Question: What road does First use stops around to leave a terminal available for other buses?

Answer: Pound Tree Road

There are two main termini for bus services. <hl> As the biggest operator, First uses stops around Pound Tree Road . <hl> This leaves the other terminal of West Quay available for other operators. Uni-link passes West Quay in both directions, and Wilts & Dorset drop passengers off and pick them up there, terminating at a series of bus stands along the road. Certain Bluestar services also do this, while others stop at Bargate and some loop round West Quay, stopping at Hanover Buildings. There was a tram system from 1879 to 1949.

There are two main termini for bus services. As the biggest operator, First uses stops around <hl> Pound Tree Road <hl>. This leaves the other terminal of West Quay available for other operators. Uni-link passes West Quay in both directions, and Wilts & Dorset drop passengers off and pick them up there, terminating at a series of bus stands along the road. Certain Bluestar services also do this, while others stop at Bargate and some loop round West Quay, stopping at Hanover Buildings. There was a tram system from 1879 to 1949.

As the biggest operator, First uses stops around <hl> Pound Tree Road <hl> .

question: What road does First use stops around to leave a terminal available for other buses?, context: There are two main termini for bus services. As the biggest operator, First uses stops around Pound Tree Road. This leaves the other terminal of West Quay available for other operators. Uni-link passes West Quay in both directions, and Wilts & Dorset drop passengers off and pick them up there, terminating at a series of bus stands along the road. Certain Bluestar services also do this, while others stop at Bargate and some loop round West Quay, stopping at Hanover Buildings. There was a tram system from 1879 to 1949.


Question: Which bus service passes West Quay going in both directions?

Answer: Uni-link

There are two main termini for bus services. As the biggest operator, First uses stops around Pound Tree Road. This leaves the other terminal of West Quay available for other operators. <hl> Uni-link passes West Quay in both directions, and Wilts & Dorset drop passengers off and pick them up there, terminating at a series of bus stands along the road. <hl> Certain Bluestar services also do this, while others stop at Bargate and some loop round West Quay, stopping at Hanover Buildings. There was a tram system from 1879 to 1949.

There are two main termini for bus services. As the biggest operator, First uses stops around Pound Tree Road. This leaves the other terminal of West Quay available for other operators. <hl> Uni-link <hl> passes West Quay in both directions, and Wilts & Dorset drop passengers off and pick them up there, terminating at a series of bus stands along the road. Certain Bluestar services also do this, while others stop at Bargate and some loop round West Quay, stopping at Hanover Buildings. There was a tram system from 1879 to 1949.

question: Which bus service passes West Quay going in both directions?, context: There are two main termini for bus services. As the biggest operator, First uses stops around Pound Tree Road. This leaves the other terminal of West Quay available for other operators. Uni-link passes West Quay in both directions, and Wilts & Dorset drop passengers off and pick them up there, terminating at a series of bus stands along the road. Certain Bluestar services also do this, while others stop at Bargate and some loop round West Quay, stopping at Hanover Buildings. There was a tram system from 1879 to 1949.


Question: What operator drops off and picks up passengers at West Quay?

Answer: Wilts & Dorset

There are two main termini for bus services. As the biggest operator, First uses stops around Pound Tree Road. This leaves the other terminal of West Quay available for other operators. <hl> Uni-link passes West Quay in both directions, and Wilts & Dorset drop passengers off and pick them up there, terminating at a series of bus stands along the road. <hl> Certain Bluestar services also do this, while others stop at Bargate and some loop round West Quay, stopping at Hanover Buildings. There was a tram system from 1879 to 1949.

There are two main termini for bus services. As the biggest operator, First uses stops around Pound Tree Road. This leaves the other terminal of West Quay available for other operators. Uni-link passes West Quay in both directions, and <hl> Wilts & Dorset <hl> drop passengers off and pick them up there, terminating at a series of bus stands along the road. Certain Bluestar services also do this, while others stop at Bargate and some loop round West Quay, stopping at Hanover Buildings. There was a tram system from 1879 to 1949.

question: What operator drops off and picks up passengers at West Quay?, context: There are two main termini for bus services. As the biggest operator, First uses stops around Pound Tree Road. This leaves the other terminal of West Quay available for other operators. Uni-link passes West Quay in both directions, and Wilts & Dorset drop passengers off and pick them up there, terminating at a series of bus stands along the road. Certain Bluestar services also do this, while others stop at Bargate and some loop round West Quay, stopping at Hanover Buildings. There was a tram system from 1879 to 1949.


