Disruption in the Middle East is exposing how well (or poorly) force majeure clauses have been drafted. Modern supply chains demand precision: clear thresholds, workable alternatives, and evidence backed mitigation. Businesses that act now, refreshing clauses and tightening operational playbooks, will stay resilient while others stall. In this article we outline what businesses should do next.

Published: 16 March 2026
Authors: Michelle Craven-Faulkner

Changing pressures, unchanged principles

Force majeure (FM) is not a one‑size‑fits‑all safety valve. Whether disruption from the current conflict in the Middle East (including spill‑over effects such as shipping diversions, port closures, sanctions/export controls, insurance limitations and energy price spikes) excuses non‑performance turns on the exact drafting, causation, mitigation, notice, and the relief the clause actually grants. These are the same fundamentals we highlighted during and after COVID, as well as the Ukraine conflict, in our podcast series and subsequent commentary. However, it should be noted that:

• drafting has moved on since COVID. Parties now expect clearer event lists, calibrated thresholds (‘prevent’, ‘hinder’ or ‘delay’), explicit mitigation duties, suspension vs. termination mechanics, and carve‑outs (e.g., price changes). Our ‘Journey Through a Contract’ and 2024 supply‑chain series track this shift and show why FM must sit within a wider disruption and resilience toolkit, not act as a stand‑alone remedy; and
• case law has evolved. In 2024, the Supreme Court in RTI v MUR Shipping clarified how FM interacts with reasonable work‑arounds, reinforcing the need to draft obligations to ‘overcome’ impediments (or expressly disclaim that).

1) What the present conflict changes—and what it doesn’t

What it changes:

• risk profile and frequency of disruptions: route closures/diversions, inability to call at certain ports, crew safety constraints, cargo insurance restrictions, and delay costs are more common and less predictable than in steady‑state trading. Our 2022 FM specials anticipated this multi‑factor volatility when we discussed COVID/Brexit/Ukraine as overlapping shocks
• regulatory overlay: sanctions/export controls and reputational restrictions may intervene even where physical performance remains technically possible; contracts now more often include sanctions and export‑compliance FM‑style triggers and termination rights – but we have to recognise, in the current situation at least, that sanctions can be relaxed and or amended with very little notice.
• What it doesn’t change:
• FM remains a contractual (not statutory) tool under English law; relief lives or dies by the clause. Drafting is therefore key
• after RTI v MUR, any ‘we can’t perform’ argument must be tested against reasonable alternatives and the exact drafting on mitigation/overcoming impediments.

2) Immediate actions for live contracts which have the potential to be impacted by the current Middle East situation (next 7–14 days)

Locate and map all FM (and related) provisions across your critical supplier and customer contracts: FM clause; change in law; hardship/price review; logistics and routing flexibility; sanctions/export clauses; step‑in; termination; business continuity. Create a tracker capturing triggering events, identifying threshold verbs (‘prevent’/‘hinder’/‘delay’), notice requirements, relief, termination long‑stop, and mitigation duty.

Gather contemporaneous evidence that links the conflict to the specific failure or delay (carrier advisories, port notices, insurer correspondence). In most clauses there will be a requirement to demonstrate that causal link.

Serve contract‑compliant notices (compliant in terms of form, recipient, timing, content). Late or informal notices are a common reason FM, and many other contractual claims, fail.

Document all reasonable work‑arounds (re‑routing, alternative ports, modal shifts, substitute suppliers) and who pays, conscious of the RTI v MUR approach to alternatives.

Engage counterparties as soon as possible to discuss: (a) temporary adjustments (lead times, INCOTERMS, split deliveries); (b) cost‑sharing mechanisms; (c) short‑term price review; (d) interim inventory buffers. Collaboration is key.

3) Drafting a playbook for new or renegotiated contracts (next 30–60 days)

A. Define events precisely—and tailor to the corridor

Include conflict‑specific triggers where appropriate: war/armed conflict in named regions, closure of designated sea lanes/ports, maritime security advisories at specified levels, sanctions/export‑control changes.

B. Choose the right threshold verb

‘Prevent’ (high threshold) vs ‘hinder’/‘delay’ (lower). Align with risk appetite and industry norms; ensure consistency with service levels and LDs.

C. Hard‑wire mitigation and alternatives

Define ‘reasonable endeavours’ in context (e.g., re‑route via specified ports if commercially reasonable). Clarify who bears incremental cost and how additional time is measured.

