Academic literature on the topic 'Anglo-Iranian Oil Company'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Anglo-Iranian Oil Company"
1
Ebrahimian, Mojtaba. "The Coup." American Journal of Islam and Society 31, no. 2 (April 1, 2014): 101–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.35632/ajis.v31i2.1038.
Full textAbstract:
In his most recent work, The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the Roots of ModernU. S.-Iranian Relations, Ervand Abrahamian (Distinguished Professor of Iranianand Middle Eastern History, Baruch College of the City University, NewYork) recounts a definitive moment of modern Iranian history that overshadowsIranian-American relations to this day. Drawing on a remarkable varietyof sources – accessible Iranian official documents, the Foreign Office andState Department files, memoirs and biographies, newspaper articles publishedduring the crisis, recent Persian-language books published in Iran, aCIA report leaked in 2000 known as “the Wilber document,” and two contemporaryoral history projects (the Iranian Oral History Project at HarvardUniversity and the Iranian Left history project in Berlin) – the author providesa detailed and thorough account of the 1953 coup.Challenging the dominant consensus among academicians and politicalanalysts that the coup transpired because of the Cold War rivalries betweenthe West and the Soviet Union, he locates it within the paradigms of the clashbetween an old imperialism and a burgeoning nationalism. He then traces itsorigins to Iran’s struggle to nationalize its oil industry and the Anglo-Americanalliance against this effort.The book is divided into four chapters. The first chapter, “Oil Nationalization,”narrates the history of Iran’s oil industry and various encounters betweenthe Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and the Iranians. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), an English company founded in 1908 followingthe discovery of a large oil field in Masjed Soleiman in southern Iran, wasrenamed AIOC in 1935. AIOC gradually turned into a vital British asset andprovided its treasury with more than £24 million a year in taxes and £92 millionin foreign exchange in the first decades of the twentieth century ...
2
Shafiee, Katayoun. "TECHNOPOLITICS OF A CONCESSIONARY CONTRACT: HOW INTERNATIONAL LAW WAS TRANSFORMED BY ITS ENCOUNTER WITH ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL." International Journal of Middle East Studies 50, no. 4 (November 2018): 627–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0020743818000909.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe Iranian government's decision to nationalize its British-controlled oil industry in 1951 was a landmark case in international law. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and the Iranian government clashed over whether international authorities had the right to arbitrate for them in disputes over the terms of the oil concession. Scholarship in Middle East studies has overlooked the role of concession terms in shaping political disputes in the 20th century. Rather than seeing legal studies of the oil industry on one side and power struggles and resources on the other, this article examines international court proceedings at The Hague to argue that Anglo-Iranian oil transformed international law. Novel mechanisms of economic and legal governance, set up to deal with an expanded community of nation-states, worked as techniques of political power that equipped the oil corporation with the power to associate Iran's oil with foreign control while generating new forms of law and contract that undermined resource nationalism.
3
Crinson, Mark. "Abadan: planning and architecture under the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company." Planning Perspectives 12, no. 3 (January 1997): 341–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026654397364681.
Full text
4
Abdelrehim, Neveen. "Rethinking “Oil Nationalism”." International Journal of Signs and Semiotic Systems 4, no. 2 (July 2015): 33–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijsss.2015070103.
Full textAbstract:
In the early twentieth century, Great Britain began a new wave of imperialism, focusing on areas in the Middle East strategic to enhance their trade. Iran was one of the countries in which Britain gained enormous power and influence. This power was derived from its control of Iranian oil resources, through the Anglo Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). After many years of AIOC producing oil in Iran with Iranian Government support, a wave of economic nationalism led to the nationalization of AIOC in 1951 by the Iranian Prime Minister Musaddiq. The nationalization of the AIOC angered the British and seemed part of a growing pattern of pressure on their interests culminating in wresting Musaddiq from the control of the oil industry. As a result, in considering the above effects, by using AIOC as a case study, a textual analysis of the Chairman's Statement to Shareholders is conducted and the validity of the Statements is reappraised with reference to historical evidence.
5
Abdelrehim, Neveen, and Steven Toms. "The obsolescing bargain model and oil: the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company 1933–1951." Business History 59, no. 4 (September 23, 2016): 554–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2016.1232397.
