Black Sea Drone Attacks on Shipping: Can NATO Send Warships In?

Introduction

The October 2026 Black Sea drone attacks on shipping have brought the Russia–Ukraine war dangerously close to NATO's southeastern coastline. Commercial vessels have been struck near Romania and Bulgaria, several ships have sunk, and seafarers have been killed or reported missing. On October 17, Romanian F-16 fighter aircraft shot down two drones after they entered Romanian airspace above the Black Sea. The incidents have raised an urgent question: can NATO send warships into the region to protect commercial shipping?

NATO can strengthen naval protection in the Black Sea, but the legal position depends on which countries provide the warships and where they operate. Romania, Bulgaria, and Türkiye already maintain naval forces in the region. Reinforcements from other NATO members, including the United States and United Kingdom, face restrictions under the 1936 Montreux Convention, which governs passage through the Turkish Straits. Türkiye's application of that treaty during the Russia–Ukraine war introduces additional diplomatic and operational constraints (Montreux Convention, 1936, arts. 10–21).

The authority to deploy warships is also distinct from the authority to use military force. Attacks occurring inside Romanian territorial waters raise different legal questions from incidents involving foreign-flagged vessels in Bulgaria's exclusive economic zone. NATO's collective-defense provisions, the United Nations Charter, and the international law governing naval warfare are all relevant, but none provides an unrestricted mandate to attack suspected perpetrators. The central question is how far allied maritime protection can extend without violating the rules governing naval access, state sovereignty, or the use of force.

1. The October 2026 Attacks on Black Sea Shipping

The escalation began on October 5, when the Turkish-owned cargo vessel Royad Mammadov, sailing under the flag of Saint Kitts and Nevis, caught fire in the Black Sea outside Romanian territorial waters and subsequently sank. Two people died, while 11 crew members were rescued. The vessel was transporting corn after departing Ukraine's port of Izmail. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy attributed the incident to Russian drones, although Romanian authorities had not conclusively established the cause of the fire (Reuters, 5 October 2026).

The following day, two vessels were struck in Bulgaria's exclusive economic zone. The Togo-flagged ALFA WATAN sank, while the Palau-flagged ABLE sustained damage. Its crew members were evacuated. Bulgarian authorities described the incidents as a serious threat to navigation but initially lacked sufficient evidence to identify the attacking party.

Further attacks occurred on October 13. The Guinea-Bissau-flagged cargo vessel HS Dignity sank off Bulgaria's coast, near Krapets. Five of its 16 crew members were initially reported rescued, while 11 remained missing during the subsequent search operation. The Maltese-flagged Chelsea 3, operated by a Ukrainian company, was also struck. All 15 crew members were evacuated, although five required treatment for minor injuries (Associated Press, 13 October 2026).

The violence subsequently reached waters immediately adjacent to Romania. On October 14, the Comoros-flagged tanker Yara J suffered a fire following a reported drone strike in Romanian territorial waters. Its crew survived, and the vessel proceeded to Constanța. Investigations were intended to establish the cause and nature of the damage.

On October 15, a fire broke out aboard the San Marino-flagged chemical tanker Wine Trader near Sulina, in an incident reported as a drone attack. Reuters placed the vessel approximately one nautical mile outside Romanian territorial waters, while other contemporary accounts described it as being within them. The precise position relative to the territorial-sea boundary was not conclusively established in the Romanian Naval Authority's initial communication.

The Romanian Naval Authority reported that Wine Trader issued a distress alert at approximately 07:00, after a fire developed in the vessel's superstructure. Its reported position was approximately 13 nautical miles southeast of Sulina. Five crew members were rescued, while seven remained missing. The vessel had no cargo aboard, and the authority's initial statement did not establish what caused the fire (Romanian Naval Authority, 15 October 2026).

The distinction between territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone has legal consequences. A drone attack inside a NATO member's territorial sea directly engages that state's sovereignty. An incident occurring farther offshore may affect navigation and maritime security without taking place within the coastal state's territory. Neither situation establishes responsibility for an attack merely from its location.

Responsibility for the incidents remains a separate evidentiary question. Ukrainian officials accused Russia, while a NATO military source cited by Reuters attributed the Romanian drone attacks to Russian forces. Bulgarian authorities acknowledged that they lacked conclusive evidence identifying those responsible for certain strikes. Russia's diplomatic representative denied knowledge of the attacks and suggested the possibility of a third-party provocation (Reuters, 16 October 2026; Associated Press, 13 October 2026).

Romania's October 17 interceptions provided more definite evidence about a related security threat. According to the Romanian Ministry of National Defence, two F-16 aircraft departed Borcea Air Base at 17:43 after radar systems detected aerial targets approximately 120 kilometers east of Snake Island. One drone entered Romanian airspace at 17:59 and was destroyed at 18:01. A second entered at 18:01 and was shot down at 18:05. Both interceptions occurred above Romanian territorial waters (Romanian Ministry of National Defence, Press Release No. 213, 17 October 2026).

In a subsequent official update, the ministry identified the intercepted objects as jet-powered attack drones belonging to the Geran family. That identification is relevant to their technical characteristics, but it does not independently establish which state launched them or who bears legal responsibility for their deployment.

The October incidents affected shipping routes associated with Ukraine's Danube and Black Sea exports. Commercial operators faced risks from airborne drones, possible maritime drones, and naval mines, while rescue operations were complicated by difficult sea conditions. The resulting security concerns extended beyond individual vessels to navigation, coastal infrastructure, and the safety of international maritime commerce.

2. NATO Forces Already Operating in the Black Sea

NATO's maritime position in the Black Sea differs from its position in regions where most allied naval forces must arrive from distant bases. Three NATO members have Black Sea coastlines: Türkiye, Romania, and Bulgaria. Their navies maintain regional infrastructure, operational knowledge, and vessels capable of conducting surveillance, patrols, mine countermeasures, and maritime security missions.

Warships already stationed at Black Sea bases do not need to pass through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles to operate in those waters. This gives the three coastal allies a practical advantage over NATO members whose naval reinforcements would need to enter from the Mediterranean. It also creates an opportunity to improve maritime protection without first resolving the politically sensitive question of admitting additional foreign warships through the Turkish Straits.

