JIPYONG LLC

Jipyong News|KOREA LEGAL INSIGHT

Rerouting Risk: What to Know About Maritime Disruption

2026.10.06

Introduction
<div> 
Disruption at major maritime chokepoints is no longer an exceptional event.  Armed conflict, attacks on commercial vessels, sanctions, congestion and climate-related restrictions increasingly require businesses to choose between continuing through a higher-risk area, accepting a longer route or changing the mode of transport. 
 
Each option carries legal consequences.  Continuing on the original route may affect insurance coverage and incur additional premiums.  Rerouting may increase freight and delay while introducing new ports, transshipment points and sanctions exposure.  Moving cargo from sea to air may alter the applicable liability regime, contractual delivery terms and customs valuation. </div>
 
 
1. The Contract Determines Who Bears the Risk of Rerouting 
 
<div>The first question is not whether a safer or faster route exists.  It is what the parties have agreed regarding the route, the circumstances in which it may be changed and the allocation of any resulting costs. 
 
Many charterparties incorporate standard war-risk clauses developed by the Baltic and International Maritime Council (“BIMCO”).  BIMCO adopted CONWARTIME 2025 for time charters and VOYWAR 2025 for voyage charters in April 2025, in which revised clauses address matters including additional insurance costs, kidnap and ransom insurance, evidence of crew bonuses and the calculation of additional freight following rerouting.1)  They do not, however, automatically replace earlier editions incorporated into existing contracts.  The parties’ rights remain governed by the version actually incorporated into the relevant charterparty or contract of carriage. 
 
Many charterparties are governed by English law, and so, as demonstrated in Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar),2) close analysis of the contractual wording is pivotal.  In The Polar the charter provided that the voyage would be “via Suez” and included detailed arrangements for transit through the Gulf of Aden, where the piracy risk was already well known.3)  The UK Supreme Court held that the war-risk clause had to be interpreted as part of the contract as a whole, and so having agreed on the route and allocated the known risk, the shipowner could not rely on the same, known risk to refuse passage.4)  The result might have been different if the nature or degree of the risk had changed sufficiently to make it qualitatively different. 
 
Exposure to additional liability also depends on the type of contract.  Under a time charter, the charterer generally bears fuel and voyage expenses, subject to any off-hire provision.  Under a voyage charter, the owner generally bears the operating costs of the agreed voyage, subject to any additional-freight or war-risk clause.  Detention or seizure does not automatically place a vessel off-hire – the outcome depends on the precise wording of the off-hire clause. 
 
While most time charters would be governed by English law, where Korean law governs, the starting point is broadly similar.  Article 843 of the Commercial Act permits a time charterer to direct the master regarding the vessel’s use only within the agreed scope.5)  The Korean Supreme Court has distinguished such commercial directions from nautical management, holding that possession of the vessel, appointment of the crew and control over navigation ordinarily remain with the owner.6)  Korean courts would therefore examine the agreed route and the particular war-risk clause actually incorporated, while recognising the master’s responsibility for safe navigation.  However, under Korea’s narrow changed-circumstances doctrine, a party seeking release from an agreed allocation must establish an unforeseeable and material change for which it is not responsible, thus a known and allocated risk would ordinarily fail that threshold.7) </div>
 
 
2. Neither Force Majeure nor Insurance Protection Is Automatic 
 
<div>When maritime disruption affects performance, parties commonly look to force majeure or insurance for protection.  Neither provides an automatic solution.  English law does not recognise force majeure as a free-standing doctrine, and a party may rely on it only where the contract contains a clause covering the relevant event and where its requirements concerning causation, mitigation and notice are satisfied.  The legal consequences – whether suspension, an extension of time, or termination – likewise depend on the wording of the clause.  In RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV, the UK Supreme Court held that, absent clear wording, an obligation to use “reasonable endeavours” does not require the affected party to accept performance different from that required by the contract, even if the proposed alternative would achieve the same practical result.8)  Thus, any requirement to accept an alternative route, port, or payment method to overcome a force majeure event should be addressed explicitly in the contract. 
 
Insurance protection is similarly dependent on the agreed wording.  The Joint War Committee publishes Listed Areas identifying regions presenting enhanced war-related risks,9) but entry into such an area does not produce the same result under every policy.  The consequences depend on how the relevant list is incorporated and on the policy’s notice, approval and additional-premium requirements.  Where English law applies, sections 10 and 11 of the Insurance Act 2015 may respectively suspend an insurer’s liability during a breach of warranty and restrict reliance on a risk-reduction term where non-compliance could not have increased the risk of the loss.10)  Commercial insurance contracts may, however, contract out of parts of this statutory regime.11) 
 
Korean law reaches a broadly similar result. Under Articles 390 and 537 of the Civil Act, a party is generally not liable for damages where performance has become impossible without its intention or negligence, and cannot demand counter-performance where the impossibility is attributable to neither party.12)  For maritime contracts, Article 811 of the Commercial Act permits either party to cancel where the voyage or transport becomes unlawful or its purpose cannot be achieved due to force majeure, and this rule applies to voyage charters through Article 841.13)  The effect of any contractual force-majeure clause – including requirements concerning mitigation, notice or alternative performance – will therefore depend principally on its wording and the parties’ agreement. 
 
