The first half of 2026 has reinforced a fundamental shift in how organisations approach supply chain risk. Rather than responding to isolated disruptions, organisations are redesigning supply chains to withstand a prolonged period of geopolitical uncertainty, economic nationalism and regulatory change.
Global supply chains continue to face unprecedented pressure from geopolitical instability, trade restrictions, climate-related disruption and increasing regulatory scrutiny. Against that backdrop, the UK Government has published two significant papers that, whilst not creating new legal obligations, provide a valuable insight into how businesses will increasingly be expected to understand, manage and build resilience into their supply chains.
This article summarises the key findings from both publications and explores some of the legal and commercial issues that businesses may wish to consider in light of the Government’s evolving approach to supply chain resilience. For legal, procurement and supply chain professionals, these publications—and the direction of travel they signal—are well worth reading.
To read the full alert, please click the button below.
Global supply chains in the first quarter of 2026 are being shaped by a convergence of geopolitical tension, trade policy volatility, and regulatory expansion.
What distinguishes the current environment is not isolated disruption, but the increasing normalisation of multi-layered, overlapping risks – where conflict, tariffs, and compliance obligations interact simultaneously.
For legal teams, supply-chain risk is now firmly embedded as a core business and legal priority.
The US‑Israeli strikes on Iran and swift regional retaliation has triggered significant instability across global energy and shipping markets. Prices are climbing, key routes are compromised, and one of the world’s most strategically important waterways has faced temporary closure. With such extensive disruption, many businesses are asking an inevitable question: do these events trigger force majeure or material adverse change rights under their contracts?
Force Majeure: The Essentials
Under English law, the term is simply a label for a type of contractual provision designed to address unexpected, disruptive events.
Please contact: Tim Flamank or Francesco Liberatore with any questions.
Supply chain disruption remains a key risk in the semiconductor industry. Recent events have shown that even beyond high-tech corners of the sector, supply and demand dynamics over critical components, expertise and end products can change quickly and dramatically. The consequences for the automotive industry are potentially stark. In this alert, we consider some current trends in the semiconductor industry and suggest legal best practices arising from these. We show practical ways in which understanding and anticipating the legal risks of disruption can be a game-changer in mitigating its impact.
Export controls affecting key components
Export controls are the (if not one of the most) prominent topic of concern across international semiconductor supply chains at the beginning of 2026. Increasingly muscular government intervention across many major parts of the supply chain—from rare earths and advanced manufacturing machinery all the way through to finished chips—has given rise to disruption and uncertainty. Moreover, export control measures are no longer confined to the most advanced, AI-focused chips, with policies becoming increasingly inconsistent and difficult to predict. Many manufacturers are being forced to consider how government intervention might impact their operations and contractual arrangements.
Please contact: Sam B. Ballingrud, D. Michael Kaye, Ludmilla L. Kasulke, Jeremy W. Dutra, Christopher J. Duncan, or Keith Bradley with any questions.
On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections on President Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs, and we expect the court will issue a decision by the end of the year. Several justices appeared skeptical that IEEPA allows the President to impose tariffs. Importers should prepare to preserve their rights to obtain refunds if the court’s majority overturns the tariffs.
Please contact D. Michael Kaye, Jeremy W. Dutra, Keith Bradley, and Anya Bharat Ram with any questions.
On November 5, 2025, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will hear the Trump administration’s appeal of lower court decisions holding the president’s imposition of the “fentanyl” and “reciprocal” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)1 unlawful.
Given the importance of the issue and that the stay of the lower court decisions has allowed the US to continue collecting IEEPA duties, we expect the court to issue its decision expeditiously, most likely before the end of 2025.
Our industry experts have come together for our recent podcast series, Supply Chain Reaction, to explore the latest issues facing supply chains worldwide, including risk management, new regulations, supply chain strategy and how to manage different types of contracts. Join our panel of lawyers from a variety of practices as they discuss a specific topic or case study each episode. Episodes include:
BACKGROUND
The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) was enacted on December 23, 2021, and implemented on June 22, 2022. The UFLPA was designed to prevent the importation of goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part with forced labor in China. The multi-agency Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF) monitors and develops the UFLPA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforces its regulations. The UFLPA relies on a rebuttable presumption that any goods, wares, articles, or merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, or produced by an entity on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, were made with forced labor and as such, are prohibited from entering the United States. Since its implementation, CBP has examined more than 16,000 shipments, valued at almost $3.7 billion.
The product liability law of the United Arab Emirates is still relatively new. It was first introduced in 2006 as Federal Law No. 24/2006. This law has been superseded by a more comprehensive legal regime in 2020, the Federal Law No. 15/2020, as amended by Federal Decree-Law No. 5/2023 (“Consumer Protection Law”).[1] The existing legal framework was further developed through the Cabinet Decision No. 66/2023 (“Executive Regulation”).[2]
