Force Majeure and COVID-19: Legal risks of a double-edged sword
This breifing note offers expert advice for governments on how to approach force majeure claims and defences amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Key Messages
- Governments should work with companies to assess individual cases and circumstances.
- Short term arguments against force majeure can weaken future government claims.
- Government measures should be assessed for risk of exposure to breach of contract claims or under investment treaty obligations.
COVID-19 has caused the broadest and deepest health and economic impacts of any single non-war event since the Great Depression of the 1930s.The virus itself, and the governmental measures in relation to the virus, have now become woven into a singular event that cannot be easily or simplistically disaggregated for legal purposes. Both these components are unprecedented in scope and scale, and both will present challenges for companies and governments seeking to manage the impacts of the virus and government measures taken globally in response to it.
One issue that has quickly arisen is whether the COVID-19 event constitutes a force majeure under national or international law.
Governments will face claims of force majeure from companies in relation to performing their operations, while in many cases having to make similar legal claims to defend measures they have taken in response to COVID-19. This defense by governments may arise in contract disputes or in the context of investor-state disputes (ISDS) initiated by investors under international investment treaties. This makes force majeure, for many governments, a potential double-edged sword: companies will claim force majeure alleviates them of certain obligations towards government; and governments will claim force majeure alleviates them of certain obligations to private companies.
Participating experts
You might also be interested in
Understanding Investor–State Dispute Settlement in the Mining Sector
This brief introduces investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) for mining policy-makers and shows how understanding it helps governments design clearer rules, manage permits and contracts, prevent costly disputes, and protect policy spaces while maintaining a predictable investment climate.
From Voluntary to Binding
This report examines how sustainability standards and initiatives are integrated into public mining governance, from voluntary to mandatory use, with case studies from Brazil, Madagascar, and Sweden.
Permitting for Critical Minerals
This report examines how governments can streamline permitting for critical mineral mining projects while protecting communities, human health, and the environment. Drawing on case studies across five continents, it identifies the characteristics of efficient permitting systems and provides practical tools for improving processes.
Developing Sustainable Nickel-Based Battery Value Chains in Indonesia and the Philippines
This report assesses how Indonesia and the Philippines can benefit more from their nickel resources while managing emerging risks.