پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,573 |
| تعداد مقالات | 71,037 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 125,522,699 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 98,782,414 |
مطالعة تطبیقی فورس‌ماژور در قراردادهای بالادستی صنعت نفتوگاز در نظام حقوقی ایران و کامن‌لا | ||
| مطالعات حقوق انرژی | ||
| دوره 9، شماره 2، بهمن 1402، صفحه 353-376 اصل مقاله (940.8 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jrels.2024.309405.389 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| هدایت فرخانی1؛ نصرالله ابراهیمی* 2؛ رضا طجرلو3 | ||
| 1دکتری گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2دانشیار گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 3استادیار گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| قراردادهای نفتی از مهم‌ترین قراردادهای تجاری بین‌المللی است که ویژگی‌هایی مانند استمرار و طولانی‌مدت بودن، بهره‌مندی از عدم قطعیت و پیچیدگی‌های زیاد، چندبعدی بودن مورد قرارداد (نفت، گاز و مواد مربوطه) و لزوم صرف سرمایة فراوان آن‌ها را در معرض ریسک‌های مختلف حقوقی، اقتصادی، زیست‌محیطی، سیاسی و مالی قرار می‌دهد. درج شروط قراردادی متناسب یکی از ابزارهای حقوقی مدیریت ریسک‌های مورد اشاره است. در این تحقیق با نگاهی تحلیلی و تطبیقی و با تکیه بر قراردادهای بالادستی نفتی دو نظام حقوقی ایران و کامن‌لا، شرط فورس‌ماژور را از لحاظ مفهوم و ماهیت، انواع و مصادیق، شرایط و آثار و ضمانت‌اجراها مورد بررسی قرار داده‌ایم. نتایج بررسی نشان می‌دهد درج شرط فورس‌ماژور در قراردادهای نفتی در هردو نظام حقوقی به عرفی قراردادی تبدیل شده است ولی با توجه به تفاوت‌هایی که دربارة شرایط تحقق فورس‌ماژور، ازجمله شرط قابلیت پیش‌بینی بودن که به نظر می‌رسد در قراردادهای نفتی کامن‌لا ضروری نیست و سایر شرایط و آثار این شرط در دو نظام حقوقی وجود دارد، در قراردادهای بین‌المللی نفتی هردو نظام این تفاوت‌ها متبلور شده که به‌صورت دقیق و با بیان مصادیق قراردادی در این تحقیق ذکر شده است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| تعلیق؛ فورس‌ماژور؛ قراردادهای بالادستی؛ صنعت نفتوگاز؛ نظام حقوق کامن‌لا | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Comparative Study of Force Majeure Clause in Upstream Oil and Gas Contracts in Iran and Common Law Legal System | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| hedayat farkhani1؛ seyed nasrollah ebrahime2؛ reza tajarlou3 | ||
| 1PhD in Department of Public Law, in Oil and Gas Law Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran. | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Department of Public Law, in Oil and Gas Law Faculty of Law and Political Sciences,University of Tehran, Tehran. Iran. | ||
| 3Assistant Professor,Department of Public Law, in Oil and Gas Law Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran. Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction The principle of the sanctity of contracts is a fundamental tenet respected by all legal systems worldwide. According to this principle, the agreement provisions are binding, and neither party can refuse to fulfill their contractual obligations. However, in certain contracts, particularly long-term or continuous ones, unforeseen circumstances may arise that make fulfilling these obligations difficult or costly, sometimes even rendering the contract’s performance impossible. Between contract formation and execution, economic shifts or risks such as natural disasters, legal obstacles, political events, and economic disruptions may complicate or impede the obligor's ability to fulfill contractual duties, even making the contract unachievable or defeating its purpose. In such contracts, the parties may foresee potential post-contract obstacles and include specific clauses, known as contractual excuses, which serve as exceptions to the general principle of contract necessity. This is particularly true in contracts within the oil and gas industry, especially in the upstream sector. The industry’s unique characteristics—its complexity, uncertainties, high capital requirements, long-term nature, and strategic significance—distinguish it from other types of international commercial contracts. The stages of exploration, development, production, and marketing in this sector are marked by instability, high risk, and a need for significant capital investment. The economic, political, environmental, and technological importance of these contracts has made it crucial to manage various risks by incorporating contractual excuses. Among the most important of these is the force majeure clause, widely recognized across legal systems worldwide. Methodology This research focuses specifically on upstream oil contracts, excluding general public (non-oil) contracts. Employing a library-based approach, the author examines upstream contracts from two legal systems, using an analytical, descriptive, and comparative methodology to assess the role of force majeure in these agreements. Sampling