derek-thomas/squad-v1.1-t5-question-generation huggingface dataset:
There are three ways an existing treaty can be amended. First, formal amendment requires State parties to the treaty to go through the ratification process all over again. The re-negotiation of treaty provisions can be long and protracted, and often some parties to the original treaty will not become parties to the amended treaty. When determining the legal obligations of states, one party to the original treaty and one a party to the amended treaty, the states will only be bound by the terms they both agreed upon. Treaties can also be amended informally by the treaty executive council when the changes are only procedural, technical change in customary international law can also amend a treaty, where state behavior evinces a new interpretation of the legal obligations under the treaty. Minor corrections to a treaty may be adopted by a procès-verbal; but a procès-verbal is generally reserved for changes to rectify obvious errors in the text adopted, i.e. where the text adopted does not correctly reflect the intention of the parties adopting it.

Question: How many ways are there to amend an existing treaty? Question: What must state parties to a treaty repeat to adopt a formal amendment to the treaty? Question: In addition to the often long and protracted nature of treaty renegotiation, what negative outcome might result from the process? Question: Parties to an original treaty and an amended treaty are bound to what terms? Question: What amendment process is generally reserved for changes that rectify obvious errors in the text?
In international law and international relations, a protocol is generally a treaty or international agreement that supplements a previous treaty or international agreement. A protocol can amend the previous treaty, or add additional provisions. Parties to the earlier agreement are not required to adopt the protocol. Sometimes this is made clearer by calling it an "optional protocol", especially where many parties to the first agreement do not support the protocol.

Question: What is a treaty that supplements a previous treaty in international law? Question: A protocol may add additional provisions to a treaty or else do what? Question: A protocol may either amend a previous treaty or do what? Question: Do parties to a treaty have an obligation to adopt a later protocol? Question: What do we sometimes call an agreement that supplements a treaty especially when few parties to the treaty support the protocol?
Some examples: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established a framework for the development of binding greenhouse gas emission limits, while the Kyoto Protocol contained the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon.

Question: The Kyoto Protocol is associated with what treaty? Question: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established a framework for the development of what? Question: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was supplemented by what protocol? Question: The agreement that contained specific provisions related to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an example of what agreement that supplements a treaty? Question: While the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established a framework for developing greenhouse gas emission limits, the Kyoto Protocol contained what?
Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action. Other treaties may be non-self-executing and require 'implementing legislation'—a change in the domestic law of a state party that will direct or enable it to fulfill treaty obligations. An example of a treaty requiring such legislation would be one mandating local prosecution by a party for particular crimes.

Question: A treaty that puts all of its obligations in action simply by becoming a party to it is known as what? Question: Signing a self-executing treaty automatically does what for a party? Question: A treaty requiring local prosecution by a party for particular crimes is an example of which type of treaty? Question: What do non-self-executing treaties typically require from a party to enable it to fulfill its obligations? Question: What is "implementing legislation" that is required by a party to a treaty to enable it to fulfill its obligations under the treaty?
The division between the two is often not clear and is often politicized in disagreements within a government over a treaty, since a non-self-executing treaty cannot be acted on without the proper change in domestic law. If a treaty requires implementing legislation, a state may be in default of its obligations by the failure of its legislature to pass the necessary domestic laws.

Question: A treaty may be politicized due to disagreements within a party because the division between a self-executing treaty and a non-self-executing treaty can often be described as what? Question: The often unclear division between a self-executing treaty and a non-self-executing treaty can lead to a treaty being what if disagreements exist within a party? Question: What type of treaty cannot be acted on without the proper change in domestic law? Question: What institution of a party to a treaty must act to fulfill the party's obligations under a non-self-executing treaty? Question: A state party may be in default of its obligations under a non-self-executing treaty if its legislature fails to do what?
The language of treaties, like that of any law or contract, must be interpreted when the wording does not seem clear or it is not immediately apparent how it should be applied in a perhaps unforeseen circumstance. The Vienna Convention states that treaties are to be interpreted "in good faith" according to the "ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose." International legal experts also often invoke the 'principle of maximum effectiveness,' which interprets treaty language as having the fullest force and effect possible to establish obligations between the parties.

Question: What property of treaties must often be interpreted when it's not clear? Question: Besides unclear language what might also arise that necessitates the interpretation of the language of a treaty? Question: What states that treaties are to be interpreted "in good faith" according to the "ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose?" Question: What principle is often invoked by legal experts when interpreting the language of treaties? Question: The principle of maximum effectiveness interprets the language of treaties as having what effect to establish obligations between parties?
No one party to a treaty can impose its particular interpretation of the treaty upon the other parties. Consent may be implied, however, if the other parties fail to explicitly disavow that initially unilateral interpretation, particularly if that state has acted upon its view of the treaty without complaint. Consent by all parties to the treaty to a particular interpretation has the legal effect of adding another clause to the treaty – this is commonly called an 'authentic interpretation'.

Question: No one party to a treaty can do what to the other parties? Question: What may be implied of other parties fail to explicitly disavow a party's initially unilateral interpretation of a treaty? Question: Consent for a party's unilateral interpretation of a treaty may be implied if that state has acted upon its view of the treat without what from another party? Question: Consent by all parties to a treaty to a particular interpretation of the treaty has what legal effect? Question: The legal effect of adding another clause to a treaty that occurs when all parties to a treaty consent to a particular interpretation of the treaty is commonly known as what?
International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself.

Question: What judicial bodies might be called upon to resolve disputes pertaining to the interpretation of treaties? Question: What are international tribunals and arbiters often called upon to resolve in regards to treaties? Question: For what purpose might an international tribunal review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of a treaty? Question: In addition to the final, signed treaty what else might arbiters review to establish the meaning of a treaty in context? Question: In addition to the preparatory work from the drafting and negotiation of a treaty, what might arbiters review when resolving a dispute over the interpretation of a treaty?
One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.

