Question: In addition to the final, signed treaty what else might arbiters review to establish the meaning of a treaty in context?

Answer: the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty

International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. <hl> To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself. <hl>

International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review <hl> the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty <hl> as well as the final, signed treaty itself.

question: In addition to the final, signed treaty what else might arbiters review to establish the meaning of a treaty in context?, context: International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself.


Question: For what purpose might an international tribunal review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of a treaty?

Answer: To establish the meaning in context

International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. <hl> To establish the meaning in context , these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself. <hl>

International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. <hl> To establish the meaning in context <hl>, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself.

<hl> To establish the meaning in context <hl> , these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself.

question: For what purpose might an international tribunal review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of a treaty?, context: International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself.


Question: In addition to the preparatory work from the drafting and negotiation of a treaty, what might arbiters review when resolving a dispute over the interpretation of a treaty?

Answer: the final, signed treaty itself

International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. <hl> To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself . <hl>

International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as <hl> the final, signed treaty itself <hl>.

To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as <hl> the final, signed treaty itself <hl> .

question: In addition to the preparatory work from the drafting and negotiation of a treaty, what might arbiters review when resolving a dispute over the interpretation of a treaty?, context: International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself.


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

Answer: compacts

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. <hl> For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding. <hl>

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are <hl> compacts <hl> and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.

question: What are agreements between states within the United States called?, context: One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.


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

Answer: memoranda of understanding

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. <hl> For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding . <hl>

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are <hl> memoranda of understanding <hl>.

For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are <hl> memoranda of understanding <hl> .

question: What are agreements between states and the federal government called within the United States?, context: One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.


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

Answer: memoranda of understanding

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. <hl> For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding . <hl>

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are <hl> memoranda of understanding <hl>.

For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are <hl> memoranda of understanding <hl> .

question: In the United States, what are agreements between agencies of the federal government called?, context: One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.


Question: Nations can be careful about terming an agreement a treaty because it has the effect of recognizing that the other side is a what?

Answer: a sovereign state

<hl> One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. <hl> Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is <hl> a sovereign state <hl> and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.

question: Nations can be careful about terming an agreement a treaty because it has the effect of recognizing that the other side is a what?, context: One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.


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

Answer: international law

<hl> One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law . <hl> Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under <hl> international law <hl>. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under <hl> international law <hl> .

question: Under what do all parties to a treaty recognize the provisions of the treaty are enforceable?, context: One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.


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

Answer: international law

<hl> Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law , but the other party does not. <hl> This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.

Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under <hl> international law <hl>, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.

Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under <hl> international law <hl> , but the other party does not.

question: Parties to a treaty may disagree over a desire to create an obligation under what?, context: Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.


Question: Discussions between what two countries have been influence by one party's desire to create an obligation under international law?

Answer: North Korea and the United States

Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. <hl> This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation. <hl>

Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between <hl> North Korea and the United States <hl> over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.

question: Discussions between what two countries have been influence by one party's desire to create an obligation under international law?, context: Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.


Question: Discussion between North Korea and the United States have been influenced by one party's desire to create obligations under international law with respect to what two topics?

Answer: security guarantees and nuclear proliferation

Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. <hl> This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation . <hl>

Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over <hl> security guarantees and nuclear proliferation <hl>.

This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over <hl> security guarantees and nuclear proliferation <hl> .

question: Discussion between North Korea and the United States have been influenced by one party's desire to create obligations under international law with respect to what two topics?, context: Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.


Question: North Korea and the United States have been characterized by a disagreement over one parties desire to create what with respect to security guarantees and nuclear proliferation?

Answer: to create an obligation under international law

<hl> Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law , but the other party does not. <hl> This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.

Another situation can occur when one party wishes <hl> to create an obligation under international law <hl>, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.

Another situation can occur when one party wishes <hl> to create an obligation under international law <hl> , but the other party does not.

question: North Korea and the United States have been characterized by a disagreement over one parties desire to create what with respect to security guarantees and nuclear proliferation?, context: Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.


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

Answer: documents under domestic law

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. <hl> Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law . <hl>

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be <hl> documents under domestic law <hl>.

Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be <hl> documents under domestic law <hl> .

question: What is the Treaty of Waitangi internationally considered to be?, context: The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.


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

Answer: convention, protocol, or simply agreement

<hl> The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement . <hl> Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a <hl> convention, protocol, or simply agreement <hl>. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a <hl> convention, protocol, or simply agreement <hl> .

question: What other terms might be used to refer to a treaty?, context: The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.


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

Answer: named something other than a treaty,

<hl> The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. <hl> Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is <hl> named something other than a treaty, <hl> such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

question: What common terminological problem can sometimes lead to confusion surrounding a treaty?, context: The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.


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

Answer: the Treaty of Waitangi

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. <hl> Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law. <hl>

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as <hl> the Treaty of Waitangi <hl> are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

question: What's an example of a treaty that is considered internationally to be documents under domestic law?, context: The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.


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

Answer: terminology

<hl> The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. <hl> Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

The <hl> terminology <hl> can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

question: Convention, protocol, and agreement are examples of examples of different kinds of what that can create confusion about a treaty?, context: The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.


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

Answer: consent

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. <hl> As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states <hl> , many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the <hl> consent <hl> of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

question: Traditionally, what must a state do in order for an obligation to arise in international law?, context: Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:


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

Answer: procedures of notification

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. <hl> As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification . <hl> For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain <hl> procedures of notification <hl>. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain <hl> procedures of notification <hl> .

question: What is the only barrier to withdrawal contained in many treaties?, context: Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:


Question: Are treaties permanently binding upon the signatory parties?

Answer: not necessarily

<hl> Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. <hl> As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

Treaties are <hl> not necessarily <hl> permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

question: Are treaties permanently binding upon the signatory parties?, context: Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:


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

Answer: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. <hl> For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. <hl> Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, <hl> the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs <hl> provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

question: What treaty will terminate if the number of parties falls below 40 as a result of denunciations?, context: Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:


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

Answer: Article 56

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. <hl> Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless: <hl>

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. <hl> Article 56 <hl> of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

question: Which article of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that there is a presumption that treaties cannot be unilaterally denounced?, context: Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:


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

Answer: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. <hl> It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . <hl> When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from <hl> the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights <hl>. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from <hl> the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights <hl> .

question: What is an example of a treaty from which it is not possible to withdraw?, context: The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.


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

Answer: North Korea

The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. <hl> When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. <hl> Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When <hl> North Korea <hl> declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

question: What state declared its intention to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?, context: The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.


Question: Who, acting as registrar, informed North Korea that withdrawal was deliberately precluded by the original signatories of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?

Answer: the Secretary-General of the United Nations

The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. <hl> When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations , acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. <hl> Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this <hl> the Secretary-General of the United Nations <hl>, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

When North Korea declared its intention to do this <hl> the Secretary-General of the United Nations <hl> , acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it.

question: Who, acting as registrar, informed North Korea that withdrawal was deliberately precluded by the original signatories of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?, context: The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.


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

Answer: the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire

<hl> The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire . <hl> It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

The possibility of withdrawal depends on <hl> the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire <hl>. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

The possibility of withdrawal depends on <hl> the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire <hl> .

question: What two factors determine whether it is possible to withdraw from a treaty?, context: The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.


Question: The terms and travaux preparatoire of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were both factors in determining what aspect of the treaty as it relates to North Korea's stated intentions?

Answer: The possibility of withdrawal

<hl> The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. <hl> It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

<hl> The possibility of withdrawal <hl> depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

question: The terms and travaux preparatoire of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were both factors in determining what aspect of the treaty as it relates to North Korea's stated intentions?, context: The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.


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

Answer: sovereignty

<hl> In practice, because of sovereignty , any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. <hl> The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.

In practice, because of <hl> sovereignty <hl>, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.

In practice, because of <hl> sovereignty <hl> , any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time.

question: What factor, in practice, allows a state to withdraw from any treaty at any time?, context: In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.


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

Answer: how other states will react

In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. <hl> The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation. <hl>

In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of <hl> how other states will react <hl> to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.

question: What really determines whether withdrawal from a treaty is permitted?, context: In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.


