Treaty

qas: question: Who are the actors in international law?
answers: text: sovereign states and international organizations

question: What is an agreement entered into by actors in international law?
answers: text: A treaty

question: How are different forms of agreements treated under international law compared to treaties?
answers: text: equally

question: How would you compare the rules of a treaty and a covenant under international law?
answers: text: the rules are the same
context: A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.

qas: question: What must a party to a treaty do to prevent being held liable under international law?
answers: text: live up to their obligations

question: What is comparable in domestic law to a treaty in international law?
answers: text: contracts

question: Under what will a party to a treaty be held liable for failing to uphold their obligations?
answers: text: international law

question: What must be the attitude of a party towards assuming the legal obligations of the treaty?
answers: text: willing

question: What do we call the willingly-assumed burdens placed upon parties to both treaties and contracts?
answers: text: obligations
context: Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law.

qas: question: How are the agreements in a treaty expressed?
answers: text: in words

question: How are states that enter into a treaty bound?
answers: text: legally

question: What is an official document which expresses an agreement between two states?
answers: text: A treaty

question: What is an objective outcome of a ceremonial occasion which acknowledges the defined relationships of its parties?
answers: text: A treaty

question: Who is responsible for the legally-bound obligations of the parties to a treaty?
answers: text: themselves
context: A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves. A treaty is the official document which expresses that agreement in words; and it is also the objective outcome of a ceremonial occasion which acknowledges the parties and their defined relationships.

qas: question: What is shared by most treaties since the late 19th century?
answers: text: a fairly consistent format

question: What is the beginning of a typical treaty called?
answers: text: a preamble

question: Why are long sentences in a modern preamble formatted into multiple paragraphs?
answers: text: readability

question: Each paragraph of a modern preamble typically begins with which part of speech?
answers: text: a verb

question: In addition to describing the parties and their joint objectives, what else does a modern preamble typically summarize?
answers: text: any underlying events (such as a war)
context: Since the late 19th century, most treaties have followed a fairly consistent format. A treaty typically begins with a preamble describing the contracting parties and their joint objectives in executing the treaty, as well as summarizing any underlying events (such as a war). Modern preambles are sometimes structured as a single very long sentence formatted into multiple paragraphs for readability, in which each of the paragraphs begins with a verb (desiring, recognizing, having, and so on).

qas: question: What term describes a common clause in a treaty stating that the representatives of the parties have communicated their full powers?
answers: text: boilerplate

question: What are the official documents appointing a party's representative to act on their behalf?
answers: text: full powers

question: In addition to their full names, what else is included in the preamble that identifies the parties to a treaty?
answers: text: sovereign titles

question: How must the full powers of a parties' representatives be found in order to enter into a treaty?
answers: text: in good or proper form.

question: Who else besides the parties themselves is typically identified in the preamble to a treaty?
answers: text: their representatives
context: The contracting parties' full names or sovereign titles are often included in the preamble, along with the full names and titles of their representatives, and a boilerplate clause about how their representatives have communicated (or exchanged) their full powers (i.e., the official documents appointing them to act on behalf of their respective states) and found them in good or proper form.

qas: question: What follows the preamble in a treaty?
answers: text: numbered articles

question: What is contained in the numbered articles of a treaty?
answers: text: the substance of the parties' actual agreement

question: What does each article heading usually encompass?
answers: text: a paragraph

question: How might the articles in a long treaty be grouped?
answers: text: under chapter headings

question: The numbered articles of a treaty may be grouped by chapter heading in what kind of treaty?
answers: text: A long treaty
context: After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain the substance of the parties' actual agreement. Each article heading usually encompasses a paragraph. A long treaty may further group articles under chapter headings.

qas: question: What type of resolution to disputes is typically outlined in a treaty?
answers: text: peaceful

question: Which section of a treaty typically contains information about the whereabouts of the final authentic copies of a treaty?
answers: text: articles

question: Parties to a treaty might have disputes about what aspect of the articles of a treaty?
answers: text: their interpretation

question: Which copies of a treaty have their locations outlined in most modern treaties?
answers: text: the final authentic copies

question: Modern treaties typically outline the procedures for the peaceful resolution of what?
answers: text: disputes
context: Modern treaties, regardless of subject matter, usually contain articles governing where the final authentic copies of the treaty will be deposited and how any subsequent disputes as to their interpretation will be peacefully resolved.