D. Sanctions and compliance co‑ordination

Add a sanctions FM limb (suspension/termination where performance would breach sanctions/export rules), with notification and co‑operation mechanics.

E. Relief mechanics and long‑stops

Provide clear suspension, time relief, and a termination long‑stop after a defined continuous FM period; consider partial FM for divisible obligations; keep price review/hardship separate from FM.

F. Post FM

Ensure drafting clearly specifies what should happen when the FM has ceased to impact the contract. Consider whether it is reasonable and or achievable to recommence operations immediately and in full. Is a lead in period required to kick start operations? If the FM ceases to apply to one party but not the other what should the position be?

G. Carve‑outs

Exclude payment obligations and pure cost increases from FM unless agreed; handle margin pressure via indexation, surcharges or hardship clauses. Suspension and waiver of performance regimes will also be key.

4) Commercial levers beyond FM (consider using these first)

Flexible scope and routing clauses (alternative ports, trans‑shipment rights) to avoid tripping FM prematurely.

Inventory and forecasting (safety stocks, vendor managed inventory, revised minimum order quantities) with shared cost protocols temporary price review/surcharges tied to observable indices (e.g., bunker adjustment factors), combined with time relief.

Step‑in/dual sourcing where regulation allows, particularly in regulated sectors and critical infrastructure supply chains.

5) Typical scenarios and how the clause responds

Carrier avoids conflict zone → extended transit via alternative route: If FM requires ‘prevention’, a mere delay may not qualify; rely on routing flexibility or time‑relief mechanics unless the clause captures ‘delay’ or ‘hinder’.

Destination port closed / war‑risk not covered by insurer: FM more likely to bite if ‘war’, ‘blockade’, ‘port closure’, or ‘unavailability of insurance’ appear in the event list; check mitigation (alternate port delivery) and risk/cost split.

Sanctions tighten mid‑contract (supplier or end‑market): Treat under the sanctions clause first (suspension/termination); FM as back‑up. Notice and evidence remain critical.

Energy shock / rolling blackouts at supplier plant: May support FM if framed as government action/utility failure; otherwise, lean on BCP commitments and service credits/time relief.

6) Dispute posture and negotiation strategy

Identify issues as they arise: assemble factual chronologies, notices, logs of attempted alternatives, and decision notes

Collaboration frameworks: short‑term time relief + shared incremental logistics + re‑routing to avoid termination

Leverage RTI v MUR carefully: if seeking FM, show why suggested alternatives are not ‘reasonable’ under the clause; if resisting FM, evidence workable alternatives.

7) Shoosmiths references since COVID (authored or hosted)

• Podcast – Journey Through a Contract (Special): Force majeure (24 Mar 2022)
• Podcast – Force Majeure: What to do if the lights go out? (27 Oct 2022)
• Podcast series – Supply chain & manufacturing (May 2024): Supply chain issues & disruption’
• Podcast series – Supply chain & manufacturing (May 2024): Ep.3 ‘New tech solutions and digitalisation’
• Article – Supreme Court sheds light on force majeure: What you need to know (June 2024)
• Rail Talk with Shoosmiths – Episode 10: Support for UK Rail’s supply chain (17 Aug 2023)

8) What we recommend you do now

• run a 10‑day FM & disruption audit across your top 20 supplier and customer contracts using the tracker headings in section 2.
• pre‑agree routing and port flexibility (including cost‑sharing rules) for vulnerable lanes connected to the Middle East and adjacent corridors.
• refresh your template suite: conflict‑specific event lists; calibrated threshold verbs; sanctions limb; explicit mitigation and cost allocation; suspension/time relief; termination long‑stops; hardship/price review separate from FM.
• stand up a rapid FM notice protocol and internal playbook (legal + logistics + procurement) so notices are timely and compliant.
• capture the story as you go: contemporaneous evidence of why an alternative was/was not reasonable under the contract—critical post‑RTI v MUR.

Closing

FM remains a useful tool, but in the current environment the winning strategy is contractual flexibility plus evidence‑backed mitigation, with FM as the back‑stop. If helpful, we can deliver a rapid contract audit, refresh your template clauses, and facilitate a supplier workshop to agree practical routing/price‑review protocols consistent with your risk appetite—approaches we have road‑tested with clients since COVID and shared in our podcast series above.