[extract] The introduction of terrorism to the doctrine of force majeure raises many questions. There is also a distinct lack of case law concerning terrorism as force majeure. This leaves parties to a contract with little or no guidelines as to whether an act of terrorism constitutes a force majeure event. This paper will raise some of the essential questions, and try to give some clarification as to some of the questions concerning the issue. How should we define terrorism? Should terrorism be seen as an ‘act of war’? What should the courts do if the parties have left terrorism out of their force majeure clause? And finally, can the normal requirements of the doctrine such as an unforeseen impediment beyond the parties control be sustained when terrorism is the triggering event?
To answer some of these question, it is essential to do some study on the general field of force majeure. This will primarily be done by looking comparatively at the different national legal systems. A brief look at force majeure on the international scene will also be given.
"Terrorism and Force Majeure in International Contracts,"
Bond Law Review:
2, Article 7.
Available at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr/vol16/iss2/7