Answer: live up to their 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.

Question: What must a party to a treaty do to prevent being held liable under international law?


Answer: contracts

Question: What is comparable in domestic law to a treaty in international law?


Answer: international law

Question: Under what will a party to a treaty be held liable for failing to uphold their obligations?


Answer: willing

Question: What must be the attitude of a party towards assuming the legal obligations of the treaty?


Answer: obligations

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


Answer: in words

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.

Question: How are the agreements in a treaty expressed?


Answer: legally

Question: How are states that enter into a treaty bound?


Answer: A treaty

Question: What is an official document which expresses an agreement between two states?


Answer: A treaty

Question: What is an objective outcome of a ceremonial occasion which acknowledges the defined relationships of its parties?


Answer: themselves

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


Answer: a fairly consistent format

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).

Question: What is shared by most treaties since the late 19th century?


Answer: a preamble

Question: What is the beginning of a typical treaty called?


Answer: readability

Question: Why are long sentences in a modern preamble formatted into multiple paragraphs?


Answer: a verb

Question: Each paragraph of a modern preamble typically begins with which part of speech?


Answer: 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?


Answer: boilerplate

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.

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


Answer: full powers

Question: What are the official documents appointing a party's representative to act on their behalf?


Answer: sovereign titles

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


Answer: in good or proper form.

Question: How must the full powers of a parties' representatives be found in order to enter into a treaty?


Answer: their representatives

Question: Who else besides the parties themselves is typically identified in the preamble to a treaty?


Answer: numbered articles

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.

Question: What follows the preamble in a treaty?


Answer: the substance of the parties' actual agreement

Question: What is contained in the numbered articles of a treaty?


Answer: a paragraph

Question: What does each article heading usually encompass?


Answer: under chapter headings

Question: How might the articles in a long treaty be grouped?


Answer: A long treaty

Question: The numbered articles of a treaty may be grouped by chapter heading in what kind of treaty?


Answer: peaceful

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.

Question: What type of resolution to disputes is typically outlined in a treaty?


Answer: articles

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


Answer: their interpretation

Question: Parties to a treaty might have disputes about what aspect of the articles of a treaty?


Answer: the final authentic copies

Question: Which copies of a treaty have their locations outlined in most modern treaties?


Answer: disputes

Question: Modern treaties typically outline the procedures for the peaceful resolution of what?


Answer: the eschatocol

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.

Question: What is the formal name for the closing protocol of a treaty?


Answer: the site(s) of the treaty's execution and the date(s)

Question: What typically follows the signatures in a treaty?


Answer: its most formal, longest possible form

Question: How is the date typically written in a treaty?


Answer: equally authentic

Question: What is the nature of the different versions of a treaty executed in multiple languages?


Answer: The end

Question: A clause like "in witness whereof" or "in faith whereof" typically signals what in a treaty?


Answer: the parties' representatives

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.

Question: Whose signatures appear at the very end of a treaty?


Answer: in a collection of treaties currently in effect

Question: Where might the text of a treaty be reprinted?


Answer: an editor

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


Answer: ratified the treaty

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


Answer: came into effect

Question: Even if signed and ratified on the same date, the treaty might have done what on different dates?


Answer: two

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]

Question: Bilateral treaties are concluded between how many states or entities?


Answer: It is possible

Question: Is it possible for a bilateral treaty to have more than two parties?


Answer: the European Economic Area agreement

Question: The bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the European Union followed the Swiss rejection of what?


Answer: 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?


Answer: bilateral

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


Answer: A multilateral 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.

Question: What is a treaty concluded among several countries?


Answer: each party and every other party

Question: Between which parties does a multilateral treaty establish rights and obligations?


Answer: attack

Question: The Treaty of Locarno guarantees each signatory against what from another signatory?


Answer: international compacts

Question: What type of treaty is a mutual guarantee?


Answer: region

Question: Multilateral treaties are often entered into by countries that share the same what?


Answer: Reservations

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".

Question: What are caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty?


Answer: Reservations

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


Answer: at the time of signing or ratification

Question: When must reservations be included in a treaty?


Answer: add a reservation

Question: What are parties to a treaty forbidden to do after they have already joined a treaty?


Answer: 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?


Answer: reservations

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.

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


Answer: inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the treaty

Question: Reservations are generally permitted so long as they are not what?


Answer: rejecting them

Question: How did international law originally respond to treaty reservations?


Answer: all parties

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


Answer: expressly

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


Answer: accept those reservations, object to them, or object and oppose them

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.

Question: When a state adds reservations to a treaty, other parties to the treaty can respond to those reservations in what ways?


Answer: other parties to the treaty

Question: Who remains unaffected when a party's reservation is accepted by a second party?


Answer: 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?


Answer: no legal obligations

Question: What legal obligations exist between two state parties if one objects and opposes the other's reservations?


Answer: 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?


Answer: three

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.

Question: How many ways are there to amend an existing treaty?


Answer: the ratification process

Question: What must state parties to a treaty repeat to adopt a formal amendment to the treaty?


Answer: a procès-verbal

Question: What amendment process is generally reserved for changes that rectify obvious errors in the text?


Answer: the terms they both agreed upon

Question: Parties to an original treaty and an amended treaty are bound to what terms?