Full text
6
Abdelrehim, Neveen, Josephine Maltby, and Steven Toms. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Control: The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, 1933–1951." Enterprise & Society 12, no. 4 (December 2011): 824–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1467222700010697.
Full textAbstract:
A new conceptualization of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is presented as a means of asserting and maintaining corporate control in the face of political, economic, and social challenges. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) applied different strategies to maintain control of its Iranian assets in the face nationalist demands—political and covert mechanisms, market based, resource access controls, and CSR programs. This paper investigates the third, and least explored, strand of their strategy. It identifies managerial strategies for CSR engagement with respect to three corresponding interest groups: politicians and diplomats, shareholders, and local employees, drawing on a variety of previously unused archival sources. From prior studies it is unclear whether the AIOC's CSR programs, for example, in employment and housing, were motivated by social improvement, its business agenda, or responses to legislative pressures from the Iranian government. A detailed examination of CSR policy and private correspondence between AIOC's senior executives about their negotiations with the Iranian government shows that they engaged in and reported voluntary CSR activities to strengthen their reputation and negotiating position but refused to compromise on aspects of CSR that threatened the existing managerial hierarchy of control. This interpretation is supported by a content analysis of the company's annual reports in the years before and after nationalization, revealing a choice of topics and language intended to support its self-presentation as a socially concerned employer. The results of this study have wider implications for understanding CSR reporting as a corporate strategy to enhance negotiating and bargaining positions.
7
Kipping, Matthias. "Consultancy and conflicts : Bedaux at Lukens Steel and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company." Entreprises et histoire 25, no. 2 (2000): 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/eh.025.0009.
Full text
8
Abdelrehim, N., J. Maltby, and S. Toms. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Control: The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, 1933-1951." Enterprise and Society 12, no. 4 (July 16, 2011): 824–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/es/khr032.
Full text
9
Atabaki, Touraj. "From ‘Amaleh(Labor) toKargar(Worker): Recruitment, Work Discipline and Making of the Working Class in the Persian/Iranian Oil Industry." International Labor and Working-Class History 84 (2013): 159–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0147547913000306.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe extraction of oil in 1908 and the ensuing construction of an oil refinery, shipping docks and company towns in southwest Persia/Iran opened a new chapter in the nation's labor history. Enjoying absolute monopoly over the extraction, production and marketing of the oil, the Anglo-Persian/Iranian Oil Company (APOC, AIOC, now British Petroleum—BP) embarked on a massive labor recruitment campaign, drawing its recruits primarily from tribal and village-based laboring poor throughout a region. But, in a region where human needs were few and cheap, it was no easy task to persuade young men to leave their traditional mode of life in exchange for industrial milieu with radically different work patterns. Those who did join the oil industry's work force were then subjected to labor discipline of an advanced industrial economy, which eventually contributed to the formation of the early clusters of modern Iran's working class.
10
Hadi Mihi, Zulaikha, and Qahtan Raouf Abdullah. "The American factor influence on the British position during the Iranian oil crisis 1951-1953." Journal of University of Raparin 11, no. 3 (July 9, 2024): 235–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.26750/vol(11).no(3).paper10.
Full textAbstract:
The issue of nationalizing oil in Iran has already been addressed by researchers in previous studies that were characterized by comprehensiveness، However، this study attempts to shed light on the ongoing controversy in some aspects related to the British position، which were not resolved in previous studies، in light of the data which we obtained from unpublished documents and the recently published British and American documents and memoirs of decision makers in the countries concerned. There are still those who believe that the oil interests of Western companies were the most important factor in formulating the British and American decision، but there is another school that believes that the security factor and the exigencies of the Cold War were the most important factor in resolving matter the way it was done. This study is an attempt to shed further light on this controversy. The study will give special importance to the American factor and its influence on the British position during the Iranian oil crisis. The importance of the research is evident in the fact that it specializes in studying the first real attempt by a country that seeks to nationalize one of its most important resources in the Middle East in the atmosphere of the Cold War. Therefore، the study is an attempt to explain and analyze how and why the government of Muhammad Mosaddeq was seeking to nationalize Iranian oil ، and we discuss the challenges it faced in order to achieve that goal. As for the methodology of the paper، we study the debate on the subject by following the historical methodology in addressing the issues in a chronological way and critically analyzing the discourse. While doing the analyses، we compare the British archival material with that of American and the Iranian. The collected data from the archival material will be used to evaluate the previous studies in the field. As for the structure of the research، it consists of an introduction، two sections، and the conclusion. In the preface، light is shed on a historical renunciation of the Anglo-Iranian company. As for the first section، it is devoted to studying the development of British oil interests in Iran (1902-1951)، in which the conflicting British and Russian interests towards Iranian oil addressed. Besides، the differences between the views of the Iranian government and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company during 1947-1951 on the oil crisis are explained in detail. The second topic deals with the stand of the United States of America on the oil crises and its impact on formulating British position during the Iranian oil crisis 1951-1953.While explaining the US stand on the crisis ، we will point the two distinct stages in this regard .Finally ، we explain and discuss how the US and British government had eventually reached the conclusion that a joint efforts were needed to overthrow the government of Muhammad Mossadegh on August 19، 1953. In the end study will present its most important findings.
Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Anglo-Iranian Oil Company"
1
Abdelrehim, Neveen. "Oil nationalisation and managerial disclosure : the case of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, 1933-1951." Thesis, University of York, 2010. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/1417/.
Full textAbstract:
The principal aim of this thesis is to contribute towards the understanding of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC, now British Petroleum) practices in Iran and thereby providing a clear picture of how nationalisation evolved on 1st May 1951 and how it was perceived by the stock market. Nationalisation brought into sharp focus issues affecting key AIOC stakeholder groups, including Iranian employees, Iranian government and UK investors which became the subject of claim and counter-claim from the AIOC board and Iranian nationalist opinion. As a consequence of these disputed claims, a propaganda battle became a crucial ingredient of the crisis, not least because a key objective of the AIOC management was to maintain investor confidence in the face of a major threat to its asset base but also reflecting the AIOC's ability to defend itself from the claims made by the Iranian government about unfairness in the sharing of proceeds, and discrimination against Iranians. In fact, this was crucial in absolving the company from any blame for the international crisis. As a result, in considering the above effects, by using AIOC as a case study, contrasts are drawn between the AIOC's management's public view of the crisis and the actual events as documented in the literature, official papers, and financial records. It is worth noting that this research will examine the extent to which the company exploited and manifested Iranian rights by drawing on evidence from major neglected documents. Furthermore, this research will examine the degree to which imperialism has been applied to the Iranian society. The study shows that the AIOC was not prepared to give up any of its control over the Iranian oil resources nor to improve the concession for the Iranians. With that rationale, the AIOC failed to fulfil its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) obligations towards the Iranian employees and the company's treatment of Iran was unfair in terms of profit sharing. The study also highlights that the AIOC management did a good job in maintaining the investors' confidence and in defending the company from the Iranian claims at a time of the nationalisation crisis.
2
Moussavizadeh, A. R. "British foreign policy towards Iran with special reference to the nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, 1948-54." Thesis, Swansea University, 1993. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.638268.
Full textAbstract:
This thesis examines British foreign policy towards Iran with special reference to the nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, 1948-54. It is not about the internal politics of Iran. The thesis is concerned with the British perception of the crisis. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (which changed its name in December, 1954 to the British Petroleum Company Limited), was one of the world's major oil companies. It was the most important British enterprise overseas and the main British interest in the Persian Gulf. Oil was a vital issue in British foreign policy. In 1951 the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was nationalised by the Iranian Government. The thesis has traced and analysed the response of two British political parties to what they perceived as a major threat to British interests in an era of severe economic and industrial difficulties. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's crisis developed when the Labour Government of 1945-51 was still in power. It came to an end when the Conservative Government was in office in 1954. The thesis provides a brief historical account of Britain and Iran's relationship. Iran's role in the United Kingdom's strategic thinking for the protection of the Indian subcontinent and the discovery of its huge oil reserves which led to the establishment of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and turned her into a strategic asset for the British Empire which lasted for more than half of the twentieth century has first been discussed. An account of the British Government's involvement in the Iranian oil is given, followed by the events leading to the nationalisation crisis of 1951. An analysis of the Labour Government's policy towards the nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company has been made.
3
Uzel, Meltem. "British Sea Power And Oil Policy In The Persian Gulf 1909-1914." Master's thesis, METU, 2006. http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/3/12608056/index.pdf.
