I don’t understand. The way treaties and contracts traditionally work, is you send your guys over to my place and they work something out with me that I’ll sign. Usually, I then sign it, but in any case I agree to the proposed terms. Your flunkies take the agreement and some of my guys back home to you, and you say “no, I’m not signing that, these changes have to be made” and my guys then work out something that seems equitably reasonable. The first document (aka “the offer”) is discarded, the second document (“counteroffer”) is returned with your signature on it. If I still don’t like it, I make another counter, and so on ad infinitum until something gets signed by both of us or we agree to stop bothering each other. If at any point we both sign the same agreement, then we are both legally bound to the terms, and violations are potentially actionable (or in international terms, a “casus belli”). At any point, though, we can can mutually agree to void the agreement.
Obviously, if more than two parties are involved the complexity of negotiations and the likelihood of failing to reach an agreement increases (and not linearly, either!). But it’s still the same process; whoever objects to the treaty on the table makes a counterproposal which can then be countered in turn.
So: if there’s been no treaty or contract signed, then negotiations aren’t over. They just aren’t, no matter how many conferences have been held or press releases sent out. Which is why I really don’t understand what you are trying to say here.
