An analysis of the decisions of the UN International Court of Justice regarding the laying of sea mines found that in each case such actions were considered illegal because they interfered with commercial/military navigation and violated the rights of coastal and other states. Importantly, it was also found to be illegitimate to respond, including by using force and arms, for the mining without tangible evidence of a state's guilt. Iran was increasingly inclined to accept that any threat or actual use of force could be used to appeal the right of self-defense enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Although at the level of international legal doctrine the right to self-defense can be exercised in case of the most serious incidents, the U.S., and now Iran, tend to believe that the implementation of any hostile acts allows the use of force in response. Iran assumes that many rules and regulations of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea can be used only by those states that have signed and ratified this international agreement. The U.S. non-participation in the 1982 Convention allows Tehran to restrict navigation in the Strait of Hormuz waters, especially for U.S. warships. The US, which traditionally protects the principle of freedom of navigation, considers such restrictions illegitimate and is ready to use force to defend its rights. This legal dispute between the U.S. and Iran over the legal status of the Strait of Hormuz has been a potential catalyst for increasing conflict in bilateral relations for decades.