qas: question: What is the formal name for the closing protocol of a treaty?
answers: text: the eschatocol

question: What typically follows the signatures in a treaty?
answers: text: the site(s) of the treaty's execution and the date(s)

question: How is the date typically written in a treaty?
answers: text: its most formal, longest possible form

question: What is the nature of the different versions of a treaty executed in multiple languages?
answers: text: equally authentic

question: A clause like "in witness whereof" or "in faith whereof" typically signals what in a treaty?
answers: text: The end
context: The end of a treaty, the eschatocol (or closing protocol), is often signaled by a clause like "in witness whereof" or "in faith whereof," the parties have affixed their signatures, followed by the words "DONE at," then the site(s) of the treaty's execution and the date(s) of its execution. The date is typically written in its most formal, longest possible form. For example, the Charter of the United Nations was "DONE at the city of San Francisco the twenty-sixth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five." If the treaty is executed in multiple copies in different languages, that fact is always noted, and is followed by a stipulation that the versions in different languages are equally authentic.

qas: question: Whose signatures appear at the very end of a treaty?
answers: text: the parties' representatives

question: Where might the text of a treaty be reprinted?
answers: text: in a collection of treaties currently in effect

question: Who, upon reprinting, will often append the dates on which the treaty was ratified and came into effect?
answers: text: an editor

question: Each party must have done what in order for the treaty to come into effect?
answers: text: ratified the treaty

question: Even if signed  and ratified on the same date, the treaty might have done what on different dates?
answers: text: came into effect
context: The signatures of the parties' representatives follow at the very end. When the text of a treaty is later reprinted, such as in a collection of treaties currently in effect, an editor will often append the dates on which the respective parties ratified the treaty and on which it came into effect for each party.

qas: question: Bilateral treaties are concluded between how many states or entities?
answers: text: two

question: Is it possible for a bilateral treaty to have more than two parties?
answers: text: It is possible

question: The bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the European Union followed the Swiss rejection of what?
answers: text: the European Economic Area agreement

question: Does the bilateral treaty between Switzerland and the European Union establish rights or obligations amongst the EU and its member states?
answers: text: it does not

question: The treaty between Switzerland and the European Union is an example of what kind of treaty?
answers: text: bilateral
context: Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states or entities. It is possible, however, for a bilateral treaty to have more than two parties; consider for instance the bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) following the Swiss rejection of the European Economic Area agreement. Each of these treaties has seventeen parties. These however are still bilateral, not multilateral, treaties. The parties are divided into two groups, the Swiss ("on the one part") and the EU and its member states ("on the other part"). The treaty establishes rights and obligations between the Swiss and the EU and the member states severally—it does not establish any rights and obligations amongst the EU and its member states.[citation needed]

qas: question: What is a treaty concluded among several countries?
answers: text: A multilateral treaty

question: Between which parties does a multilateral treaty establish rights and obligations?
answers: text: each party and every other party

question: The Treaty of Locarno guarantees each signatory against what from another signatory?
answers: text: attack

question: What type of treaty is a mutual guarantee?
answers: text: international compacts

question: Multilateral treaties are often entered into by countries that share the same what?
answers: text: region
context: A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries. The agreement establishes rights and obligations between each party and every other party. Multilateral treaties are often regional.[citation needed] Treaties of "mutual guarantee" are international compacts, e.g., the Treaty of Locarno which guarantees each signatory against attack from another.

qas: question: What are caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty?
answers: text: Reservations

question: What are unilateral statements purporting to exclude or to modify the legal obligation and its effects on a state?
answers: text: Reservations

question: When must reservations be included in a treaty?
answers: text: at the time of signing or ratification

question: What are parties to a treaty forbidden to do after they have already joined a treaty?
answers: text: add a reservation

question: A reserving party to a treaty may include a statement that attempts to do what to its legal obligations or their effects?
answers: text: exclude or to modify
context: Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. Reservations are unilateral statements purporting to exclude or to modify the legal obligation and its effects on the reserving state. These must be included at the time of signing or ratification, i.e. "a party cannot add a reservation after it has already joined a treaty".

