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

Answer: the Constitution of Medina

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


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

Answer: Abdullah ibn Ubayy

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 <hl> 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. <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. 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 <hl> Abdullah ibn Ubayy <hl>'s insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa.

The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to <hl> Abdullah ibn Ubayy <hl> 's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa.

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


Question: Pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being what, was the action that allegedly violated the Constitution of Medina?

Answer: stripped naked

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


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

Answer: revenge killings

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 <hl> 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 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 <hl> revenge killings <hl>, 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.

This escalated to a chain of <hl> revenge killings <hl> , and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122

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


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

Answer: Gabriel

<hl> Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel . <hl> Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel <hl> Gabriel <hl>. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel <hl> Gabriel <hl> .

question: What angel, according to Muslim tradition, ordered Muhammad to order a siege on the Banu Qurayza?, context: Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed


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

Answer: Al-Waqidi

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. <hl> Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. <hl> Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. <hl> Al-Waqidi <hl> claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed

question: Who claims Muhammad had a treaty with the Banu Qurayza that was torn apart?, context: Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed


Question: How many members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after surrendering to Muhammad and his followers according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham?

Answer: 600-900

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. <hl> 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). <hl> Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. <hl> 600-900 <hl> members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed

question: How many members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after surrendering to Muhammad and his followers according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham?, context: Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed


Question: According to Sunni Hadith which members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after surrendering to Muhammad and his followers?

Answer: all Males and 1 woman

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). <hl> Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). <hl> Two Muslims were killed

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says <hl> all Males and 1 woman <hl> beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed

question: According to Sunni Hadith which members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after surrendering to Muhammad and his followers?, context: Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed


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

Answer: Two

Two Muslims were killed

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). <hl> Two Muslims were killed <hl>

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). <hl> Two <hl> Muslims were killed

question: How many Muslims were killed during the invasion of Banu Qurayza?, context: Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed


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

Answer: at the formation of the treaty

<hl> There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty .[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. <hl>

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created <hl> at the formation of the treaty <hl>.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created <hl> at the formation of the treaty <hl> .[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.

question: When are most of the problems created that might result in an otherwise valid treaty being rejected as a binding international agreement?, context: There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.


Question: What treaties between Japan and Korea are examples of treaties that were declared null and void?

Answer: the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910

<hl> There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. <hl>

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, <hl> the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 <hl> were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.

question: What treaties between Japan and Korea are examples of treaties that were declared null and void?, context: There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.


Question: In what treaty were the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907, and 1910 confirmed as "already null and void?"

Answer: the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea

<hl> There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea . <hl>

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in <hl> the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea <hl>.

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in <hl> the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea <hl> .

question: In what treaty were the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907, and 1910 confirmed as "already null and void?", context: There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.


Question: Which two states signed a treaty that declared previous treaties between the two from 1905, 1907, and 1910 to be already void?

Answer: Japan and the Republic of Korea

<hl> There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea . <hl>

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between <hl> Japan and the Republic of Korea <hl>.

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between <hl> Japan and the Republic of Korea <hl> .

question: Which two states signed a treaty that declared previous treaties between the two from 1905, 1907, and 1910 to be already void?, context: There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.


Question: An otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as what for several reasons most of which involve problems created at the formation of a treaty?

Answer: a binding international agreement

<hl> There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement , most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. <hl>

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as <hl> a binding international agreement <hl>, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as <hl> a binding international agreement <hl> , most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.

question: An otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as what for several reasons most of which involve problems created at the formation of a treaty?, context: There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.


Question: A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under what?

Answer: that state's domestic law

<hl> A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law . <hl> States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under <hl> that state's domestic law <hl>. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under <hl> that state's domestic law <hl> .

question: A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under what?, context: A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]


Question: For what does a strong presumption exist internationally that a head of state has acted within in entering into a treaty?

Answer: his proper authority

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". <hl> A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority . <hl> It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within <hl> his proper authority <hl>. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within <hl> his proper authority <hl> .

question: For what does a strong presumption exist internationally that a head of state has acted within in entering into a treaty?, context: A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]


Question: What is required to invalidate a party's consent due to a reluctance to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states?

Answer: a "manifest violation"

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. <hl> States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". <hl> A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so <hl> a "manifest violation" <hl> is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

question: What is required to invalidate a party's consent due to a reluctance to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states?, context: A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]


Question: A manifest violation is required to invalidate a party's consent to a treaty due to a reluctance internationally to inquire into what aspects of other states?

Answer: the internal affairs and processes

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. <hl> States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". <hl> A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into <hl> the internal affairs and processes <hl> of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

question: A manifest violation is required to invalidate a party's consent to a treaty due to a reluctance internationally to inquire into what aspects of other states?, context: A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]


Question: What might a party's consent to a treaty be considered if it has been given by an agent without the power under the state's domestic law to do so?

Answer: invalid

<hl> A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. <hl> States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

A party's consent to a treaty is <hl> invalid <hl> if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

question: What might a party's consent to a treaty be considered if it has been given by an agent without the power under the state's domestic law to do so?, context: A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]


Question: If a state's representative ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign, what might that state's consent to a treaty be considered to be?

