Beyond Force Majeure: Building Defensible Claims in the Current Middle East Conflict

Introduction

The escalation of conflict across the Middle East in 2026 has already had immediate and tangible consequences for construction and infrastructure projects across the region. Airspace closures, disruption to maritime routes, sanctions exposure, labour displacement and supply chain instability are no longer theoretical risks. They are now shaping project delivery on a daily basis.

In this environment, many contractors and project sponsors are asking a familiar question: can force majeure be invoked?

As explored in our previous briefing, the answer depends heavily on the governing law and the contractual framework. However, in the context of the current conflict, that question is only the starting point. The wider, and often more important issue is how to translate disruption into a claim that delivers meaningful time and cost relief.

Force majeure is only part of the picture

Conflict-related disruption intuitively falls within the concept of force majeure. In practice, however, the position is more constrained.

Under English law, force majeure exists only where expressly provided for in the contract and is interpreted strictly. Under civil law systems across the Middle East, while force majeure is often built in in statutes, relief is generally available only where performance has become impossible, rather than simply more difficult or more expensive.

This creates a recurring gap in the current conflict. Many projects are clearly affected by regional instability, yet relatively few situations meet the threshold required to excuse performance entirely. As a result, force majeure is rarely sufficient on its own. It is more often one element within a broader, multi-layered claims strategy.

Understanding how the conflict impacts the contract

The effects of the current conflict are rarely uniform or direct. Instead, they manifest through a series of interconnected disruptions.

Shipping delays through key routes, increased insurance costs, restrictions on materials or equipment, interruptions to logistics and workforce mobility constraints all affect project performance in different ways. These impacts must be translated into contractual terms.

For example, rerouting vessels around the Cape of Good Hope may extend delivery timelines by several weeks, triggering delay claims. Similarly, the withdrawal or repricing of war-risk insurance may materially affect both cost assumptions and financing arrangements.

Claims are not built on the existence of a geopolitical event, but on how that event engages specific contractual provisions. In many cases, the more effective approach is to move beyond force majeure and consider alternative routes to recovery.

Change in law provisions may be triggered where sanctions or state measures interfere with performance. Variation and delay mechanisms may apply where disruption affects the project programme. In civil law jurisdictions, hardship doctrines may allow for the adjustment of contractual obligations where performance has become excessively onerous.

The key is to characterise the impact of the conflict in a way that aligns with the available contractual remedies.

A contract-by-contract approach

In complex projects, particularly in the Middle East, contractual structures are often layered. Different agreements within the same project may be governed by different laws and contain different risk allocation mechanisms.

This means that entitlement must always be assessed on a contract-by-contract basis. A disruption that does not trigger relief under one agreement may give rise to a valid claim under another.

A targeted review of the contractual framework is therefore essential. This should encompass force majeure clauses, change in law provisions, hardship mechanisms, suspension and termination rights, price adjustment clauses and dispute resolution provisions.

Taking a single, uniform position across a project without this level of analysis risks overlooking viable avenues of recovery.

From disruption to evidence

In the current conflict, where circumstances are evolving rapidly, the strength of any claim will depend heavily on contemporaneous evidence.

It is not enough to assert that disruption has occurred. Parties must be able to demonstrate how specific events, such as rerouting decisions, supplier interruptions or regulatory restrictions, have impacted the project programme and costs.

This requires disciplined record-keeping in real time, including documenting the decisions taken, the alternatives considered and the reasons why disruption could not reasonably be avoided. Establishing a clear chain of causation is critical.

Without this evidential foundation, even well-constructed contractual arguments are unlikely to succeed.

Preserving entitlement in a fast-moving environment

The operational pressures created by the current conflict can make it difficult to maintain strict contractual discipline. However, this is precisely when it matters most.

Notice requirements must be complied with carefully and on time. Failures in this respect remain one of the most common reasons for otherwise valid claims to fail.

At the same time, parties are expected to take reasonable steps to mitigate the effects of disruption. Decisions taken to keep the project moving, such as sourcing alternative materials or adjusting logistics routes, must be carefully documented to ensure that they support rather than undermine the claim.

Consistency across internal communications, client engagement and formal submissions is equally important. Divergent narratives can weaken credibility and create vulnerabilities in any subsequent dispute.

Sanctions, illegality and payment risk

A defining feature of the current conflict is the increasing role of sanctions and regulatory intervention.

These measures can affect not only the ability to perform contractual obligations, but also the mechanics of payment and the enforceability of rights. In some cases, performance may become legally impossible. In others, it may remain technically possible but commercially or practically unworkable.

In some cases, sanctions considerations may override traditional contractual analysis entirely. A claim that is legally sound may nevertheless be commercially ineffective if payment cannot be made or enforced due to sanctions constraints.

This raises complex issues around termination for illegality, suspension of obligations and the structuring of payment arrangements to remain compliant with applicable regulations.

These considerations must be addressed early. They are central to the viability of any claim and the ability to recover sums due.

Thinking ahead: enforcement and strategy

In a volatile geopolitical environment, establishing entitlement is only part of the equation. The ability to enforce that entitlement must be considered from the outset.

This includes assessing the location of assets, the financial position of counterparties and their exposure to sanctions risk. It also requires careful consideration of dispute resolution mechanisms, including the choice of forum and the availability of interim or emergency relief where necessary.

Strategic positioning at an early stage can significantly influence the outcome of any dispute.

Conclusion: from event to strategy

The current Middle East conflict has reinforced a fundamental point.

Disruption does not, in itself, create entitlement.

What matters is how that disruption is analysed, documented and translated into a coherent contractual claim. Force majeure may form part of that analysis, but it is rarely sufficient on its own.

The most effective approach is to move quickly from identifying the event to developing a structured, evidence-based and multi-layered strategy that reflects both the contractual framework and the realities on the ground.

In this environment, the difference between absorbing disruption and recovering losses lies in the ability to convert complex, fast-moving events into a defensible legal position.

Contact Details

Dr. Leonardo Carpentieri and Sara Paradisi co-head the firm's International Arbitration and Construction Disputes practice - leonardo.carpentieri@rosenblatt.law and sara.paradisi@rosenblatt.law