What legal character does the Istanbul document have?
<p>The Budapest memorandum and the Istanbul document are two important documents thought to guarantee security &amp; stability in the regions of the former Soviet Union. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War#Background" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1</a></p>
<p>The Instanbul documents states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;We reaffirm the inherent right
of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements,
including treaties of alliance, as they evolve. &quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I have heard that the Instanbul document is a declaration of intent, not a treaty. What is the legal character of this document? Is it legally binding? If yes has Russia retreated from that agreement?</p>
<p><a href="https://www.osce.org/mc/39569" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Istanbul document</a></p>

<p>This is what is usually called a <em>declaration</em> (that the Instanbul Document is sometimes called a declaration of <em>intent</em> has no legal significance). Declarations are not binding in the way that treaties are. They don't independently create obligations to the world. But they can play a role in establishing or reflecting customary international law; can provide evidence of <em>opinio juris</em>; and domestic legal systems can look to them in applying a presumption of conformity.</p>
<p>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are two other declarations. They both happen to reflect a lot of customary international law: much of the content is binding even though it also appears in these declarations.</p>

international war