Answer: invalid

<hl> Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed] <hl>

Consent is also <hl> invalid <hl> if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed]

question: If a state's representative ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign, what might that state's consent to a treaty be considered to be?, context: Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed]


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

Answer: his sovereign

<hl> Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed] <hl>

Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by <hl> his sovereign <hl> during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed]

question: Who might place restrictions on a representative during negotiation of a treaty?, context: Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed]


Question: What must be true of the ignored restrictions placed on a representative by his sovereign in order for a state's consent to a treaty to be considered invalid?

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

<hl> Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing .[citation needed] <hl>

Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if <hl> the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing <hl>.[citation needed]

Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if <hl> the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing <hl> .[citation needed]

question: What must be true of the ignored restrictions placed on a representative by his sovereign in order for a state's consent to a treaty to be considered invalid?, context: Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed]


Question: Who must have been notified of the ignored restrictions placed by a sovereign on his representative prior to the signing of a treaty in order for a state's consent to be considered invalid?

Answer: the other parties

<hl> Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed] <hl>

Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if <hl> the other parties <hl> to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed]

question: Who must have been notified of the ignored restrictions placed by a sovereign on his representative prior to the signing of a treaty in order for a state's consent to be considered invalid?, context: Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed]


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

Answer: The Law of Treaties

<hl> According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties , treaties are a source of international law. <hl> If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.

According to the preamble in <hl> The Law of Treaties <hl>, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.

According to the preamble in <hl> The Law of Treaties <hl> , treaties are a source of international law.

question: The preamble of what states that treaties are a source of international law?, context: According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.


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

Answer: international law

<hl> According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law . <hl> If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.

According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of <hl> international law <hl>. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.

According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of <hl> international law <hl> .

question: Which will prevail in a conflict between international and domestic law?, context: According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.


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

Answer: treaties

<hl> According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. <hl> If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.

According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, <hl> treaties <hl> are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.

question: What are started to be a source of international law in the preamble in The Law of Treaties?, context: According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.


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

Answer: internal law

According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. <hl> If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law . <hl> This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.

According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by <hl> internal law <hl>. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.

If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by <hl> internal law <hl> .

question: Approval under what law will not make an act or lack thereof legal if condemned under international law?, context: According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.


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

Answer: international law

<hl> According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law . <hl> If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.

According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of <hl> international law <hl>. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.

According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of <hl> international law <hl> .

question: An act or lack thereof cannot be made legal under what law even if made legal under internal law?, context: According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.


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

Answer: Articles 46–53

<hl> Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. <hl> A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

<hl> Articles 46–53 <hl> of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

question: Which articles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the ways that treaties can be invalidated?, context: Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.


Question: In addition to the circumstances by which a state party joined a treaty, why might a treaty be invalidated?

Answer: the content of the treaty itself

Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. <hl> A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself . <hl> Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to <hl> the content of the treaty itself <hl>. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to <hl> the content of the treaty itself <hl> .

question: In addition to the circumstances by which a state party joined a treaty, why might a treaty be invalidated?, context: Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.


Question: In addition to the content of the treaty itself, why might a treated by invalidated?

Answer: the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty

Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. <hl> A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty , or due to the content of the treaty itself. <hl> Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either <hl> the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty <hl>, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

A treaty will be invalidated due to either <hl> the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty <hl> , or due to the content of the treaty itself.

question: In addition to the content of the treaty itself, why might a treated by invalidated?, context: Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.


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

Answer: invalidated

<hl> Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated —considered unenforceable and void under international law. <hl> A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be <hl> invalidated <hl>—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be <hl> invalidated <hl> —considered unenforceable and void under international law.

question: A treaty might be considered what if it's considered unenforceable and void under international law?, context: Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.


Question: Which processes simply alter the consent given by parties to a previously valid treaty rather than invalidating the consent completely?

Answer: withdrawal, suspension, or termination

Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. <hl> Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place. <hl>

Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from <hl> withdrawal, suspension, or termination <hl> (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

question: Which processes simply alter the consent given by parties to a previously valid treaty rather than invalidating the consent completely?, context: Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.


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

Answer: own conduct

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. <hl> Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct , or if the truth should have been evident. <hl>

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's <hl> own conduct <hl>, or if the truth should have been evident.

Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's <hl> own conduct <hl> , or if the truth should have been evident.

question: What on behalf of a state cannot invalidate that state's consent to a treaty?, context: A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.


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

Answer: the truth

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. <hl> Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident. <hl>

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if <hl> the truth <hl> should have been evident.

question: Consent to a treaty will not be invalidated if what should have been evident?, context: A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.


Question: What may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion of a treaty?

Answer: A state's consent

<hl> A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. <hl> Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

<hl> A state's consent <hl> may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

question: What may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion of a treaty?, context: A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.


Question: An erroneous understanding of a fact or situation may only invalidate a state's consent to a treaty if what is also true about the erroneous understanding?

