{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027695351137487636, 'fraction_numerical': 0.021760633036597428, 'mean_word_length': 5.148936170212766, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
II. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM ACCORD OF 13 SEPTEMBER 1995 (THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA V GREECE) JUDGMENT OF 5 DECEMBER 20111

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) on 17 November 2008 filed in the Registry of the International Court of Justice an application instituting proceedings against Greece in respect of a dispute concerning the interpretation and implementation of the so-called Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (IA). FYROM’s NATO candidacy had been considered at the Bucharest Summit on 2–3 April 2008. FYROM was, however, not invited to begin talks on accession to the organization. It sought, in particular, to establish that Greece had objected to its admission to NATO (ultimately preventing the formation of the necessary consensus for the invitation to be extended) and therefore violated Article 11(1) IA. Under the first clause of that provision, Greece agreed ‘not to object’ to FYROM’s admission to international or regional organizations of which Greece is a member. In the second clause, however, Greece reserved the right to object to such admission if and to the extent that FYROM was to be referred to in those organizations differently than in Paragraph 2 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 817 (1993). This resolution recommends that FYROM be admitted to membership in the United Nations, being ‘provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State’. The IA, a modus vivendi,2 aimed precisely at keeping the discontent relating to the name dispute from tainting the international relations between the signatories, setting a comprehensive set of mutual commitments, collateral to their pledge ‘to continue negotiations under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations . . .with a view to reaching agreement on the difference [about the name]’ (Article 5(1) IA).