Full textAbstract:
This thesis attempts to describe the role of the British Admiralty&rsquos oil related naval policies from 1909 to 1914 in the formation of British oil diplomacy in the northern hinterlands of the Persian Gulf. On the basis of this attempt, it examines the precise beginning of oil security concerns of Britain and its articulation on the southwest Persian and Mesopotamian oil basins in light of the transition of the Royal Navy from coal to oil burning internal combustion engines. It delineates the interconnectedness of the issues relating to the significance of oil in British naval developments and naval supremacy and her clash of interests with the other Great Naval Powers, which had significant interest in oil rich Mesopotamia and southern Persia. By 1914, the Admiralty, through its exceptional relations with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in the hinterlands of the Persian Gulf became an important actor in the government&rsquo
s involvement in the oil industry. This thesis, suggests that the Admiralty was the political demand channel in the processes of British imperial expansion under the spread of new imperialism in general, and in the consolidation of fuel oil security in particular. The study will be a contribution to the academic literature on the history of naval powers in Turkey.
4
Dobe, Michael Edward. "A long slow tutelage in Western ways of work industrial education and the containment of nationalism in Anglo-Iranian and ARAMCO, 1923-1963." 2008. http://hdl.rutgers.edu/1782.2/rucore10001600001.ETD.17458.
Full textBooks on the topic "Anglo-Iranian Oil Company"
1
Martschukat, Jürgen. Antiimperialismus, Öl und die Special Relationship: Die Nationalisierung der Anglo-Iranian Oil Company im Iran 1951-54. Münster: Lit, 1995.
Find full textBook chapters on the topic "Anglo-Iranian Oil Company"
1
Bremmer, Ian, and Preston Keat. "Expropriation." In The Fat Tail, 123–42. Oxford University PressNew York, NY, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195328554.003.0007.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Until 1951, Iran’s oil industry was dominated by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the forerunner of today’s BP. That year, amid growing resentment of the British presence in the oil industry, Iran’s government passed a law nationalizing Anglo-Iranian’s concession. The company’s management failed to recognize signals that political change would soon force an adjustment in the company’s relationship with Iran until it was far too late. This expropriation was driven not only by the Iranian government’s demand for a greater share of the country’s oil revenue but also by a growing wave of wounded national pride inspired in part by the exploitation of Iran’s natural resources by foreigners. Anglo-Iranian’s management, led by Sir William Fraser, initially resisted Iranian demands for a greater share of its profits, despite pleas for compromise from the U.S. and British governments, the latter of which owned 51% of the company. By the time Anglo-Iranian was ready to make a deal, nationalist politicians, led by Mohammed Mossadeq, had shifted their demands. No longer content with a larger piece of the pie, Mossadeq called for the company to be nationalized. Mounting political violence and pressure forced the shah to sign a nationalization law in April 1951, officially voiding Anglo-Iranian’s concession.
2
Lustig, Doreen. "Back to Informal Empire?" In Veiled Power, 144–78. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198822097.003.0006.
Full textAbstract:
Chapter 6 is devoted to the Abadan Crisis and the circumstances surrounding the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the dispute between Britain and Iran over the ownership of oil in Iran, known as the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company case. The Iranians’ argument for their sovereign right to oil was based on the corporate veil of the state as a justification for the expropriation of the company’s assets and the corporate veil of the company to sustain the separation between ownership (the British Government) and control (the company’s management). The Iranian position used an old toolbox to promote a vision of a new postcolonial world order based on equality and distributive justice. The chapter juxtaposes the Iranian position with Philip Jessup’s theory of transnational law and the hermeneutics of legal realism in the British position and chronicles how the Iranian strategy and success in the ICJ eventually ushered the shift toward a new international investment law regime.
3
Hiro, Dilip. "Black Gold and America Shape Iran and Saudi Arabia." In Cold War in the Islamic World, 21–38. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190944650.003.0002.
