derek-thomas/squad-v1.1-t5-question-generation huggingface dataset:
The Byzantine Empire ruled the northern shores of the Sahara from the 5th to the 7th centuries. After the Muslim conquest of Arabia (Arabian peninsula) the Muslim conquest of North Africa began in the mid-7th to early 8th centuries, Islamic influence expanded rapidly on the Sahara. By the end of 641 all of Egypt was in Muslim hands. The trade across the desert intensified. A significant slave trade crossed the desert. It has been estimated that from the 10th to 19th centuries some 6,000 to 7,000 slaves were transported north each year.

Question: What group of people ruled the northern shoes of the   Sahara? Question: What time period did the Muslim conquest of North Africa   take place? Question: What is the estimated number of slaves that were   transported each year?
In the 16th century the northern fringe of the Sahara, such as coastal regencies in present-day Algeria and Tunisia, as well as some parts of present-day Libya, together with the semi-autonomous kingdom of Egypt, were occupied by the Ottoman Empire. From 1517 Egypt was a valued part of the Ottoman Empire, ownership of which provided the Ottomans with control over the Nile Valley, the east Mediterranean and North Africa. The benefit of the Ottoman Empire was the freedom of movement for citizens and goods. Trade exploited the Ottoman land routes to handle the spices, gold and silk from the East, manufactures from Europe, and the slave and gold traffic from Africa. Arabic continued as the local language and Islamic culture was much reinforced. The Sahel and southern Sahara regions were home to several independent states or to roaming Tuareg clans.

Question: During the 1500 who was a valued part of the Ottoman   Empire? Question: What did the Ottoman Empire provide to its people? Question: What was the local language during this time in Egypt?
European colonialism in the Sahara began in the 19th century. France conquered the regency of Algiers from the Ottomans in 1830, and French rule spread south from Algeria and eastwards from Senegal into the upper Niger to include present-day Algeria, Chad, Mali then French Sudan including Timbuktu, Mauritania, Morocco (1912), Niger, and Tunisia (1881). By the beginning of the 20th century, the trans-Saharan trade had clearly declined because goods were moved through more modern and efficient means, such as airplanes, rather than across the desert.

Question: What time period did the colonialism of the Sahara begin? Question: What country conquered the Algiers from the Ottomans in   1830? Question: During what time were good moved through more modern   means?
Arabic dialects are the most widely spoken languages in the Sahara. The live in the Red Sea Hills of southeastern Egypt and eastern Sudan. Arabic, Berber and its variants now regrouped under the term Amazigh (which includes the Guanche language spoken by the original Berber inhabitants of the Canary Islands) and Beja languages are part of the Afro-Asiatic or Hamito-Semitic family.[citation needed] Unlike neighboring West Africa and the central governments of the states that comprise the Sahara, the French language bears little relevance to inter-personal discourse and commerce within the region, its people retaining staunch ethnic and political affiliations with Tuareg and Berber leaders and culture. The legacy of the French colonial era administration is primarily manifested in the territorial reorganization enacted by the Third and Fourth republics, which engendered artificial political divisions within a hitherto isolated and porous region. Diplomacy with local clients was primarily conducted in Arabic, which was the traditional language of bureaucratic affairs. Mediation of disputes and inter-agency communication was served by interpreters contracted by the French government, who, according to Keenan, "documented a space of intercultural mediation," contributing much to preserving indigenous cultural identities in the region.

Question: What is the most common dialect spoken in the Sahara? Question: What was the traditional language of Bureaucratic affairs? Question: What language is mainly spoken in West Africa?
The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behaviour, including behaviour of government officials. The phrase can be traced back to 16th century Britain, and in the following century the Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford used the phrase in his argument against the divine right of kings. The rule of law was further popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. The concept, if not the phrase, was familiar to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote "Law should govern".

Question: According to the rule of law, what should hold the determination for rules in a land? Question: Which Scottish theologian is first credited with using the phrase "rule of law"? Question: Samuel Rutherford used the principle of the rule of law to argue what point? Question: Which British jurist later made the phrase "rule of law" popular in the 1800s? Question: What phrase Ariostle also use which is closely related to "the rule of law"?
Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including law makers themselves. In this sense, it stands in contrast to an autocracy, dictatorship, or oligarchy where the rulers are held above the law. Lack of the rule of law can be found in both democracies and dictatorships, for example because of neglect or ignorance of the law, and the rule of law is more apt to decay if a government has insufficient corrective mechanisms for restoring it. Government based upon the rule of law is called nomocracy.

Question: According to the rule of law, who must obey the laws? Question: In what forms of government are leaders not held to the same laws as ordinary citizens? Question: For what reasons might democratic societies not follow the rule of law? Question: What happens to the rule of law if a government does not have an effective system for maintenance and restoration? Question: What are governments called that are created with the rule of law in mind?
In the West, the ancient Greeks initially regarded the best form of government as rule by the best men. Plato advocated a benevolent monarchy ruled by an idealized philosopher king, who was above the law. Plato nevertheless hoped that the best men would be good at respecting established laws, explaining that "Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state." More than Plato attempted to do, Aristotle flatly opposed letting the highest officials wield power beyond guarding and serving the laws. In other words, Aristotle advocated the rule of law:

Question: On what principle did the Ancient Greeks first think was best for governance? Question: What type of kingdom was purported by Plato? Question: According to Plato, who was above the law? Question: To what did Plato compare a government that follows laws? Question: Under what rule did Aristotle believe a nation should be led?
There has recently been an effort to reevaluate the influence of the Bible on Western constitutional law. In the Old Testament, there was some language in Deuteronomy imposing restrictions on the Jewish king, regarding such things as how many wives he could have, and how many horses he could own for his personal use. According to Professor Bernard M. Levinson, "This legislation was so utopian in its own time that it seems never to have been implemented...." The Deuteronomic social vision may have influenced opponents of the divine right of kings, including Bishop John Ponet in sixteenth-century England.

Question: What historical book may have a significant impact on contemporary law making practices? Question: In which book of the Bible are limitations on Jewish monarchs outlined? Question: According to the restrictions placed on Jewish kings in Deuteronomy, ownership over what was regulated? Question: What principle did the restrictions on the right of kings, as detailed in Deuteronomy, influence later opposition? Question: Who was against the divine rights of kings in England during the 1500s?
In 1607, English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke said in the Case of Prohibitions (according to his own report) "that the law was the golden met-wand and measure to try the causes of the subjects; and which protected His Majesty in safety and peace: with which the King was greatly offended, and said, that then he should be under the law, which was treason to affirm, as he said; to which I said, that Bracton saith, quod Rex non debed esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege (That the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the law.)."

Question: When did English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke speak in the Case of Prohibitions? Question: What was Edward Coke's official title? Question: To what did English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke compare the law? Question: How did the king feel about what was said in the Case of Prohibitions? Question: According to English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke, what should Kings follow?
Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion". Among modern legal theorists, one finds that at least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition; one occasionally encounters a third "functional" conception. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law.

Question: Who commonly, or at least attempt to, abide by the rule of law? Question: What is another word for a thin definition? Question: What is another word for a thick definition? Question: What is the third and lesser referred to approach on defining the rule of law? Question: On what do aspects of the rule of law do formalist definitions focus?
Most legal theorists believe that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. Others, including a few legal theorists, believe that the rule of law necessarily entails protection of individual rights. Within legal theory, these two approaches to the rule of law are seen as the two basic alternatives, respectively labelled the formal and substantive approaches. Still, there are other views as well. Some believe that democracy is part of the rule of law.

Question: According to legal theorists, what characteristics must the rule of law have? Question: According to some legal theorists, for what are there no requirements for something to be considered a law? Question: According to some, what is the rule of law is formed to protect? Question: What are the two approaches to defining the concept of the rule of law? Question: What system of government is considered as a component of the rule of law?
The "formal" interpretation is more widespread than the "substantive" interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law. This formal approach allows laws that protect democracy and individual rights, but recognizes the existence of "rule of law" in countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights.

Question: Which interpretation of the rule of law is used on a larger scale? Question: Which interpretation of the rule of law is less commonly used? Question: According to the formalist approach, how much notoriety must a law have? Question: How many requirements for content are there for the rule of law under the formalist approach? Question: According to the formalist approach, what else, besides democracy, can laws protect?
The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law", consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man." According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law". Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law. The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable.

Question: According to the functional interpretation, what principle is opposite of the rule of man? Question: What level of discretion do governments with a low degree of the "rule of law" have? Question: What level of discretion do governments with a high degree of the "rule of law" have? Question: What happens to those that do not follow to the rule of law? Question: What fights against the rule of law?
The rule of law has been considered as one of the key dimensions that determine the quality and good governance of a country. Research, like the Worldwide Governance Indicators, defines the rule of law as: "the extent to which agents have confidence and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime or violence." Based on this definition the Worldwide Governance Indicators project has developed aggregate measurements for the rule of law in more than 200 countries, as seen in the map below. A government based on the rule of law can be called a "nomocracy", from the Greek nomos (law) and kratos (power or rule).

Question: What is a key qualifier for determining good governance? Question: For how many countries have rule of law aggregate measurements been developed? Question: What is the term that described a government based on the rule of law? Question: What is the Greek word for law? Question: What is the Greek word for power?
All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader. At the same time, the federal government has considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion, and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion.

Question: What does the President and Supreme Court Justices vow to stand by? Question: What do the President and Supreme Court justices vow to uphold? Question: According to the Constitution, what is superior to the rules of man? Question: According to the Constitution, to what is the rule of law superior? Question: What branch of government can determine what acts it writes? Question: Which branch of government has judicial discretion? Question: What branch of the government has prosecutorial discretion?
Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted a particular interpretation of the "rule of law," and if so, which one. For example, John Harrison asserts that the word "law" in the Constitution is simply defined as that which is legally binding, rather than being "defined by formal or substantive criteria," and therefore judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such unwritten and vague criteria. Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that an unjust law was not really a law at all.

Question: For what body of principles is it debated whether or not it was constructed according to the rule of law? Question: According to John Harrison, through the Constitution, what is law? Question: Who disagrees with the ideas proposed by John Harrison? Question: According to Frederick Mark Gedicks, who believed that unjust laws were not really laws?
Others argue that the rule of law has survived but was transformed to allow for the exercise of discretion by administrators. For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law, in this setting, has been some version of A. V. Dicey's: “no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of the land.” That is, individuals should be able to challenge an administrative order by bringing suit in a court of general jurisdiction. As the dockets of worker compensation commissions, public utility commissions and other agencies burgeoned, it soon became apparent that letting judges decide for themselves all the facts in a dispute (such as the extent of an injury in a worker's compensation case) would overwhelm the courts and destroy the advantages of specialization that led to the creation of administrative agencies in the first place. Even Charles Evans Hughes, a Chief Justice of the United States, believed “you must have administration, and you must have administration by administrative officers.” By 1941, a compromise had emerged. If administrators adopted procedures that more-or-less tracked "the ordinary legal manner" of the courts, further review of the facts by "the ordinary Courts of the land" was unnecessary. That is, if you had your "day in commission," the rule of law did not require a further "day in court." Thus Dicey's rule of law was recast into a purely procedural form.

Question: Who can determine if a law should be approached differently? Question: Who should be able to challenge administrative orders in court? Question: Who was Charles Evans Hughes? Question: When was a compromise reached over administrative procedures for law determination?
James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that, "Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect." George Mason agreed that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course." Chief Justice John Marshall (joined by Justice Joseph Story) took a similar position in 1827: "When its existence as law is denied, that existence cannot be proved by showing what are the qualities of a law."

Question: Who spoke at the Philadelphia Convention about the potential chaos from not having judges be able to enforce laws? Question: When was the Philadelphia Convention? Question: What did George Mason state that judges could do to a law? Question: What was John Marshall's title?
East Asian cultures are influenced by two schools of thought, Confucianism, which advocated good governance as rule by leaders who are benevolent and virtuous, and Legalism, which advocated strict adherence to law. The influence of one school of thought over the other has varied throughout the centuries. One study indicates that throughout East Asia, only South Korea, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong have societies that are robustly committed to a law-bound state. According to Awzar Thi, a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission, the rule of law in Thailand, Cambodia, and most of Asia is weak or nonexistent:

Question: What East Asian philosophy emphasized virtuous leadership? Question: What East Asian philosophy emphasized unwavering rule following? Question: Which Asian countries strictly follow laws? Question: How strong is the rule of law in most Asian countries?
In countries such as China and Vietnam, the transition to a market economy has been a major factor in a move toward the rule of law, because a rule of law is important to foreign investors and to economic development. It remains unclear whether the rule of law in countries like China and Vietnam will be limited to commercial matters or will spill into other areas as well, and if so whether that spillover will enhance prospects for related values such as democracy and human rights. The rule of law in China has been widely discussed and debated by both legal scholars and politicians in China.

Question: Which two Asian countries have started to adopt the rule of law? Question: What has influenced China and Vietnam to conform to the rule of law? Question: To whom is the rule of law important to in China's trade deals? Question: What values might adherence to the rule of law subsequently influence in China? Question: Who is debating the reliance on the rule of law in China?
In Thailand, a kingdom that has had a constitution since the initial attempt to overthrow the absolute monarchy system in 1932, the rule of law has been more of a principle than actual practice.[citation needed] Ancient prejudices and political bias have been present in the three branches of government with each of their foundings, and justice has been processed formally according to the law but in fact more closely aligned with royalist principles that are still advocated in the 21st century.[citation needed] In November 2013, Thailand faced still further threats to the rule of law when the executive branch rejected a supreme court decision over how to select senators.[citation needed]

Question: Where has the rule of law been more of a theory than a way of life? Question: When did Thailand first try to overthrow its government run by a king? Question: What harms the adherence to the Constitution in Thailand? Question: According to what principles are most laws in Thailand decided? Question: In Thailand, what branch of government rejected a proposal for senator selection?
In India, the longest constitutional text in the history of the world has governed that country since 1950. Although the Constitution of India may have been intended to provide details that would limit the opportunity for judicial discretion, the more text there is in a constitution the greater opportunity the judiciary may have to exercise judicial review. According to Indian journalist Harish Khare, "The rule of law or rather the Constitution [is] in danger of being supplanted by the rule of judges."

Question: What country has the longest version of a constitution? Question: What country has the longest Constitution? Question: In what year was India's constitution drafted? Question: In Thailand, the length of the constitution impacts the judges chances to exercise what? Question: What is in position to gain control over the rule of law in Thailand?