derek-thomas/squad-v1.1-t5-question-generation huggingface dataset:
A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

Question: What might a party's consent to a treaty be considered if it has been given by an agent without the power under the state's domestic law to do so? Question: A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under what? Question: A manifest violation is required to invalidate a party's consent to a treaty due to a reluctance internationally to inquire into what aspects of other states? Question: What is required to invalidate a party's consent due to a reluctance to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states? Question: For what does a strong presumption exist internationally that a head of state has acted within in entering into a treaty?
Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed]

Question: If a state's representative ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign, what might that state's consent to a treaty be considered to be? Question: Who might place restrictions on a representative during negotiation of a treaty? Question: What must be true of the ignored restrictions placed on a representative by his sovereign in order for a state's consent to a treaty to be considered invalid? Question: Who must have been notified of the ignored restrictions placed by a sovereign on his representative prior to the signing of a treaty in order for a state's consent to be considered invalid?
According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.

Question: The preamble of what states that treaties are a source of international law? Question: What are started to be a source of international law in the preamble in The Law of Treaties? Question: Approval under what law will not make an act or lack thereof legal if condemned under international law? Question: Which will prevail in a conflict between international and domestic law? Question: An act or lack thereof cannot be made legal under what law even if made legal under internal law?
Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

Question: Which articles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the ways that treaties can be invalidated? Question: A treaty might be considered what if it's considered unenforceable and void under international law? Question: In addition to the content of the treaty itself, why might a treated by invalidated? Question: In addition to the circumstances by which a state party joined a treaty, why might a treaty be invalidated? Question: Which processes simply alter the consent given by parties to a previously valid treaty rather than invalidating the consent completely?
A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

Question: What may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion of a treaty? Question: What, if it formed the "essential basis" of a state's consent to a treaty, may invalidate that consent? Question: An erroneous understanding of a fact or situation may only invalidate a state's consent to a treaty if what is also true about the erroneous understanding? Question: What on behalf of a state cannot invalidate that state's consent to a treaty? Question: Consent to a treaty will not be invalidated if what should have been evident?
Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.

Question: What type of conduct of a party to a treaty can invalidate the consent of another party? Question: What type of action, either direct or indirect, of a state's representative by another type of party to a treaty can invalidate a state's consent? Question: Coercion of a state or its what through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent? Question: What must  be true of coercion through the threat or use of force of a party to treaty for it to invalidate the state's consent to a treaty? Question: Coercion of a representative or a state itself will result in what happening to its consent to a treaty?
A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.

Question: What will a treaty be if it is in violation of a peremptory norm? Question: What type of norm is recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations? Question: What distinguishes peremptory norms from other principles of customary law? Question: What is an example of a type of universally prohibited action that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit through a treaty? Question: What is true of acts such as genocide and piracy in regard to treaty law?
The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.

Question: What document states that treaties must be registered with the United Nations to be invoked before it or enforced in the International Court of Justice? Question: What is the judiciary organ of the United Nations? Question: Why does the United Nations Charter state that treaties must be registered with the United Nations? Question: In which centuries did a proliferation of secret treaties occur that led the United Nations Charter to include an obligation to register treaties to be invoked before it? Question: What section of the United Nations Charter states that its members' obligation under the charter outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties?
After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force.

Question: When must all treaties and their amendments follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations? Question: Treaties and their amendments must follow the official legal procedures of what body after their adoption? Question: Which office of the United Nations is in charge of applying its official legal procedures? Question: What are three official legal procedures of the United Nations that all treaties must follow after their adoption? Question: In addition to signature and ratification, what legal procedure of the United Nations must all treaties follow after their adoption?
In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.

Question: In which aspects has the United Nations been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government? Question: Modern treaty law can be compared in function and effectiveness to the historical Articles of Confederation by comparing the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government with what modern institution? Question: The United Nations has been compared to what government in function and effectiveness? Question: The comparison of the United Nations to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government gives us a comparison between what modern and historical legal topics of interest? Question: What legal document formed the basis of the pre-Constitutional Federal government of the United States?
The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

Question: In what office is the power to enter into treaties vested according to the Brazilian federal constitution? Question: What part of the Brazilian federal consitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress? Question: In practice the Brazilian president must get the prior approval of what body in order to negotiate and sign a treaty? Question: What Brazilian institution has ruled that a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree? Question: In order for a treaty to be valid in Brazil, a presidential decree incorporating the treaty into domestic law must be published where in order to be valid?
The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

Question: The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court has ruled that treaties enjoy what position relative to ordinary legislation? Question: What is the Portuguese term for ordinary laws? Question: In what year did the Brazilian Supreme Court rule that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above ordinary legislation? Question: What amendment to the Brazilian constitution states that human rights treaties approved by means of a special procedure by Congress enjoy the same position as a constitutional amendment? Question: The hierarchical position of treaties relative to domestic legislation in Brazil determines whether the latter can do what to the former and vice versa?
The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation.

