Contracts are not necessarily binding on signatories. Since obligations under international law have traditionally arisen only from the agreement of states, many treaties explicitly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain notification procedures. For example, the Single Convention provides that the treaty expires when the number of parties is less than 40 due to termination. Many contracts explicitly prohibit withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on Treaty Law provides that when a treaty is silent on whether or not to denounce it, there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be denounced unilaterally unless there are three possibilities for amending an existing treaty. First, a formal change requires that States Parties be forced to go through the ratification process again. The renegotiation of the treaty provisions can be long and time-consuming and often some parties to the original treaty will not become parties to the amended treaty. In determining the legal obligations of states, a party to the original treaty and a party to the amended treaty, states are bound only by the conditions on which they have agreed. Contracts may also be amended informally by the treaty office if the amendments are procedural in nature, and technical changes in customary international law may also alter a contract in which the state`s conduct presents a reinterpreting interpretation of legal obligations arising from the treaty. Minor corrections to a contract may be accepted by a minutes; However, a minutes are generally reserved for amendments to correct obvious errors in the adopted text, i.e. where the adopted text does not adequately reflect the parties` intention to adopt it.
 Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 519 (1893). This could happen if a pact "changed the balance of power between the federal states and the federal government," created coalitions of states that would reduce the power of the federal government or change the balance of power between states in the federal structure, or assert themselves poorly on a constitutionally established subject available to Congress. Buenger et al., supra note 2, at 69. However, with the proliferation of administrative functions at the state level, intergovernmental pacts are extended to the rules and procedures for managing activities between them.  The Council of State Governments recommends the use of an intergovernmental authority to "ensure accountability, training, compliance, enforcement, regulation, information collection and exchange, as well as all staff, in order to make the [compact] a success."  Since pacts are written in the form of contracts, states that negotiate pacts involving the creation of an intergovernmental agency are free to determine the rules applicable to the management of that agency.