This study examines the response and jurisprudential approach of arbitral tribunals under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) when dealing with this phenomenon. The research seeks to answer whether, in modern arbitral practice, unilateral sanctions are still recognized as an “insurmountable legal impediment” or rather as a “foreseeable commercial risk” for which the parties themselves must bear responsibility. This study adopts a qualitative approach and employs the method of legal text content analysis. The statistical population consists of 25 arbitral awards issued between 2012 and 2024. The findings indicate a paradigmatic shift in arbitral practice: arbitrators have moved away from treating sanctions as an instance of absolute force majeure and have instead embraced an analysis centered on the parties’ reasonable efforts to overcome sanctions-related obstacles. The results further show that arbitrators distinguish between United Nations Security Council sanctionsas part of international public policy and unilateral sanctions as an external event. In the latter case, they display a greater tendency toward contract adaptation rather than termination. Ultimately, modern arbitral practice considers the legitimacy of a sanctions-based excuse to depend not merely on the existence of sanctions, but on the parties’ active conduct .