The same caution applies to insurance under Korean law.  Article 695 of the Commercial Act requires a marine policy to specify the scope of navigation, while Articles 701 and 701-2 generally discharge the insurer where the agreed voyage or port is changed, or where the vessel deviates from the agreed route without justifiable reason.14)  Rerouting to avoid danger may support a finding of justification, but it does not guarantee cover, and so the policy’s notice, approval and additional-premium requirements must still be checked.  The carriage contract and insurance policy should therefore be reviewed together.  A right to suspend or terminate performance does not establish that the resulting loss is insured, while the availability of insurance does not, without clear contractual wording, relieve a party of its performance or payment obligations.</div>
 
 
3. Rerouting May Create New Korean Compliance Risks 
 
<div>For businesses trading with Korea, the most important consequences of rerouting may arise outside the shipping contract. A different port, transshipment location, bunkering point or mode of transport may alter the regulatory analysis for the entire transaction. 
 
A) Sanctions and AIS Due Diligence 
 
A route change may introduce dealings with a new port operator, bunker supplier, vessel, financial institution or ship-to-ship transfer counterparty.  Each additional party and location may create a new sanctions-screening requirement. 
 
Automatic Identification System (“AIS”) interruptions require particular care.  U.S. Maritime Advisory 2026-006 advises U.S.-flagged vessels in specified high-risk waters to turn off AIS unless the master considers that doing so would compromise safety.15)  By contrast, OFAC guidance identifies illegitimate AIS disabling or manipulation as a possible indicator of sanctions evasion, while recognising that legitimate safety concerns may sometimes justify interruption.16) 
 
An AIS gap should therefore prompt investigation.  Due diligence should consider the location, timing and duration of the interruption, including the vessel’s movements immediately before and after it; applicable security guidance; and whether contemporaneous navigation or security records explain the interruption.  Contracts should also require the owner or carrier to notify the cargo interest of unplanned port calls, ship-to-ship transfers, changes in bunkering locations and material AIS interruptions, and to retain supporting records. 
 
B) FTA Direct-Transport Requirements 
 
Rerouting through a third country does not automatically disqualify goods from preferential tariff treatment.  However, the relevant free trade agreement may require the goods to remain under customs supervision and prohibit processing beyond unloading, reloading or operations necessary to preserve them.  For example, Article 13 of the Korea-EU FTA Protocol on Rules of Origin contains direct-transport requirements.17)  Where goods transit through a third country, the importer may need evidence demonstrating that the requirements were maintained.  Depending on the applicable agreement and route, relevant evidence may include a through bill of lading, transit-country customs records and a certificate of non-manipulation. 
 
The practical difficulty is that a carrier may decide to change the route before the importer’s customs or trade-compliance team becomes involved.  By the time preferential treatment is reviewed during customs clearance – or in a subsequent origin verification – the necessary transit documents may no longer be available.  Businesses should therefore link their route-change approval process to their FTA document-retention procedures in preparation for any potential review by Korean Customs. 
 
C) Export Controls and Changes in Transport Mode 
 
Changes to transit or transshipment arrangements may also affect export-control requirements.  Under Article 19-4 of Korea’s Foreign Trade Act, transit or transshipment through Korea of strategic items and certain items subject to catch-all controls may require permission.18)  Violations may lead to criminal penalties and restrictions on future export, import, transit or transshipment activities under Articles 53 of the Act.19)  A company whose goods were not originally intended to pass through Korea may therefore acquire Korean regulatory obligations if disruption causes the shipment to be transferred through a Korean port or airport.  Conversely, a Korea-origin shipment rerouted through a sensitive destination may require reconsideration of the conditions attached to the original Korean export licence as well as any applicable U.S. or EU re-export controls. 
 
Likewise, where maritime disruption leads to a switch from sea to air or multimodal transport, the sale contract should be reviewed together with the transport contract.  Businesses should note that while CIF, CFR and FOB are intended for sea or inland-waterway transport, FCA, CPT and CIP can be used for air or multimodal transport.  Continuing to use CIF after changing to air freight may create uncertainty regarding delivery, transfer of risk, insurance and documentary obligations. 
 
