Elguido,That is not actually correct. Senegal is not, as far as...

Elguido,

That is not actually correct. Senegal is not, as far as I know, signatory to any international treaty that would specifically protect FAR's rights.

And on international law, that is a commonly misused term. It is most likely that the exploration licence, like most international contracts, is based on the law of one of the contracting parties, and in this case I'm pretty sure it would be senegalese law and not Australian law.

As far as the terms of the licence go, they are obviously confidential so we have no way of knowing whether the senegalese govt has an easy out or not. It is not unusual for each party to try to slip these 'termination for convenience' type clauses in. One would hope that FAR's lawyers made sure it was pretty tight.

That aside, it is certainly not unheard for a party, and particularly a party that feels they can get away with it, to reject or otherwise attempt to avoid a contract. In this event FAR would probably be forced to go to international arbitration, or whatever dispute resolution process is defined in the contract. Senegal is a member of the WTO but is listed as one of the 'least developed nations' a status that would probably give them more lenient treatment in arbitration.

There are a lot a broad brush statements on HC forums generally, but you should make it clear that it is your opinion and you are not legally qualified.

Cheers,

MM