qas: question: A more permissive rule regarding what emerged to encourage the largest number of states to join treaties?
answers: text: reservations

question: Reservations are generally permitted so long as they are not what?
answers: text: inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the treaty

question: How did international law originally respond to treaty reservations?
answers: text: rejecting them

question: Originally reservations were rejected under international law unless which parties of the treaty accepted them?
answers: text: all parties

question: Because they are generally accepted under international law, a treaty must forbid reservations in what manner to prevent their adoption?
answers: text: expressly
context: Originally, international law was unaccepting of treaty reservations, rejecting them unless all parties to the treaty accepted the same reservations. However, in the interest of encouraging the largest number of states to join treaties, a more permissive rule regarding reservations has emerged. While some treaties still expressly forbid any reservations, they are now generally permitted to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the treaty.

qas: question: When a state adds reservations to a treaty, other parties to the treaty can respond to those reservations in what ways?
answers: text: accept those reservations, object to them, or object and oppose them

question: Who remains unaffected when a party's reservation is accepted by a second party?
answers: text: other parties to the treaty

question: What happens to the parts of the treaty affected by a rejected reservation as they concern the reserving and rejecting parties?
answers: text: drop out completely

question: What legal obligations exist between two state parties if one objects and opposes the other's reservations?
answers: text: no legal obligations

question: If a state party objects and opposes another state's reservations it essentially refuses to acknowledge what?
answers: text: the reserving state is a party to the treaty
context: When a state limits its treaty obligations through reservations, other states party to that treaty have the option to accept those reservations, object to them, or object and oppose them. If the state accepts them (or fails to act at all), both the reserving state and the accepting state are relieved of the reserved legal obligation as concerns their legal obligations to each other (accepting the reservation does not change the accepting state's legal obligations as concerns other parties to the treaty). If the state opposes, the parts of the treaty affected by the reservation drop out completely and no longer create any legal obligations on the reserving and accepting state, again only as concerns each other. Finally, if the state objects and opposes, there are no legal obligations under that treaty between those two state parties whatsoever. The objecting and opposing state essentially refuses to acknowledge the reserving state is a party to the treaty at all.

qas: question: How many ways are there to amend an existing treaty?
answers: text: three

question: What must state parties to a treaty repeat to adopt a formal amendment to the treaty?
answers: text: the ratification process

question: What amendment process is generally reserved for changes that rectify obvious errors in the text?
answers: text: a procès-verbal

question: Parties to an original treaty and an amended treaty are bound to what terms?
answers: text: the terms they both agreed upon

question: In addition to the often long and protracted nature of treaty renegotiation, what negative outcome might result from the process?
answers: text: some parties to the original treaty will not become parties to the amended treaty
context: 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.

qas: question: What is a treaty that supplements a previous treaty in international law?
answers: text: a protocol

question: A protocol may either amend a previous treaty or do what?
answers: text: add additional provisions

question: Do parties to a treaty have an obligation to adopt a later protocol?
answers: text: not required

question: What do we sometimes call an agreement that supplements a treaty especially when few parties to the treaty support the protocol?
answers: text: an "optional protocol"

question: A protocol may add additional provisions to a treaty or else do what?
answers: text: amend the previous treaty
context: 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.

qas: question: The Kyoto Protocol is associated with what treaty?
answers: text: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

question: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was supplemented by what protocol?
answers: text: the Kyoto Protocol

question: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established a framework for the development of what?
answers: text: binding greenhouse gas emission limits

question: While the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established a framework for developing greenhouse gas emission limits, the Kyoto Protocol contained what?
answers: text: the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon

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?
answers: text: Protocol
context: 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.

qas: question: A treaty that puts all of its obligations in action simply by becoming a party to it is known as what?
answers: text: self-executing

question: What do non-self-executing treaties typically require from a party to enable it to fulfill its obligations?
answers: text: implementing legislation

question: What is "implementing legislation" that is required by a party to a treaty to enable it to fulfill its obligations under the treaty?
answers: text: a change in the domestic law of a state party

question: A treaty requiring local prosecution by a party for particular crimes is an example of which type of treaty?
answers: text: non-self-executing

question: Signing a self-executing treaty automatically does what for a party?
answers: text: puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action
context: 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.

qas: question: What type of treaty cannot be acted on without the proper change in domestic law?
answers: text: 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?
answers: text: pass the necessary domestic laws

question: What institution of a party to a treaty must act to fulfill the party's obligations under a non-self-executing treaty?
answers: text: its legislature

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?
answers: text: politicized

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?
answers: text: not clear
context: 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.