The presence of national forces does not mean NATO has automatically established a collective naval operation. National patrols remain subject to national command unless transferred into an agreed multinational command structure. A NATO-commanded mission would require appropriate political authorization, operational arrangements, and rules governing its activities. NATO membership facilitates military cooperation but does not eliminate the distinction between national armed forces and operations undertaken on behalf of the Alliance.

2.1 The Black Sea Mine Countermeasures Task Group

Türkiye, Romania, and Bulgaria established the Mine Countermeasures Black Sea Task Group through a trilateral agreement signed on January 11, 2024. The initiative became operational in July that year, responding to the danger posed by drifting naval mines following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Its participating vessels conduct mine detection, surveillance, neutralization, and related maritime safety activities under rotating national command arrangements.

The arrangement acquired a wider mandate in July 2026. During the NATO summit in Ankara, the three governments signed an amendment extending the task group's missions to the protection of critical underwater infrastructure. Romanian defense authorities identified submarine cables, energy installations, and other infrastructure as concerns requiring coordinated maritime surveillance and protection (Romanian Ministry of National Defence, 8 July 2026).

The expanded mandate also provides for surveillance and reconnaissance intended to help prevent deliberate attacks against critical underwater infrastructure. Bulgaria's government had approved the relevant amendments earlier in July, describing the initiative as a contribution to regional security and the defense of NATO's eastern flank (Bulgarian News Agency, 1 July 2026).

This cooperation is relevant to merchant-shipping protection, particularly where attacks threaten navigation routes or installations essential to maritime safety. The task group nevertheless remains a trilateral initiative involving NATO member states, rather than a standing naval formation automatically placed under NATO operational command. Its existence does not establish that a multinational merchant-vessel escort mission has already been authorized.

Mine-countermeasure vessels also perform functions different from those of air-defense frigates or destroyers. Their principal role concerns underwater threats. Protection against long-range attack drones may additionally require radar coverage, combat aircraft, electronic warfare systems, and suitable defensive weapons. The actual capabilities available would depend on the vessels and supporting forces assigned to a particular operation.

2.2 Bulgaria's Request for NATO Air and Drone Defenses

Bulgaria's response to the shipping attacks illustrates the distinction between strengthening coastal defenses and deploying additional warships. On October 16, Defense Minister Dimitar Stoyanov publicly described requests for NATO combat aircraft, air-defense equipment, and counter-drone systems. The requested capabilities included surface-to-air missile systems, patrol aircraft, and additional surveillance support (Reuters, 16 October 2026).

The requests formed part of continuing discussions about Bulgaria's defensive requirements. They should not be understood as evidence that the government first began seeking allied assistance on October 16. By that date, Bulgarian officials had already been discussing the regional security situation with NATO and neighboring states following the earlier maritime incidents.

On October 18, Stoyanov confirmed that consultations were continuing and that he had spoken with his Romanian and Turkish counterparts about a coordinated regional response. A trilateral meeting was expected to consider further cooperation. He also stated that the discussions were not taking place under Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty (Bulgarian News Agency, 18 October 2026).

Stoyanov indicated that aircraft from another NATO member were expected to deploy to Bulgarian territory, although the exact arrangements had not been publicly established. Bulgaria was also considering participation in NATO's broader counter-drone initiative. These developments reflected an emerging defensive response, not confirmation that the Alliance had approved a new naval escort mission.

Aircraft operating from Romanian or Bulgarian bases could contribute to maritime security without encountering the Montreux Convention's warship restrictions. Air policing, radar surveillance, early warning, and counter-drone interception offer ways to detect threats approaching commercial shipping lanes. Whether allied aircraft could engage particular targets outside national airspace would depend on their mission, applicable international law, and the circumstances of the threat.

Romania's October 17 interceptions demonstrated one form of territorial defense already available. They did not establish a general NATO policy of shooting down drones throughout the Black Sea. Extending protection beyond national airspace, particularly around foreign-flagged commercial vessels, would require additional operational decisions and a legal basis appropriate to the circumstances.

3. Can NATO Warships Pass Through the Turkish Straits?

Any proposal to send American, British, French, or Italian warships into the Black Sea must account for the 1936 Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits. Signed on July 20, 1936, the treaty regulates passage through the Bosphorus, the Sea of Marmara, and the Dardanelles, which connect the Mediterranean and Black Sea. It replaced the earlier Lausanne Straits regime and gave Türkiye responsibility for administering a system that distinguishes commercial navigation from military passage.

Merchant vessels benefit from substantial freedom of passage under the Convention, although the precise conditions depend on Türkiye's position during an armed conflict. Warships face a more restrictive regime based on their classification, tonnage, nationality, and the circumstances prevailing at the time of transit. These specialized rules operate alongside the broader law of the sea, which governs navigation and coastal-state jurisdiction in maritime areas beyond the Straits.

The continuing operation of Montreux is also recognized within the structure of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Article 35(c) preserves legal regimes governing straits regulated in whole or in part by longstanding international conventions specifically applicable to them. For UNCLOS parties, this provision confirms that the Convention's general transit-passage regime does not displace such specialized arrangements. The effect of Montreux on its parties rests on the 1936 treaty itself, not on Türkiye's participation in UNCLOS, to which it is not a party.

Türkiye's role cannot be understood simply as a discretionary power to admit whichever warships it prefers. The Convention establishes treaty rights and restrictions that Ankara administers. During the Russia–Ukraine war, Turkish decisions about transit have also reflected a diplomatic policy intended to prevent further naval escalation.

That policy has practical importance even where the Convention does not expressly prohibit the passage of a particular nonbelligerent warship. A legally eligible vessel may still encounter significant diplomatic obstacles, while political agreement among NATO members cannot independently remove binding treaty restrictions.

3.1 Warship Tonnage, Notification, and Deployment Limits

Article 13 requires diplomatic notification before a warship passes through the Turkish Straits. The Convention specifies a normal notification period of eight days, while describing an extension to 15 days for non-Black Sea powers as desirable. Türkiye's published implementation guidance applies eight days to vessels belonging to Black Sea states and 15 days to those belonging to non-littoral states (Montreux Convention, 1936, art. 13; Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, n.d.).