Answer: 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?


Answer: a protocol

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.

Question: What is a treaty that supplements a previous treaty in international law?


Answer: add additional provisions

Question: A protocol may either amend a previous treaty or do what?


Answer: not required

Question: Do parties to a treaty have an obligation to adopt a later protocol?


Answer: 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?


Answer: amend the previous treaty

Question: A protocol may add additional provisions to a treaty or else do what?


Answer: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

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.

Question: The Kyoto Protocol is associated with what treaty?


Answer: the Kyoto Protocol

Question: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was supplemented by what protocol?


Answer: binding greenhouse gas emission limits

Question: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established a framework for the development of what?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: self-executing

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.

Question: A treaty that puts all of its obligations in action simply by becoming a party to it is known as what?


Answer: implementing legislation

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


Answer: 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?


Answer: non-self-executing

Question: A treaty requiring local prosecution by a party for particular crimes is an example of which type of treaty?


Answer: puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action

Question: Signing a self-executing treaty automatically does what for a party?


Answer: a non-self-executing treaty

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.

Question: What type of treaty cannot be acted on without the proper change in domestic law?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: principle of maximum effectiveness

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.

Question: What principle is often invoked by legal experts when interpreting the language of treaties?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?"


Answer: The language

Question: What property of treaties must often be interpreted when it's not clear?


Answer: a perhaps unforeseen circumstance

Question: Besides unclear language what might also arise that necessitates the interpretation of the language of a treaty?


Answer: impose its particular interpretation of the 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'.

Question: No one party to a treaty can do what to the other parties?


Answer: Consent

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


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: substantial disputes over treaty interpretations

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.

Question: What are international tribunals and arbiters often called upon to resolve in regards to treaties?


Answer: International tribunals and arbiters

Question: What judicial bodies might be called upon to resolve disputes pertaining to the interpretation of treaties?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: compacts

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.

Question: What are agreements between states within the United States called?


Answer: memoranda of understanding

Question: What are agreements between states and the federal government called within the United States?


Answer: memoranda of understanding

Question: In the United States, what are agreements between agencies of the federal government called?


Answer: 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?


Answer: international law

Question: Under what do all parties to a treaty recognize the provisions of the treaty are enforceable?


Answer: 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.

Question: Parties to a treaty may disagree over a desire to create an obligation under what?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: documents under domestic law

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.

Question: What is the Treaty of Waitangi internationally considered to be?


Answer: convention, protocol, or simply agreement

Question: What other terms might be used to refer to a treaty?


Answer: named something other than a treaty,

Question: What common terminological problem can sometimes lead to confusion surrounding a treaty?


Answer: the Treaty of Waitangi

Question: What's an example of a treaty that is considered internationally to be documents under domestic law?


Answer: terminology

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


Answer: consent

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:

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


Answer: procedures of notification

Question: What is the only barrier to withdrawal contained in many treaties?


Answer: not necessarily

Question: Are treaties permanently binding upon the signatory parties?


Answer: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

Question: What treaty will terminate if the number of parties falls below 40 as a result of denunciations?


Answer: 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?


Answer: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

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.

Question: What is an example of a treaty from which it is not possible to withdraw?


Answer: North Korea

Question: What state declared its intention to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?


Answer: 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?


Answer: the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire

Question: What two factors determine whether it is possible to withdraw from a treaty?


Answer: 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?


Answer: sovereignty

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.

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


Answer: how other states will react

Question: What really determines whether withdrawal from a treaty is permitted?


Answer: impose sanctions or go to war

Question: What might a state do in response to another state's withdrawal from a treaty?


Answer: In practice

Question: Although withdrawal from a treaty may not be possible in theory, when might it be possible anyway?


Answer: at any time

Question: Because of sovereignty when may a state withdrawal from a treaty?


Answer: terminated

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]

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


Answer: a bilateral treaty

Question: What kind of treaty is terminated by the withdrawal of just one party?


Answer: remain in force

Question: What happens to a multilateral treaty's rights and obligations among the other parties when just one party withdraws?


Answer: withdrawal

Question: After what action by a state are its obligations under a treaty considered terminated?


Answer: 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?


Answer: A material breach

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.

Question: What may be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating a treaty?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: the other parties

Question: Who may invoke a material breach committed by a party to a treaty to suspend their obligations to that party?


Answer: 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?


Answer: the seriousness of a breach

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.

Question: What might a tribunal or an arbiter be asked to determine regarding a breach of a treaty?


Answer: 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?


Answer: does not

Question: Does a material breach necessarily suspend or terminate treaty relations?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: self-termination

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]

Question: Some treaties contains provisions for what to happen if certain defined conditions are met?


Answer: set to expire on a given date

Question: What provision might a treaty include if it's meant to be only temporarily binding?


Answer: certain defined conditions are met

Question: In addition to passing an expiration date, what might cause a treaty to self-terminate?


Answer: automatically terminated

Question: What happens to a treaty that was designed to terminate under certain conditions when those conditions are actually met?


Answer: 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?


Answer: a fundamental change in circumstances

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]

Question: What might result in a party to a treaty claiming a treaty should be terminated even absent an express provision for its termination?


Answer: 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?