Procedures In this research, the subject of the study was upstream oil contracts from the two legal systems of Iran and the common law. The purpose of choosing these examples was to broaden and strengthen the comparative and comparative aspect of the subject. Since, the oil contracts have major differences from other contracts, on the one hand, and the common law legal system is based on judicial practice and the Iranian legal system is codified and written on the other hand, so the samples were chosen according to this actuality. Sample Size, Power, and Precision In both legal systems, only oil contracts and only the upstream sector have been examined, and in order to prevent the expansion of the research topic, other sectors and contracts have not been analysed. Mixed methods research This research is not a mixed methods research. In mixed methods articles, authors report research combining qualitative and quantitative empirical approaches. Results A legal review and analysis of numerous upstream oil and gas contracts in the Iranian and Common Law legal systems reveal differences due to the acceptance of private ownership of oil and gas resources in some Common Law jurisdictions. In Iran’s legal system, oil contracts generally stipulate that if force majeure leads to contract termination, incurred costs are depreciated up to a specified amount after developing the oil or gas field in question. Internationally, in cases of force majeure, the contract may be suspended for the duration of the event or a specific period. If force majeure persists or becomes permanent, the affected party has the right to terminate the contract. If the force majeure ceases before the end of this period, the contract is reactivated. The effects of force majeure can, therefore, include contract suspension, extension, or even dissolution. Beyond these, renegotiation is often used as a risk management tool in upstream oil and gas contracts, ensuring the protection of both parties’ interests. Conclusions The primary research question is: What are the similarities and differences in the contractual excuse of force majeure regarding its concept, types, conditions, effects, and enforceability in these two legal systems, especially within the upstream oil and gas industry? A comparative analysis of force majeure in both legal systems reveals that, under English law, the doctrine encompasses not only the impossibility of performance but also other outcomes, such as preventing implementation or modifying obligations. Furthermore, in Common Law jurisdictions, unforeseeability is generally not required to invoke force majeure; it suffices for the claimant to demonstrate that the event was beyond their control and that they could not reasonably prevent or mitigate its effects. Additionally, the requirement for the obligor to notify the other party in writing of a force majeure event is contractual and may be necessary for exemption from liability or simply a procedural condition. In contrast to many domestic legal systems, which primarily view force majeure as grounds for contract dissolution, international oil and gas contracts assign force majeure broader implications, particularly concerning incurred costs. In sum, while the unpredictability criterion is emphasized in most countries, Common Law systems, such as English law, do not mandate it, reflecting a more flexible approach toward force majeure in international oil and gas contracts. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Force Majeure, Upstream Contracts, Oil and Gas Industry, Suspension, Common Law System | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
منابع
ابراهیمی، سیدنصرالله؛ اویارحسین، شادی (1391). «آثار تحریم بر اجرای قراردادهای بازرگانی بین‌المللی از منظر فورس‌ماژور». نشریة دانش حقوق مدنی، سال اول، شمارة ۲، ص17-1. https://clk.journals.pnu.ac.ir/article_284.html/ (12 آبان 1402).
امامی، سیدحسن (1370). حقوق مدنی. جلد یک، چاپ هشتم، تهران، کتابفروشی اسلامیه.
صفایی، سیدحسین (1364). «قوه قاهره یا فورس‌ماژور». مجلة حقوقی، دفتر خدمات حقوقی بین‌المللی جمهوری اسلامی، شمارة 3، ص149-109.
عادل، مرتضی (1380). «قوه قاهره در کنوانسیون بیع بین‌المللی 1980». مجلة دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، شمارة 21-22، ص60-43.
https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/73298/1980. (24 مرداد 1403).
عسکری، سامان؛ احتشامی، هادی (1395). «مقایسة نظریة عقیم شدن قرارداد با نظریات قوه قاهره، تغییر اوضاع‌واحوال و دشواری اجرای قرارداد». مطالعات فقه و حقوق اسلامی، سال 8، شمارة 14، ص194-173 https://doi.org/10.22075/feqh.2017.1952.
کاتوزیان، ناصر (1371). دورة مقدماتی حقوق مدنی-اعمال حقوقی. تهران، شرکت سهامی انتشار.
نیکبخت، حمیدرضا (1376). «آثار قوه قاهره و انتفای قرارداد». مجلة حقوقی بین‌المللی، دورة 15، شمارة 21، ص124-95.
https://doi.org/10.22066/cilamag.1998.18178.