Article 14 generally limits the aggregate tonnage of foreign naval forces transiting the Straits at one time to 15,000 tons and their number to nine vessels, subject to specified exceptions. Article 10 establishes the categories of warships ordinarily entitled to passage, while Articles 11 and 12 provide special arrangements for certain vessels belonging to Black Sea powers.

The restrictions depend on the classifications and definitions contained in the Convention and its annexes. Modern naval designations cannot alone establish whether a vessel is eligible for passage. Türkiye's official implementation guidance states that aircraft carriers cannot transit the Straits and that submarines belonging to Black Sea states may pass only under the specified construction, purchase, or repair conditions.

Additional restrictions apply to naval forces belonging to states without Black Sea coastlines. Article 18 establishes an ordinary aggregate ceiling of 30,000 tons for non-littoral warships present in the Black Sea. A treaty formula permits that ceiling to increase to a maximum of 45,000 tons when the prescribed conditions concerning the tonnage of Black Sea fleets are satisfied (Montreux Convention, 1936, art. 18(1)(a)–(b)).

Türkiye's published implementation guidance identifies 45,000 tons as the applicable maximum aggregate presence of non-Black Sea naval forces. No single non-littoral state may account for more than two-thirds of the relevant total, giving a maximum of 30,000 tons per state under Türkiye's stated application. Warships belonging to non-Black Sea powers may remain in the Black Sea for no longer than 21 days (Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, n.d.; Montreux Convention, 1936, art. 18).

The Convention contains a limited humanitarian-purpose exception under Article 18(1)(d). It concerns naval forces totaling no more than 8,000 tons and allows entry without the ordinary Article 13 notification when the required Turkish authorization is obtained. The procedure differs according to whether the proposed deployment would exceed the applicable aggregate tonnage ceiling, with a mechanism for consulting other Black Sea powers when necessary.

That exception is not a general authorization for unrestricted military deployments. Describing a proposed naval mission as humanitarian or protective does not automatically satisfy its specific conditions.

These provisions constrain the scale and duration of deployments by the United States or other outside NATO members. A naval force cannot establish a permanent presence merely by claiming a maritime protection mission. Rotating vessels would still require compliance with the applicable passage procedures, classifications, and tonnage restrictions.

3.2 Article 19 and Türkiye's Wartime Restrictions

The Russia–Ukraine war makes Article 19 particularly significant. Where a war exists and Türkiye is not a belligerent, the provision preserves passage for warships of nonbelligerent powers under the conditions established by Articles 10–18. Warships belonging to belligerent states are generally prohibited from passing, subject to the Convention's specified exceptions, including the possibility of returning to their bases (Montreux Convention, 1936, art. 19).

Türkiye applied the Convention's wartime regime following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Its position restricted the passage of Russian and Ukrainian warships, including attempts to bring additional naval assets into the Black Sea. The resulting limitations affected the movement of military vessels associated with the conflict.

The legal position of nonbelligerent NATO countries is different. Article 19 does not expressly prohibit every warship belonging to a state that is outside the Russia–Ukraine armed conflict. Instead, it directs those vessels back to the relevant conditions in Articles 10–18. NATO membership does not, by itself, make a state a belligerent in that conflict.

Belligerent status cannot, however, be determined solely by formal alliance membership or diplomatic declarations. The nature and extent of a state's actual participation in hostilities may alter its legal position. A NATO member undertaking direct military operations against Russian forces could raise questions different from those arising when it provides ordinary defensive assistance to another ally.

Türkiye adopted a broader diplomatic position in 2022. Then-Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu publicly stated that Ankara had warned both Black Sea and non-Black Sea countries against sending warships through the Straits. The warning reflected Türkiye's preference for limiting naval movements during the conflict, beyond the treaty's specific restrictions on belligerent vessels (Anadolu Agency, 28 February 2022).

That distinction remains significant for proposed NATO deployments in October 2026. A warship's eligibility under Article 19 would not guarantee politically uncomplicated passage. Ankara's continuing commitment to the Convention and its emphasis on regional stability make Turkish diplomatic agreement an important consideration.

On July 20, 2026, the 90th anniversary of the Convention's signature, Türkiye's Ministry of Foreign Affairs reaffirmed its intention to continue implementing Montreux. The statement emphasized the treaty's continuing role in Black Sea security and the maintenance of regional stability (Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 20 July 2026).

3.3 Could Türkiye Allow Additional NATO Reinforcements?

Türkiye's cooperation could facilitate passage by eligible NATO vessels, but it cannot be treated as an unlimited power to waive the Convention. The ordinary rules concerning vessel categories, notification, tonnage, and duration remain applicable. NATO's political agreement to deploy a naval force would not create a separate right to disregard those treaty obligations.

The Convention provides Türkiye with wider discretion in exceptional circumstances. Under Article 20, when Türkiye is itself a belligerent, passage by warships is left to the discretion of the Turkish government. Article 21 permits Türkiye to apply that regime if it considers itself threatened with imminent danger of war, subject to the notification and other procedures contained in the provision (Montreux Convention, 1936, arts. 20–21).

These exceptional powers should not be confused with Türkiye's application of Article 19 during the Russia–Ukraine war. The October attacks near Romanian and Bulgarian waters do not, by themselves, establish that Ankara has invoked Article 20 or Article 21. Nor do they automatically expand Türkiye's authority to suspend the ordinary restrictions governing nonbelligerent warships.

The diplomatic question remains substantial. Ankara participates in NATO, possesses extensive Black Sea naval capabilities, and maintains its own approach to relations with Moscow and Kyiv. A proposal to station additional American or British warships in the region could face Turkish political resistance even if the proposed vessels satisfied the Convention's technical passage conditions.

In comments reported on October 18, Bulgarian Defense Minister Stoyanov identified the Montreux regime and Türkiye's commitments at the beginning of the war as obstacles to sending additional warships into the Black Sea. His assessment reflected the immediate operational and diplomatic difficulty of such deployments. It should not be read as establishing that Article 19 itself categorically prohibits all nonbelligerent NATO warships.

NATO can consequently pursue two different approaches to increasing maritime protection. It can strengthen forces already stationed in the Black Sea or seek the admission of additional eligible vessels through the Turkish Straits. The former relies primarily on regional capabilities; the latter must also accommodate Türkiye's treaty responsibilities and diplomatic position.