Question: What kind of clause does the United States constitution have that the Brazilian constitution does not have with the same effects? Question: What clause of the United States Constitution is relevant to the discussion of the relation between treaties and U.S. legislation? Question: The Brazilian constitution does not have a supremacy clause that would be of interest to the relation between state legislation and what other legal agreements? Question: A supremacy clause in a federal constitution is relevant to the discussion on the relation between treaties and what other type of legislation?
In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

Question: Treaties, executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements are the same under international law but different with respect to what? Question: Under US law, what primarily distinguishes treaties, executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements? Question: What percentage of United States Senators must give advice and consent in order for the US to enter a treaty? Question: What type of agreement may a US president enter by acting alone? Question: What type of agreement requires majority approval by both the House and the Senate before or after a treaty is signed by the United States president?
Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.

Question: In the United States, what is the ratio of executive agreements to treaties? Question: What is it about the approval process of executive agreements might lead a US president to prefer them over treaties? Question: The president of the United States might prefer the formal treaty process on matters that require Congress to do what? Question: The president of the United States might prefer the formal treaty process for agreements that impose what type of legal obligations on the US? Question: The international deal between the US, other countries, and what controversial nation is not a treaty?
The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.

Question: In what cases did the US Supreme Court rule that treaties do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress? Question: The US Supreme Court ruled that treaties can be repealed or modified by what for the purposes of US law? Question: The US Supreme Court ruled that treaties can be repealed or modified for the purposes of US law just like what by any subsequent Act of Congress? Question: What Supreme Court case ruled that a treaty provision that conflicts with the US Constitution is null and void under US law? Question: Any treaty provision that conflicts with the US Constitution is considered what under US law?
In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.

Question: Into what 3 lists are legislation subjects divided in India? Question: What subjects can only be legislated by the central legislative body in India? Question: What is the central legislative body in India? Question: What type of legislative subjects can both the central legislative body and state legislatures make laws? Question: In order to implement international treaties, for what subjects can the Parliament of India legislate to override the general division of subject lists?
Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.

Question: What formed an important part of European colonization? Question: What did Europeans try to legitimize all over the world by signing treaties with indigenous people? Question: With whom did Europeans attempt to sign treaties in order to legitimize their sovereignty during colonization? Question: What terms in relation to Europeans did most indigenous people enjoy under treaties? Question: What aspect of the treaties that indigenous people signed with Europeans did the indigenous people typically not understand?
In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other.

Question: In what two rare cases were local governments able to mitigate the impact of of European colonization through treaties? Question: Both Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China learned the intricacies of European diplomatic customs to mitigate what through treaties? Question: What did Ethiopians learn in order to use treaties to prevent a European power from overstepping their agreement? Question: Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China were both able to prevent European powers from doing what to their agreements? Question: In addition to preventing a power from overstepping their agreement, how was Ethiopia able to mitigate the impact of European colonization?
In other cases, such as New Zealand and Canada, treaties allowed native peoples to maintain a minimum amount of autonomy. In the case of indigenous Australians, unlike with the Māori of New Zealand, no treaty was ever entered into with the indigenous peoples entitling the Europeans to land ownership, under the doctrine of terra nullius (later overturned by Mabo v Queensland, establishing the concept of native title well after colonization was already a fait accompli). Such treaties between colonizers and indigenous peoples are an important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st century, the treaties being discussed have international standing as has been stated in a treaty study by the UN.

Question: What were native peoples able to maintain a minimum amount of through treaties? Question: What indigenous people of New Zealand entered into a treaty entitling Europeans to land ownership? Question: What doctrine was overturned by Mabo v Queensland establishing the concept of native title? Question: The concept of native title was established by what court case? Question: Treaties between indigenous peoples and what other groups formed an important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st century?
Prior to 1871, the government of the United States regularly entered into treaties with Native Americans but the Indian Appropriations Act of March 3, 1871 (ch. 120, 16 Stat. 563) had a rider (25 U.S.C. § 71) attached that effectively ended the President’s treaty making by providing that no Indian nation or tribe shall be acknowledged as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty. The federal government continued to provide similar contractual relations with the Indian tribes after 1871 by agreements, statutes, and executive orders.

Question: Prior to what year did the United States regularly enter into treaties with Native Americans? Question: What legislative act provided that no Indian nation shall be acknowledged as an independent nation with whom the United States may contract by treaty? Question: A rider to the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 provided that no Indian nation shall be acknowledged as what? Question: A rider to the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 provided that the US government could not do what with an Indian nation? Question: By what did the US federal government provide contractual relations with Indian tribes following the Indian Appropriations Act of March 3, 1871?