Answer: political boundaries

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


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: the Banu Qaynuqa tribe

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.

Question: The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against what tribe in February 624?


Answer: the Constitution of Medina

Question: Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking what treaty?


Answer: Abdullah ibn Ubayy

Question: Who's insistence led the Prophet Muhammad to expel the Banu Qaynuqa Jews instead of kill them?


Answer: 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?


Answer: revenge killings

Question: What chained actions resulted from the alleged violation of the Constitution of Medina by the Banu Qaynuqa Jews?


Answer: Gabriel

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

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


Answer: Al-Waqidi

Question: Who claims Muhammad had a treaty with the Banu Qurayza that was torn apart?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: Two

Question: How many Muslims were killed during the invasion of Banu Qurayza?


Answer: at the formation of the treaty

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.

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


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?"


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: that state's domestic law

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]

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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: invalid

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]

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?


Answer: his sovereign

Question: Who might place restrictions on a representative during negotiation of a treaty?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: The Law of Treaties

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.

Question: The preamble of what states that treaties are a source of international law?


Answer: international law

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


Answer: treaties

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


Answer: internal law

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


Answer: international law

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


Answer: Articles 46–53

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.

Question: Which articles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the ways that treaties can be invalidated?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: invalidated

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


Answer: 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?


Answer: own conduct

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.

Question: What on behalf of a state cannot invalidate that state's consent to a treaty?


Answer: the truth

Question: Consent to a treaty will not be invalidated if what should have been evident?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: fraudulent conduct

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.

Question: What type of conduct of a party to a treaty can invalidate the consent of another party?


Answer: 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?


Answer: invalidate that consent

Question: Coercion of a representative or a state itself will result in what happening to its consent to a treaty?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: null and void

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.

Question: What will a treaty be if it is in violation of a peremptory norm?


Answer: peremptory norm

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


Answer: 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?


Answer: permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations

Question: What distinguishes peremptory norms from other principles of customary law?


Answer: 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?


Answer: the International Court of Justice

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.

Question: What is the judiciary organ of the United Nations?


Answer: 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?


Answer: to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties

Question: Why does the United Nations Charter state that treaties must be registered with the United Nations?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: the United Nations

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.

Question: Treaties and their amendments must follow the official legal procedures of what body after their adoption?


Answer: the Office of Legal Affairs

Question: Which office of the United Nations is in charge of applying its official legal procedures?


Answer: After their adoption

Question: When must all treaties and their amendments follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations?


Answer: entry into force

Question: In addition to signature and ratification, what legal procedure of the United Nations must all treaties follow after their adoption?


Answer: 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?


Answer: the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government

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.

Question: The United Nations has been compared to what government in function and effectiveness?


Answer: function and effectiveness

Question: In which aspects has the United Nations been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: Articles of Confederation

Question: What legal document formed the basis of the pre-Constitutional Federal government of the United States?


Answer: articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I

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.

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?


Answer: Congress

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


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: president

Question: In what office is the power to enter into treaties vested according to the Brazilian federal constitution?


Answer: same hierarchical position

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.

Question: The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court has ruled that treaties enjoy what position relative to ordinary legislation?


Answer: 2008

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


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: leis ordinárias

Question: What is the Portuguese term for ordinary laws?


Answer: supremacy clause

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.

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


Answer: 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?


Answer: supremacy clause

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


Answer: 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?


Answer: internal American law

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.

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


Answer: their method of approval

Question: Under US law, what primarily distinguishes treaties, executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements?


Answer: two-thirds

Question: What percentage of United States Senators must give advice and consent in order for the US to enter a treaty?


Answer: sole executive agreements

Question: What type of agreement may a US president enter by acting alone?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 10:1

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.

Question: In the United States, what is the ratio of executive agreements to treaties?


Answer: the relative ease

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


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: Iran

Question: The international deal between the US, other countries, and what controversial nation is not a treaty?


Answer: Head Money Cases

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.

Question: In what cases did the US Supreme Court rule that treaties do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress?


Answer: Act of Congress

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


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: null and void

Question: Any treaty provision that conflicts with the US Constitution is considered what under US law?


Answer: Union List, State List and Concurrent 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.

Question: Into what 3 lists are legislation subjects divided in India?


Answer: Concurrent subjects

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


Answer: Parliament of India

Question: What is the central legislative body in India?


Answer: 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?


Answer: the subjects in Union list

Question: What subjects can only be legislated by the central legislative body in India?


Answer: Treaties

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.

Question: What formed an important part of European colonization?


Answer: indigenous peoples

Question: With whom did Europeans attempt to sign treaties in order to legitimize their sovereignty during colonization?


Answer: extremely disadvantageous terms

Question: What terms in relation to Europeans did most indigenous people enjoy under treaties?


Answer: the implications

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


Answer: their sovereignty

Question: What did Europeans try to legitimize all over the world by signing treaties with indigenous people?


Answer: Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China

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.

Question: In what two rare cases were local governments able to mitigate the impact of of European colonization through treaties?


Answer: 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?


Answer: the impact of European colonization

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


Answer: 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?


Answer: overstepping

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


Answer: autonomy

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.

Question: What were native peoples able to maintain a minimum amount of through treaties?


