One of the fundamental rules of contract law is that agreements produce only multi-party effects, that is, between contracting parties; for third parties, a contract is a res inter alios acta. The principle pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt is validated in both jurisprudence [21] and doctrine[22] and is enshrined in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on Treaty Law (VCLT), which states that “without its consent, a contract does not create obligations or rights for a third country.” [23] This fundamental rule of the treaty is supplemented by art. 35 and 36 VCTTs, each of which provides that the obligations imposed on third countries are contracted only on the basis of their explicit and written consent, while assuming that rights are conferred on them, unless those States object. However, the discussion on the erga omnes character of the new official name of Northern Macedonia does not concern a scenario in which third parties, by an act of assessment, expressly approve or approve of the recognition of the new official name by not disputing the fact that Northern Macedonia uses its new name in international relations. Any reference to the agreement of a third party prevents the agreement from having an automatic objective effect and gives rise to a debate on the obligations of erga omnes concerning the counting of names, regardless of the consent of the state. On the contrary, it is questionable whether the provision on the new name is contrary to the new name, despite the absence of a third-party agreement/agreement. In other words, the question is whether third parties (states and international organizations) have an obligation to use the new official name of Northern Macedonia in all their diplomatic contacts. In this context, the VCLT does not offer assistance, since the scenario of erga omnes opposability is not provided for without the agreement/consent of a third country, unless a provision of the treaty has been transformed into a common law (Article 38 VCLT), a state that does not seem relevant in this case. The absence of regulation in the VCLT does not necessarily mean that international law prohibits any form of non-consensual effects of third parties with respect to contracts. On the contrary, the Commission on International Law, in its work on treaty law, has considered the issue of objective provisions as an exception to the pacta tertiis rule. Although it ultimately chose to put aside the issue of objective rules because of a lack of general acceptance and because the other articles of the VCLT on the impact on third countries “define the contractual obligations and rights that are valid erga omnes”[24] do not necessarily mean that such rules are inadmissible or cannot be created under the rules of existing international law. [25] Therefore, the flexibility of the Viennese rules makes it possible to develop a theory on objective rules.
[26] Overall, there are two distinct types of contracts that are supposed to establish objective rules. [27] On the one hand, there are temporary contracts that create local obligations for the benefit of another state, such as marginal contracts or transfer contracts, in which the new regime complies with all states. On the other hand, there are status contracts that serve the general interest of the international community and that apply to erga omnes, resulting in rights and obligations for third countries with respect to this status regime.