The stated intention to be bound by a treaty may be of minor importance if the provisions of the “agreement” are clear, but, as some authors in Serbia have already pointed out, this is not the case with the NEA – not only are there very vague points without delay and without explanation of how the “commitments” are being met, but there are also other indicators that this is not an international agreement – the official names of the negotiating parties have not the English term “wants” not the “must” used – although the Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself advises 2 not to use the term “wants” in binding documents. In addition, it does not specify how, or when the NEA will come into force, etc. Although the NEA of course contains several examples, in situations where parts of the document are not sufficiently clear as to whether it is an international agreement or not, the clear lack of will of one of the signatories during and immediately after the negotiations must be a sufficient indicator that it is not an international agreement. We thus come to the third possibility of international law – for us, to interpret these documents, signed by three men in dark suits in Washington, not as agreements, but as unilateral legal acts. Unilateral legal acts are statements showing the will of the competent authorities of an international legal entity, which have been adopted with the aim of creating legal obligations for that entity, at least in certain situations of international law. There are different classifications of unilateral legal acts in international law, but one of the usual classifications is the one that contains five principles that contains a promise. In 2006, the International Law Commission published the principles that must be taken into account in assessing the obligation to adopt unilateral legal acts. The form and title of a document does not necessarily have to be to determine whether an agreement is binding or not, but even the texts related to the analysis, such as that of Oscar Schachter in 1977, stipulate that “the treaty or the international agreement … parties` intention to create rights and duties. The problem is often justified by the fact that the parties do not always express a clear presence or lack of that intention during negotiations and/or the signing.