Treaty

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

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

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

answers: the rules are the same
question: How would you compare the rules of a treaty and a covenant under international law?

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

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

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

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

answers: obligations
question: What do we call the willingly-assumed burdens placed upon parties to both treaties and contracts?

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

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

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

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

answers: themselves
question: Who is responsible for the legally-bound obligations of the parties to a treaty?

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

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

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

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

answers: any underlying events (such as a war)
question: In addition to describing the parties and their joint objectives, what else does a modern preamble typically summarize?

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

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

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

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

answers: their representatives
question: Who else besides the parties themselves is typically identified in the preamble to a 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: answers: numbered articles
question: What follows the preamble in a treaty?

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

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

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

answers: A long treaty
question: The numbered articles of a treaty may be grouped by chapter heading in what kind of treaty?

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

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

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

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

answers: disputes
question: Modern treaties typically outline the procedures for the peaceful resolution of what?

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

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

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

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

answers: The end
question: A clause like "in witness whereof" or "in faith whereof" typically signals what in a treaty?

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

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

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

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

answers: came into effect
question: Even if signed  and ratified on the same date, the treaty might have done what on different dates?

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

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

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

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

answers: bilateral
question: The treaty between Switzerland and the European Union is an example of what kind of treaty?

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

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

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

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

answers: region
question: Multilateral treaties are often entered into by countries that share the same what?

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

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

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

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

answers: exclude or to modify
question: A reserving party to a treaty may include a statement that attempts to do what to its legal obligations or their effects?

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

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

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

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

answers: expressly
question: Because they are generally accepted under international law, a treaty must forbid reservations in what manner to prevent their adoption?

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

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

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

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

answers: the reserving state is a party to the treaty
question: If a state party objects and opposes another state's reservations it essentially refuses to acknowledge what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

answers: the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon
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: Protocol
question: The agreement that contained specific provisions related to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an example of what agreement that supplements a treaty?

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

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

answers: a change in the domestic law of a state party
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: non-self-executing
question: A treaty requiring local prosecution by a party for particular crimes is an example of which type of treaty?

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

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: answers: a non-self-executing treaty
question: What type of treaty cannot be acted on without the proper change in domestic law?

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

answers: politicized
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: not clear
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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

answers: an 'authentic interpretation'
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?

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

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

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

answers: To establish the meaning in context
question: For what purpose might an international tribunal review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of a treaty?

answers: the final, signed treaty itself
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?

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

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

answers: memoranda of understanding
question: In the United States, what are agreements between agencies of the federal government called?

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

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

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

answers: security guarantees and nuclear proliferation
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: to create an obligation under international law
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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

answers: The possibility of withdrawal
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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

answers: temporarily suspending their obligations to that party
question: In addition to terminating the treaty itself, what actions by the other parties might result from one party materially violating or beaching its obligations?

answers: terminating the treaty itself
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: the other parties
question: Who may invoke a material breach committed by a party to a treaty to suspend their obligations to that party?

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

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

answers: a tribunal or other independent arbiter
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: does not
question: Does a material breach necessarily suspend or terminate treaty relations?

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

answers: 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?

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

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

answers: certain defined conditions are met
question: In addition to passing an expiration date, what might cause a treaty to self-terminate?

answers: automatically terminated
question: What happens to a treaty that was designed to terminate under certain conditions when those conditions are actually met?

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

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

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

answers: the extent of obligations
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: unforeseen
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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

answers: 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: a binding international agreement
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?

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

answers: a "manifest violation"
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: the internal affairs and processes
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: invalid
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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

answers: representative
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: used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty
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?

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

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

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

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

answers: genocide
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?

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

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

answers: 19th and 20th century
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: Section 103
question: What section of the United Nations Charter states that its members' obligation under the charter outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties?

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

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

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

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

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

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

answers: function and effectiveness
question: In which aspects has the United Nations been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government?

answers: modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation
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: the UN
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: Articles of Confederation
question: What legal document formed the basis of the pre-Constitutional Federal government of the United States?

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: answers: articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I
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: Congress
question: In practice the Brazilian president must get the prior approval of what body in order to negotiate and sign a treaty?

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

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

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

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

answers: the 45th amendment
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: abrogate
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: leis ordinárias
question: What is the Portuguese term for ordinary laws?

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

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

answers: treaties
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?

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

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

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

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

answers: congressional-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?

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

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

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

answers: long-term, complex
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: Iran
question: The international deal between the US, other countries, and what controversial nation is not a treaty?

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

answers: Act of Congress
question: The US Supreme Court ruled that treaties can be repealed or modified by what for the purposes of US law?

answers: Reid v. Covert
question: What Supreme Court case ruled that a treaty provision that conflicts with the US Constitution is null and void under US law?

answers: any other regular 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?

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

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

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

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

answers: any subject
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: the subjects in Union list
question: What subjects can only be legislated by the central legislative body in India?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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