Dispute over the 1974 MoU Box between Indonesia and Australia: How MoU Legally Binding in Two Countries?

Salwa Noviana Putri, Ariq Fazari, Nico Ari Widodo, Faishal Fatahillah, Satria Dwinugraha
{"title":"Dispute over the 1974 MoU Box between Indonesia and Australia: How MoU Legally Binding in Two Countries?","authors":"Salwa Noviana Putri, Ariq Fazari, Nico Ari Widodo, Faishal Fatahillah, Satria Dwinugraha","doi":"10.15294/ipmhi.v4i1.76236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to delineate the legal authority of Memorandum of Understanding (MoUs) within the jurisdictions of Indonesia and Australia, particularly concerning the resolution of international civil law disputes. The research employs a normative juridical approach, utilizing legal reviews and secondary data for support. The findings reveal that in civil law states, notably Indonesia, MoUs are regarded as binding agreements in accordance with the \"Agreement is Agreement\" perspective as per Article 1338 (1) of the Civil Code. Conversely, common law states, such as Australia, generally perceive MoUs as non-legally binding. However, an MoU may attain validity and binding status if it fulfills the six stipulated requirements outlined in Australian contract law. To address the dispute surrounding the 1974 MoU BOX between Indonesia and Australia, resolution options include examining international civil law rules based on primary and secondary links or resorting to an international arbitral tribunal.","PeriodicalId":350341,"journal":{"name":"Ikatan Penulis Mahasiswa Hukum Indonesia Law Journal","volume":"62 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ikatan Penulis Mahasiswa Hukum Indonesia Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15294/ipmhi.v4i1.76236","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to delineate the legal authority of Memorandum of Understanding (MoUs) within the jurisdictions of Indonesia and Australia, particularly concerning the resolution of international civil law disputes. The research employs a normative juridical approach, utilizing legal reviews and secondary data for support. The findings reveal that in civil law states, notably Indonesia, MoUs are regarded as binding agreements in accordance with the "Agreement is Agreement" perspective as per Article 1338 (1) of the Civil Code. Conversely, common law states, such as Australia, generally perceive MoUs as non-legally binding. However, an MoU may attain validity and binding status if it fulfills the six stipulated requirements outlined in Australian contract law. To address the dispute surrounding the 1974 MoU BOX between Indonesia and Australia, resolution options include examining international civil law rules based on primary and secondary links or resorting to an international arbitral tribunal.
印度尼西亚与澳大利亚之间关于 1974 年谅解备忘录文本框的争议:谅解备忘录如何在两国具有法律约束力?
本研究旨在界定谅解备忘录(MoUs)在印度尼西亚和澳大利亚司法管辖范围内的法律权威,尤其是在解决国际民法争端方面。研究采用规范法学方法,利用法律评论和二手数据作为支持。研究结果表明,在大陆法系国家,尤其是印度尼西亚,根据《民法典》第 1338 (1) 条 "协议即协议 "的观点,谅解备忘录被视为具有约束力的协议。相反,在澳大利亚等英美法系国家,谅解备忘录通常不具有法律约束力。不过,如果谅解备忘录符合澳大利亚合同法规定的六项要求,则可获得有效性和约束力。要解决印尼和澳大利亚之间围绕 1974 年《谅解备忘录》的争端,解决方法包括审查基于主要和次要联系的国际民法规则或诉诸国际仲裁庭。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信