Normalisation Between Belgrade and Pristina: Binding Force and Legal Effects of the Brussels and Ohrid Agreements

This article revisits the debate on whether the Brussels Agreement and the Ohrid Agreement, including its Implementation Annex, are legally binding. It develops a three-test framework that separates international-law binding force from EU-law legal effects. Tests A and B adapt the International Court of Justice (ICJ) indicators of animus contrahendi and acceptance through subsequent conduct, acquiescence and silence. Test C examines whether the agreements produce legal effects through EU enlargement conditionality, monitoring and reporting. The analysis finds that the treaty status of both instruments remains contestable. The Brussels Agreement is textually specific, yet intent signals are mixed, practice remains reversible and treaty-type obligation structures are weak. The Ohrid Agreement is drafted in a more treaty-like register, but references to a future “legally binding agreement” and the politics of non-signature leave inter se binding force unsettled. Nonetheless, both agreements can produce EU legal effects. They operate as enlargement benchmarks that shape assessments of Serbia’s and Kosovo’s progress, while Commission reporting and standardised compliance indicators may indirectly bind EU institutions through consistency, equal treatment and legitimate expectations.