Answer: Māori

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


Answer: terra nullius

Question: What doctrine was overturned by Mabo v Queensland establishing the concept of native title?


Answer: Mabo v Queensland

Question: The concept of native title was established by what court case?


Answer: 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?


Answer: Indian Appropriations Act of March 3, 1871

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.

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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 1871

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


Answer: 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?


Answer: 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?


Answer: 1980

Context: Josip Broz Tito (Cyrillic: Јосип Броз Тито, pronounced [jǒsip brôːz tîto]; born Josip Broz; 7 May 1892[nb 1] – 4 May 1980) was a Yugoslav revolutionary and statesman, serving in various roles from 1943 until his death in 1980. During World War II he was the leader of the Partisans, often regarded as the most effective resistance movement in occupied Europe. While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian, and concerns about the repression of political opponents have been raised, Tito was "seen by most as a benevolent dictator" due to his economic and diplomatic policies. He was a popular public figure both in Yugoslavia and abroad. Viewed as a unifying symbol, his internal policies maintained the peaceful coexistence of the nations of the Yugoslav federation. He gained further international attention as the chief leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, working with Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and Sukarno of Indonesia.

Question: In what year did Josip Broz Tito die?


Answer: the Partisans,

Question: During World War II what resistance movement did he lead?


Answer: Yugoslavia

Question: For what country is Tito viewed as unifying figure?


Answer: Gamal Abdel Nasser

Question: In the Non-Aligned Movement, which Egyptian leader did Tito work with?


Answer: Sukarno

Question: In the Non-Aligned Movement, which Indonesian leader did Tito work with?


Answer: General Secretary

Context: He was General Secretary (later Chairman of the Presidium) of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (1939–80), and went on to lead the World War II Yugoslav guerrilla movement, the Partisans (1941–45). After the war, he was the Prime Minister (1944–63), President (later President for Life) (1953–80) of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). From 1943 to his death in 1980, he held the rank of Marshal of Yugoslavia, serving as the supreme commander of the Yugoslav military, the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA). With a highly favourable reputation abroad in both Cold War blocs, Josip Broz Tito received some 98 foreign decorations, including the Legion of Honour and the Order of the Bath.

Question: What position in the League of Communists of Yugoslavia was Tito?


Answer: Prime Minister

Question: What position in Yugoslavia's government did Tito hold from 1944-63?


Answer: 98

Question: How many foreign decorations did he receive?


Answer: Legion of Honour and the Order of the Bath

Question: What foreign decorations did Tito recieve?


Answer: 1941–45

Question: During what years did Tito lead the Partisans?


Answer: Slovene

Context: Josip Broz was born to a Croat father and Slovene mother in the village of Kumrovec, Croatia. Drafted into military service, he distinguished himself, becoming the youngest Sergeant Major in the Austro-Hungarian Army of that time. After being seriously wounded and captured by the Imperial Russians during World War I, Josip was sent to a work camp in the Ural Mountains. He participated in the October Revolution, and later joined a Red Guard unit in Omsk. Upon his return home, Broz found himself in the newly established Kingdom of Yugoslavia, where he joined the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (KPJ).

Question: What ethnicity was Tito's mother?


Answer: Croat

Question: What ethnicity was Tito's father?


Answer: the Imperial Russians

Question: Who captured him during World War I?


Answer: Red Guard

Question: Tito joined which unit in Omsk?


Answer: Communist Party

Question: What party in Yugoslavia did he join?


Answer: 1943

Context: Tito was the chief architect of the second Yugoslavia, a socialist federation that lasted from 1943 to 1991–92. Despite being one of the founders of Cominform, soon he became the first Cominform member to defy Soviet hegemony and the only one to manage to leave Cominform and begin with its own socialist program. Tito was a backer of independent roads to socialism (sometimes referred to as "national communism"). In 1951 he implemented a self-management system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries. A turn towards a model of market socialism brought economic expansion in the 1950s and 1960s and a decline during the 1970s. His internal policies included the suppression of nationalist sentiment and the promotion of the "brotherhood and unity" of the six Yugoslav nations. After Tito's death in 1980, tensions between the Yugoslav republics emerged and in 1991 the country disintegrated and went into a series of wars and unrest that lasted the rest of the decade, and which continue to impact most of the former Yugoslav republics. He remains a very controversial figure in the Balkans.

Question: When did the second Yugoslavia start?


Answer: Cominform

Question: What group did Tito found?


Answer: 1951

Question: When did Tito implement a self-management system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist coutnries?


Answer: 1980

Question: When did Tito die?


Answer: 1991

Question: When did Yugoslavia disintegrate?


Answer: Kumrovec

Context: Josip Broz was born on 7 May 1892 in Kumrovec, in the northern Croatian region of Hrvatsko Zagorje in Austria-Hungary.[nb 1] He was the seventh child of Franjo and Marija Broz. His father, Franjo Broz (26 November 1860 – 16 December 1936), was a Croat, while his mother Marija (25 March 1864 – 14 January 1918), was a Slovene. His parents were married on 21 January 1891. After spending part of his childhood years with his maternal grandfather Martin Javeršek in the Slovenian village of Podsreda, he entered primary school in 1900 at Kumrovec, he failed the 2nd grade and graduated in 1905. In 1907 he moved out of the rural environment and started working as a machinist's apprentice in Sisak. There, he became aware of the labour movement and celebrated 1 May – Labour Day for the first time. In 1910, he joined the union of metallurgy workers and at the same time the Social-Democratic Party of Croatia and Slavonia. Between 1911 and 1913, Broz worked for shorter periods in Kamnik (1911–1912, factory "Titan"), Cenkov, Munich and Mannheim, where he worked for the Benz car factory; then he went to Wiener Neustadt, Austria, and worked as a test driver for Daimler.