References Adel, Morteza. (2001). “Force majeure in 1980 International Sales Convention”. Journal of Judicial Law Perspectives, No. 21 & 22, pp. 43-60. https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/73298/1980. (Accessed 18 March 2024) [In Persian]. Ahmadpour, Ayoub. (2005). Economic Hardship in Performance of Contract: A Comparative Study of English, American and German Law and CISG, the UNIDROIT Principle and PECL, Aberdeen. Askari, Saman; Ehtashami, Hadi. (2015). “Comparison the theory of frustration of contract, Force majeure, change of circumstances and difficulty of contract implementation”. Studies in Islamic jurisprudence and law, year 8, number 14, pp. 173-194. https://doi.org/10.22075/feqh.2017.1952. [In Persian]. Barry, Niklas. (1992). The French Contract Law. 2ed, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Bernard G. Taverne. (1994(. An introduction to the regulation of the Petroleum Industry: Law, Contracts and Conventions. London, Graham and Trotman. Bickel J, E; Bratvold R, B. (2008). “from uncertainty qualification to decision making in the oil and gas industry, energy exploration & exploitation”. Vol .26.No.5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228987445.last (Accessed 14 February 2024). Brunner, Christoph. (2008). “Force Majeure and Hardship under General Contract Principles; Exemption for Non Performance in International Arbitration”. the Journal of Kluwer Law International publication, London. Ebrahimi, Seyed Nasrullah; Oyar Hossein, Shadi. (2012). “Effects of sanctions on the implementation of international commercial contracts from the perspective of force majeure”. Civil law science Journal, 1st year, number 2, pp. 1-17. https://clk.journals.pnu.ac.ir/article_284.html/ (Accessed 16 March 2024). [In Persian]. Emami, Seyyed Hassan. (1991). Civil law. Volume One, Eighth Edition, Tehran, Islamic Bookstore. (in Persian) Posner, Richard A. and Rosenfield, Andrew M. (1977) "Impossibility and Related Doctrines in Contract Law: An Economic Analysis," Journal of Legal Studies: Vol. 6: No. 1, Article .https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/jls/vol6/iss1/6.last (Accessed: 23 July 2023). Green, David. (1980(. “Force Majeure Clauses and International Sale of Goods, Comparative guide for the common lawyer”. Australian Business Law Review, Vol.8, No3. https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUMPLawAYbk/1992/26./last (Accessed 23 July 2023). Hammerson, M. (2007). “Production Sharing Ccontracts: an Analysis of Comparative Practice in Certain African Jurisdictions”. Kenya, present in UN Conference on Trade & Development- Nairobi, Stephenson Harwood Pub. Horn, Norbern. (1985). “Adaptation and Renegotiation of Contracts in International Trade and Finance Law”. the Journal of Kluwer Academic Publishers; Antwerp, Boston, London, Frankfurt, at 15et seq. Katouzian, Nasser. (1992). Introductory course on civil law-legal acts. Tehran, Enteshar Company [in Persian]. Macmillan, Fiona. (2000). “Risk uncertainty and investment decision making in the upstream oil and gas industry”. Phds thesis, university of Aberdeen. Malhorta, Yogesh. (2000). “Knowledge Management for E-Business Performance: Advancing Information Strategy to Internet Time”. Information Strategy: The Executive’s Journal, Vol.16, No. 4. https://www.sid.ir/paper/581937/en.last (Accessed 17 May 2024) Nicholas, Barry. (1992). The French Law of Contract. 2nd ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press. Nikbakht, Hamidreza. (1997). “Effects of Cairo Power and Termination of Contract”. International Legal Journal, Volume 15, Number 21, pp. 95-124.https://doi.org/10.22066/cilamag.1998.18178. [in Persian]. Ommeslaghe, Van. (1980). Les clauses de force majeure et d'imprevision (hardship) dans les contrats internationaux, Rev. Dr. Int. Dr. Comp. Rimke, Joern. (2000). Force Majeure and Hardship: Application in International Trade Practice with Specific Regard to the CISG and UNIDROIT Principle of International Commercial Contracts, kluwer. Safaei, Seyed Hossein. (2014). “Force Majeure”. Legal Journal, International Legal Services Office of the Islamic Republic, No. 3. pp. 109-149.https://doi.org/10.22066/cilamag.1985.18456 [in Persian]. Southering, Tom. (2001). Impossibility of Performance and Other Excuses in International Trade. Turkey, Facuity of Law of University of Turkey Private Law Publication. Trackman Dean, Leon E.) 2007(. “Declaring Force Majeure: Veracity or Sham?”. The Journal of Selected Works, Be press. Westberg, John A. (1989). “Contract Excuse in International Business Transactions: Awards of the Iran-United States Claims, in Foreign Investment”. Law Journal, Vol.4, N.1. https://academic.oup.com/icsidreview/article-abstract/4/2/215/707899 .last (Accessed 24 November 2023).
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 93 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 102 |
||
سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب