By Amirhasan Shafiee – Attorney at Law and Expert in International Law
The well-known “Crescent” case is one of the most complex and controversial energy-related international disputes involving Iran. Its legal, economic, and political aspects have been the subject of debate for years. The contract, signed in the early 2000s for the export of Iranian gas to the United Arab Emirates (via the Emirati company Crescent Petroleum), later faced serious challenges due to ambiguities in the contractual framework, allegations of corruption, and shifts in domestic policies. This article explores the key legal dimensions of the case.
⸻
1. Legal Nature of the Crescent Contract
Legally, the Crescent agreement is an international commercial contract between the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), through its subsidiary NICO, and Crescent Petroleum of the UAE. It was a long-term gas sale agreement, a type of contract that typically includes detailed provisions on pricing, price adjustment formulas, delivery methods, arbitration, and force majeure clauses.
One of the main criticisms of the contract was the instability of the gas sale price and the lack of an appropriate mechanism for price adjustment in response to inflation or market fluctuations. This issue triggered objections from some Iranian officials and eventually led to the suspension of the contract’s execution.
⸻
2. Administrative Corruption and Its Impact on Contract Validity
During domestic investigations, reports emerged indicating corruption, bribery, and irregularities in the contract’s formation process. These allegations led some Iranian authorities to claim the contract was fundamentally invalid.
However, under international law and arbitration principles, a claim of corruption can only lead to the nullification of a contract if it is substantiated with solid and admissible evidence. In the Crescent arbitration case, the international tribunal, while reviewing these allegations, ultimately upheld the validity of the contract and ruled against Iran, ordering it to pay damages.
⸻
3. Role of Arbitration and Governing Law
The dispute was submitted to international arbitration—most likely before the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). According to the contract, arbitration was the agreed-upon method for dispute resolution, and the applicable law was likely a combination of Iranian law and general principles of international commercial law or English law.
Throughout the arbitration proceedings, the tribunal emphasized the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) and Iran’s liability for breaching its contractual obligations. Iran’s argument that changes in government or national energy policy justified non-performance was not accepted as a valid excuse.
⸻
4. Iran’s State Responsibility and International Consequences
From an international law perspective, actions that lead to the breach of contractual obligations by state-owned enterprises can incur the international responsibility of the state itself. In the Crescent case, decisions by certain Iranian governmental bodies to block the execution of the contract effectively exposed the Iranian government to liability for billions of dollars in damages. These damages must be paid from national resources and have significant economic and reputational consequences for the country.
⸻
Conclusion
The Crescent case is a clear example of the legal complexities involved in international energy agreements. It demonstrates that poor contract drafting, lack of transparency, political interference, and policy instability can result in severe financial and legal consequences. Therefore, the formulation of major international contracts must be carried out under the careful supervision of legal experts, industry specialists, and independent institutions to prevent such crise