Answer: formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent

<hl> A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent . <hl> Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which <hl> formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent <hl>. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which <hl> formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent <hl> .

question: An erroneous understanding of a fact or situation may only invalidate a state's consent to a treaty if what is also true about the erroneous understanding?, context: A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.


Question: What, if it formed the "essential basis" of a state's consent to a treaty, may invalidate that consent?

Answer: an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation

<hl> A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. <hl> Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was <hl> an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation <hl> at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

question: What, if it formed the "essential basis" of a state's consent to a treaty, may invalidate that consent?, context: A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.


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

Answer: fraudulent conduct

<hl> Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. <hl> Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the <hl> fraudulent conduct <hl> of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.

question: What type of conduct of a party to a treaty can invalidate the consent of another party?, context: Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.


Question: What type of action, either direct or indirect, of a state's representative by another type of party to a treaty can invalidate a state's consent?

Answer: corruption

<hl> Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect " corruption " of its representative by another party to the treaty. <hl> Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "<hl> corruption <hl>" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect " <hl> corruption <hl> " of its representative by another party to the treaty.

question: What type of action, either direct or indirect, of a state's representative by another type of party to a treaty can invalidate a state's consent?, context: Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.


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

Answer: invalidate that consent

will invalidate that consent .

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, <hl> will invalidate that consent . <hl>

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will <hl> invalidate that consent <hl>.

will <hl> invalidate that consent <hl> .

question: Coercion of a representative or a state itself will result in what happening to its consent to a treaty?, context: Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.


Question: Coercion of a state or its what through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent?

Answer: representative

<hl> Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. <hl> Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its <hl> representative <hl> by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.

question: Coercion of a state or its what through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent?, context: Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.


Question: What must be true of coercion through the threat or use of force of a party to treaty for it to invalidate the state's consent to a treaty?

Answer: used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. <hl> Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty , will invalidate that consent. <hl>

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if <hl> used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty <hl>, will invalidate that consent.

Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if <hl> used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty <hl> , will invalidate that consent.

question: What must be true of coercion through the threat or use of force of a party to treaty for it to invalidate the state's consent to a treaty?, context: Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.


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

Answer: null and void

<hl> A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. <hl> These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.

A treaty is <hl> null and void <hl> if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.

question: What will a treaty be if it is in violation of a peremptory norm?, context: A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.


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

Answer: peremptory norm

<hl> A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm . <hl> These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a <hl> peremptory norm <hl>. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a <hl> peremptory norm <hl> .

question: What type of norm is recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations?, context: A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.


Question: What is true of acts such as genocide and piracy in regard to treaty law?

Answer: no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. <hl> These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts . <hl>

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that <hl> no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts <hl>.

These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that <hl> no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts <hl> .

question: What is true of acts such as genocide and piracy in regard to treaty law?, context: A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.


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

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

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. <hl> These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations . <hl> These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as <hl> permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations <hl>. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.

These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as <hl> permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations <hl> .

question: What distinguishes peremptory norms from other principles of customary law?, context: A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.


Question: What is an example of a type of universally prohibited action that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit through a treaty?

Answer: genocide

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. <hl> These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts. <hl>

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, <hl> genocide <hl> and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.

question: What is an example of a type of universally prohibited action that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit through a treaty?, context: A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.


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

Answer: the International Court of Justice

<hl> The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice . <hl> This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.

The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, <hl> the International Court of Justice <hl>. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.

The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, <hl> the International Court of Justice <hl> .

question: What is the judiciary organ of the United Nations?, context: The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.


Question: What document states that treaties must be registered with the United Nations to be invoked before it or enforced in the International Court of Justice?

Answer: The United Nations Charter

<hl> The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. <hl> This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.

<hl> The United Nations Charter <hl> states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.

question: What document states that treaties must be registered with the United Nations to be invoked before it or enforced in the International Court of Justice?, context: The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.


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

Answer: to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties

The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. <hl> This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. <hl> Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.

The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done <hl> to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties <hl> that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.

question: Why does the United Nations Charter state that treaties must be registered with the United Nations?, context: The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.


Question: In which centuries did a proliferation of secret treaties occur that led the United Nations Charter to include an obligation to register treaties to be invoked before it?

Answer: 19th and 20th century

The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. <hl> This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century . <hl> Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.

The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the <hl> 19th and 20th century <hl>. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.

This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the <hl> 19th and 20th century <hl> .

question: In which centuries did a proliferation of secret treaties occur that led the United Nations Charter to include an obligation to register treaties to be invoked before it?, context: The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.


Question: What section of the United Nations Charter states that its members' obligation under the charter outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties?

Answer: Section 103

The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. <hl> Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties. <hl>

The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. <hl> Section 103 <hl> of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.

question: What section of the United Nations Charter states that its members' obligation under the charter outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties?, context: The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.


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

Answer: the United Nations

<hl> After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations , as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force. <hl>

After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of <hl> the United Nations <hl>, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force.

After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of <hl> the United Nations <hl> , as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force.

question: Treaties and their amendments must follow the official legal procedures of what body after their adoption?, context: After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force.