Question: When did the tram system stop operating in Southampton?

Answer: 1949

There are two main termini for bus services. As the biggest operator, First uses stops around Pound Tree Road. This leaves the other terminal of West Quay available for other operators. Uni-link passes West Quay in both directions, and Wilts & Dorset drop passengers off and pick them up there, terminating at a series of bus stands along the road. Certain Bluestar services also do this, while others stop at Bargate and some loop round West Quay, stopping at Hanover Buildings. <hl> There was a tram system from 1879 to 1949 . <hl>

There are two main termini for bus services. As the biggest operator, First uses stops around Pound Tree Road. This leaves the other terminal of West Quay available for other operators. Uni-link passes West Quay in both directions, and Wilts & Dorset drop passengers off and pick them up there, terminating at a series of bus stands along the road. Certain Bluestar services also do this, while others stop at Bargate and some loop round West Quay, stopping at Hanover Buildings. There was a tram system from 1879 to <hl> 1949 <hl>.

There was a tram system from 1879 to <hl> 1949 <hl> .

question: When did the tram system stop operating in Southampton?, context: There are two main termini for bus services. As the biggest operator, First uses stops around Pound Tree Road. This leaves the other terminal of West Quay available for other operators. Uni-link passes West Quay in both directions, and Wilts & Dorset drop passengers off and pick them up there, terminating at a series of bus stands along the road. Certain Bluestar services also do this, while others stop at Bargate and some loop round West Quay, stopping at Hanover Buildings. There was a tram system from 1879 to 1949.


Question: Where do buses that loop around West Quay stop?

Answer: Hanover Buildings

There are two main termini for bus services. As the biggest operator, First uses stops around Pound Tree Road. This leaves the other terminal of West Quay available for other operators. Uni-link passes West Quay in both directions, and Wilts & Dorset drop passengers off and pick them up there, terminating at a series of bus stands along the road. <hl> Certain Bluestar services also do this, while others stop at Bargate and some loop round West Quay, stopping at Hanover Buildings . <hl> There was a tram system from 1879 to 1949.

There are two main termini for bus services. As the biggest operator, First uses stops around Pound Tree Road. This leaves the other terminal of West Quay available for other operators. Uni-link passes West Quay in both directions, and Wilts & Dorset drop passengers off and pick them up there, terminating at a series of bus stands along the road. Certain Bluestar services also do this, while others stop at Bargate and some loop round West Quay, stopping at <hl> Hanover Buildings <hl>. There was a tram system from 1879 to 1949.

Certain Bluestar services also do this, while others stop at Bargate and some loop round West Quay, stopping at <hl> Hanover Buildings <hl> .

question: Where do buses that loop around West Quay stop?, context: There are two main termini for bus services. As the biggest operator, First uses stops around Pound Tree Road. This leaves the other terminal of West Quay available for other operators. Uni-link passes West Quay in both directions, and Wilts & Dorset drop passengers off and pick them up there, terminating at a series of bus stands along the road. Certain Bluestar services also do this, while others stop at Bargate and some loop round West Quay, stopping at Hanover Buildings. There was a tram system from 1879 to 1949.


Question: Who are the actors in international law?

Answer: sovereign states and international organizations

<hl> A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations . <hl> A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.

A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely <hl> sovereign states and international organizations <hl>. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.

A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely <hl> sovereign states and international organizations <hl> .

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


Question: What is an agreement entered into by actors in international law?

Answer: A treaty

<hl> A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. <hl> A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.

<hl> A treaty <hl> is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.

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


Question: How are different forms of agreements treated under international law compared to treaties?

Answer: equally

A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. <hl> Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same. <hl>

A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, <hl> equally <hl> considered treaties and the rules are the same.

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


Question: How would you compare the rules of a treaty and a covenant under international law?

Answer: the rules are the same

A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. <hl> Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same . <hl>

A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and <hl> the rules are the same <hl>.

Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and <hl> the rules are the same <hl> .

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


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

Answer: live up to their obligations

<hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> live up to their obligations <hl> can be held liable under international law.

question: What must a party to a treaty do to prevent being held liable under international law?, context: Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law.


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

Answer: contracts

<hl> 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. <hl>

Treaties can be loosely compared to <hl> contracts <hl>: 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.

Treaties can be loosely compared to <hl> contracts <hl> : 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 is comparable in domestic law to a treaty in international law?, context: Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law.


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

Answer: international law

<hl> 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 . <hl>

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 <hl> international law <hl>.