Question: Where was Josip Broz born?


Answer: 1892

Question: In what year was Broz born?


Answer: Croat

Question: What ethnicity was Broz's father?


Answer: Slovene

Question: What ethnicity was Broz's mother?


Answer: 2nd

Question: What grade did he fail?


Answer: 1913

Context: In the autumn of 1913, he was conscripted into the Austro-Hungarian Army. He was sent to a school for non-commissioned officers and became a sergeant, serving in the 25th Croatian Regiment based in Zagreb. In May 1914, Broz won a silver medal at an army fencing competition in Budapest. At the outbreak of World War I in 1914, he was sent to Ruma, where he was arrested for anti-war propaganda and imprisoned in the Petrovaradin fortress. In January 1915, he was sent to the Eastern Front in Galicia to fight against Russia. He distinguished himself as a capable soldier, becoming the youngest Sergeant Major in the Austro-Hungarian Army. For his bravery in the face of the enemy, he was recommended for the Silver Bravery Medal but was taken prisoner of war before it could be formally presented. On 25 March 1915, while in Bukovina, he was seriously wounded and captured by the Russians.

Question: When was he conscripted into the army?


Answer: sergeant

Question: What position in the army did he become after office school?


Answer: fencing

Question: What competition did he win a silver medal in?


Answer: anti-war propaganda

Question: For what crime was he arrested?


Answer: Bukovina

Question: Where was Tito serioiusly wounded and captured by the Russians at?


Answer: 13 months

Context: After 13 months at the hospital, Broz was sent to a work camp in the Ural Mountains where prisoners selected him for their camp leader. In February 1917, revolting workers broke into the prison and freed the prisoners. Broz subsequently joined a Bolshevik group. In April 1917, he was arrested again but managed to escape and participate in the July Days demonstrations in Petrograd (St. Petersburg) on 16–17 July 1917. On his way to Finland, Broz was caught and imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress for three weeks. He was again sent to Kungur, but escaped from the train. He hid with a Russian family in Omsk, Siberia where he met his future wife Pelagija Belousova. After the October Revolution, he joined a Red Guard unit in Omsk. Following a White counteroffensive, he fled to Kirgiziya and subsequently returned to Omsk, where he married Belousova. In the spring of 1918, he joined the Yugoslav section of the Russian Communist Party. By June of the same year, Broz left Omsk to find work and support his family, and was employed as a mechanic near Omsk for a year.

Question: How long was Broz in the hospital?


Answer: Ural Mountains

Question: Where was Broz's work camp?


Answer: camp leader

Question: What position was he selected for at work camp?


Answer: Kirgiziya

Question: Where did Broz flee to after a White counteroffensive?


Answer: Omsk

Question: Where did Broz marry Belousova?


Answer: 59

Context: In January 1920, Tito and his wife made a long and difficult journey home to Yugoslavia where he arrived in September. Upon his return, Broz joined the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. The CPY's influence on the political life of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was growing rapidly. In the 1920 elections the Communists won 59 seats in the parliament and became the third strongest party. Winning numerous local elections, they gained a stronghold in the second largest city of Zagreb, electing Svetozar Delić for mayor. After the assassination of Milorad Drašković, the Yugoslav Minister of the Interior, by a young communist on 2 August 1921, the CPY was declared illegal under the Yugoslav State Security Act of 1921. During 1920 and 1921 all Communist-won mandates were nullified. Broz continued his work underground despite pressure on Communists from the government. As 1921 began he moved to Veliko Trojstvo near Bjelovar and found work as a machinist. In 1925, Broz moved to Kraljevica where he started working at a shipyard. He was elected as a union leader and a year later he led a shipyard strike. He was fired and moved to Belgrade, where he worked in a train coach factory in Smederevska Palanka. He was elected as Workers' Commissary but was fired as soon as his CPY membership was revealed. Broz then moved to Zagreb, where he was appointed secretary of Metal Workers' Union of Croatia. In 1928, he became the Zagreb Branch Secretary of the CPY. In the same year he was arrested, tried in court for his illegal communist activities, and sent to jail. During his five years at Lepoglava prison he met Moša Pijade, who became his ideological mentor. After his release, he lived incognito and assumed numerous noms de guerre, among them "Walter" and "Tito".

Question: How many seats did the Communists win in 1920 Yugoslavia?


Answer: Svetozar Delić

Question: Who was elected mayor of Zagreb after the Communists won 59 parliamentary seats?


Answer: Veliko Trojstvo

Question: Where did Broz move in 1921?


Answer: five years

Question: How long was he in prison at Lepoglava for?


Answer: Moša Pijade,

Question: Who became his ideological mentor in prison?


