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

Answer: the Office of Legal Affairs

<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 the United Nations, as applied by <hl> the Office of Legal Affairs <hl>, including signature, ratification and entry into force.

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

question: Which office of the United Nations is in charge of applying its official legal procedures?, context: After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force.


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

Answer: After their adoption

<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>

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

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


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

Answer: entry into force

<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 the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and <hl> entry into force <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 <hl> entry into force <hl> .

question: In addition to signature and ratification, what legal procedure of the United Nations must all treaties follow 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.


Question: What are three official legal procedures of the United Nations that all treaties must follow after their adoption?

Answer: signature, ratification and entry into force

<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 the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including <hl> signature, ratification and entry into force <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 <hl> signature, ratification and entry into force <hl> .

question: What are three official legal procedures of the United Nations that all treaties must follow 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.


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

Answer: the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government

<hl> In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation. <hl>

In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to <hl> the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government <hl> by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.

question: The United Nations has been compared to what government in function and effectiveness?, context: In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.


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

Answer: function and effectiveness

<hl> In function and effectiveness , the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation. <hl>

In <hl> function and effectiveness <hl>, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.

In <hl> function and effectiveness <hl> , the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.

question: In which aspects has the United Nations been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government?, context: In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.


Question: The comparison of the United Nations to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government gives us a comparison between what modern and historical legal topics of interest?

Answer: modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation

<hl> In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation . <hl>

In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between <hl> modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation <hl>.

In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between <hl> modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation <hl> .

question: The comparison of the United Nations to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government gives us a comparison between what modern and historical legal topics of interest?, context: In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.


Question: Modern treaty law can be compared in function and effectiveness to the historical Articles of Confederation by comparing the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government with what modern institution?

Answer: the UN

<hl> In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation. <hl>

In function and effectiveness, <hl> the UN <hl> has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.

question: Modern treaty law can be compared in function and effectiveness to the historical Articles of Confederation by comparing the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government with what modern institution?, context: In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.


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

Answer: Articles of Confederation

<hl> In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation . <hl>

In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical <hl> Articles of Confederation <hl>.

In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical <hl> Articles of Confederation <hl> .

question: What legal document formed the basis of the pre-Constitutional Federal government of the United States?, context: In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.


Question: What part of the Brazilian federal consitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress?

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

<hl> The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress ( articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I ). <hl> In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (<hl> articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I <hl>). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress ( <hl> articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I <hl> ).

question: What part of the Brazilian federal consitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress?, context: The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.


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

Answer: Congress

<hl> The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). <hl> In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by <hl> Congress <hl> (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

question: In practice the Brazilian president must get the prior approval of what body in order to negotiate and sign a treaty?, context: The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.


Question: What Brazilian institution has ruled that a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree?

Answer: the Federal Supreme Court

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. <hl> Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities. <hl>

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, <hl> the Federal Supreme Court <hl> has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

question: What Brazilian institution has ruled that a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree?, context: The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.


Question: In order for a treaty to be valid in Brazil, a presidential decree incorporating the treaty into domestic law must be published where in order to be valid?

Answer: the federal register

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. <hl> Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities. <hl>

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in <hl> the federal register <hl> in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

question: In order for a treaty to be valid in Brazil, a presidential decree incorporating the treaty into domestic law must be published where in order to be valid?, context: The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.


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

Answer: president

<hl> The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). <hl> In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the <hl> president <hl> and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

question: In what office is the power to enter into treaties vested according to the Brazilian federal constitution?, context: The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.


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

Answer: same hierarchical position

<hl> The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). <hl> A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the <hl> same hierarchical position <hl> as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

question: The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court has ruled that treaties enjoy what position relative to ordinary legislation?, context: The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.


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

Answer: 2008

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). <hl> A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. <hl> Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in <hl> 2008 <hl> has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

question: In what year did the Brazilian Supreme Court rule that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above ordinary legislation?, context: The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.


Question: What amendment to the Brazilian constitution states that human rights treaties approved by means of a special procedure by Congress enjoy the same position as a constitutional amendment?

Answer: the 45th amendment

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. <hl> Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. <hl> The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per <hl> the 45th amendment <hl> to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

question: What amendment to the Brazilian constitution states that human rights treaties approved by means of a special procedure by Congress enjoy the same position as a constitutional amendment?, context: The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.


Question: The hierarchical position of treaties relative to domestic legislation in Brazil determines whether the latter can do what to the former and vice versa?

Answer: abrogate

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) <hl> the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa. <hl>

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can <hl> abrogate <hl> the former and vice versa.

question: The hierarchical position of treaties relative to domestic legislation in Brazil determines whether the latter can do what to the former and vice versa?, context: The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.


Question: What is the Portuguese term for ordinary laws?

Answer: leis ordinárias

<hl> The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation ( leis ordinárias , or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). <hl> A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (<hl> leis ordinárias <hl>, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation ( <hl> leis ordinárias <hl> , or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese).

question: What is the Portuguese term for ordinary laws?, context: The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.


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

Answer: supremacy clause

<hl> The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation. <hl>

The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a <hl> supremacy clause <hl> with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation.

question: What kind of clause does the United States constitution have that the Brazilian constitution does not have with the same effects?, context: The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation.


Question: A supremacy clause in a federal constitution is relevant to the discussion on the relation between treaties and what other type of legislation?