4. Where Could NATO Warships Escort Merchant Vessels?

The legality of protecting merchant vessels depends partly on their location. International maritime law distinguishes the territorial sea, where a coastal state exercises sovereignty, from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), where its rights are more limited. This distinction is especially relevant to the October attacks, which occurred in and near Romanian and Bulgarian maritime areas.

Under UNCLOS, coastal-state sovereignty extends over the territorial sea and the airspace above it. Beyond that zone, the EEZ preserves important freedoms for other states, including navigation and overflight, while recognizing specified economic rights and jurisdiction for the coastal state (United Nations, 1982, arts. 2, 56 and 58).

The position is complicated by differences in treaty participation. Romania and Bulgaria are parties to UNCLOS, while Türkiye and the United States are not. Rules binding UNCLOS parties by treaty cannot automatically be applied to nonparties on that basis alone. Customary international law nevertheless recognizes important principles concerning maritime sovereignty, navigation, and the respective rights of coastal and flag states.

Naval escorts consequently raise different questions depending on where they operate. A foreign warship conducting defensive operations inside Romania's territorial sea requires a legal basis consistent with Romanian sovereignty. Outside territorial waters, the principal questions concern navigational freedoms, the protection of vessels, the rights of other states, and the legal limits of military engagement.

4.1 Romanian and Bulgarian Territorial Waters

Romania and Bulgaria exercise sovereignty over their territorial seas, subject to international law. Under UNCLOS, the territorial sea may extend up to 12 nautical miles from the applicable baselines. Sovereignty also extends to the airspace above those waters, making unauthorized military drone incursions legally significant even when they occur beyond the coastline itself (United Nations, 1982, arts. 2–3).

The reported incident involving Yara J inside Romanian territorial waters directly implicated Romania's maritime sovereignty. The October 17 interceptions raised a related question in the airspace above those waters. Romania's Defense Ministry confirmed that both drones entered national airspace before being destroyed.

The interceptions were exercises of territorial defense against unauthorized aerial objects. Their legality must be assessed in light of Romania's sovereignty, the threatening character of the drones, and the necessity and proportionality of the defensive measures. They do not establish a general Romanian authority to engage drones anywhere over the Black Sea.

The distinction is relevant to allied naval assistance. Romania may consent to foreign warships conducting authorized military activities in its territorial waters, and Bulgaria can make comparable arrangements within its own maritime territory. That consent provides a legal basis for activities that would otherwise exceed ordinary navigation rights, although the conduct of participating forces remains subject to applicable international law.

A foreign warship's right of innocent passage is narrower. Under UNCLOS, passage must ordinarily be continuous and expeditious and must not prejudice the coastal state's peace, good order, or security. Weapons exercises and certain other military activities are incompatible with innocent passage (United Nations, 1982, arts. 17–19).

An allied warship invited to protect commercial traffic in Romanian waters would operate on a different legal basis from a foreign warship merely passing through. Such arrangements could include surveillance, early warning, defensive positioning, and coordinated responses to identified threats. They would not automatically authorize military strikes against targets located in another state's territory.

These jurisdictional distinctions arise from the broader rules governing territorial waters under international law. They are particularly significant when military forces seek to protect shipping in areas where the coastal state exercises sovereignty but neighboring waters remain subject to different legal regimes.

4.2 Exclusive Economic Zones and Naval Escorts

Several October attacks occurred in or near Bulgaria's exclusive economic zone. An EEZ may extend up to 200 nautical miles from the coastal state's baselines, subject to the rights of neighboring states and applicable maritime boundaries. Within that zone, the coastal state possesses sovereign rights relating primarily to natural resources and specified jurisdiction over matters such as artificial installations, marine scientific research, and environmental protection (United Nations, 1982, arts. 55–57).

Those rights are distinct from sovereignty over territory. Article 58 of UNCLOS preserves navigation and overflight freedoms for other states, together with other internationally lawful uses of the sea associated with those freedoms. Article 87 identifies related high-seas freedoms, while Article 58 makes relevant high-seas provisions applicable within the EEZ.

Warships may ordinarily navigate through another state's EEZ without treating it as foreign territorial waters. The precise limits of some military activities in EEZs remain contested, particularly where coastal states claim that foreign intelligence gathering or military exercises threaten their security. Ordinary navigation and protective escort operations must be distinguished from more intrusive military activities.

A naval escort operating outside territorial waters would need to respect the applicable rights of coastal states while performing its protective mission. The flag state of a merchant vessel also possesses jurisdiction over the ship, creating an additional legal relationship between the vessel and any state providing military protection.

The presence of NATO warships in Bulgaria's EEZ would not transform the surrounding waters into NATO territory. Equally, it would not establish that every drone entering the area could lawfully be destroyed. The legality of an interception would depend on the circumstances of the threat, the identity and position of the responding forces, and the applicable rules governing force.

These distinctions explain why a patrol may be legally permissible even when offensive action against a suspected attacker would not be. A warship can undertake navigation, surveillance, and agreed protective duties without acquiring a general entitlement to use armed force against another state.

5. When Could NATO Legally Use Military Force?

The presence of NATO warships near threatened commercial vessels would create the possibility of armed confrontations. An approaching drone might be intercepted, a hostile vessel might challenge an escort, or military forces could identify a suspected launching platform. Each situation requires an assessment of the legal authority to respond and the limits of any resulting engagement.

International law distinguishes the deployment of military forces from the use of force against another state. The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations, subject to recognized exceptions. Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs, while the Security Council possesses powers to authorize enforcement action under Chapter VII (United Nations, 1945, arts. 2(4), 39–42 and 51).

NATO's founding treaty operates within this international legal system. It establishes commitments among allies and institutions through which they may coordinate their response to threats. It does not independently authorize every military operation conducted in the Alliance's name. This distinction becomes particularly significant where responsibility for an attack is disputed or where a proposed response would cross an international border.

5.1 Article 4 Consultations and Allied Defensive Measures

Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty permits members to consult whenever, in the opinion of any party, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of an ally is threatened. The provision does not require an armed attack. Its function is to give members a treaty mechanism for addressing security concerns before, or independently of, the circumstances contemplated by Article 5 (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949, art. 4).

The October incidents provided grounds for Romania and Bulgaria to seek urgent allied discussions. Commercial vessels were attacked near their coasts, Romanian airspace was violated, and both countries faced concerns about the security of shipping and coastal infrastructure. Bulgaria's request for additional combat aircraft and anti-drone systems exemplified efforts to obtain military assistance in response to those concerns.

A request for NATO support must nevertheless be distinguished from the formal invocation of Article 4. Discussions with NATO officials, bilateral consultations, and requests for reinforcements do not necessarily establish that the Alliance has opened the specific consultation procedure under that provision. On October 18, Bulgarian Defense Minister Stoyanov expressly stated that consultations were taking place outside the Article 4 procedure (Bulgarian News Agency, 18 October 2026).

Article 3 provides another relevant treaty obligation. It commits allies, separately and jointly, to maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. Reinforcing radar networks, improving air defenses, sharing intelligence, and conducting defensive exercises are consistent with that undertaking.

These activities can occur without an Article 5 determination. Their legality depends on the nature and location of the measures undertaken, including the consent of states hosting allied forces. NATO can strengthen the defense of Romania and Bulgaria without first establishing that a particular drone attack constituted an armed attack by Russia.

5.2 Would the Attacks Trigger NATO Article 5?

Article 5 provides that an armed attack against one or more NATO members within the treaty's geographical scope shall be considered an attack against them all. Each ally undertakes to assist the attacked state by taking the action it considers necessary, individually and in cooperation with the others. Military force is expressly contemplated, but the treaty does not require every member to respond through armed combat (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949, art. 5).

The threshold is an armed attack, not every infringement of sovereignty or use of force. The International Court of Justice has distinguished the gravest forms of unlawful force from less serious incidents, emphasizing the nature, scale, and effects of hostile conduct (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, 1986, para. 195). NATO must also determine whether the circumstances fall within the treaty's geographical scope.

Article 6 identifies the relevant territories and specifies the geographical coverage applicable to attacks on allied forces, vessels, and aircraft. Its territorial provisions encompass Romania and Bulgaria. For attacks on allied forces, vessels, and aircraft, it identifies specified geographical areas, including allied territories, the Mediterranean Sea, and the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer.

The Black Sea beyond allied territorial waters is not expressly identified as a separate maritime area within the provision governing attacks on allied vessels. This limits any argument that an attack on a NATO warship operating anywhere in the Black Sea would automatically fall within the treaty's express geographical definition. It does not establish that such an attack could never engage collective-defense considerations under any circumstances.

Article 5 and Article 6 must be interpreted together, taking account of the location of the attack, the character of the target, and the applicable treaty provisions. An attack outside the express geographical categories applicable to allied vessels may still raise rights of individual or collective self-defense under general international law. The existence of those rights is a separate question from the application of Article 5.

A serious attack against Romanian or Bulgarian territory could engage Article 5 if the relevant legal requirements were satisfied. An attack against a foreign-flagged merchant vessel in Bulgaria's EEZ would not automatically fall within the collective-defense guarantee merely because Bulgaria possesses economic rights in that maritime area.

The nationality of the vessel is also relevant. The October incidents involved ships registered in states including Guinea-Bissau, Malta, Comoros, and San Marino. Such vessels do not become NATO vessels because their operators conduct business with NATO countries or navigate near allied coastlines. Commercial ownership, flag registration, and military status must be assessed separately.

An attack against an allied warship would raise additional considerations because naval vessels form part of the armed forces of their flag states. A sufficiently serious attack may qualify as an armed attack under general international law, even where the geographical application of Article 5 is not straightforward. The relevant facts would include the identity of the attacker, the location of the vessel, and the scale and effects of the hostile conduct.

The Alliance's response would involve political and legal judgment, including assessment of the evidence, the severity of the incident, and the defensive measures considered necessary. Article 5 also preserves the discretion of each ally concerning the assistance it provides. Collective defense is a treaty commitment, but its implementation does not mean that every qualifying incident requires an identical military response from all members.

These qualifications are central to understanding what happens if Russia attacks NATO, particularly where the location of an incident or the identity of the attacked vessel complicates the geographical application of the collective-defense obligation.

5.3 Intercepting Drones and the Right of Self-Defense

Romania's October 17 interceptions illustrate defensive military action against threatening objects entering sovereign airspace. A state may protect its territory and airspace against unauthorized military incursions, but the legal justification and permissible intensity of the response depend on the circumstances. Territorial sovereignty, immediate defensive necessity, and the rules governing interstate force must be considered separately.

Not every interception of an unauthorized drone necessarily requires a finding that the state has already suffered an armed attack within the meaning of Article 51 of the UN Charter. Equally, territorial sovereignty does not provide an unlimited justification for destroying foreign military objects regardless of their conduct or the consequences of the response.

An approaching armed drone capable of attacking protected persons, vessels, or infrastructure presents circumstances different from those involving an unidentified aircraft posing no immediate threat. The necessity and proportionality of interception must be assessed in light of the available information, the immediacy of the danger, and the alternatives reasonably available to the defending state.

The legal position becomes more demanding when a state proposes to use force against another state's military assets or territory. The prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter establishes the general rule governing interstate military action, while Article 51 recognizes the right of self-defense following an armed attack.

Whether defensive force may be used against an attack that is imminent but has not yet occurred remains contested in international law. Some states and scholars recognize a narrowly defined form of anticipatory self-defense, while others interpret Article 51 more restrictively. The debate cannot be resolved merely by labeling an intended response defensive.

The International Court of Justice addressed related questions in Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). The case concerned American attacks against Iranian offshore oil installations following incidents involving shipping in the Persian Gulf. The Court's jurisdiction rested on the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between Iran and the United States.

The Court examined the American self-defense arguments when considering whether the attacks could qualify as measures necessary to protect essential security interests under Article XX(1)(d) of that treaty. It considered whether Iran had committed an armed attack against the United States and whether the American operations satisfied the requirements of necessity and proportionality (ICJ, 2003, paras. 51–78).

The Court found that the United States had not established a sufficient basis for treating the attacks on the oil platforms as lawful measures of self-defense. It also concluded that Iran had not established a violation of the specific freedom-of-commerce obligation on which its claim depended. The judgment must consequently be distinguished from a decision adjudicating every possible violation of the UN Charter arising from the events.

In paragraph 72, the Court acknowledged that an attack on a single military vessel could, in appropriate circumstances, be sufficiently serious to constitute an armed attack. That observation is relevant to the protection of NATO warships, but it does not mean that every attack involving a commercial vessel automatically reaches the same threshold.

The Court's decision in Nicaragua provides further guidance. In its examination of customary international law, the Court distinguished armed attacks from less grave forms of unlawful force. It also held that collective self-defense cannot be exercised merely because another state considers intervention desirable. The state claiming to be the victim of an armed attack must assess its position, and a request for assistance is required when another state invokes collective self-defense on its behalf (ICJ, 1986, paras. 195 and 199).

These principles do not prevent NATO members from providing defensive equipment, conducting surveillance, or intercepting immediate threats where a lawful basis exists. They restrict the circumstances in which an incident may be used to justify broader military action against another state.

A drone intercepted above Romanian territorial waters and a missile strike against a suspected launching site across an international border are legally different operations. The second requires its own justification under the rules governing interstate force, supported by evidence concerning the attack, the responsible actor, and the necessity and proportionality of the proposed response.

6. International Law and Attacks on Civilian Shipping

Merchant vessels generally enjoy protection against attack under the international law of armed conflict unless they become legitimate military objectives. The rules governing hostilities at sea include distinction, proportionality, and precautions, together with specialized rules concerning neutral shipping, blockade, capture, and naval operations. Their application depends on the relevant armed-conflict relationship and the vessel's actual conduct.

The principle of distinction requires parties to distinguish military objectives from civilian objects. A merchant vessel does not lose civilian protection simply because it carries commercial goods through a war-affected region or serves a port connected to one of the belligerents. The vessel's actual use, purpose, and contribution to military operations are central to determining whether it may lawfully be attacked.

The 1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea provides a specialist restatement of these rules. It was prepared by international lawyers and naval experts rather than adopted as a binding treaty. Much of the Manual reflects established international humanitarian law, although some provisions have been characterized as progressive development. Its authority must be assessed by reference to the underlying treaty and customary rules (San Remo Manual, 1994).

The Manual's treatment of military objectives and merchant shipping provides guidance for assessing the October incidents. Paragraphs 59–66 address enemy merchant vessels and related categories, while paragraphs 67–71 contain provisions concerning neutral merchant vessels and civilian aircraft. These categories cannot be treated as interchangeable.

Enemy merchant vessels may become military objectives in specified circumstances. Activities such as carrying troops, acting as military auxiliaries, participating in intelligence operations, or engaging in hostilities can alter a vessel's protected status. The Manual also identifies convoy by enemy warships, resistance to visit and search, and certain forms of military assistance as relevant circumstances.

These rules cannot be applied mechanically to every commercial vessel approaching Ukraine. Transporting grain, fuel, or ordinary commercial cargo does not automatically establish an effective contribution to military action. An assessment must consider the particular cargo, its destination and use, the vessel's activities, and the applicable rules governing enemy and neutral commerce.

Neutral-flagged vessels require separate attention. A ship registered in a state that is not a party to the armed conflict generally benefits from the protections applicable to neutral shipping. Its flag is significant evidence of its legal character, although commercial ownership, charter arrangements, operational control, and actual activities may also become relevant.

The San Remo Manual treats a neutral flag as prima facie evidence of neutral character under paragraph 113. Its provisions concerning the determination of enemy character recognize that a vessel's actual relationship with a belligerent may require closer examination. This distinction is particularly relevant to Chelsea 3, which operated under the Maltese flag while being commercially associated with Ukraine.

The distinction between capture and attack must also be preserved. Under the Manual, certain activities, including carriage of contraband or breach of blockade, may expose neutral merchant vessels to capture under specified conditions. Capture does not automatically imply that the vessel may lawfully be destroyed. Paragraphs 67 and 146 establish different conditions concerning attack and capture.

Military escorts can complicate the position. Paragraph 60 identifies sailing under convoy by enemy warships or military aircraft as a circumstance potentially rendering an enemy merchant vessel a military objective. Paragraph 67 contains a corresponding provision relevant to neutral vessels under enemy military convoy.

Protection supplied by a nonbelligerent NATO warship raises a different legal question. The nationality, conduct, and participation of the escorting forces must be assessed. A merchant vessel does not automatically become a legitimate military objective merely because a NATO vessel provides protection, but a convoy arrangement involving direct participation in hostilities may change the applicable legal analysis.

General humanitarian principles apply to armed conflict at sea, although the precise treaty provisions governing naval operations require attention. The International Committee of the Red Cross recognizes that naval warfare is regulated by both general humanitarian principles and specialized maritime rules. The application of Additional Protocol I must also respect its defined scope, including the limitations on provisions concerning naval operations affecting civilians and civilian objects on land (ICRC, 2019; San Remo Manual, 1994).

An attack intentionally directed against a protected civilian vessel may violate international humanitarian law. Depending on the circumstances, the conduct could also engage international criminal law. Establishing a war crime requires proof of the relevant legal elements, including the applicable mental element, connection to an armed conflict, and individual responsibility. A damaged ship and civilian casualties do not independently establish every element of an international crime.

The legality of initiating military force and the legality of conducting particular attacks must also be distinguished. A state acting in self-defense remains bound by international humanitarian law. Conversely, the classification of a particular vessel as a military objective does not determine whether the broader military operation complies with the UN Charter.

For the October incidents, the immediate evidentiary challenge is establishing what happened to each vessel. Investigators must determine the weapon used, its likely origin, the circumstances of the strike, and whether the vessel was deliberately targeted. An accidental impact, an indiscriminate attack, and an intentional strike against a known civilian vessel may raise different legal questions.

The issue of state responsibility is equally important. Ukrainian officials have accused Russia of attacks against commercial shipping, while some Western military assessments have supported Russian attribution in relation to particular incidents. Bulgarian authorities have emphasized the absence of conclusive evidence identifying those responsible for certain attacks.

These positions concern different incidents and sources of information. An assessment about the Romanian tanker attacks does not automatically establish responsibility for the vessels struck near Bulgaria. Technical identification of a drone, evidence of its flight path, and proof of the organization controlling its launch also have different evidentiary significance.

The International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts provide the relevant analytical structure. Article 4 addresses conduct attributable to a state through its organs, including its armed forces. Article 8 concerns conduct by persons or groups acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, a state (International Law Commission, 2001).

Where a drone is operated by a state's armed forces, attribution will ordinarily follow from the status of the responsible organ. Where the operator is unidentified or belongs to another organization, additional evidence may be necessary to establish the relationship with the state concerned. The identification of a weapon's manufacturer or technical design does not, by itself, settle that question.

A government may have sufficient grounds to express concern or seek diplomatic explanations before responsibility has been established to the standard required for a definitive legal conclusion. Political condemnation, operational intelligence assessments, and judicial findings serve different purposes and should not be presented as equivalent determinations.

The October shipping attacks consequently raise serious questions under maritime law, international humanitarian law, and the law of state responsibility. The final legal assessment of each incident depends on the particular evidence concerning the vessel, the attacking weapon, the responsible actor, and the conduct involved.

7. Could NATO Establish a Protected Shipping Corridor?

A coordinated protected shipping corridor is one possible response to the growing danger faced by commercial vessels in the western Black Sea. Such an arrangement could combine maritime surveillance, patrols, mine countermeasures, air-defense coverage, and coordinated emergency assistance. Its effectiveness would depend on geography, the types of weapons used against shipping, and the capacity of participating forces to detect and defeat those threats.

The concept differs from guaranteeing the security of the entire Black Sea. Commercial traffic operates across a broad maritime area, while naval and aerial threats may approach from several directions. A protected corridor would require the identification of navigational routes, coordination with merchant operators, and systems capable of detecting threats early enough for a defensive response.

Türkiye, Romania, and Bulgaria already provide a basis for regional cooperation. Their existing naval task group, coastal infrastructure, radar networks, and military aviation capabilities could support increased maritime awareness. Expanding those activities into a dedicated escort operation would nevertheless require agreement on its objectives, geographical limits, command structure, and rules governing the use of force.

The capabilities of the participating vessels would be a practical constraint. Minehunters and patrol craft are valuable for surveillance, mine clearance, and responding to maritime incidents, but their ability to defeat coordinated aerial drone attacks depends on their equipment and available support. More capable surface combatants, shore-based air defenses, fighter aircraft, and electronic warfare systems may be needed to provide protection against the threats reported in October.

The deployment of such capabilities does not always require additional foreign warships. NATO aircraft could operate from allied territory, subject to the applicable permissions and operational rules. Romania and Bulgaria could strengthen coastal defenses, while Türkiye could contribute regional naval capabilities within its own security priorities.

These measures offer alternatives to the politically sensitive passage of American or British warships through the Turkish Straits. They also avoid assuming that a larger naval presence would necessarily provide the most effective protection against every form of drone attack.

A protected corridor would require decisions about what an escort may do when a threat appears. The interception of a drone approaching a vessel presents different legal considerations from firing on a suspected launching platform or pursuing an attacking force into another state's territorial waters. Operational rules would need to distinguish immediate defense from wider military engagement.

The possibility of NATO forces becoming directly involved in hostilities introduces another complication. A naval escort mission might remain primarily protective, but sustained armed engagements with forces participating in the Russia–Ukraine conflict could change the legal position of the states involved. Whether an additional armed-conflict relationship arose would depend on the conduct and circumstances of the engagements, rather than the mission's political description.

The status of merchant vessels would also require careful consideration. Ships carrying ordinary commercial goods should not be assumed to have become military objectives merely because NATO forces provide protection. At the same time, particular escort arrangements would need to account for naval warfare rules concerning neutral shipping, military convoys, and activities that might amount to participation in hostilities.

The economic consequences extend beyond the vessels immediately attacked.

Increased security risks can affect shipping insurance, vessel availability, freight costs, and the willingness of operators to enter the region. The Sulina Canal and connected Danube routes are important for Ukraine's maritime trade. Disruptions to these routes can influence grain exports and commercial navigation beyond the states directly involved in the conflict.

International institutions and regional governments have recognized these wider consequences. Following the October 13 attacks, United Nations spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric condemned attacks against civilian shipping and warned of the dangers to seafarers and international commodity markets. Bulgarian officials also proposed a moratorium on attacks against civilian vessels while seeking additional NATO defensive assistance (Associated Press, 13 October 2026; Reuters, 16 October 2026).

A moratorium would require agreement and compliance by the relevant actors. Its absence would not create a new entitlement to attack protected commercial shipping. Existing rules of international humanitarian law continue to govern the conduct of hostilities regardless of whether the belligerents conclude a specific maritime arrangement.

Diplomatically, Türkiye occupies a particularly important position. It controls the principal maritime access route, participates in NATO, maintains substantial Black Sea naval capabilities, and has sought to limit further military escalation in the region. Its participation could assist in developing a regional security arrangement, but Ankara's position cannot be reduced to an assumed willingness to authorize a permanent deployment by outside NATO powers.

By October 18, Bulgaria had publicly emphasized air surveillance, defensive aircraft, and closer coordination with Romania and Türkiye. These measures were more immediately compatible with the existing regional security arrangements than an unrestricted deployment of non-littoral NATO warships. Their implementation, however, remained dependent on operational decisions and the capabilities made available.

An escort corridor would be most feasible if its initial objectives were limited and defensive: monitoring designated routes, improving warning systems, responding to maritime emergencies, and providing protection against identifiable threats. Expanding the mission to strike military assets beyond the protected area would introduce more demanding legal and political questions.

The October attacks exposed the limitations of relying exclusively on mine clearance and ordinary naval patrols. The immediate security requirement concerns detection, interception, and coordinated protection against weapons capable of reaching ships near NATO territory. An effective response would need to combine maritime and aerial capabilities without assuming that additional foreign warships are either immediately available or sufficient.

Conclusion

NATO can strengthen protection for commercial shipping in the Black Sea, and international law does not impose a general prohibition on allied naval operations in the region. Romania, Bulgaria, and Türkiye already possess maritime forces capable of supporting regional security. Additional warships from outside the Black Sea, however, remain subject to the Montreux Convention's restrictions on vessel categories, passage, tonnage, notification, and duration of deployment.