qas: question: What principle is often invoked by legal experts when interpreting the language of treaties?
answers: text: principle of maximum effectiveness

question: The principle of maximum effectiveness interprets the language of treaties as having what effect to establish obligations between parties?
answers: text: the fullest force and effect

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?"
answers: text: The Vienna Convention

question: What property of treaties must often be interpreted when it's not clear?
answers: text: The language

question: Besides unclear language what might also arise that necessitates the interpretation of the language of a treaty?
answers: text: a perhaps unforeseen circumstance
context: 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.

qas: question: No one party to a treaty can do what to the other parties?
answers: text: impose its particular interpretation of the treaty

question: What may be implied of other parties fail to explicitly disavow a party's initially unilateral interpretation of a treaty?
answers: text: Consent

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?
answers: text: complaint

question: Consent by all parties to a treaty to a particular interpretation of the treaty has what legal effect?
answers: text: adding another clause to the treaty

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?
answers: text: an 'authentic interpretation'
context: 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'.

qas: question: What are international tribunals and arbiters often called upon to resolve in regards to treaties?
answers: text: substantial disputes over treaty interpretations

question: What judicial bodies might be called upon to resolve disputes pertaining to the interpretation of treaties?
answers: text: International tribunals and arbiters

question: In addition to the final, signed treaty what else might arbiters review to establish the meaning of a treaty in context?
answers: text: the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty

question: For what purpose might an international tribunal review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of a treaty?
answers: text: To establish the meaning 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?
answers: text: the final, signed treaty itself
context: 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.

qas: question: What are agreements between states within the United States called?
answers: text: compacts

question: What are agreements between states and the federal government called within the United States?
answers: text: memoranda of understanding

question: In the United States, what are agreements between agencies of the federal government called?
answers: text: 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?
answers: text: a sovereign state

question: Under what do all parties to a treaty recognize the provisions of the treaty are enforceable?
answers: text: international law
context: 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.

qas: question: Parties to a treaty may disagree over a desire to create an obligation under what?
answers: text: international law

question: Discussions between what two countries have been influence by one party's desire to create an obligation under international law?
answers: text: North Korea and the United States

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?
answers: text: 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?
answers: text: to create an obligation under international law
context: 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.

qas: question: What is the Treaty of Waitangi internationally considered to be?
answers: text: documents under domestic law

question: What other terms might be used to refer to a treaty?
answers: text: convention, protocol, or simply agreement

question: What common terminological problem can sometimes lead to confusion surrounding a treaty?
answers: text: named something other than a treaty,

question: What's an example of a treaty that is considered internationally to be documents under domestic law?
answers: text: the Treaty of Waitangi

question: Convention, protocol, and agreement are examples of examples of different kinds of what that can create confusion about a treaty?
answers: text: terminology
context: 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.

qas: question: Traditionally, what must a state do in order for an obligation to arise in international law?
answers: text: consent

question: What is the only barrier to withdrawal contained in many treaties?
answers: text: procedures of notification

question: Are treaties permanently binding upon the signatory parties?
answers: text: not necessarily

question: What treaty will terminate if the number of parties falls below 40 as a result of denunciations?
answers: text: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

question: Which article of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that there is a presumption that treaties cannot be unilaterally denounced?
answers: text: Article 56
context: 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:

qas: question: What is an example of a treaty from which it is not possible to withdraw?
answers: text: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

question: What state declared its intention to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
answers: text: North Korea

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?
answers: text: the Secretary-General of the United Nations

question: What two factors determine whether it is possible to withdraw from a treaty?
answers: text: the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire

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?
answers: text: The possibility of withdrawal
context: 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.

qas: question: What factor, in practice, allows a state to withdraw from any treaty at any time?
answers: text: sovereignty

question: What really determines whether withdrawal from a treaty is permitted?
answers: text: how other states will react

question: What might a state do in response to another state's withdrawal from a treaty?
answers: text: impose sanctions or go to war

question: Although withdrawal from a treaty may not be possible in theory, when might it be possible anyway?
answers: text: In practice

question: Because of sovereignty when may a state withdrawal from a treaty?
answers: text: at any time
context: 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.

qas: question: What happens to a state's obligations under a treaty upon its withdrawal from the treaty?
answers: text: terminated

question: What kind of treaty is terminated by the withdrawal of just one party?
answers: text: a bilateral treaty

question: What happens to a multilateral treaty's rights and obligations among the other parties when just one party withdraws?
answers: text: remain in force

question: After what action by a state are its obligations under a treaty considered terminated?
answers: text: withdrawal

question: Under what conditions could a single state's withdrawal result in the termination of a multilateral treaty?
answers: text: agreed upon between the remaining states parties
context: 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]

qas: question: What may be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating a treaty?
answers: text: A material breach

