D. y. n. Orlin Borisov to FACTI: Is the signed Agreement between Bulgaria and Ukraine an international treaty?

Prof. Borisov, as one of the few specialists in International Contract Law and as the only author in Bulgaria of the monograph “Theory and Practice of the International Treaty“, would you analyze whether the Agreement signed on 30.03.26 is in the form of an international treaty or is it a political act?
- After the signing of the Agreement, no one at any level has expressed a competent, professional opinion that they understand this matter. As a specialist in this field, I feel that it is my civic duty to the Bulgarian public to analyze the legal facts, and I will express my opinion on the published text in a completely neutral and non-ideological manner.
What should ordinary people (non-specialists in International Law) know in order to be able to determine in what form each international document was signed?
- It should be known that in modern interstate relations, two main types of international acts are adopted:
The first type is in the form of political acts (political declarations, etc.), which do not create any legal obligations for states, but only regulate political relations (they do not create a legal obligation, but guide behavior);
The second type of acts is in the form of international treaties, which are mandatory for the parties (i.e. create legal obligations) for the states that ratify them (or enter into force immediately after signing).
In modern International Law, it is It is generally accepted that the name of an international act does not determine its form, but rather its content (through the assumption of obligations, commitments, etc.).
What names can international treaties have?
- The contracting parties have the right to determine the name of the international treaty concluded between them, such as: Agreement, Covenant, Pact, Treaty, Convention (usually this is the name of multilateral treaties), etc.
Do political acts differ in structure from international treaties?
- Yes! International treaties have certain legal features: they can enter into force immediately after signing, have a certain structure (preamble, central and final part), enter into force for a certain period, etc.
Political acts (or framework) do not have legal force, are not ratified, do not have direct effect in the state, but only determine the admissibility in political activity and determine the structure of the political process.
Does the agreement signed on 30.03.26 between Bulgaria and Ukraine have the structure and features of an international treaty?
- Yes! Although some of the attributes of international treaties have been replaced, such as specific formal language, instead of “parties“ “participants“ and others, in essence this is the text of an international treaty.
The most characteristic of this statement is the fact that instead of “obligations“ The text makes commitments using the following terms: "assumes commitments", "will provide military equipment and weapons", "intends to continue to provide", "will work", "will provide weapons, equipment and ammunition free of charge", etc.). Specific obligations are contained only in international treaties.
The Agreement is a long-term international treaty in terms of content, as it contains specific rights and obligations, enters into force immediately after signing, is adopted with the intention of being legally binding, etc.
Which elements of the Agreement are actually elements of an international treaty that political acts do not possess?
- One of the names of an international treaty is used - Agreement, specific international obligations are assumed (typical only for international treaties), they enter into force after signing as an international treaty, the term is automatically extended as an international treaty, the effect is terminated as an international treaty, etc.
It is possible that journalist and public figure Gergana Paparizova has more information and is right, she noted publicly: We have been betrayed, they are taking Bulgaria to war. Resignation of the warlords!
Did the caretaker government have the right to conclude long-term international treaties or other acts?
- No! According to the Constitutional Court, they do not have this right, noted former constitutional judge Professor Plamen Kirov. According to him, in one of the decisions of the Constitutional Court it is assumed that “ The caretaker government has the right to carry out actions that are related only to current issues“ (i.e. it does not have the right to conclude long-term international treaties or sign other long-term international acts, but only to sign current acts).
One of the members of the Bulgarian delegation in Kiev - Minister of Education Sergey Ignatov signed a Protocol with Oksana Lisovyi, in what form and what obligations did Bulgaria assume?
- I was unable to find the text of the Protocol anywhere. The only thing that came out in the mass media was that Bulgaria assumed the obligation “the parties agreed …that the Ukrainian language will be taught as a foreign language in Bulgarian schools..“
Did the acting president react adequately to the signed Agreement?
- She officially announced “I was not informed in advance“ and with that she thought that her commitments ended, but in fact they began after she found out about the illegal signing. And what did she legally do after she was informed – absolutely nothing?
How should she have lawfully exercised her powers, and what should she have done to annul the illegally concluded contract?
The acting president should have taken lawful actions to annul (or denounce it according to the text of the signed Agreement).
She should have sought responsibility (i.e. demanded the resignation or sanctioned) of those appointed by her - acting Prime Minister Gyurov and all the guilty persons who participated in the organization of the signing of the Agreement (including those political forces that incited such an action)!
How do you think those in power will react to the truth?
- Those in power have proven in their interpretations that they are incompetent in this matter, and can hardly dispute the existing facts, but the “trolls paid by them“, who are appointed to be their apologists to protect them, are obliged, after blaming the war-mongers, to play again, as usual, the winning card of the war-mongers, which is drawn in such cases - – “of Russophobia“, “of Putinism“, “of aggression“, etc.
Does the continuous violation by those in power of the Constitution and legislation of Bulgaria (including the Law on International Treaties of Bulgaria), of EU Law and of International Law mean that we are not a state governed by the rule of law?
-Yes! In Bulgaria, the rule of law is constantly violated, which depersonalizes one of the values of the EU to be a “state governed by the rule of law“ (according to Art. 2 of the Lisbon Treaty).
This is also one of the values of International Law (e.g. the constellation of Vienna and Geneva Conventions, including the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, etc.), the rule of law is set out as one of the goals in the preamble to the Constitution of Bulgaria (The Agreement violates Art. 5, para. 4, Art. 84, para. 2, items 11 and 12, Art. 85, para. 1, item 1, etc.).