Change of transport mode may also affect Korean customs costs.  Under Article 30(1) of the Korean Customs Act, specified freight, insurance and transport-related costs to the port of importation form part of the customs value.20)  A substantial increase in air freight may therefore increase both the landed cost and the customs duties payable. </div>
 
 
4. Practical Takeaways for Foreign Businesses 
 
<div>Businesses trading with Korea should establish a route-change protocol involving their logistics, legal, insurance, customs and trade-compliance teams. Before approving a change, they should: 
  
<img alt="" height="292" src="https://www.jipyong.com/uploads/editor/image/2026/09/20260930011802_img1.png" width="800" /> 
 
In conclusion, the legal consequences of maritime disruption are determined less by the fact that a route has become dangerous or unavailable than by the contractual and regulatory framework surrounding the shipment.  Early coordination is therefore essential.  A route change approved solely as a logistics solution may otherwise create uninsured costs, lost tariff preferences, export-control exposure or a dispute in an unexpected forum. 
 </div>
<a href="https://www.jipyong.com/kr/board/news_view.php?seq=15651" target="_blank">[Link to Korean Newsletter]</a> 
 
<hr align="left" background-color="#cc0000" size="1" width="33%" />
<div></div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">1) War Risks Clause for Time Chartering 2025 / Voyage Charter Parties 2025; West of England P&I, "BIMCO revises War Risks clauses for time and voyage charter parties" (2025. 4.), Available at: <a href="https://www.westpandi.com/news-and-resources/news/april-2025/bimco-revises-war-risks-clauses-for-time-and-voyag/">https://www.westpandi.com/news-and-resources/news/april-2025/bimco-revises-war-risks-clauses-for-time-and-voyag/</a>.</div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">2) Herculito Maritime Ltd and others v Gunvor International BV and others (The Polar) [2024] UKSC 2, Available at: <a href="https://supremecourt.uk/cases/judgments/uksc-2022-0009">https://supremecourt.uk/cases/judgments/uksc-2022-0009</a>.</div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">5) Commercial Act, Article 843, Available at: <a href="https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=29875&lang=ENG">https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=29875&lang=ENG</a>.</div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">6) Korean Supreme Court Decision 2001Da65977 dated 22 August 2003, Available at: <a href="https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/precInfoP.do?precSeq=126498">https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/precInfoP.do?precSeq=126498</a>.</div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">7) Korean Supreme Court Decision 2004Da31302 dated 29 March 2007, Available at: <a href="https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/precInfoP.do?mode=0&evtNo=2004%EB%8B%A431302">https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/precInfoP.do?mode=0&evtNo=2004%EB%8B%A431302</a>.</div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">8) RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] UKSC 18, ¶ 38, Available at: <a href="https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2022_0172_judgment_beff15c6bd.pdf">https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2022_0172_judgment_beff15c6bd.pdf</a>.</div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">9) See: LMA/IUA Joint War Committee, JWLA-033 (2026. 3. 3.), <a href="https://lmalloyds.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/JWLA-033_Iran.pdf">https://lmalloyds.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/JWLA-033_Iran.pdf</a>.</div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">10) Insurance Act 2015, Section 10, Available at: <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/4/section/10">https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/4/section/10</a>; Insurance Act 2015, Section 11, Available at: <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/4/section/11">https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/4/section/11</a>.</div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">11) Insurance Act 2015, Part 5, Available at: <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/4/part/5">https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/4/part/5</a>.</div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">12) Civil Act, Articles 390 and 537, Available at: <a href="https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=29453&lang=ENG">https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=29453&lang=ENG</a>.</div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">13) Commercial Act, Articles 811 and 841, Available at: <a href="https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=29875&lang=ENG">https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=29875&lang=ENG</a>.</div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">14) Commercial Act, Articles 695, 701, and 701-2, Available at: <a href="https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=29875&lang=ENG">https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=29875&lang=ENG</a>.</div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">15) U.S. Maritime Administration, Maritime Advisory 2026-006, <a href="https://www.maritime.dot.gov/msci/2026-006-red-sea-bab-el-mandeb-strait-gulf-aden-arabian-sea-and-somali-basin-houthi-attacks">https://www.maritime.dot.gov/msci/2026-006-red-sea-bab-el-mandeb-strait-gulf-aden-arabian-sea-and-somali-basin-houthi-attacks</a>.</div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">16) U.S. Department of the Treasury (OFAC), State Department, U.S. Coast Guard, "Guidance to Address Illicit Shipping and Sanctions Evasion Practices" (2020. 5. 14.), <a href="https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20200514">https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20200514</a>.</div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">17) The EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement, Protocol Concerning the Definition of ‘Originating Products’ and Methods of Administrative Cooperation, Article 13, Available at: <a href="https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/assets/KR_Protocol-on-Rules-of-Origin.pdf">https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/assets/KR_Protocol-on-Rules-of-Origin.pdf</a>.</div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">18) Foreign Trade Act, Article 19, Available at: <a href="https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=37529&lang=ENG">https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=37529&lang=ENG</a>.</div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">19) Id., Articles 30.</div>

<div style="margin-bottom: 8px; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal; text-align: left;">20) Customs Act, Article 30, Available at: <a href="https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawViewContent.do?hseq=15660">https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawViewContent.do?hseq=15660</a>.</div>

</div>

GLOBAL LEGAL INSIGHT EU Foreign Investment Screening Reform: What It Means for Korean Investors in CEE 2026.10.15

KOREA LEGAL INSIGHT The KFTC File Follows You to Court: Korea Expands Access to Evidence in Antitrust Damages Litigation 2026.09.21

Back to List

JIPYONG LLC

Related Practices

Professionals

Related Practices

Professionals

SHARE

Disclaimer

Limited Liabilities