Full textAbstract:
The discovery of oil near Masjid-e-Suleiman in Iran in 1908 by a British company aroused interest in Britain and America to explore the wider region for it. Standard Oil Company of California (Socal) secured oil concessions in Saudi Arabia from King Ibn Saud in 1933. The subsequent Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco) struck oil in 1938. The importance of Saudi petroleum increased when, following Iran’s nationalization of the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) in 1951, Western countries boycotted Iranian oil. The political turmoil in Iran ended with the restoration of the briefly deposed Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi to the throne with the assistance of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in August 1953. He leased the rights to Iran’s petroleum to the consortium of four Western oil companies for twenty-five years. With that, the United States became the prime Western influence in Tehran. By then Riyadh had forged military links with Washington. Soon rivalry developed between King Saud, a spendthrift ruler, and his austere Crown Prince Faisal. It ended with Saud abdicating in favor of Faisal in 1964. Four years earlier, Saudi Arabia had become one of the five founders of the Organization of Oil Exporting Countries (OPEC).
4
Biglari, Mattin. "Making Oil Men: Expertise, Discipline and Subjectivity in The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company’s Training Schemes." In Life Worlds of Middle Eastern Oil, edited by Nelida Fuccaro and Mandana E. Limbert, 221–50. Edinburgh University Press, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781399506144.003.0010.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter focuses on the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC)’s training schemes in Iran in the years leading up to the country’s oil nationalisation in 1951, situating these between multiple scales: global, national, and local. On the one hand, it examines how AIOC used training as a form of labour management, aiming to produce gendered and racialised subjectivities by turning boys into loyal ‘oil men’. In doing so, the company drew on practices from colonial education schemes and wider corporate capitalism. On the other hand, it explores whether, in a context of rising resource nationalism, training met political obligations to the Iranian government by increasing the number of Iranians in senior staff positions. The chapter argues that although training was nominally supposed to produce oil experts, it ultimately blocked this from happening by marginalising manual labour, making access to expertise politically contentious. In all, training inadvertently produced anti-colonial subjectivities, as apprentices mobilised through AIOC’s training centres and were central to its expulsion in 1951. At the same time, however, training had produced a layer of students who aspired to the expertise of their former British managers, allowing for the reproduction of colonial epistemologies in the years ahead.
5
Painter, David S., and Gregory Brew. "Crisis in Iran." In The Struggle for Iran, 37–64. University of North Carolina Press, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.5149/northcarolina/9781469671666.003.0003.
Full textAbstract:
In April 1951, Mohammad Mosaddeq became prime minister of Iran and nationalized the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. For Iranian nationalists, taking control of their oil industry was an important step toward freeing the nation from foreign influence. The British government strongly supported AIOC and sought to organize Mosaddeq’s removal from power and retain control over Iran’s oil. With the Korean War at its height, the United States wanted to avoid another crisis and US officials worried that nationalization and conflict with Great Britain would produce conditions where communists could take power in Iran. On the recommendation of Secretary of State Dean Acheson, President Harry S Truman sent veteran diplomat Averell Harriman to Iran to broker an agreement that would allow AIOC to remain in control, kept the oil flowing, and satisfy Iran’s nationalists. Neither side would compromise on the issue of control, and after the United States convinced the British to abandon plans to seize the giant AIOC refinery at Abadan, AIOC withdrew from Iran and instituted a boycott of Iranian oil exports.
6
"Rethinking Iran and International Law: The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case Revisited." In The International Legal Order: Current Needs and Possible Responses, 53–74. Brill | Nijhoff, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004314375_006.
Full text
7
Perrone, Nicolás M. "The Norm Entrepreneurs of the 1950s and 1960s." In Investment Treaties and the Legal Imagination, 51–80. Oxford University Press, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198862147.003.0003.
Full textAbstract:
In the post-World War II period, business leaders, bankers, and their lawyers decided it was their time to write the rules of the global economy. They felt that the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (in 1951) and of the Suez Canal (in 1956), together with increasing state economic intervention all around the world, warranted a call for action. They formed a coalition to enable and safeguard a world of free enterprise; promoting and protecting foreign private investment was a top priority. This chapter examines who these norm entrepreneurs were, their networks, and how they captured the space of international investment law to advance their world-making project. As individuals and through professional associations, they imagined quite detailed institutions and standards for this legal field. They discussed foreign investor rights, indirect expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, the internationalization of contracts, reliance, the inadequacy of local remedies, and the crucial role of international arbitration.
8
Biglari, Mattin. "10 MAKING OIL MEN: EXPERTISE, DISCIPLINE AND SUBJECTIVITY IN THE ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL COMPANY’S TRAINING SCHEMES." In Life Worlds of Middle Eastern Oil, 221–48. Edinburgh University Press, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781399506168-013.
Full text