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 <hl> international law <hl> .

question: Under what will a party to a treaty be held liable for failing to uphold 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 be the attitude of a party towards assuming the legal obligations of the treaty?

Answer: willing

<hl> 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. <hl>

Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of <hl> willing <hl> 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 be the attitude of a party towards assuming the legal obligations of the treaty?, 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 do we call the willingly-assumed burdens placed upon parties to both treaties and contracts?

Answer: obligations

<hl> 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. <hl>

Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming <hl> obligations <hl> among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law.

question: What do we call the willingly-assumed burdens placed upon parties to both treaties and contracts?, 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: How are the agreements in a treaty expressed?

Answer: in words

A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> in words <hl>; and it is also the objective outcome of a ceremonial occasion which acknowledges the parties and their defined relationships.

A treaty is the official document which expresses that agreement <hl> in words <hl> ; 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?, 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 states that enter into a treaty bound?

Answer: legally

<hl> A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves. <hl> 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.

A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to <hl> legally <hl> 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 states that enter into a treaty bound?, 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: What is an official document which expresses an agreement between two states?

Answer: A treaty

<hl> A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves. <hl> 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.

<hl> A treaty <hl> 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: What is an official document which expresses an agreement between two states?, 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: What is an objective outcome of a ceremonial occasion which acknowledges the defined relationships of its parties?

Answer: A treaty

<hl> A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves. <hl> 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.

<hl> A treaty <hl> 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: What is an objective outcome of a ceremonial occasion which acknowledges the defined relationships of its parties?, 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: Who is responsible for the legally-bound obligations of the parties to a treaty?

Answer: themselves

<hl> A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves . <hl> 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.

A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind <hl> themselves <hl>. 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.

A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind <hl> themselves <hl> .

question: Who is responsible for the legally-bound obligations of the parties to a treaty?, 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: What is shared by most treaties since the late 19th century?

Answer: a fairly consistent format

<hl> Since the late 19th century, most treaties have followed a fairly consistent format . <hl> 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).

Since the late 19th century, most treaties have followed <hl> a fairly consistent format <hl>. 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).

Since the late 19th century, most treaties have followed <hl> a fairly consistent format <hl> .

question: What is shared by most treaties since the late 19th century?, 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 the beginning of a typical treaty called?

Answer: a preamble

Since the late 19th century, most treaties have followed a fairly consistent format. <hl> 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). <hl> 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).

Since the late 19th century, most treaties have followed a fairly consistent format. A treaty typically begins with <hl> a preamble <hl> 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 the beginning of a typical treaty called?, 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: Why are long sentences in a modern preamble formatted into multiple paragraphs?

Answer: readability

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). <hl> 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). <hl>

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 <hl> readability <hl>, in which each of the paragraphs begins with a verb (desiring, recognizing, having, and so on).

Modern preambles are sometimes structured as a single very long sentence formatted into multiple paragraphs for <hl> readability <hl> , in which each of the paragraphs begins with a verb (desiring, recognizing, having, and so on).

question: Why are long sentences in a modern preamble formatted into multiple paragraphs?, 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: Each paragraph of a modern preamble typically begins with which part of speech?

Answer: a verb

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). <hl> 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). <hl>

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 <hl> a verb <hl> (desiring, recognizing, having, and so on).

question: Each paragraph of a modern preamble typically begins with which part of speech?, 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: In addition to describing the parties and their joint objectives, what else does a modern preamble typically summarize?

Answer: any underlying events (such as a war)

Since the late 19th century, most treaties have followed a fairly consistent format. <hl> 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) . <hl> 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).

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 <hl> any underlying events (such as a war) <hl>. 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).

A treaty typically begins with a preamble describing the contracting parties and their joint objectives in executing the treaty, as well as summarizing <hl> any underlying events (such as a war) <hl> .

question: In addition to describing the parties and their joint objectives, what else does a modern preamble typically summarize?, 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 term describes a common clause in a treaty stating that the representatives of the parties have communicated their full powers?

Answer: boilerplate

<hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> boilerplate <hl> 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?, 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 are the official documents appointing a party's representative to act on their behalf?

Answer: full powers

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) <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> full powers <hl> (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 are the official documents appointing a party's representative to act on their behalf?, 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: In addition to their full names, what else is included in the preamble that identifies the parties to a treaty?

Answer: sovereign titles

<hl> 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. <hl>

The contracting parties' full names or <hl> sovereign titles <hl> 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: In addition to their full names, what else is included in the preamble that identifies the parties to a treaty?, 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: How must the full powers of a parties' representatives be found in order to enter into a treaty?

Answer: in good or proper form.

<hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> in good or proper form. <hl>

question: How must the full powers of a parties' representatives be found in order to enter into a treaty?, 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: Who else besides the parties themselves is typically identified in the preamble to a treaty?

Answer: their representatives

<hl> 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. <hl>

The contracting parties' full names or sovereign titles are often included in the preamble, along with the full names and titles of <hl> their representatives <hl>, 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.

The contracting parties' full names or sovereign titles are often included in the preamble, along with the full names and titles of <hl> their representatives <hl> , 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: Who else besides the parties themselves is typically identified in the preamble to a treaty?, 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 follows the preamble in a treaty?

Answer: numbered articles

<hl> After the preamble comes numbered articles , which contain the substance of the parties' actual agreement. <hl> Each article heading usually encompasses a paragraph. A long treaty may further group articles under chapter headings.

After the preamble comes <hl> numbered articles <hl>, 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.

After the preamble comes <hl> numbered articles <hl> , which contain the substance of the parties' actual agreement.

question: What follows the preamble in a treaty?, context: After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain the substance of the parties' actual agreement. Each article heading usually encompasses a paragraph. A long treaty may further group articles under chapter headings.


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

Answer: the substance of the parties' actual agreement

<hl> After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain the substance of the parties' actual agreement . <hl> Each article heading usually encompasses a paragraph. A long treaty may further group articles under chapter headings.

After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain <hl> the substance of the parties' actual agreement <hl>. Each article heading usually encompasses a paragraph. A long treaty may further group articles under chapter headings.

After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain <hl> the substance of the parties' actual agreement <hl> .

question: What is contained in the numbered articles of a treaty?, context: After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain the substance of the parties' actual agreement. Each article heading usually encompasses a paragraph. A long treaty may further group articles under chapter headings.


Question: What does each article heading usually encompass?

Answer: a paragraph

After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain the substance of the parties' actual agreement. <hl> Each article heading usually encompasses a paragraph . <hl> A long treaty may further group articles under chapter headings.

After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain the substance of the parties' actual agreement. Each article heading usually encompasses <hl> a paragraph <hl>. A long treaty may further group articles under chapter headings.

Each article heading usually encompasses <hl> a paragraph <hl> .

question: What does each article heading usually encompass?, 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: How might the articles in a long treaty be grouped?

Answer: under chapter headings

After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain the substance of the parties' actual agreement. Each article heading usually encompasses a paragraph. <hl> A long treaty may further group articles under chapter headings . <hl>

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 <hl> under chapter headings <hl>.

A long treaty may further group articles <hl> under chapter headings <hl> .

question: How might the articles in a long treaty be grouped?, 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: The numbered articles of a treaty may be grouped by chapter heading in what kind of treaty?

Answer: A long treaty

After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain the substance of the parties' actual agreement. Each article heading usually encompasses a paragraph. <hl> A long treaty may further group articles under chapter headings. <hl>

After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain the substance of the parties' actual agreement. Each article heading usually encompasses a paragraph. <hl> A long treaty <hl> may further group articles under chapter headings.

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


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

Answer: peaceful

<hl> 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 peaceful ly resolved. <hl>

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 <hl> peaceful <hl>ly resolved.

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 <hl> peaceful <hl> ly resolved.

question: What type of resolution to disputes is typically outlined in a treaty?, context: Modern treaties, regardless of subject matter, usually contain articles governing where the final authentic copies of the treaty will be deposited and how any subsequent disputes as to their interpretation will be peacefully resolved.


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

Answer: articles

<hl> 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. <hl>

Modern treaties, regardless of subject matter, usually contain <hl> articles <hl> 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: Which section of a treaty typically contains information about the whereabouts of the final authentic copies of a treaty?, context: Modern treaties, regardless of subject matter, usually contain articles governing where the final authentic copies of the treaty will be deposited and how any subsequent disputes as to their interpretation will be peacefully resolved.


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

Answer: their interpretation

<hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> their interpretation <hl> will be peacefully resolved.

question: Parties to a treaty might have disputes about what aspect of the articles of a treaty?, context: Modern treaties, regardless of subject matter, usually contain articles governing where the final authentic copies of the treaty will be deposited and how any subsequent disputes as to their interpretation will be peacefully resolved.