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?
answers: text: temporarily suspending their obligations to that party

question: In addition to suspending their obligations under a treaty to the violating party, what may result from a material breach of treaty obligations?
answers: text: 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?
answers: text: the other parties

question: What temporary actions can parties of a treaty take in response to a material violation of a party's obligations?
answers: text: suspending their obligations to that party
context: 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.

qas: question: What might a tribunal or an arbiter be asked to determine regarding a breach of a treaty?
answers: text: the seriousness of a breach

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?
answers: text: a tribunal or other independent arbiter

question: Does a material breach necessarily suspend or terminate treaty relations?
answers: text: does not

question: What determines whether a breach automatically suspends or terminates treaty relations?
answers: text: how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it

question:  A treaty breach does not necessarily affect treaty relations depending on how serious the other parties view the breach and what other factor?
answers: text: how they resolve to respond to it
context: 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.

qas: question: Some treaties contains provisions for what to happen if certain defined conditions are met?
answers: text: self-termination

question: What provision might a treaty include if it's meant to be only temporarily binding?
answers: text: set to expire on a given date

question: In addition to passing an expiration date, what might cause a treaty to self-terminate?
answers: text: 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?
answers: text: automatically terminated

question: What may we assume the parties to a treaty intended the treaty's obligations to be if the treaty included an expiration date?
answers: text: temporarily binding
context: 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]

qas: question: What might result in a party to a treaty claiming a treaty should be terminated even absent an express provision for its termination?
answers: text: a fundamental change in circumstances

question: A party cannot base its claim of a fundamental change in circumstances if the change was brought about by what?
answers: text: its own breach of the treaty

question: The claim of a fundamental change in circumstances cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew what?
answers: text: political boundaries

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?
answers: text: the extent of obligations

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?
answers: text: unforeseen
context: 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]

qas: question: The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against what tribe in February 624?
answers: text: the Banu Qaynuqa tribe

question: Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking what treaty?
answers: text: the Constitution of Medina

question: Who's insistence led the Prophet Muhammad to expel the Banu Qaynuqa Jews instead of kill them?
answers: text: Abdullah ibn Ubayy

question: Pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being what, was the action that allegedly violated the Constitution of Medina?
answers: text: stripped naked

question: What chained actions resulted from the alleged violation of the Constitution of Medina by the Banu Qaynuqa Jews?
answers: text: revenge killings
context: 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.

qas: question: What angel, according to Muslim tradition, ordered Muhammad to order a siege on the Banu Qurayza?
answers: text: Gabriel

question: Who claims Muhammad had a treaty with the Banu Qurayza that was torn apart?
answers: text: Al-Waqidi

question: How many members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after surrendering to Muhammad and his followers according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham?
answers: text: 600-900

question: According to Sunni Hadith which members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after surrendering to Muhammad and his followers?
answers: text: all Males and 1 woman

question: How many Muslims were killed during the invasion of Banu Qurayza?
answers: text: Two
context: 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

qas: question: When are most of the problems created that might result in an otherwise valid treaty being rejected as a binding international agreement?
answers: text: at the formation of the treaty

question: What treaties between Japan and Korea are examples of treaties that were declared null and void?
answers: text: the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910

question: In what treaty were the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907, and 1910 confirmed as "already null and void?"
answers: text: the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea

question: Which two states signed a treaty that declared previous treaties between the two from 1905, 1907, and 1910 to be already void?
answers: text: 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?
answers: text: a binding international agreement
context: 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.

qas: 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?
answers: text: that state's domestic law

question: For what does a strong presumption exist internationally that a head of state has acted within in entering into a treaty?
answers: text: his proper authority

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?
answers: text: a "manifest violation"

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?
answers: text: the internal affairs and processes

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?
answers: text: invalid
context: 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]

qas: 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?
answers: text: invalid

question: Who might place restrictions on a representative during negotiation of a treaty?
answers: text: his sovereign

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?
answers: text: the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing

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? 
answers: text: the other parties
context: 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]

qas: question: The preamble of what states that treaties are a source of international law?
answers: text: The Law of Treaties

question: Which will prevail in a conflict between international and domestic law?
answers: text: international law

question: What are started to be a source of international law in the preamble in The Law of Treaties?
answers: text: treaties

question: Approval under what law will not make an act or lack thereof legal if condemned under international law?
answers: text: internal law

question: An act or lack thereof cannot be made legal under what law even if made legal under internal law?
answers: text: international law
context: 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.

qas: question: Which articles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the ways that treaties can be invalidated?
answers: text: Articles 46–53

question: In addition to the circumstances by which a state party joined a treaty, why might a treaty be invalidated?
answers: text: the content of the treaty itself

question: In addition to the content of the treaty itself, why might a treated by invalidated?
answers: text: the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty

question: A treaty might be considered what if it's considered unenforceable and void under international law?
answers: text: invalidated

question: Which processes simply alter the consent given by parties to a previously valid treaty rather than invalidating the consent completely?
answers: text: withdrawal, suspension, or termination
context: 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.

qas: question: What on behalf of a state cannot invalidate that state's consent to a treaty?
answers: text: own conduct

question: Consent to a treaty will not be invalidated if what should have been evident?
answers: text: the truth

question: What may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion of a treaty?
answers: text: A state's 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?
answers: text: formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent

question: What, if it formed the "essential basis" of a state's consent to a treaty, may invalidate that consent?
answers: text: an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation
context: 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.

qas: question: What type of conduct of a party to a treaty can invalidate the consent of another party?
answers: text: fraudulent conduct

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?
answers: text: corruption

question: Coercion of a representative or a state itself will result in what happening to its consent to a treaty?
answers: text: invalidate that 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?
answers: text: representative

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?
answers: text: used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty
context: 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.

qas: question: What will a treaty be if it is in violation of a peremptory norm?
answers: text: null and void

question: What type of norm is recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations?
answers: text: peremptory norm

question: What is true of acts such as genocide and piracy in regard to treaty law?
answers: text: no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts

question: What distinguishes peremptory norms from other principles of customary law?
answers: text: permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations

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?
answers: text: genocide
context: 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.

qas: question: What is the judiciary organ of the United Nations?
answers: text: the International Court of Justice

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?
answers: text: The United Nations Charter

question: Why does the United Nations Charter state that treaties must be registered with the United Nations?
answers: text: to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties

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?
answers: text: 19th and 20th century

question: What section of the United Nations Charter states that its members' obligation under the charter outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties?
answers: text: Section 103
context: 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.

qas: question: Treaties and their amendments must follow the official legal procedures of what body after their adoption?
answers: text: the United Nations

question: Which office of the United Nations is in charge of applying its official legal procedures?
answers: text: the Office of Legal Affairs

question: When must all treaties and their amendments follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations?
answers: text: After their adoption

question: In addition to signature and ratification, what legal procedure of the United Nations must all treaties follow after their adoption?
answers: text: entry into force

question: What are three official legal procedures of the United Nations that all treaties must follow after their adoption?
answers: text: signature, ratification and entry into force
context: 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.

qas: question: The United Nations has been compared to what government in function and effectiveness?
answers: text: the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government

question: In which aspects has the United Nations been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government?
answers: text: 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?
answers: text: modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation

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?
answers: text: the UN

question: What legal document formed the basis of the pre-Constitutional Federal government of the United States?
answers: text: Articles of Confederation
context: 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.

qas: 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?
answers: text: articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I

question: In practice the Brazilian president must get the prior approval of what body in order to negotiate and sign a treaty?
answers: text: Congress

question: What Brazilian institution has ruled that a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree?
answers: text: the Federal Supreme Court

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?
answers: text: the federal register

question: In what office is the power to enter into treaties vested according to the Brazilian federal constitution?
answers: text: president
context: 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.

qas: question: The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court has ruled that treaties enjoy what position relative to ordinary legislation?
answers: text: same hierarchical position

question: In what year did the Brazilian Supreme Court rule that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above ordinary legislation?
answers: text: 2008

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?
answers: text: the 45th 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?
answers: text: abrogate

question: What is the Portuguese term for ordinary laws?
answers: text: leis ordinárias
context: 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.

