Affairs vs. Minister of Environment). A careful analysis of the wording will also clarify the exact nature of the document. The International Court of Justice has provided some insight into the determination of the legal status of a document in the landmark case of Qatar v. Bahrain, 1 July 1994. Advantages One advantage of MoUs over more formal instruments is that, because obligations under international law may be avoided, they can often be put into effect without requiring legislative approval. Hence, MoUs are often used to modify and adapt existing treaties, in which case these MoUs have factual treaty status. The decision concerning ratification, however, is determined by the parties' internal law and depends to a large degree on the subject agreed upon. MoUs that are kept confidential (i.e., not registered with the UN) cannot be enforced before any UN organ, and it may be concluded that no obligations under international law have been created. Although MoUs in the multilateral field are seldom seen, the transnational aviation agreements are actually MoUs. Examples Examples include: The Memorandum of Understanding Relating to the Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems on May 26, 1972 signed by the United States (Richard Nixon) and the Soviet Union (Leonid Brezhnev) updating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty The Memorandum of Understanding on Hijacking of Aircraft and Vessels and Other Offenses between the US and Cuba, meant to criminalize hijacking in both countries (February 3, 1973) The agreement between the Cayman Islands and Cuba, under which Cayman immigration officers must give Cuban refugees two choices: disembark and be repatriated back to Cuba, or continue on their way with no help. The Agreed Framework between the U.S. and North Korea over nuclear weaponry on October 21, 1994 The Oil-for-Food programme, for which Iraq signed an MoU in 1996 The agreement between the government of Indonesia and the GAM in the Aceh peace process, 15 August 2005. The agreement between the UK and Jordan, Libya and Lebanon regarding potential extradition of suspects (commonly terrorist suspects), who, if they are to be tried, must be tried fairly and in a manner similar to the European Convention on Human Rights; for example, withholding from using evidence obtained through the use of torture (Article 3). Such an understanding has been criticised for its inability to be legally enforced. This