Türkiye's role is decisive for reinforcements seeking entry through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. Article 19 distinguishes belligerent warships from those belonging to states outside the Russia–Ukraine conflict, while Ankara's broader diplomatic approach has sought to restrain naval movements during the war. A proposed NATO deployment must account for both the treaty's binding provisions and the political conditions under which they are administered.

The October 2026 attacks have strengthened the case for allied maritime cooperation, particularly after drones entered Romanian airspace and commercial vessels were struck near NATO territory. They have not automatically established the conditions for collective defense under Article 5 or unrestricted military action under Article 51 of the UN Charter. NATO's strongest immediate options lie in coordinated regional naval operations, improved maritime surveillance, and defensive air capabilities. Any wider military response would require a separate legal justification grounded in the circumstances of the threat and the applicable rules of international law.

References

Altaş, M. (2022) ‘Turkiye warns all countries against warships going through Turkish Straits’, Anadolu Agency, 28 February [online]. Available at: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/russia-ukraine-crisis/turkiye-warns-all-countries-against-warships-going-through-turkish-straits/2518827 (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Associated Press (2026) ‘Drones hit ships in Black Sea, sinking 1 and prompting rescue operations, Bulgaria says’, 13 October [online]. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/bulgaria-black-sea-drones-ships-7dfef251fb7d47a717f0d600873dbf5b (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Bulgarian News Agency (2026a) ‘Bulgaria, Romania and Turkiye expand Black Sea mine countermeasures mission to protect undersea infrastructure’, 1 July [online]. Available at: https://www.bta.bg/en/news/1159048-bulgaria-romania-and-turkiye-expand-black-sea-mine-countermeasures-mission-to-p (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Bulgarian News Agency (2026b) ‘Bulgarian Defence Minister talks to Romanian, Turkish counterparts about Black Sea security situation’, 13 October [online]. Available at: https://www.bta.bg/en/news/balkans/1223641-bulgarian-defence-minister-talks-to-romanian-turkish-counterparts-about-black-s (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Bulgarian News Agency (2026c) ‘Defence Minister: We must use all available means, above all diplomacy, to resolve conflict in Bulgaria’s territorial waters’, 18 October [online]. Available at: https://www.bta.bg/en/news/bulgaria/1227177-defence-minister-we-must-use-all-available-means-above-all-diplomacy-to-resol (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Charter of the United Nations (1945) Signed at San Francisco, 26 June 1945; entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Convention Regarding the Régime of the Straits (Montreux Convention) (1936) Signed at Montreux, 20 July 1936; entered into force definitively 9 November 1936, 173 LNTS 213. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280166981 (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

International Committee of the Red Cross (2019) International Humanitarian Law: A Comprehensive Introduction. By Nils Melzer. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross. Available at: https://library.icrc.org/library/docs/DOC/icrc-4231-002-2019.pdf (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103143 (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

International Court of Justice (2003) Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment of 6 November 2003, ICJ Reports 2003, p. 161. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/index.php/node/103215 (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-Third Session, UN Doc. A/56/10, Chapter IV. Also published in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

North Atlantic Treaty (1949) Signed at Washington, D.C., 4 April 1949; entered into force 24 August 1949. Available at: https://nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/1949/04/04/the-north-atlantic-treaty (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Reuters (2026a) ‘Romania says two dead after fire on ship, Ukraine blames Russian drones’, 5 October [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/two-dead-11-rescued-serious-maritime-incident-black-sea-romania-says-2026-10-05/ (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Reuters (2026b) ‘Drone sinks ship off Bulgaria coast, prime minister says’, 13 October [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/drone-sinks-ship-off-bulgaria-coast-prime-minister-says-2026-10-13/ (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Reuters (2026c) ‘Bulgaria expects to join NATO anti-drone initiative this month, says minister’, 14 October [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/bulgaria-expects-join-nato-anti-drone-initiative-this-month-says-minister-2026-10-14/ (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Reuters (2026d) ‘Seven sailors missing after drones hit two ships near Romania’, 15 October [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/two-ships-ablaze-romanian-black-sea-waters-8-sailors-missing-2026-10-15/ (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Reuters (2026e) ‘Bulgaria seeks NATO anti-drone systems, says defence minister’, 16 October [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/bulgaria-seeks-nato-anti-drone-systems-says-defence-minister-2026-10-16/ (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Reuters (2026f) ‘Romania resumes search for seven missing sailors from drone-hit ship’, 16 October [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/romania-resumes-search-seven-missing-sailors-drone-hit-ship-2026-10-16/ (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Romanian Maritime Authority (2026) Comunicat de presă 15.10.2026 – Incident navă Wine Trader, 15 October [online]. Available at: https://portal.rna.ro/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Comunicat-de-presa-15.10.2026-Incident-nava-Wine-Trader.pdf (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Romanian Ministry of National Defence (2026a) ‘Romania, Bulgaria and Türkiye expand the MCM Black Sea TG missions’, Press Release No. 138, 8 July [online]. Available at: https://english.mapn.ro/cpresa/6813_romania%2C-bulgaria-and-turkiye-expand-the-mcm-black-sea-tg-missions (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Romanian Ministry of National Defence (2026b) ‘Press Release’, Press Release No. 213, 17 October [online]. Available at: https://english.mapn.ro/cpresa/6888_Press-Release (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Romanian Ministry of National Defence (2026c) ‘Informație de presă – UPDATE’, Press Release No. 337, 17 October [online]. Available at: https://www.mapn.ro/cpresa/19446_Informa%C8%9Bie-de-pres%C4%83-%E2%80%93-UPDATE (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994) Adopted by international lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Livorno, 12 June 1994. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/san-remo-manual-1994 (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2026) ‘No. 140, 20 July 2026, Regarding the 90th anniversary of the signing of the Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits’, 20 July [online]. Available at: https://dublin-be.mfa.gov.tr/Mission/ShowAnnouncement/418837 (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (n.d.) ‘Implementation of the Montreux Convention’ [online]. Available at: https://www.mfa.gov.tr/implementation-of-the-montreux-convention.en.mfa (Accessed: 18 October 2026).

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) Adopted at Montego Bay, 10 December 1982; entered into force 16 November 1994, 1833 UNTS 3. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280043ad5 (Accessed: 18 October 2026).