| This research examines the effects of asymmetric negotiations, types of terminologies used in the oil agreements, and of regime change on the oil concession agreements in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. It attempts to identify the relationship of those variables with conflict creation within the institutions of those countries and investigates the controversial relationship between them and the oil companies. To conduct the investigation, a framework was developed and multi-methods were used. The framework was utilized to identify the parties in the oil companies, and in the countries, as well as the influences on them. Focused comparison was used to compare the oil concession agreements and infer the controversial terminologies that created future disputes between the parties. Content analysis of the diplomatic communications was conducted to draw supporting results. Several interviews with key informants were conducted to confirm key events. Finally, three case studies were produced and the three central topics were discussed thoroughly. The types of asymmetry ranging from absolute to relative to vanished that were utilized in the negotiations were examined, the controversial terminologies were highlighted, and effects of the regime change on concession agreements were discussed.; As a result, the evidence presented in the research supports the notion that power asymmetry in negotiations permitted the oil companies to have highly advantageous roles during the oil concession negotiations. It also supports the argument that terminologies utilized in the oil concession agreements provided the foundation for future conflicts. In addition, the results also support the argument that the regime change in Iran and Iraq contributed to the severity of the dispute over the oil concession agreements in those countries. Finally, the evidence provided supports the argument that the stability of the Saudi regime provided a suitable environment for a sustainable agreement. |
