Agreement In Indonesian Language

Under Article 26, paragraph 4, in the event of differing interpretations between the English or the foreign language version and Bahasa Indonesia`s version of a treaty, the agreed language of such a treaty should apply. PR 63 does not distinguish Indonesian subjects who may have foreign interest groups, such as LDCs (considered private Indonesian companies). Of course, Article 26, paragraph 1, Of Treaty 2 that contracts concluded by an Indonesian party involving a foreign party are (also) treated in the language of that foreign party and/or English and that Article 26, paragraph 4, allows the parties to agree on the government language (which could therefore be English), but it is not certain that the same provisions and principles apply in the case of a LDC contracting with another Indonesian legal person. In this context, would the parties be required to sign the contract only on the basis of an Indonesian levy, when it does not correspond to the wishes and interests of the parties involved in such a transaction (including foreign stakeholders)? Unfortunately, the clear answers to these questions are not found in PR 63. However, the PR 63 edition should review this approach. With the passage of PR 63, it is clear that for future transactions, a bilingual format (or another format that the parties choose as long as there is a corresponding version in Indonesian language) is required. The regulation argues that the non-Indonesian version is equivalent or translated to ensure a common understanding between the contracting parties. For the second scenario, in accordance with Article 26, paragraph 3, of PR 63, the foreign language and/or English version is used only as an equivalence or translation of the Indonesian version, in order to reconcile the understanding of agreements and agreements to which the foreign parties are parties. This provision raises the question of when the Indonesian version of the agreement should be implemented. In addition, PR 63 expressly confirms that the parties to an agreement and/or agreement involving foreign parties have the flexibility to agree on the dominant language that would prevail in the event of contradictions between language versions.

In the meantime, our recommendations to Members remain in place, i.e. that MEPs must establish, prepare and execute bilingual versions of all trade agreements involving an Indonesian party, regardless of existing legislation.