Three weeks after the start of the conflict in Iran, its impact on the global economy is becoming clearer: some sectors are being severely affected while other consequences are feared. The World Trade Organization (WTO) warned in a report released last Thursday that the exchange of goods will be greatly affected in 2026 and points to future repercussions on food security.
Julie Pasternak, a lawyer and partner at the business law firm Darrois Villey Maillot Brochier, emphasizes the disruptions in fertilizer supply chains that could have serious consequences on upcoming harvests. One-third of global fertilizer exports typically pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Companies are also facing increased costs and the challenge of passing them on to their customers, directly impacting their competitiveness.
The geopolitical instability also reveals less visible issues. Beyond the material infrastructures of sovereignty – energy, transportation, digital – economic stability also relies on intangible foundations: the effectiveness of the mechanisms for resolving disputes between companies.
Global crises impact contractual relationships
Local crises can have global repercussions; cascading effects that contracts, designed in a different context, are no longer equipped to fulfill. There may be an intrinsic impact: the crisis materially hinders the execution of the contract (destruction of the item sold, interruption of international logistic chains, suspension of transportation, or collapse of a contractual benchmark). But the impact may also be extrinsic. Without directly preventing execution, the crisis alters the economic environment in which the contract was concluded. Economic balances disappear, operations lose their appeal, or become excessively costly for one of the parties.
Recent episodes – such as the Covid-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, the slowdown in Chinese growth, and the introduction of American tariffs – have highlighted this structural reality: in a globalized economy, geopolitical or health crises can immediately impact companies’ contractual relationships and the stability of their interactions. Litigations are increasing, and companies are facing growing legal uncertainty.
Strategic dispute resolution, a discreet pillar of economic stability
In these conditions, strategic dispute resolution is no longer just a technical question: anticipating, managing, and resolving contractual disputes arising from international crises is undoubtedly one of the most discreet but decisive pillars of economic stability.
To address this, various legal mechanisms – such as force majeure clauses – theoretically allow for the occurrence of an unforeseeable and external event to be taken into account. Practitioners also resort to so-called “MAC” or “MAE” clauses (Material Adverse Change / Material Adverse Effect), which allow a party to be released from its commitments when an event, occurring between the signature and realization of a financial transaction, significantly affects the company or the envisaged operation. However, there are many pitfalls: contracts do not always anticipate everything. Companies must also deal with another evolution of positive law: in theory and under certain strict conditions, the judge can now intervene in a contract that has become economically unsustainable to rebalance it.
Mastering litigation risk as a strategic lever
The increasing number of disputes prompts companies to question the strategy they should adopt in this matter. In a tense environment, conflict plays an increasingly significant role in business relations. Crises bring about disputes that can lead to multiple proceedings, sometimes in multiple jurisdictions and under different legal systems. This overlapping of frameworks increases the risks of concurrent procedures, conflicting timelines, and prolonged media exposure.
The challenge is no longer just to “win” a dispute. It is also to prevent contractual disputes from causing broader disorganization of economic activities.
Poorly managed strategic disputes can have chain effects: financial uncertainty, weakening of governance, tensions between business partners. Conversely, a structured management – either judicial or transactional – can restore confidence and contain the economic impact.
The robustness of companies is no longer just measured by their assets or innovation capacity but also by their ability to anticipate, manage, and resolve disputes. Legal security is a condition for economic security. In conclusion, the worst conflicts are those that are endured due to lack of anticipation. It is not enough to predict the unpredictable; one must also organize their response.
(*) Julie Pasternak is a lawyer and partner at the business law firm Darrois Villey Maillot Brochier, specializing in strategic dispute resolution. She advises companies and their leaders in conflict situations, both pre-contentious and contentious, and represents them in civil, commercial, and criminal courts. In 2026, Julie was distinguished by the “Next Generation of Business Lawyers” awards by Decision-makers which highlights, every two years, 30 young but essential lawyers in the business law field.
