No Paper Title Author Name Page No

MERICAN Journal of Public Diplomacy and International Studies
www.
 grnjournal.us 
 
One of the most controversial issues is the issue of determining whether a corporate agreement 
belongs to the civil-legal agreements. One of the aspects that should be paid attention to is that if 
this corporate contract is considered to have a civil-legal nature, then it is to determine the 
position of this contract in the system of civil-legal contracts. It is known that one of the main 
classifications of civil legal contracts is based on the principle of "dichotomy". Based on this, the 
three most important pairs of contracts are distinguished: one-sided and two-sided, paid and free, 
real and consensual. Before determining the position of this or that type of agreement in these 
listed pairs, it is necessary to distinguish the obligation arising from the contract. The 
implementation of this classification in relation to the corporate contract creates certain 
difficulties, because the construction of the usual obligation is manifested in the section of 
mutual rights and obligations of the creditor and the debtor.
In its "main" part, the corporate contract includes the obligation to jointly exercise corporate 
rights, so we can only talk about the general obligation of all participants, the fulfillment of 
which none of the participants has the right to demand against themselves personally. In 
addition, the corporate agreement is made to act as a "single agreement" of all parties, not to 
satisfy the personal needs of the participant through the actions of the partner. It will be 
necessary to solve this non-standard situation and find a place for the corporate contract among 
the civil legal agreements. 
Most scholars who consider a corporate contract to be a civil contract usually classify this 
contract as mutual (bilateral). In particular, V. V. Rublev, [3, 45-55 p] and P. S. Nasten. [4, 61-
68 p] Apparently, this conclusion is based on the majority of the participants of the corporate 
agreement. However, the decisive factor in this matter is not the number of participants, but the 
mutual obligations arising under the contract. At the same time, the above scholars or other 
authors do not indicate what mutual rights and obligations arise for the parties to the corporate 
contract. 
Another part of the representatives of the scientific community even believes that the corporate 
contract does not create a civil obligation due to the special scope of its activity - corporate 
relations. Corporate relations are an independent type of private law relations. [5, 526 p] The 
relations arising from the corporate contract do not ensure the circulation of goods between the 
participants, therefore, there are opinions in the scientific literature that they should be 
considered as relative relations not related to obligations. [6, 4-10 p] It has also been argued that 
a corporate contract creates a non-proprietary obligation arising from the conclusion of pre-
contractual agreements. [7] 
As a corporate contract, as a civil contract, it is possible to clearly see the obligation created by 
this contract and, from this, form a certain point of view regarding unilateral obligations and 
mutual agreements. In our view, a corporate agreement binds the parties to the exercise of 
corporate rights under pre-agreed conditions. It also provides for the condition of the turnover of 
shares (shares) under predetermined conditions. The latter obligation is based on the principles 
of reciprocity, as it provides for the alienation and acquisition of objects of civil rights. [8] 
Determining the nature of the obligation to jointly exercise corporate rights is somewhat 
complicated. In this case, it is unlikely that there will be a double obligation, since the voice of 
one of the parties to the contract may not correspond to the voice of the other or others. In 
addition, the emergence of a unilateral obligation in a corporate contract is also controversial. 
Because each of the parties is obliged to vote in a certain way, but in this case it is necessary to 
identify the person who has the right to demand it. In other words, it is necessary to determine 
the "counterparty" who has the right to demand voting in a certain way, because the obligation 
binds certain persons and is therefore called relative. In the absence of a "counterparty", a 
corporate contract cannot be called a unilateral obligation or a bilateral obligation. 
If we pay attention once again to the issue of the joint exercise of corporate rights - the 
obligation created by the corporate contract - we will see that all attempts to find a mutually 

---

202
A