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

Answer: the final authentic copies

<hl> 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. <hl>

Modern treaties, regardless of subject matter, usually contain articles governing where <hl> the final authentic copies <hl> of the treaty will be deposited and how any subsequent disputes as to their interpretation will be peacefully resolved.

question: Which copies of a treaty have their locations outlined in most modern treaties?, 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: Modern treaties typically outline the procedures for the peaceful resolution of what?

Answer: disputes

<hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> disputes <hl> as to their interpretation will be peacefully resolved.

question: Modern treaties typically outline the procedures for the peaceful resolution of what?, 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 is the formal name for the closing protocol of a treaty?

Answer: the eschatocol

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

The end of a treaty, <hl> the eschatocol <hl> (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?, 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 typically follows the signatures in a treaty?

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

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> the site(s) of the treaty's execution and the date(s) <hl> 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 typically follows the signatures in a treaty?, 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: How is the date typically written in a treaty?

Answer: its most formal, longest possible form

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. <hl> The date is typically written in its most formal, longest possible form . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> its most formal, longest possible form <hl>. 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.

The date is typically written in <hl> its most formal, longest possible form <hl> .

question: How is the date typically written in a treaty?, 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 nature of the different versions of a treaty executed in multiple languages?

Answer: equally authentic

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." <hl> 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 . <hl>

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 <hl> equally authentic <hl>.

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 <hl> equally authentic <hl> .

question: What is the nature of the different versions of a treaty executed in multiple languages?, 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: A clause like "in witness whereof" or "in faith whereof" typically signals what in a treaty?

Answer: The end

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

<hl> The end <hl> 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: A clause like "in witness whereof" or "in faith whereof" typically signals what in a treaty?, 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: Whose signatures appear at the very end of a treaty?

Answer: the parties' representatives

<hl> The signatures of the parties' representatives follow at the very end. <hl> 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.

The signatures of <hl> the parties' representatives <hl> 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?, 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: Where might the text of a treaty be reprinted?

Answer: in a collection of treaties currently in effect

The signatures of the parties' representatives follow at the very end. <hl> 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. <hl>

The signatures of the parties' representatives follow at the very end. When the text of a treaty is later reprinted, such as <hl> in a collection of treaties currently in effect <hl>, 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.

When the text of a treaty is later reprinted, such as <hl> in a collection of treaties currently in effect <hl> , 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: Where might the text of a treaty be reprinted?, 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: Who, upon reprinting, will often append the dates on which the treaty was ratified and came into effect?

Answer: an editor

The signatures of the parties' representatives follow at the very end. <hl> 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. <hl>

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, <hl> an editor <hl> will often append the dates on which the respective parties ratified the treaty and on which it came into effect for each party.

question: Who, upon reprinting, will often append the dates on which the treaty was ratified and came into effect?, context: The signatures of the parties' representatives follow at the very end. When the text of a treaty is later reprinted, such as in a collection of treaties currently in effect, an editor will often append the dates on which the respective parties ratified the treaty and on which it came into effect for each party.


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

Answer: ratified the treaty

The signatures of the parties' representatives follow at the very end. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> ratified the treaty <hl> and on which it came into effect for each party.

question: Each party must have done what in order for the treaty to come into effect?, context: The signatures of the parties' representatives follow at the very end. When the text of a treaty is later reprinted, such as in a collection of treaties currently in effect, an editor will often append the dates on which the respective parties ratified the treaty and on which it came into effect for each party.


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

Answer: came into effect

The signatures of the parties' representatives follow at the very end. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> came into effect <hl> for each party.

question: Even if signed and ratified on the same date, the treaty might have done what on different dates?, 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: Bilateral treaties are concluded between how many states or entities?

Answer: two

<hl> Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states or entities. <hl> 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]

Bilateral treaties are concluded between <hl> two <hl> 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?, 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: Is it possible for a bilateral treaty to have more than two parties?

Answer: It is possible

Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states or entities. <hl> 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. <hl> 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]

Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states or entities. <hl> It is possible <hl>, 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]

<hl> It is possible <hl> , 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.

question: Is it possible for a bilateral treaty to have more than two parties?, 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: The bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the European Union followed the Swiss rejection of what?

Answer: the European Economic Area agreement

Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states or entities. <hl> 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 . <hl> 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]

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 <hl> the European Economic Area agreement <hl>. 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]

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 <hl> the European Economic Area agreement <hl> .

question: The bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the European Union followed the Swiss rejection of what?, 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: Does the bilateral treaty between Switzerland and the European Union establish rights or obligations amongst the EU and its member states?

