Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Department of Law, Go, C., Islamic Azad University, Gorgan, Iran.
2
Department of Law, Da, C., Islamic Azad University, Damghan, Iran.
3
Department of Private Law, Go, C., Islamic Azad University, Gorgan, Iran.
10.22091/ijicl.2026.14216.1194
Abstract
Good faith, as one of the fundamental principles in contract law, plays a key role in ensuring the fair and effective enforcement of oil and gas contracts. This principle is interpreted differently across various legal systems, with distinct approaches and requirements, and has a direct impact on both domestic and international contractual relations. Accordingly, the main objective of this research is to conduct a comparative analysis of the dimensions of good faith in oil and gas contracts and identify the legal differences and similarities between Iran and Norway. The primary research question is: "How is the principle of good faith interpreted and implemented in oil and gas contracts under Iranian and Norwegian law, and what impact does it have on contractual relations?" The hypothesis suggests that structural and legal differences between the two countries influence the interpretation and implementation of good faith, and these differences could have significant practical consequences for international oil and gas contracts. The research findings, based on a comparative and descriptive-analytical analysis of legal documents, sample contracts, and case law in both countries, as well as the use of the theory of general principles of contract law and the theory of good faith, show that in Norway, good faith is recognized as a binding principle at all stages of the contract, from negotiation to execution and dispute resolution, directly affecting the interpretation of contractual clauses and the behavior of the parties. In Iran, good faith is primarily used in the interpretation of contracts and filling legal gaps, with a more limited binding effect. Additionally, the research indicates that in Norway, a violation of good faith can lead to civil liability and compensation, whereas in Iran, its legal effects are mainly limited to references to equity and judicial practices. The research results suggest that understanding the comparative differences in good faith can contribute to the drafting of more effective international contracts and reduce legal disputes.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)