State rules: Oil companies and armed conflict in Sudan

The strategic behaviour of international oil companies in war-torn Sudan was overwhelmingly driven by political pressure from governments. After almost 20 years of operating in Sudan, the US giant Chevron was pushed to withdraw as a result of deteriorating relations between Washington and Khartoum. The Canadian flagship oil company, Talisman, which helped kick-start oil development after Chevron's exit also fell victim to Washington's ire. On the other hand, the European junior oil companies, Lundin and omv, protected by the European Union's political standpoint of ‘constructive engagement’ in Sudan, were free to profit. Finally, the eastern parastatals, led by a surging China, eager to capture international energy resources to fuel their budding economies and supported by the plural relationships fostered between their respective governments and the ruling, riverine elite in Khartoum, tactfully established a dominating presence. While fervent international human rights advocacy alone seemingly drove susceptible Western firms out of Sudan, the real power behind corporate movements came from the rules dictated by states.