On the other hand, before complying with Trump`s wishes, Lighthizer said the mous were “legally binding” and “contractual.” This description of memoranda of understanding is not consistent with the commercial understanding of MEMoranda of Understanding, but Lighthizer is correct that memoranda of understanding between governments may be legally binding under international law. As the U.S. State Department`s guidelines on international agreements explain, given the recent public disputes between Donald Trump and USTR Robert Lighthizer over the difference between a memorandum of understanding and a trade agreement, I thought a short blog post would be appropriate. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is a type of agreement between two or more (bilateral) parties. It expresses a concordance of will between the parties and indicates a common approach. [1] It is often used either in cases where the parties do not imply a legal obligation, or in situations where the parties cannot conclude a legally enforceable agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen`s agreement. [2] [3] In any event, the point of legality also needs to be clarified, since China has adopted a broader definition of a legally binding international agreement in contexts other than the United States. For example, he repeatedly calls on the United States to adhere to the three joint communiqués that led to a normalization of U.S.-China relations in 1979. But the US has never treated these communiqués as anything other than non-binding “political commitments.” The United States has also treated other important agreements as “non-binding,” such as the Paris Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). China could claim that it is not legally bound by the MOU (as the US has claimed in this context). In business, a memorandum of understanding is usually a non-legally binding agreement between two (or more) parties that describes the terms and details of a mutual understanding or agreement and sets out the requirements and responsibilities of each party – but without establishing a formal and legally enforceable contract (although a memorandum of understanding is often a first step towards developing a formal contract).

[2] [3] It is not often that the US president and his top trade representative in the Oval Office debate the intricacies of international law in front of the global press and senior Chinese officials. But President Trump and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer did so last Friday when they publicly debated whether the eventual U.S.-China trade deal would be called a “memorandum of understanding” (MOU) or a “trade deal.” Here`s the stock market, pro Bloomberg. Lighthizer is therefore right that MEMoranda of Understanding are used as legally binding contracts in the commercial context, even though Trump is right that MEMoranda of Understanding in the private sector context generally mean non-binding preliminary promises. Both want a legally binding agreement and are simply arguing over the terms. Another feature of the MOU is that it may resemble a written contract, but is generally not binding on the parties as a whole. However, most of these agreements contain binding provisions, such as.B. confidentiality and non-competition obligations. The two Memoranda of Understanding that are most commonly used in international transactions are the Memorandum of Understanding for International Distribution and the Memorandum of Understanding for Joint Ventures. In fact, the only thing that triggers the requirement for 2/3 Approval of the Senate is the executive`s desire to call something a treaty because it wants to make and demonstrate a firm national commitment to the agreement and/or because it wants certain national legal consequences to follow, since treaties are the law of the land in a way that executive agreements are not.

Lighthizer then stepped in to defend the strategy while Trump watched. “A letter of intent is a binding agreement between two people,” he said. “It`s detailed. It covers everything in detail. It is a legal term. It is a contract. While the use of a title such as “Memorandum of Understanding” is common for non-binding documents, we caution that simply labeling a document as a “Memorandum of Understanding” does not automatically mean to the United States that the document is not binding under international law. The United States has signed memoranda of understanding that we consider to be binding international agreements. But given that the US-China trade deal is unlikely to be subject to judicial interpretation in the WTO Dispute Settlement Body or elsewhere, one can rightly ask whether the agreement is “legally binding”? Although it is not a legally binding document, the letter of intent is an important step because of the time and effort required to negotiate and create an effective document. In order to establish a letter of intent, the participating parties must reach a mutual agreement.

In the process, each party learns what is most important to the others before moving forward. Under U.S. law, a letter of intent is the same as a letter of intent. In fact, a memorandum of understanding, a memorandum of understanding and a memorandum of understanding are virtually indistinguishable. Everyone communicates an agreement on a mutually beneficial goal and a desire to achieve it. In fact, the U.S. and China only recently signed a seemingly legally binding letter of intent to restrict trade in archaeological artifacts from China. The two countries have also entered into numerous memoranda of understanding to resolve trade disputes.

It would be strange if these important agreements were to be considered non-binding. Let us now look at the agreements between states. When two states enter into an agreement they call an “MOU,” it may or may not be similar in intent to a trade agreement – that is, a precursor to subsequent negotiations that simply set parameters for what can be considered differences in good faith and what should be considered a waiver. It could also be a reminder of a certain specific agreement between these States. My general feeling is that if the agreement is comprehensive, it will be called an “agreement” while if it is specific and relatively short, it will be called an “MOU”. (If this is something the executive wants to submit to the Senate for approval with a 2/3 vote, then this is called a “treaty.”) The question of applicability simply does not get to the heart of the matter, since there is no power of execution. Lighthizer quickly backtracked and simply agreed to call the upcoming deal with China a “trade deal.” (Apparently, all draft treaties have already been renamed.) The video of the exchange is actually more illuminating than the written report as it shows that Trump and Lighthizer have a terminological rather than substantial disagreement. Both seem to want a legally binding agreement with China. Their disagreement is whether what is called a memorandum of understanding can be such a binding agreement.

A letter of intent is the expression of agreement to move forward. This shows that the parties have reached an agreement and are moving forward. Although it is not legally binding, it is a serious explanation that a contract is imminent. A statement of intent clearly describes specific points of understanding. It names the parties, describes the project on which they agree, defines its scope and describes the roles and responsibilities of each party. An informal document, document or instrument that serves as the basis for a future contract. A memorandum of understanding between companies is a document such as a contract, but it is not binding on the parties unless confidentiality and non-competition agreements are included. It is essentially a set of key points of an agreement between two parties negotiating a contract; in this regard, a memorandum of understanding is simply the agreement signed before the final contract. Memoranda of Understanding are also known for their acronym MOU. The main objectives of a memorandum of understanding for international trade transactions are as follows: it should be remembered that the form of the trade agreement with China and its legal status will be much less important than the content of these agreements. But legality is a non-trivial issue that, if left unresolved, could undermine or weaken any substance. Lighthizer is right to say that it doesn`t matter what you call the deal, but Trump isn`t completely wrong in his instinctive sense that mous are usually meant to be at least partially uncommitted.

But Trump comes from the private business context where the distinction makes sense because there is an external enforcement agency (the judicial system) for which this distinction is important. In international agreements, the distinction between binding and non-binding is less striking. In this case (unlike the WTO, for example), it makes no sense. If the agreement contains certain promises that should be taken seriously, then it does not matter, as they say. They judge the seriousness of the promise by its specificity and susceptibility to scrutiny (i.e., can we know whether the promise has been kept or not?), not by the label of the document in which it appears. Trump told the assembled reporters that the memoranda “would be in the very short term. I do not like memoranda of understanding because they mean nothing. To me, they mean nothing. In the Uk, the term MoU is often used to refer to an agreement between parts of the crown. The term is often used in the context of decentralisation, for example in the 1999 concordat between the Central Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Scottish Environment Directorate.

.