Answer: it does not

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"). <hl> 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] <hl>

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—<hl> it does not <hl> establish any rights and obligations amongst the EU and its member states.[citation needed]

The treaty establishes rights and obligations between the Swiss and the EU and the member states severally— <hl> it does not <hl> establish any rights and obligations amongst the EU and its member states.[citation needed]

question: Does the bilateral treaty between Switzerland and the European Union establish rights or obligations amongst the EU and its member states?, 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: The treaty between Switzerland and the European Union is an example of what kind of treaty?

Answer: bilateral

Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states or entities. <hl> 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. <hl> 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]

Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states or entities. It is possible, however, for a <hl> bilateral <hl> 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: The treaty between Switzerland and the European Union is an example of what kind of treaty?, 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: What is a treaty concluded among several countries?

Answer: A multilateral treaty

<hl> A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries. <hl> 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.

<hl> A multilateral treaty <hl> 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?, 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: Between which parties does a multilateral treaty establish rights and obligations?

Answer: each party and every other party

A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries. <hl> The agreement establishes rights and obligations between each party and every other party . <hl> 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.

A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries. The agreement establishes rights and obligations between <hl> each party and every other party <hl>. 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.

The agreement establishes rights and obligations between <hl> each party and every other party <hl> .

question: Between which parties does a multilateral treaty establish rights and obligations?, 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: The Treaty of Locarno guarantees each signatory against what from another signatory?

Answer: attack

A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries. The agreement establishes rights and obligations between each party and every other party. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> attack <hl> from another.

question: The Treaty of Locarno guarantees each signatory against what from another signatory?, 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 type of treaty is a mutual guarantee?

Answer: international compacts

A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries. The agreement establishes rights and obligations between each party and every other party. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> international compacts <hl>, e.g., the Treaty of Locarno which guarantees each signatory against attack from another.

Multilateral treaties are often regional.[citation needed] Treaties of "mutual guarantee" are <hl> international compacts <hl> , e.g., the Treaty of Locarno which guarantees each signatory against attack from another.

question: What type of treaty is a mutual guarantee?, 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: Multilateral treaties are often entered into by countries that share the same what?

Answer: region

A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries. The agreement establishes rights and obligations between each party and every other party. <hl> Multilateral treaties are often region al.[citation needed] Treaties of "mutual guarantee" are international compacts, e.g., the Treaty of Locarno which guarantees each signatory against attack from another. <hl>

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 <hl> region <hl>al.[citation needed] Treaties of "mutual guarantee" are international compacts, e.g., the Treaty of Locarno which guarantees each signatory against attack from another.

Multilateral treaties are often <hl> region <hl> al.[citation needed] Treaties of "mutual guarantee" are international compacts, e.g., the Treaty of Locarno which guarantees each signatory against attack from another.

question: Multilateral treaties are often entered into by countries that share the same what?, 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 are caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty?

Answer: Reservations

<hl> Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. <hl> 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".

<hl> Reservations <hl> 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?, 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 unilateral statements purporting to exclude or to modify the legal obligation and its effects on a state?

Answer: Reservations

<hl> Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. <hl> 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".

<hl> Reservations <hl> 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 unilateral statements purporting to exclude or to modify the legal obligation and its effects on a state?, 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: When must reservations be included in a treaty?

Answer: at the time of signing or ratification

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. <hl> 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". <hl>

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 <hl> at the time of signing or ratification <hl>, i.e. "a party cannot add a reservation after it has already joined a treaty".

These must be included <hl> at the time of signing or ratification <hl> , i.e. "a party cannot add a reservation after it has already joined a treaty".

question: When must reservations be included in a treaty?, 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 parties to a treaty forbidden to do after they have already joined a treaty?

Answer: add a reservation

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. <hl> 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". <hl>

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 <hl> add a reservation <hl> after it has already joined a treaty".

question: What are parties to a treaty forbidden to do after they have already joined a treaty?, 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: A reserving party to a treaty may include a statement that attempts to do what to its legal obligations or their effects?

Answer: exclude or to modify

Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. <hl> Reservations are unilateral statements purporting to exclude or to modify the legal obligation and its effects on the reserving state. <hl> 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".

Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. Reservations are unilateral statements purporting to <hl> exclude or to modify <hl> 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: A reserving party to a treaty may include a statement that attempts to do what to its legal obligations or their effects?, 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".