Is the MOU a Treaty or Not? And Why Should We Care?
Key takeaways
- Observers have been wildly ruminating on the various implications of the U.S.-Iran cease-fire agreement, the so-called Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding.
- Treaties have existed for millennia, whereas informal political agreements have a more recent origin.
- As easy as it may be to distinguish binding and nonbinding agreements conceptually, actual practice has proved tricky.
Observers have been wildly ruminating on the various implications of the U.S.-Iran cease-fire agreement, the so-called Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding. Alongside the MOU’s political, military, and economic import, a key legal question looms: Is it a binding international agreement—in other words, a treaty governed by international law—or a political text signaling intent without legally binding the parties? The Trump administration is likely to insist that the MOU is not a treaty, if only to avoid domestic obstacles such as congressional approval. The text itself contains elements of both, creating risks on the agreement’s consequences and overall validity. In short, this was a hastily and poorly drafted effort.
Treaties have existed for millennia, whereas informal political agreements have a more recent origin. Of the latter, one of the first known examples is the 1907-08 Gentlemen’s Agreement between the United States and the Japanese Empire to restrict migration. The concept is not hard to understand: As individuals, we make all sorts of promises—some legally binding, some not. Breaching a lease can have legal consequences, such as eviction, whereas not showing up at a dinner party invites nothing more than interpersonal tensions. In international relations, states have seen real value in making agreements without formal legal status because they can be done more quickly and skirt various obstacles, of which legislative approval is only one. Treaties, for example, often require notice before they can be terminated. Witness the first Trump administration’s frustration about the three-year window required under the Paris Agreement before any state could withdraw—and then only on one year’s notice. The Trump administration reluctantly adhered to these conditions.
Observers have been wildly ruminating on the various implications of the U.S.-Iran cease-fire agreement, the so-called Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding. Alongside the MOU’s political, military, and economic import, a key legal question looms: Is it a binding international agreement—in other words, a treaty governed by international law—or a political text signaling intent without legally binding the parties? The Trump administration is likely to insist that the MOU is not a treaty, if only to avoid domestic obstacles such as congressional approval. The text itself contains elements of both, creating risks on the agreement’s consequences and overall validity. In short, this was a hastily and poorly drafted effort.