected.

Under the Clause, if performance of the voyage charterparty involves a Sanctioned Activity, owners may cancel the charter if loading has not yet commenced, whereas if loading has commenced, owners may refuse to proceed, and discharge any cargo already loaded at any safe port or place of their choice.

Broadly, therefore, charterers would arguably be responsible if the voyage becomes a Sanctioned Activity, whereas owners would be responsible if they become a Sanctioned Party.

Force majeure and liberty clauses

There is no free-standing doctrine of force majeure as a matter of English law, and the extent to which parties may be excused from performance based on force majeure events will depend on the wording of any applicable force majeure provision in the governing charterparty. Such provisions are more commonplace in voyage charterparties. Whether an owner or charterer may rely on such provisions in light of the new restrictions in Türkiye will depend on the substantive scope of such clauses, but the onus is generally on the party seeking to rely on such a clause to excuse non-performance to bring themselves within the wording of the relevant provision.

The contract may contain liberty provisions which owners may seek to rely on in these circumstances, although this would depend on the specific wording used and it is suggested that such provisions would have to be clearly drafted to permit, for instance, discharge at an alternative port.

Bills of lading

Particular issues may arise where cargo has been loaded and bills of lading have been issued for an Israeli vessel to discharge at a Turkish port (or vice versa), or otherwise for any vessel to load in Israel and discharge in Türkiye (or, again, vice versa). It would be expected that such a bill of lading would be frustrated on the basis that it would be legally impossible to perform the voyage due to the new restrictions.

However, if the bill of lading is frustrated, owners would remain bailees of the cargo and there may be complex issues as to what should be done with the cargo, although owners, charterers and cargo owners should act reasonably in such cases. Owners would be obliged to take reasonable steps to care for the cargo while in their custody and would generally be entitled to reasonable remuneration from cargo owners for doing so.[6]

Practical steps moving forward

Members are advised firstly to ascertain whether they will be affected by the regulations.

For charterparties not involving any call at Turkish or Israeli ports, the new restrictions should not present difficulty, even in respect of voyages through the Turkish Straits: the international law right of transit passage through such straits is not affected by the restrictions themselves.

For current charterparties
pursuant to which voyages are impacted by the new restrictions, members are encouraged to consult stakeholders, explore alternative measures and cooperate wherever possible. This is particularly the case in respect of care for any loaded cargo, alternative voyage arrangements, and the inevitable expenses that will follow each. To the extent the governing charterparty contains provisions which address such situations, these should be borne in mind, and any time-sensitive notice requirements should be strictly observed.

For future charterparties,
if trade to Turkish ports is envisaged, charterers should ensure that the subject vessel (and its owning entity) is carefully vetted in advance for Israeli connections to avoid any surprises.

For their part, owners of Turkish vessels should consider including provisions in their charters to exclude trade to Israel while the new restrictions remain in force. Conversely, owners of vessels with Israeli connections should ensure that such connections are properly brought to charterers’ attention at the outset and that the charterparty contains suitable provisions excluding calls to Türkiye (again, while the new restrictions remain in force).

As ever, a combination of contractual clarity and party cooperation wherever possible is the best means of keeping disputes to a minimum.

What can members do?

Looking ahead

The current situation is dynamic, and Skuld recommends that members closely monitor developments. At present, these restrictions are limited to Türkiye; however, countries with similar concerns regarding the Israeli-Gaza conflict may in the future implement comparable measures.

If you have questions about your specific circumstances, your usual Skuld Claims Executive is ready to assist.

Acknowledgements

Skuld is grateful to the following for their contribution to this article:
Winter & Co Solicitors Robert Veal & Glenn Winter
Omur Marine
Vitsan Mümessillik ve Müşavirlik A.Ş.

[1] See circular of Omur Marine “Restrictions on Israeli-Flagged, Israeli-Operated Vessels and Prohibition of Turkish-Flagged Vessels Trading with Israel”, 22 August 2025.

[2] There may also be an argument that orders for such vessels to proceed to Türkiye would be a breach of any express or implied safe port warranty, although this may be contentious if there is no risk of confiscation.

[3] That is to say, makes performance “radically different” to that which was undertaken by the contract, see Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] AC 696. .

[4] Note that the consequences of the frustration of time charters are governed by the Law Reform (Frustrated Contract) Act 1945, pursuant to which hire will generally cease to be payable from the date of discharge of the contract, and hire paid for the period of the frustrating circumstances may be repaid. Note however that s.1(2) provides that “if the party to whom the sums were so paid or payable incurred expenses before the time of discharge in, or for the purpose of, the performance of the contract, the court may, if it considers it just to do so having regard to all the circumstances of the case, allow him to retain or, as the case may be, recover the whole or any part of the sums so paid or payable, not being an amount in excess of the expenses so incurred”.

[5] Note that the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 does not apply to voyage charterparties: see section 2(5)(a) of the Act.

[6] In principle, a vessel under time charter would remain on hire and charterers would probably be obliged to indemnify owners in respect of the additional expenses incurred in respect of the cargo.