[29] Biljana Vankovska, “A Diplomatic or Geopolitical Fairy Tale as Usual: A Critical Perspective of the Athens-Skopje Agreement” (forthcoming in the OSCE Yearbook 2018). In addition, both countries recognize that the terms “Macedonian” and “Macedonian” clearly indicate different historical contexts and cultural heritage. In this way, North Macedonia is separated from the ancient Hellenic civilization that developed in ancient times, in historical Macedonia. Finally, North Macedonia has revised its constitution to ensure that the agreement is fully implemented at national level and to remove and/or revise any passage that could be understood as irredentist aspirations towards Greece. Among the various provisions of the final agreement between Greece and North Macedonia of 17. June 2018 (`the Prespa Agreement`)[1], which describe, for example, the ethnohistorical roots of the citizens of North Macedonia (Article 7 of the Agreement) or closely choreograph the many steps taken towards the conclusion of the Agreement (Article 1(4)), the provisions on the use of the new name of North Macedonia by Erga omnes raise a number of interesting questions regarding the effects of the Treaties on third countries. While references to erga omnes jargon are extremely rare in international treaties, especially in bilateral treaties, the erga omnes` use of the name agreed by the parties to the dispute was an invariant of Greece`s political position during lengthy negotiations with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. [2] The result seems to be in line with Greek aspirations: Article 1(3)(a) provides that the parties shall use the official name “Republic of North Macedonia” erga omnes or, as in Article 1(8), “erga omnes for all uses and purposes”. Article 1(5) goes further by pointing out that erga omnes means that any analysis of the designation of States is inevitably based on the admission that the choice of a name is an essential manifestation of state sovereignty[4] or, as has been eloquently put it, “a refuge of sovereignty”[5] and a pivot of a people`s right to self-determination. [6] Consequently, any change in the designation of a State does not entail a change in the identity of the State[7] and is registered only by international organisations and States, which cannot prevent it. [8] In a sense, the name of a state is a matter of internal jurisdiction in which the principle of non-interference applies. [9] However, the above rule is mitigated by a number of conditions and limitations […].