However, states do not act as they see fit. They are motivated to sign agreements and take steps to comply with these agreements, for a lot of reasons related to the interest of the company, public pressure, reputation, the trade of horses – in fact, for political reasons. The “legally binding” nature of the undertaking should simply not be significant for these reasons. On the one hand, a country such as an individual who passes on debt indefinitely in the future could simply borrow from one commitment period to another and could never achieve its objective. While the international community has failed to “force” the country to achieve its goal in the first period of compliance, it is unclear how it could force the country to achieve its goal with the sentence imposed on it thereafter. Second, each party negotiates its own objective for each commitment period, so that a non-compliant party could simply negotiate a higher target in a second period to achieve the 30% penalty, effectively null and voiding the effects of the enforcement mechanism. Since its inception, the Special Committee has held its eighth sessions. At its first two meetings, in 2002 and 2003, the Committee considered the possibility of developing an international instrument on the rights of persons with disabilities and examined the nature of the instrument and possible elements to be included. At its second session, the Special Committee established a working group to develop a draft convention. The working group, made up of government and NGO representatives, met in January 2004 and developed a negotiating text. In its third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth sessions, the Special Committee continued its negotiations. The text of the Convention was finalized by the ad hoc committee on 26 August 2006. A contract is null and void if it violates a mandatory standard.
Unlike other principles of customary law, these standards are not recognized as offences and therefore cannot be changed by contractual obligations. These are limited to prohibitions as universal as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities against the civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally commit to commit or admit such acts.  Who can enter into international agreements? International agreements are reached between subjects of international law, including between states, states and international organizations, as well as between international organizations. An international agreement between states can be concluded by heads of state or on behalf of states and their governments. South Africa does not reach an agreement between the ministries. There is no difference in international law between an international agreement made on behalf of states and an agreement reached on behalf of governments, since an agreement reached by a government binds the state and changes in government will not affect its strength of engagement. However, according to some constitutions, it may be necessary or desirable to use the intergovernmental form when the provisions of the Agreement must be fully effective in domestic law. Provinces can enter into international agreements: Under South Africa`s 1996 Constitution, provinces and local governments do not have the jurisdiction to enter into international agreements.
But they can make agreements with their opposites in other countries What is not an international agreement? It is sometimes necessary or desirable for states to enter into a non-binding agreement among themselves.