Answer: 1934

Context: In 1934 the Zagreb Provincial Committee sent Tito to Vienna where all the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had sought refuge. He was appointed to the Committee and started to appoint allies to him, among them Edvard Kardelj, Milovan Đilas, Aleksandar Ranković and Boris Kidrič. In 1935, Tito travelled to the Soviet Union, working for a year in the Balkans section of Comintern. He was a member of the Soviet Communist Party and the Soviet secret police (NKVD). Tito was also involved in recruiting for the Dimitrov Battalion, a group of volunteers serving in the Spanish Civil War. In 1936, the Comintern sent "Comrade Walter" (i.e. Tito) back to Yugoslavia to purge the Communist Party there. In 1937, Stalin had the Secretary-General of the CPY, Milan Gorkić, murdered in Moscow. Subsequently Tito was appointed Secretary-General of the still-outlawed CPY.

Question: When was Tito sent to Vienna?


Answer: Milan Gorkić

Question: Who did Stalin have murdered in 1937?


Answer: Moscow

Question: Where was the Secretary-General of the CPY murdered?


Answer: Tito

Question: Who became Secretary-General of the CPY after the prior one was murdered?


Answer: Tito

Question: Who is known as "Comrade Walter"?


Answer: 6 April 1941

Context: On 6 April 1941, German forces, with Hungarian and Italian assistance, launched an invasion of Yugoslavia. On 10 April 1941, Slavko Kvaternik proclaimed the Independent State of Croatia, and Tito responded by forming a Military Committee within the Central Committee of the Yugoslav Communist Party. Attacked from all sides, the armed forces of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia quickly crumbled. On 17 April 1941, after King Peter II and other members of the government fled the country, the remaining representatives of the government and military met with the German officials in Belgrade. They quickly agreed to end military resistance. On 1 May 1941, Tito issued a pamphlet calling on the people to unite in a battle against the occupation. On 27 June 1941, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia appointed Tito Commander in Chief of all project national liberation military forces. On 1 July 1941, the Comintern sent precise instructions calling for immediate action.

Question: When did German forces launch an invasion of Yugoslavia?


Answer: King Peter II

Question: Which king fled the country in 1941?


Answer: pamphlet

Question: What did Tito use to get the people to unit in a battle against the occupation in 1941?


Answer: Chief of all project national liberation military forces.

Question: What position was Tito appointed to in 1941 by the Central Committee?


Answer: Belgrade

Question: In 1941, where did representatives of the government and military meet with German officials?


Answer: Partisans

Context: Despite conflicts with the rival monarchic Chetnik movement, Tito's Partisans succeeded in liberating territory, notably the "Republic of Užice". During this period, Tito held talks with Chetnik leader Draža Mihailović on 19 September and 27 October 1941. It is said that Tito ordered his forces to assist escaping Jews, and that more than 2,000 Jews fought directly for Tito.

Question: Who succeeded in liberating territory despite conflicts?


Answer: Chetnik movement

Question: Who did the Partisans have conflicts with?


Answer: Draža Mihailović

Question: Which Chetnik leader did Tito hold talks with?


Answer: escaping Jews,

Question: Which group did Tito order his forces to assist?


Answer: Jews

Question: 2000 of what group fought directly for Tito?


Answer: 1941

Context: On 21 December 1941, the Partisans created the First Proletarian Brigade (commanded by Koča Popović) and on 1 March 1942, Tito created the Second Proletarian Brigade. In liberated territories, the Partisans organised People's Committees to act as civilian government. The Anti-Fascist Council of National Liberation of Yugoslavia (AVNOJ) convened in Bihać on 26–27 November 1942 and in Jajce on 29 November 1943. In the two sessions, the resistance representatives established the basis for post-war organisation of the country, deciding on a federation of the Yugoslav nations. In Jajce, a 67-member "presidency" was elected and established a nine-member National Committee of Liberation (five communist members) as a de facto provisional government. Tito was named President of the National Committee of Liberation.

Question: When did the Partisans create the First Proletarian Brigade?


Answer: 1942

Question: When did Tito create the Second Proletarian Brigade?


Answer: President

Question: What position was Tito named to for the National Committee of LIberation?


Answer: Jajce

Question: Where was the 67-member "presidency" located?


Answer: 67

Question: How many members were in the "presidency" in Jajce?


Answer: Axis

Context: With the growing possibility of an Allied invasion in the Balkans, the Axis began to divert more resources to the destruction of the Partisans main force and its high command. This meant, among other things, a concerted German effort to capture Josip Broz Tito personally. On 25 May 1944, he managed to evade the Germans after the Raid on Drvar (Operation Rösselsprung), an airborne assault outside his Drvar headquarters in Bosnia.

Question: Who diverted resources to the destruction of the Partisans?


Answer: Axis

Question: Who was the opponent of the Allies?


Answer: German

Question: Which group of people wanted to capture Tito personally?


Answer: Drvar

Question: In 1944 where did Tito manage to avoid the Germans?


Answer: airborne

Question: What type of assault was there in Bosnia?


Answer: Axis

Context: After the Partisans managed to endure and avoid these intense Axis attacks between January and June 1943, and the extent of Chetnik collaboration became evident, Allied leaders switched their support from Draža Mihailović to Tito. King Peter II, American President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill joined Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin in officially recognising Tito and the Partisans at the Tehran Conference. This resulted in Allied aid being parachuted behind Axis lines to assist the Partisans. On 17 June 1944 on the Dalmatian island of Vis, the Treaty of Vis (Viški sporazum) was signed in an attempt to merge Tito's government (the AVNOJ) with the government in exile of King Peter II. The Balkan Air Force was formed in June 1944 to control operations that were mainly aimed at aiding his forces.

Question: Who was attacking the Partisans in 1943?


Answer: Draža Mihailović

Question: From whom did Allied leaders switch their support from to Tito?


Answer: Stalin

Question: Who was the Soviet Premier who recognized Tito?


Answer: Tehran Conference

Question: At what event was Tito recognized by Stalin?


Answer: 1944

Question: When was the Balkan air force formed?


Answer: Moscow

Context: In the first post war years Tito was widely considered a communist leader very loyal to Moscow, indeed, he was often viewed as second only to Stalin in the Eastern Bloc. In fact, Stalin and Tito had an uneasy alliance from the start, with Stalin considering Tito too independent.

Question: Who was Tito considered loyal to?


Answer: Stalin

Question: Who was Tito considered second to in the Eastern bloc?


Answer: Stalin

Question: With whom did Tito have an uneasy alliance form the start?


Answer: Stalin

Question: Who considered Tito too independent?


Answer: Tito

Question: Who was considered loyal to Moscow?


Answer: King Peter II

Context: On 12 September 1944, King Peter II called on all Yugoslavs to come together under Tito's leadership and stated that those who did not were "traitors", by which time Tito was recognized by all Allied authorities (including the government-in-exile) as the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, in addition to commander-in-chief of the Yugoslav forces. On 28 September 1944, the Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union (TASS) reported that Tito signed an agreement with the Soviet Union allowing "temporary entry" of Soviet troops into Yugoslav territory which allowed the Red Army to assist in operations in the northeastern areas of Yugoslavia. With their strategic right flank secured by the Allied advance, the Partisans prepared and executed a massive general offensive which succeeded in breaking through German lines and forcing a retreat beyond Yugoslav borders. After the Partisan victory and the end of hostilities in Europe, all external forces were ordered off Yugoslav territory.

Question: In 1944 who called on all Yuboslavs to come together under Tito's leadership?


Answer: Soviet Union

Question: With whom did Tito sign an agreement on September 28 1944?


Answer: Soviet troops

Question: Who were allowed "temporary entry" into Yugoslav territory?


Answer: Red Army

Question: Who assisted in operations in ortheastern areas of Yugoslavia?


Answer: the Partisans

Question: Who executed a massive offensive and succeeded in breaking through German lines?


Answer: Tito

Context: In the final days of World War II in Yugoslavia, units of the Partisans were responsible for atrocities after the repatriations of Bleiburg, and accusations of culpability were later raised at the Yugoslav leadership under Tito. At the time, Josip Broz Tito repeatedly issued calls for surrender to the retreating column, offering amnesty and attempting to avoid a disorderly surrender. On 14 May he dispatched a telegram to the supreme headquarters Slovene Partisan Army prohibiting "in the sternest language" the execution of prisoners of war and commanding the transfer of the possible suspects to a military court.

Question: Who offered amnesty to the retreatig column?


Answer: Tito

Question: Who dispatched a telegram to the supreme headquarters prohibiting the execution of prisoners of war?


Answer: Partisans

Question: In the final days of WWII in Yugoslavia, who were responsible for atrocities?


Answer: amnesty

Question: What did Tito offer to the retreating column?


Answer: military court.

Question: Where were possible suspects transferred to?


Answer: Belgrade

Context: On 7 March 1945, the provisional government of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (Demokratska Federativna Jugoslavija, DFY) was assembled in Belgrade by Josip Broz Tito, while the provisional name allowed for either a republic or monarchy. This government was headed by Tito as provisional Yugoslav Prime Minister and included representatives from the royalist government-in-exile, among others Ivan Šubašić. In accordance with the agreement between resistance leaders and the government-in-exile, post-war elections were held to determine the form of government. In November 1945, Tito's pro-republican People's Front, led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, won the elections with an overwhelming majority, the vote having been boycotted by monarchists. During the period, Tito evidently enjoyed massive popular support due to being generally viewed by the populace as the liberator of Yugoslavia. The Yugoslav administration in the immediate post-war period managed to unite a country that had been severely affected by ultra-nationalist upheavals and war devastation, while successfully suppressing the nationalist sentiments of the various nations in favor of tolerance, and the common Yugoslav goal. After the overwhelming electoral victory, Tito was confirmed as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the DFY. The country was soon renamed the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (FPRY) (later finally renamed into Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, SFRY). On 29 November 1945, King Peter II was formally deposed by the Yugoslav Constituent Assembly. The Assembly drafted a new republican constitution soon afterwards.

Question: Where was the provisional government of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia assembled?


Answer: 7 March 1945

Question: When was the provisional government of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia assembled?


Answer: Tito

Question: Who Where assembled the provisional government of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia?


Answer: Tito

Question: Who was seen as the liberator of Yugoslavia?


