Rangga Dwi Saputra, M.H., and Dr. Rohmad Imam Masyuri, S.H., M.Sc., participated in the Global Lecture Series program held on July 1, 2026, at the Fakulti Undang-Undang (FUU) of Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Malaysia. This program is an initiative of the FUU UiTM designed to facilitate international lecturers in delivering course material to its students. During the event, Dr. Rohmad presented a comparative study of contract law between Indonesia and Malaysia, while Rangga, M.H., delivered a presentation on the Board of Peace.

The event commenced with a presentation by Rangga, M.H., on the “Board of Peace.” The Board of Peace emerged from United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803. Initially proposed by U.S. President Donald Trump to address the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, the Board of Peace was conceived in response to the protracted nature and escalating intensity of the conflict at the time. The Security Council engaged in deliberations to find a means to cease hostilities. During these discussions, the United States presented a draft resolution advocating for the establishment of the Board of Peace. This draft was ultimately adopted as a resolution following approval by a majority of Security Council members—specifically, 13 affirmative votes and two abstentions. Notably, China and Russia abstained from voting. The adoption of Security Council Resolution 2803 was undeniably politically charged, representing a political compromise among Security Council member states. Prior draft resolutions initiated within the Security Council to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict had consistently failed due to the negative votes cast by the United States—a permanent member of the Council. This situation had hindered the international community from taking collective action to halt the conflict. Consequently, there was little alternative but to grant the United States—a nation that had consistently cast negative votes—an opportunity to pursue a resolution through the Board of Peace mechanism it had proposed, rather than permitting a complete absence of collective resolution efforts. This decision naturally ignited debate, considering the United States’ own history of actions that frequently contradicted efforts to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. Nevertheless, disregarding this, we must first assess the outcomes the Board of Peace is anticipated to produce, as outlined in the agreement. Will the two-state solution and the reconstruction of Palestinian territories actually be realized? Otherwise, the member states of the Board of Peace could withdraw and seek alternative collective approaches that are more suitable and structured, while still prioritizing peaceful means.

Next, Rohmad Imam presented material comparing the civil law systems of Indonesia and Malaysia. He explained that the two countries operate under different legal systems: Indonesia adheres to a civil law system rooted in the Dutch legal tradition, whereas Malaysia follows a common law system influenced by English law. These differing legal systems naturally impact civil law regulations, including those governing contract law.

In Indonesia, contract law is primarily governed by Book III of the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata or KUHPerdata), specifically Articles 1313 through 1864. This system prioritizes statutes as the primary source of law, while court decisions serve as jurisprudence that is persuasive rather than formally binding. A fundamental principle of Indonesian contract law is the freedom of contract, as reflected in Article 1338 of the Civil Code, which stipulates that any legally formed agreement serves as law for the parties involved.

Conversely, in Malaysia, contract law is governed by the Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136) and supplemented by common law principles via the Civil Law Act 1956. Unlike in Indonesia, Malaysian court decisions carry the weight of binding precedent, making them a crucial source of law in the evolution of contract law.

Another fundamental difference lies in the elements required to form a contract. Under Malaysian law, the existence of "consideration" (a return value or performance given as the basis for a promise) is a prerequisite for a valid contract. Generally, a contract cannot be enforced without consideration, except in specific circumstances prescribed by statute. Indonesian law, however, does not recognize the concept of consideration. Instead, the validity of an agreement is determined by four requirements set out in Article 1320 of the Civil Code: agreement between the parties, legal capacity, a specific object, and a lawful cause.

Furthermore, contract interpretation in Malaysia is heavily influenced by evolving court decisions based on common law principles, resulting in a more dynamic application of the law. Conversely, in Indonesia, contract interpretation is more oriented towards the codified provisions of the Civil Code and the principles of contract law, although case law remains an important reference. Overall, while both countries recognize the principle of freedom of contract, Indonesia places greater emphasis on legal certainty through the codification of legislation, whereas Malaysia combines statutory regulation with the central role of judicial precedent—a hallmark of the common law system. These differences result in distinct characteristics regarding the application of contract law, particularly concerning contract formation, interpretation, and dispute resolution.