The conclusion of a framework agreement can move the legislative power of states to a plenary session and shift the basis for approving the new standards and standards obtained through their negotiations.  The practice of concluding framework agreements was born in the 1950s with an asylum agreement between Colombia and Peru.  The government informed a parliamentary body that it had signed a framework agreement with the National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM) after agreeing on a settlement within the Indian Federation with “special status”. In describing efforts to reach an agreement between Israel and Palestine, Senator George J. Mitchell explained: Companies, particularly the adjudicating powers, may enter into framework agreements with one or more suppliers that impose the conditions that would apply to any subsequent contract, and choose and appoint a contractor by reference to the agreed terms or by the organization of a competition inviting only partners to enter into a framework agreement , specific trade proposals.  In the context of the negotiations, a framework agreement is an agreement between two parties, which acknowledges that the parties have not reached final agreement on all issues relevant to the relations between them, but that they have agreed on enough issues to move relations forward, agreeing further details in the future. The details are part of the 213rd report on security in the northeastern states, presented on Thursday by the Standing Parliamentary Committee on Home Affairs in La Rajya Sabha. The Committee was also informed that the “outlines” had not been defined in the framework agreement, which “only concerned the Recognition by the Indian Government of the singularity of the history of the Naga”, and that certain special regimes had to be established for the Nagas. The three factors blocking the agreement are the Constitution, the flag and the merger of parts of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam and Manipur, which adjoin Nagaland to form a larger Nagalim.
In their initial demands, parts of Myanmar also insisted that they be merged with Nagalim – an impossibility. In his speech to the people of Nagaland on 14 August, Muivah briefly recounted the history of the Naga movement and said that “the framework agreement recognizes the sovereignty of Nagas.” He also stated unequivocally that “the Nagas will co-exist with India, which shares sovereign powers, as agreed… But they will not merge with India. The steps taken by the government over the past two or three years to expedite the process of concluding the agreement A framework agreement is not an interim agreement. It is more detailed than a statement of principle, but less than a full-fledged contract.