Answer: King Peter II

Question: Who was formally deposed by the Yugoslav Constitutent Assembly on November 29, 1945?


Answer: The State Security Administration

Context: Yugoslavia organized the Yugoslav People's Army (Jugoslavenska narodna armija, or JNA) from the Partisan movement and became the fourth strongest army in Europe at the time. The State Security Administration (Uprava državne bezbednosti/sigurnosti/varnosti, UDBA) was also formed as the new secret police, along with a security agency, the Department of People's Security (Organ Zaštite Naroda (Armije), OZNA). Yugoslav intelligence was charged with imprisoning and bringing to trial large numbers of Nazi collaborators; controversially, this included Catholic clergymen due to the widespread involvement of Croatian Catholic clergy with the Ustaša regime. Draža Mihailović was found guilty of collaboration, high treason and war crimes and was subsequently executed by firing squad in July 1946.

Question: What was formed as the new secret police?


Answer: Yugoslav intelligence

Question: Who was charged with brining to trial large numbers of Nazi collaborators?


Answer: Catholic clergymen

Question: Who were controversial among those brought to trial for Nazi collaboration?


Answer: Draža Mihailović

Question: Who was found guilty of collaboration, high treason?


Answer: firing squad

Question: How was Draza executed?


Answer: Aloysius Stepinac

Context: Prime Minister Josip Broz Tito met with the president of the Bishops' Conference of Yugoslavia, Aloysius Stepinac on 4 June 1945, two days after his release from imprisonment. The two could not reach an agreement on the state of the Catholic Church. Under Stepinac's leadership, the bishops' conference released a letter condemning alleged Partisan war crimes in September, 1945. The following year Stepinac was arrested and put on trial. In October 1946, in its first special session for 75 years, the Vatican excommunicated Tito and the Yugoslav government for sentencing Stepinac to 16 years in prison on charges of assisting Ustaše terror and of supporting forced conversions of Serbs to Catholicism. Stepinac received preferential treatment in recognition of his status and the sentence was soon shortened and reduced to house-arrest, with the option of emigration open to the archbishop. At the conclusion of the "Informbiro period", reforms rendered Yugoslavia considerably more religiously liberal than the Eastern Bloc states.

Question: Who was the president of the Bishops' Conference of Yugoslavia?


Answer: two days

Question: How long after his release from imprisonment did TIto attend the Bishops' Conference of Yugoslavia?


Answer: Catholic Church

Question: What topic was a sticking point at the Bishops' Conference?


Answer: Stepinac

Question: Under whose leadership did the bishops' conference release a letter condemning alleged Partisan war crimes?


Answer: house-arrest

Question: What was Stepinac's sentence shortened to?


Answer: Tito

Context: Unlike other new communist states in east-central Europe, Yugoslavia liberated itself from Axis domination with limited direct support from the Red Army. Tito's leading role in liberating Yugoslavia not only greatly strengthened his position in his party and among the Yugoslav people, but also caused him to be more insistent that Yugoslavia had more room to follow its own interests than other Bloc leaders who had more reasons (and pressures) to recognize Soviet efforts in helping them liberate their own countries from Axis control. Although Tito was formally an ally of Stalin after World War II, the Soviets had set up a spy ring in the Yugoslav party as early as 1945, giving way to an uneasy alliance.[citation needed]

Question: Who had a leading role in liberating Yugoslavia?


Answer: Stalin

Question: Who was Tito formally an ally of after WWII?


Answer: Soviets

Question: Who set up a spy ring in the Yugoslav party?


Answer: 1945

Question: As early as what year was a spy ring set up in the Yugoslav party?


Answer: Axis

Question: From what domination did Yugoslavia liberate itself?


Answer: Istria

Context: In the immediate aftermath of World War II, there occurred several armed incidents between Yugoslavia and the Western Allies. Following the war, Yugoslavia acquired the Italian territory of Istria as well as the cities of Zadar and Rijeka. Yugoslav leadership was looking to incorporate Trieste into the country as well, which was opposed by the Western Allies. This led to several armed incidents, notably attacks by Yugoslav fighter planes on US transport aircraft, causing bitter criticism from the west. From 1945 to 1948, at least four US aircraft were shot down.[better source needed] Stalin was opposed to these provocations, as he felt the USSR unready to face the West in open war so soon after the losses of World War II and at the time when US had operational nuclear weapons whereas USSR had yet to conduct its first test. In addition, Tito was openly supportive of the Communist side in the Greek Civil War, while Stalin kept his distance, having agreed with Churchill not to pursue Soviet interests there, although he did support the Greek communist struggle politically, as demonstrated in several assemblies of the UN Security Council. In 1948, motivated by the desire to create a strong independent economy, Tito modeled his economic development plan independently from Moscow, which resulted in a diplomatic escalation followed by a bitter exchange of letters in which Tito affirmed that

Question: What Italian territory did Yugoslavia acquire after the war?


Answer: Trieste

Question: What territory did Yugoslavia leadership want to incorporate?


Answer: four

Question: At least how many American aircraft were shot down between 1945 and 1948?


Answer: Tito

Question: Who openly supported the Communist side in the Greek Civil War?


Answer: 1948

Question: In what year did Tito model his economic development plan independently from Moscow?