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

Answer: impose sanctions or go to war

In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. <hl> The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation. <hl>

In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might <hl> impose sanctions or go to war <hl> over a treaty violation.

question: What might a state do in response to another state's withdrawal from a treaty?, context: In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.


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

Answer: In practice

<hl> In practice , because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. <hl> The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.

<hl> In practice <hl>, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.

<hl> In practice <hl> , because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time.

question: Although withdrawal from a treaty may not be possible in theory, when might it be possible anyway?, context: In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.


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

Answer: at any time

<hl> In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time . <hl> The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.

In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty <hl> at any time <hl>. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.

In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty <hl> at any time <hl> .

question: Because of sovereignty when may a state withdrawal from a treaty?, context: In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.


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

Answer: terminated

<hl> If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated , and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. <hl> When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered <hl> terminated <hl>, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered <hl> terminated <hl> , and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty.

question: What happens to a state's obligations under a treaty upon its withdrawal from the treaty?, context: If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]


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

Answer: a bilateral treaty

<hl> If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. <hl> When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from <hl> a bilateral treaty <hl> of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]

question: What kind of treaty is terminated by the withdrawal of just one party?, context: If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]


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

Answer: remain in force

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, <hl> that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed] <hl>

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise <hl> remain in force <hl> among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]

question: What happens to a multilateral treaty's rights and obligations among the other parties when just one party withdraws?, context: If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]


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

Answer: withdrawal

<hl> If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. <hl> When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]

If a state party's <hl> withdrawal <hl> is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]

question: After what action by a state are its obligations under a treaty considered terminated?, context: If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]


Question: Under what conditions could a single state's withdrawal result in the termination of a multilateral treaty?

Answer: agreed upon between the remaining states parties

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. <hl> When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed] <hl>

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as <hl> agreed upon between the remaining states parties <hl> to the treaty.[citation needed]

question: Under what conditions could a single state's withdrawal result in the termination of a multilateral treaty?, context: If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]


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

Answer: A material breach

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. <hl> A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself. <hl>

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. <hl> A material breach <hl> may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.

question: What may be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating a treaty?, context: If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.


Question: In addition to terminating the treaty itself, what actions by the other parties might result from one party materially violating or beaching its obligations?

Answer: temporarily suspending their obligations to that party

<hl> If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. <hl> A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for <hl> temporarily suspending their obligations to that party <hl> under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.

question: In addition to terminating the treaty itself, what actions by the other parties might result from one party materially violating or beaching its obligations?, context: If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.


Question: In addition to suspending their obligations under a treaty to the violating party, what may result from a material breach of treaty obligations?

Answer: terminating the treaty itself

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. <hl> A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself . <hl>

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently <hl> terminating the treaty itself <hl>.

A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently <hl> terminating the treaty itself <hl> .

question: In addition to suspending their obligations under a treaty to the violating party, what may result from a material breach of treaty obligations?, context: If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.


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

Answer: the other parties

<hl> If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. <hl> A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, <hl> the other parties <hl> may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.

question: Who may invoke a material breach committed by a party to a treaty to suspend their obligations to that party?, context: If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.


Question: What temporary actions can parties of a treaty take in response to a material violation of a party's obligations?

Answer: suspending their obligations to that party

<hl> If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. <hl> A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily <hl> suspending their obligations to that party <hl> under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.

question: What temporary actions can parties of a treaty take in response to a material violation of a party's obligations?, context: If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.


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

Answer: the seriousness of a breach

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. <hl> Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. <hl> An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for <hl> the seriousness of a breach <hl> to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

question: What might a tribunal or an arbiter be asked to determine regarding a breach of a treaty?, context: A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.


Question: Using what to determine the seriousness of a breach can prevent a party from prematurely suspending its obligations due to another party's alleged material breach?

Answer: a tribunal or other independent arbiter

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. <hl> Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter . <hl> An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by <hl> a tribunal or other independent arbiter <hl>. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by <hl> a tribunal or other independent arbiter <hl> .

question: Using what to determine the seriousness of a breach can prevent a party from prematurely suspending its obligations due to another party's alleged material breach?, context: A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.


