Abstract This article explores the limitations of default hardship rules in the context of international construction contracts implemented in conflict-affected regions. In such environments, rapidly changing circumstances pose severe challenges to contractual performance. While domestic legal systems offer various hardship doctrines, they often fall short of addressing the dynamic and fragmented risks arising from armed conflicts. Drawing upon both comparative legal sources and contractual practice, the article argues that proactive and contract-based mechanisms offer a more effective and commercially viable response. It proposes a multi-tiered contractual framework that includes: – clear definitions of extraordinary circumstances; – objective criteria for determining the existence and impact of conflict-related hardship; – a structured duty to renegotiate with enforceable consequences; – and flexible tools for temporary adaptation and commercially reasonable tolerance periods. The study emphasizes that such mechanisms are essential not only to manage risk but also to prevent disputes and preserve the continuity of performance. By moving beyond abstract legal doctrines and instead relying on tailored contractual solutions, parties can achieve greater predictability, fairness, and resilience – particularly in high-risk environments where judicial or arbitral remedies may prove too slow or ineffective.
Ece Baş Süzel (2026) studied this question.