Agreement International Law
19 There are groups of agreements which, although concluded under international law, fall under national law, such as the acquisition of property by a state. Another group is that of agreements between states and a foreign individual, physical or legal (contracts between foreign states and individuals), such as Z.B concession contracts, the character of which is not entirely clear. One view is that such an agreement is concluded in international law if the parties so, and that the prerequisite for an international treaty is the existence of at least two parties subject to international law. In 1952, the ICJ maintained that a concession contract between the United Kingdom and the Iranian oil company was a private contract (112). 5 Under the 1969 VCLT, contracts can take an infinite number of forms, ranging from the most elaborate and formally executed document to the simple exchange of banknotes. The Commission on International Law (ILC) has already advocated a broad definition of treaties, Having stated, in the definition of the term, that an agreement of reflection, correspondence, agreed protocol, joint declarations or another instrument may constitute a treaty (UN ILC ” Report of the Commission on International Law to the General Assembly on the work of its fourteenth session” [24 April-29 June 1962]  IIBILYC report 157, 161). This view is also reflected in international jurisprudence. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) of South-West Africa (advisory opinions and judgments) (South-West Africa Case (Ethiopia/South Africa); Liberia/South Africa [Provisional Objections]  ICJ Rep 319] stated: „Terminology is not a determining factor in the nature of an international agreement or enterprise” (State 331). In the Continental Shelf Case (in the case of the Aegean) in the Aegean, it stated that it was not aware of „any provision of international law that could prevent a joint communiqué from entering into an international agreement.” On the question of the maritime order and territory between Qatar and Bahrain („Case between Qatar and Bahrain: 1994) of 1994), the ICJ considered that the value of the protocols was considered an international agreement in light of Article 2, paragraph 1, point a), of the VCLT and concluded that the protocol „constitutes an international agreement creating rights and obligations for the contracting parties” (122).