Question: Nations can be careful about terming an agreement a treaty because it has the effect of recognizing that the other side is a what? Question: Under what do all parties to a treaty recognize the provisions of the treaty are enforceable? Question: What are agreements between states within the United States called? Question: What are agreements between states and the federal government called within the United States? Question: In the United States, what are agreements between agencies of the federal government called?
Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.

Question: North Korea and the United States have been characterized by a disagreement over one parties desire to create what with respect to security guarantees and nuclear proliferation? Question: Parties to a treaty may disagree over a desire to create an obligation under what? Question: Discussions between what two countries have been influence by one party's desire to create an obligation under international law? Question: Discussion between North Korea and the United States have been influenced by one party's desire to create obligations under international law with respect to what two topics?
The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

Question: Convention, protocol, and agreement are examples of examples of different kinds of what that can create confusion about a treaty? Question: What common terminological problem can sometimes lead to confusion surrounding a treaty? Question: What other terms might be used to refer to a treaty? Question: What's an example of a treaty that is considered internationally to be documents under domestic law? Question: What is the Treaty of Waitangi internationally considered to be?
Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

Question: Are treaties permanently binding upon the signatory parties? Question: Traditionally, what must a state do in order for an obligation to arise in international law? Question: What is the only barrier to withdrawal contained in many treaties? Question: What treaty will terminate if the number of parties falls below 40 as a result of denunciations? Question: Which article of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that there is a presumption that treaties cannot be unilaterally denounced?
The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

Question: The terms and travaux preparatoire of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were both factors in determining what aspect of the treaty as it relates to North Korea's stated intentions? Question: What two factors determine whether it is possible to withdraw from a treaty? Question: What is an example of a treaty from which it is not possible to withdraw? Question: What state declared its intention to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? Question: Who, acting as registrar, informed North Korea that withdrawal was deliberately precluded by the original signatories of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.

Question: Although withdrawal from a treaty may not be possible in theory, when might it be possible anyway? Question: What factor, in practice, allows a state to withdraw from any treaty at any time? Question: Because of sovereignty when may a state withdrawal from a treaty? Question: What really determines whether withdrawal from a treaty is permitted? Question: What might a state do in response to another state's withdrawal from a treaty?
If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]

Question: After what action by a state are its obligations under a treaty considered terminated? Question: What happens to a state's obligations under a treaty upon its withdrawal from the treaty? Question: What kind of treaty is terminated by the withdrawal of just one party? Question: What happens to a multilateral treaty's rights and obligations among the other parties when just one party withdraws? Question: Under what conditions could a single state's withdrawal result in the termination of a multilateral treaty?
If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.

Question: Who may invoke a material breach committed by a party to a treaty to suspend their obligations to that party? Question: In addition to terminating the treaty itself, what actions by the other parties might result from one party materially violating or beaching its obligations? Question: What temporary actions can parties of a treaty take in response to a material violation of a party's obligations? Question: What may be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating a treaty? Question: In addition to suspending their obligations under a treaty to the violating party, what may result from a material breach of treaty obligations?
A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

Question: Does a material breach necessarily suspend or terminate treaty relations? Question: What determines whether a breach automatically suspends or terminates treaty relations? Question: A treaty breach does not necessarily affect treaty relations depending on how serious the other parties view the breach and what other factor? Question: What might a tribunal or an arbiter be asked to determine regarding a breach of a treaty? Question: Using what to determine the seriousness of a breach can prevent a party from prematurely suspending its obligations due to another party's alleged material breach?
Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Question: Some treaties contains provisions for what to happen if certain defined conditions are met? Question: What happens to a treaty that was designed to terminate under certain conditions when those conditions are actually met? Question: In addition to passing an expiration date, what might cause a treaty to self-terminate? Question: What may we assume the parties to a treaty intended the treaty's obligations to be if the treaty included an expiration date? Question: What provision might a treaty include if it's meant to be only temporarily binding?
A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]

Question: What might result in a party to a treaty claiming a treaty should be terminated even absent an express provision for its termination? Question: In order to be considered a fundamental change, a change in circumstances must have been what at the time of the adoption of the treaty? Question: The radical transformation of what aspect of the obligations between the parties is a necessary condition for a claim of a fundamental change in circumstances to terminate a treaty? Question: A party cannot base its claim of a fundamental change in circumstances if the change was brought about by what? Question: The claim of a fundamental change in circumstances cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew what?
The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624  Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa.

Question: The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against what tribe in February 624? Question: Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking what treaty? Question: Pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being what, was the action that allegedly violated the Constitution of Medina? Question: What chained actions resulted from the alleged violation of the Constitution of Medina by the Banu Qaynuqa Jews? Question: Who's insistence led the Prophet Muhammad to expel the Banu Qaynuqa Jews instead of kill them?
Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed

Question: What angel, according to Muslim tradition, ordered Muhammad to order a siege on the Banu Qurayza? Question: Who claims Muhammad had a treaty with the Banu Qurayza that was torn apart? Question: How many members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after surrendering to Muhammad and his followers according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham? Question: According to Sunni Hadith which members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after surrendering to Muhammad and his followers? Question: How many Muslims were killed during the invasion of Banu Qurayza?
There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.

Question: An otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as what for several reasons most of which involve problems created at the formation of a treaty? Question: When are most of the problems created that might result in an otherwise valid treaty being rejected as a binding international agreement? Question: What treaties between Japan and Korea are examples of treaties that were declared null and void? Question: In what treaty were the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907, and 1910 confirmed as "already null and void?" Question: Which two states signed a treaty that declared previous treaties between the two from 1905, 1907, and 1910 to be already void?