Applying Force Majeure Following Telegram Number TR/283/2026 to Prevent Breach of Business Contracts

At the beginning of 2026, the world entered a period of extreme political upheaval as open war escalated between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other. The conflict dominated the headlines because it shook global security and economic stability. Strategic shipping lanes such as the Strait of Hormuz, the lifeline of global energy supply, suffered serious disruption, which immediately triggered a surge in commodity prices on international markets. The economic fallout also reached Indonesia through the depreciation of the Rupiah, which touched IDR 17,000 to the US Dollar on 9 March 2026. Global crude oil prices above US$100 per barrel also placed heavy fiscal pressure on Indonesia. This uncertainty fuelled negative sentiment in the capital market and the real economy, as businesses began to face unexpected spikes in operating costs within a short period. In response to these security developments, the Commander of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) issued a strategic policy through Telegram Number TR/283/2026 on 1 March 2026, declaring Alert Level 1 (Siaga 1) throughout the sovereign territory of the Republic of Indonesia. The step was taken as a professional military precaution against potential threats to sovereignty and domestic security disturbances that might arise from the spillover of the Middle East conflict. Legally, however, the telegram has sparked debate about the limits of military discretion in a civilian state governed by the rule of law.

For the business world, the declaration of Alert Level 1 through the telegram is not merely a defence issue. It affects the confidence of businesses that depend on exports and imports, where in the worst case logistics disruption, delays to shipments through ports and airports and restrictions on activity in strategic industrial zones could occur. These conditions are where the obstacles to performing contractual obligations begin, and they can leave parties vulnerable to breach of contract (wanprestasi). A vendor’s failure to supply raw materials on time will lead to delays in delivering services to consumers. At a deeper level, cash-flow disruption caused by hampered operations will make it harder to pay employees’ wages and meet ongoing instalments on working capital loans from banks. The doctrine of breach of contract often haunts businesses, because its consequences can be endless and the losses incalculable, especially where the contractual relationship depends on international security and political stability. This raises the question: does the breach arise purely from the debtor’s negligence, or is it a direct result of circumstances beyond human control (force majeure)? This is where Telegram Number TR/283/2026 is tested as a justification for releasing a party from liability for damages, costs and interest. Legal Positivism is the main entry point for examining this problem. The analysis is needed to test whether a military policy instrument such as the Commander’s Telegram can be classified as an act of authority that meets the formal requirements of force majeure under Articles 1244 and 1245 of the Civil Code. The question is all the more interesting for business contracts that do not specifically address war or domestic security disturbances.

However, relying solely on positive law often fails to provide a fair solution for a business ecosystem under pressure. If the law is enforced in purely positivist terms, mass bankruptcies and large-scale redundancies become an unavoidable logical consequence. A breakthrough in thinking is therefore needed, one that sees the law as a means of achieving human welfare rather than merely an instrument of punishment in a crisis. This is where the concept of Progressive Law offers an option for applying the principle of good faith in these circumstances. The principle requires contracting parties not to bring each other down in hard times, but to work together to mitigate losses through renegotiation. The law must not stop at what the law says and what the contract says; it must live and adapt to preserve business continuity by sharing the burden of risk proportionately between vendors, companies, banks and workers.

In this article, the author seeks to examine the relationship between state security policy and legal certainty in business by answering two questions: to what extent does the declaration of Alert Level 1 through Telegram Number TR/283/2026 meet the elements of force majeure from the perspective of Legal Positivism? And how can the principle of good faith be applied to limit losses in business contracts through the lens of Progressive Law? It is hoped that this article will guide legal practitioners and businesses in managing legal risk amid the international crisis of 2026. The research method used is normative legal research with a library-based approach, focusing on analysis of primary legal norms and secondary legal materials such as doctrine, case law and law journals. A conceptual approach is also used to connect the socio-economic realities of wartime with relevant legal theories.

Telegram Number TR/283/2026 as an Element of Force Majeure from the Perspective of Legal Positivism

From the perspective of Legal Positivism, a situation can only be categorised as force majeure if it meets the parameters set out in written positive law. In Indonesia, the main foundation for force majeure rests on Articles 1244 and 1245 of the Indonesian Civil Code (KUHPerdata). Article 1244 provides that a debtor must be ordered to pay costs, damages and interest unless they prove that the failure to perform was caused by an unforeseen event for which they cannot be blamed. In positivist terms, the burden of proof lies entirely with the debtor to show a legally valid impediment. Article 1245 of the Civil Code further provides for release from liability if the debtor was prevented from performing by force majeure or an accidental event. In the context of Telegram Number TR/283/2026, the positivist analysis must first test whether this military instruction is an unforeseen event. Business contracts are usually made in peacetime, whereas the escalation of global war in 2026 and the TNI’s swift response through Alert Level 1 normatively satisfy the element of unforeseeability, since they lie beyond reasonable business calculation. A crucial point in this analysis is the doctrine of factum principis, or act of authority.

In positivist terms, force majeure does not arise only from natural disasters, but also from policies of a lawful authority that make a contract impossible to perform. The TNI Commander’s Telegram, although administratively an internal military instruction, has wide public implications under Alert Level 1. When the telegram leads to the closure of logistics access or the requisition of certain facilities for defence purposes, it becomes a compelling legal impediment for the parties. Legal certainty, however, requires us to consider whether the Telegram is sufficiently binding on third parties. In the hierarchy of laws and regulations, a Classified Telegram (Telegram Rahasia, TR) is not a public regulation like a Government Regulation or Presidential Decree. Yet in a state of emergency or alert, military operations based on such a TR often create facts on the ground that businesses cannot avoid. Herein lies the positivist debate: is an impediment arising from a TR sufficient grounds for force majeure without an explicit Presidential Decree? Next, we must examine the element of impossibility. Legal positivism requires that the impediment make performance truly impossible, not merely more expensive. If Alert Level 1 causes ports to close completely under instruction TR/283/2026, the element of impossibility may be met. But if ports remain open with stricter security procedures, so that shipping costs rise, then in positivist terms this is not necessarily force majeure but an ordinary business risk, unless the contract provides otherwise. The issue becomes even more technical when we consider causation. A debtor cannot simply invoke Telegram Number TR/283/2026 as an excuse for every kind of contractual failure. It must be specifically proven that the failure to perform was a direct result of the Alert Level 1 declaration.

If this link cannot be proven, the force majeure claim will fail as a matter of law for lack of a sound basis. The next question is: what if the business contract contains no force majeure clause at all? Under the logic of Legal Positivism, the absence of a clause does not mean the right is lost. In line with the principles of the law of obligations, the parties are automatically subject to Articles 1244 and 1245 of the Civil Code. In that case, the TNI Commander’s Telegram can still be relied on in court as an accidental event recognised by law. Conversely, if the contract contains an exhaustive (limited) force majeure clause, the principle of pacta sunt servanda applies. If the clause mentions only natural disasters and not war or government/military action, then in positivist terms the debtor is in a very difficult position. The interpretation of the contract will shut out a force majeure claim, even though Telegram Number TR/283/2026 has in reality hampered the company’s operations. In terms of case law, Indonesian courts are often very cautious about accepting acts of authority as force majeure. As the pandemic crisis a few years ago showed, emergency declarations by the authorities often require policy alignment between the security and economic sectors. Under positive law, therefore, the effect of Telegram TR/283/2026 depends heavily on the facts on the ground. The declaration of Alert Level 1 through Telegram Number TR/283/2026 objectively satisfies the elements of force majeure if it can be proven that performance became impossible as a direct result of the instruction. Legal Positivism nonetheless requires every business to carry out a thorough contract audit to determine whether military action falls within the scope of the clause they agreed, or whether they must rely on the general protection provided by the Civil Code.

Applying the Principle of Good Faith to Mitigate Business Losses

In the framework of Progressive Law developed by Satjipto Rahardjo, the law exists for people, not people for the law. When the business world is shaken by the impact of international war and the issuance of Telegram Number TR/283/2026, the application of law must not stop at deciding who is in breach and who is excused by force majeure. Through a progressive lens, the focus shifts to how the principle of good faith in Article 1338(3) of the Civil Code can offer contracting parties a way forward. Doctrinally, good faith in times of crisis is no longer merely subjective honesty at the outset of a contract; it emphasises reasonableness and fairness (redelijkheid en billijkheid). Under Alert Level 1, the principle requires businesses not to exploit legal loopholes or contract clauses for one-sided gain. Progressive Law holds that if a contract is forced through despite economic impossibility, the law has failed in its function of delivering substantive justice to the parties. The author proposes the following ways of putting this into practice:

First, good faith in a progressive spirit means an obligation of early notice and transparency. A party directly affected by the security measures in Telegram TR/283/2026 must promptly communicate the obstacles it faces to its business partners. Openness about logistics, raw material stocks and banking constraints is a concrete expression of the intention to find a joint solution, rather than staying silent and only raising a defence when a breach-of-contract claim arrives. Progressive Law goes further, encouraging an obligation to renegotiate as an alternative to unilateral termination. Rather than immediately declaring itself released from its obligations under a force majeure clause, the affected party should offer a reasonable adjustment scheme. For example, a vendor could offer an extended delivery period or a price adjustment with the burden shared with the buyer.

Second, good faith in the business ecosystem also includes efforts to mitigate losses. Progressive Law does not condone a party that simply gives in to circumstances. For example, a logistics company hampered by Alert Level 1 must still make every effort to find alternative routes or means of transport so that goods can still be delivered. Without real mitigation efforts, a force majeure claim loses its moral and progressive legitimacy, as it is seen as passivity that harms the other party.

Third, in relationships with banks, good faith can take the form of an honest and measured application for credit restructuring. During the 2026 economic crisis, banks should not focus solely on collecting debts as they fall due, but also act as the government’s partners in maintaining economic stability. Under a progressive approach, restructuring is not merely a payment deferral but an adaptation of the contract to the affected macroeconomic reality, helping to prevent the risk of mass bankruptcies.

Fourth, good faith in employment relationships requires transparent bipartite dialogue about the company’s financial capacity. Progressive Law sees workers not merely as a factor of production but as legal subjects whose basic rights must be protected. Under Alert Level 1, efficiency measures should be taken by mutual agreement, for example adjusting working hours or temporary wage arrangements designed to prevent redundancies (PHK). Here, the company’s honesty in disclosing its financial position is the key to good faith.

In addition, the parties can apply a hardship clause as a manifestation of the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus. Unlike force majeure, which brings a contract to an end, a hardship clause gives the contract breathing space to survive with more flexible performance. From a progressive standpoint, this is ideal because it puts business continuity first. The law is there to keep the wheels of the economy turning, even at a slower pace because of the external disruption of war. Another concrete step is to establish faster and cheaper alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. In wartime, lengthy court proceedings would only deepen economic losses. By prioritising mediation founded on good faith, the parties can reach a win-win solution, embodying a law that solves problems and liberates. Applying the principle of good faith through Progressive Law transforms the paradigm from everyone suing everyone over force majeure into an opportunity to collaborate. Telegram Number TR/283/2026 and the international war may well create obstacles, but good faith can be applied to keep a contract fair. By putting the survival of the business ecosystem above self-interest, the law truly serves people and helps society weather the hardest times of 2026.

In positivist terms, the declaration of Alert Level 1 through Telegram Number TR/283/2026 can be classified as force majeure if it is proven to meet the requirements of unforeseeability, absence of fault and an unavoidable impediment. Where a business contract does not specifically provide for force majeure, the Civil Code applies automatically to protect a debtor prevented from performing. However, where the contract does contain a force majeure clause, the parties must carefully audit and review its wording to determine whether war, security disturbances or acts of authority (factum principis) are covered. If they are not expressly listed, the principle of pacta sunt servanda will limit the debtor’s force majeure claim, and reliance on the TNI Commander’s Telegram will depend heavily on proving that performance became impossible because business operations on the ground were obstructed.

Applying the principle of good faith through Progressive Law shifts the role of law from a threat to a means of collaboration that rescues the parties to business relationships in a crisis. This is achieved through four proposals: first, an obligation of transparency and early notice to open up room for renegotiation; second, loss mitigation by the debtor before claiming force majeure, to preserve the legitimacy of the claim itself; third, honest and measured bank credit restructuring; and fourth, bipartite dialogue to protect workers’ basic rights through mutually agreed efficiency measures. By adopting hardship clauses as a manifestation of rebus sic stantibus and prioritising win-win mediation to resolve disputes, the law can offer real solutions that sustain the business ecosystem and protect the wider human interest in this challenging year of 2026.

Illustration: Gemini AI