qas: question: What kind of clause does the United States constitution have that the Brazilian constitution does not have with the same effects?
answers: text: supremacy clause

question: A supremacy clause in a federal constitution is relevant to the discussion on the relation between treaties and what other type of legislation?
answers: text: state legislation

question: What clause of the United States Constitution is relevant to the discussion of the relation between treaties and U.S. legislation?
answers: text: supremacy clause

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?
answers: text: treaties
context: 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.

qas: question: Treaties, executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements are the same under international law but different with respect to what?
answers: text: internal American law

question: Under US law, what primarily distinguishes treaties, executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements?
answers: text: their method of approval

question: What percentage of United States Senators must give advice and consent in order for the US to enter a treaty?
answers: text: two-thirds

question: What type of agreement may a US president enter by acting alone?
answers: text: sole executive agreements

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?
answers: text: congressional-executive agreements
context: 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.

qas: question: In the United States, what is the ratio of executive agreements to treaties?
answers: text: 10:1

question: What is it about the approval process of executive agreements might lead a US president to prefer them over treaties?
answers: text: the relative ease

question: The president of the United States might prefer the formal treaty process on matters that require Congress to do what?
answers: text: pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds

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?
answers: text: long-term, complex

question: The international deal between the US, other countries, and what controversial nation is not a treaty?
answers: text: Iran
context: 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.

qas: question: In what cases did the US Supreme Court rule that treaties do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress?
answers: text: Head Money Cases

question: The US Supreme Court ruled that treaties can be repealed or modified by what for the purposes of US law?
answers: text: 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?
answers: text: Reid v. Covert

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?
answers: text: any other regular law

question: Any treaty provision that conflicts with the US Constitution is considered what under US law?
answers: text: null and void
context: 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.

qas: question: Into what 3 lists are legislation subjects divided in India?
answers: text: Union List, State List and Concurrent List

question: What type of legislative subjects can both the central legislative body and state legislatures make laws?
answers: text: Concurrent subjects

question: What is the central legislative body in India?
answers: text: Parliament of India

question: In order to implement international treaties, for what subjects can the Parliament of India legislate to override the general division of subject lists?
answers: text: any subject

question: What subjects can only be legislated by the central legislative body in India?
answers: text: the subjects in Union list
context: 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.

qas: question: What formed an important part of European colonization?
answers: text: Treaties

question: With whom did Europeans attempt to sign treaties in order to legitimize their sovereignty during colonization?
answers: text: indigenous peoples

question: What terms in relation to Europeans did most indigenous people enjoy under treaties?
answers: text: extremely disadvantageous terms

question: What aspect of the treaties that indigenous people signed with Europeans did the indigenous people typically not understand?
answers: text: the implications

question: What did Europeans try to legitimize all over the world by signing treaties with indigenous people?
answers: text: their sovereignty
context: 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.

qas: question: In what two rare cases were local governments able to mitigate the impact of of European colonization through treaties?
answers: text: Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China

question: What did Ethiopians learn in order to use treaties to prevent a European power from overstepping their agreement?
answers: text: the intricacies of European diplomatic customs

question: Both Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China learned the intricacies of European diplomatic customs to mitigate what through treaties?
answers: text: the impact of European colonization

question: In addition to preventing a power from overstepping their agreement, how was Ethiopia able to mitigate the impact of European colonization?
answers: text: by playing different powers against each other

question: Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China were both able to prevent European powers from doing what to their agreements?
answers: text: overstepping
context: 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.

qas: question: What were native peoples able to maintain a minimum amount of through treaties?
answers: text: autonomy

question: What indigenous people of New Zealand entered into a treaty entitling Europeans to land ownership?
answers: text: Māori

question: What doctrine was overturned by Mabo v Queensland establishing the concept of native title?
answers: text: terra nullius

question: The concept of native title was established by what court case?
answers: text: Mabo v Queensland

question: Treaties between indigenous peoples and what other groups formed an important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st century?
answers: text: colonizers
context: 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.

qas: 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?
answers: text: Indian Appropriations Act of March 3, 1871

question: By what did the US federal government provide contractual relations with Indian tribes following the Indian Appropriations Act of March 3, 1871?
answers: text: agreements, statutes, and executive orders

question: Prior to what year did the United States regularly enter into treaties with Native Americans?
answers: text: 1871

question: A rider to the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 provided that no Indian nation shall be acknowledged as what?
answers: text: an independent nation, tribe, or power

question: A rider to the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 provided that the US government could not do what with an Indian nation?
answers: text: contract by treaty
context: 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.