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

Answer: does not

<hl> A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. <hl> It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

A treaty breach <hl> does not <hl> automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

question: Does a material breach necessarily suspend or terminate treaty relations?, context: A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.


Question: What determines whether a breach automatically suspends or terminates treaty relations?

Answer: how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. <hl> It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it . <hl> Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on <hl> how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it <hl>. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

It depends on <hl> how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it <hl> .

question: What determines whether a breach automatically suspends or terminates treaty relations?, context: A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.


Question: A treaty breach does not necessarily affect treaty relations depending on how serious the other parties view the breach and what other factor?

Answer: how they resolve to respond to it

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. <hl> It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it . <hl> Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and <hl> how they resolve to respond to it <hl>. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and <hl> how they resolve to respond to it <hl> .

question: A treaty breach does not necessarily affect treaty relations depending on how serious the other parties view the breach and what other factor?, context: A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.


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

Answer: self-termination

<hl> Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination , meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. <hl> Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Treaties sometimes include provisions for <hl> self-termination <hl>, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Treaties sometimes include provisions for <hl> self-termination <hl> , meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met.

question: Some treaties contains provisions for what to happen if certain defined conditions are met?, context: Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]


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

Answer: set to expire on a given date

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. <hl> Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date . <hl> Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are <hl> set to expire on a given date <hl>. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are <hl> set to expire on a given date <hl> .

question: What provision might a treaty include if it's meant to be only temporarily binding?, context: Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]


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

Answer: certain defined conditions are met

<hl> Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met . <hl> Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if <hl> certain defined conditions are met <hl>. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if <hl> certain defined conditions are met <hl> .

question: In addition to passing an expiration date, what might cause a treaty to self-terminate?, context: Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]


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

Answer: automatically terminated

<hl> Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. <hl> Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is <hl> automatically terminated <hl> if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

question: What happens to a treaty that was designed to terminate under certain conditions when those conditions are actually met?, context: Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]


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

Answer: temporarily binding

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. <hl> Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. <hl> Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only <hl> temporarily binding <hl> and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

question: What may we assume the parties to a treaty intended the treaty's obligations to be if the treaty included an expiration date?, context: Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]


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

Answer: a fundamental change in circumstances

<hl> A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances . <hl> Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been <hl> a fundamental change in circumstances <hl>. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been <hl> a fundamental change in circumstances <hl> .

question: What might result in a party to a treaty claiming a treaty should be terminated even absent an express provision for its termination?, context: A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]


Question: A party cannot base its claim of a fundamental change in circumstances if the change was brought about by what?

Answer: its own breach of the treaty

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. <hl> A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty . <hl> This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by <hl> its own breach of the treaty <hl>. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]

A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by <hl> its own breach of the treaty <hl> .

question: A party cannot base its claim of a fundamental change in circumstances if the change was brought about by what?, context: A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]


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

Answer: political boundaries

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. <hl> This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries .[citation needed] <hl>

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew <hl> political boundaries <hl>.[citation needed]

This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew <hl> political boundaries <hl> .[citation needed]

question: The claim of a fundamental change in circumstances cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew what?, context: A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]


Question: The radical transformation of what aspect of the obligations between the parties is a necessary condition for a claim of a fundamental change in circumstances to terminate a treaty?

Answer: the extent of obligations

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. <hl> Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. <hl> A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms <hl> the extent of obligations <hl> between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]

question: The radical transformation of what aspect of the obligations between the parties is a necessary condition for a claim of a fundamental change in circumstances to terminate a treaty?, context: A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]


Question: In order to be considered a fundamental change, a change in circumstances must have been what at the time of the adoption of the treaty?

Answer: unforeseen

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. <hl> Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen , if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. <hl> A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if <hl> unforeseen <hl>, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]

Such a change is sufficient if <hl> unforeseen <hl> , if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed.

question: In order to be considered a fundamental change, a change in circumstances must have been what at the time of the adoption of the treaty?, context: A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]


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

Answer: the Banu Qaynuqa tribe

<hl> The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. <hl> This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa.

The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against <hl> the Banu Qaynuqa tribe <hl> known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa.

question: The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against what tribe in February 624?, context: The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa.