THE NATURE OF NON-BINDING INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS: BETWEEN ‘CONSENT’ AND ‘EFFECT’

Sechin Daniil Sergeyevich

The focus of the study is to critically examine the argumentation on the nature of Non-Legally Binding International Agreements. This category is examined through the methodology of critical-legal perception. For this purpose, the logic and construction of argumentation in legal discourse is explored. Analysing speech practices allows us to understand how lawyers use this category in their activities. The nature of Non-Legally Binding International Agreements can be conceptualised as the practice of constructing arguments about their status. Because of the way the language of law works, all argumentation is based on two patterns of ‘consent’ and ‘effect’. On the one hand, in order to establish the state's consent to the adoption of binding norms, it is necessary to refer to the external features of the agreement and the effect of that agreement, since it is impossible to ‘really’ understand the state's internal intention without referring to some objective features. On the other hand, it is important to look at the state's agreement in order to establish the effect, as otherwise such reasoning would be a mere statement of reality. Accordingly, it is impossible to objectively determine the nature of Non-Legally Binding International Agreements.

Keywords:international agreements, non-binding agreements, critical analysis of law, legal discourse, argumentation studies, agreements without legal force