Answer: state legislation

<hl> The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation . <hl>

The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and <hl> state legislation <hl>.

The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and <hl> state legislation <hl> .

question: A supremacy clause in a federal constitution is relevant to the discussion on the relation between treaties and what other type of legislation?, context: The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation.


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

Answer: supremacy clause

<hl> The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation. <hl>

The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a <hl> supremacy clause <hl> with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation.

question: What clause of the United States Constitution is relevant to the discussion of the relation between treaties and U.S. legislation?, context: The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation.


Question: The Brazilian constitution does not have a supremacy clause that would be of interest to the relation between state legislation and what other legal agreements?

Answer: treaties

<hl> The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation. <hl>

The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between <hl> treaties <hl> and state legislation.

question: The Brazilian constitution does not have a supremacy clause that would be of interest to the relation between state legislation and what other legal agreements?, context: The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation.


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

Answer: internal American law

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. <hl> All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law . <hl> The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of <hl> internal American law <hl>. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of <hl> internal American law <hl> .

question: Treaties, executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements are the same under international law but different with respect to what?, context: In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.


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

Answer: their method of approval

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. <hl> The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval . <hl> Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning <hl> their method of approval <hl>. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

The distinctions are primarily concerning <hl> their method of approval <hl> .

question: Under US law, what primarily distinguishes treaties, executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements?, context: In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.


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

Answer: two-thirds

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. <hl> Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. <hl> Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by <hl> two-thirds <hl> of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

question: What percentage of United States Senators must give advice and consent in order for the US to enter a treaty?, context: In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.


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

Answer: sole executive agreements

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. <hl> United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements . <hl> All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and <hl> sole executive agreements <hl>. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and <hl> sole executive agreements <hl> .

question: What type of agreement may a US president enter by acting alone?, context: In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.


Question: What type of agreement requires majority approval by both the House and the Senate before or after a treaty is signed by the United States president?

Answer: congressional-executive agreements

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. <hl> United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements , and sole executive agreements. <hl> All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, <hl> congressional-executive agreements <hl>, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, <hl> congressional-executive agreements <hl> , and sole executive agreements.

question: What type of agreement requires majority approval by both the House and the Senate before or after a treaty is signed by the United States president?, context: In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.


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

Answer: 10:1

<hl> Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1 . <hl> Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of <hl> 10:1 <hl>. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of <hl> 10:1 <hl> .

question: In the United States, what is the ratio of executive agreements to treaties?, context: Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.


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

Answer: the relative ease

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. <hl> Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. <hl> For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite <hl> the relative ease <hl> of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.

question: What is it about the approval process of executive agreements might lead a US president to prefer them over treaties?, context: Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.


Question: The president of the United States might prefer the formal treaty process on matters that require Congress to do what?

Answer: pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. <hl> Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds , and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. <hl> For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to <hl> pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds <hl>, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.

Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to <hl> pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds <hl> , and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States.

question: The president of the United States might prefer the formal treaty process on matters that require Congress to do what?, context: Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.


Question: The president of the United States might prefer the formal treaty process for agreements that impose what type of legal obligations on the US?

Answer: long-term, complex

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. <hl> Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. <hl> For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose <hl> long-term, complex <hl> legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.

question: The president of the United States might prefer the formal treaty process for agreements that impose what type of legal obligations on the US?, context: Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.


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

Answer: Iran

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. <hl> For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty. <hl>

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, <hl> Iran <hl> and other countries is not a Treaty.

question: The international deal between the US, other countries, and what controversial nation is not a treaty?, context: Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.


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

Answer: Head Money Cases

<hl> The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. <hl> The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.

The Supreme Court ruled in the <hl> Head Money Cases <hl> that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.

question: In what cases did the US Supreme Court rule that treaties do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress?, context: The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.


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

Answer: Act of Congress

<hl> The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress , just like with any other regular law. <hl> The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent <hl> Act of Congress <hl>, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent <hl> Act of Congress <hl> , just like with any other regular law.

question: The US Supreme Court ruled that treaties can be repealed or modified by what for the purposes of US law?, context: The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.


Question: What Supreme Court case ruled that a treaty provision that conflicts with the US Constitution is null and void under US law?

Answer: Reid v. Covert

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. <hl> The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law. <hl>

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in <hl> Reid v. Covert <hl> that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.

question: What Supreme Court case ruled that a treaty provision that conflicts with the US Constitution is null and void under US law?, context: The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.


Question: The US Supreme Court ruled that treaties can be repealed or modified for the purposes of US law just like what by any subsequent Act of Congress?

Answer: any other regular law

<hl> The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law . <hl> The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with <hl> any other regular law <hl>. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with <hl> any other regular law <hl> .

question: The US Supreme Court ruled that treaties can be repealed or modified for the purposes of US law just like what by any subsequent Act of Congress?, context: The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.


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

Answer: null and void

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. <hl> The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law. <hl>

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are <hl> null and void <hl> under U.S. law.

question: Any treaty provision that conflicts with the US Constitution is considered what under US law?, context: The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.


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

Answer: Union List, State List and Concurrent List

<hl> In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists - Union List, State List and Concurrent List . <hl> In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -<hl> Union List, State List and Concurrent List <hl> . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists - <hl> Union List, State List and Concurrent List <hl> .

question: Into what 3 lists are legislation subjects divided in India?, context: In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.


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

Answer: Concurrent subjects

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. <hl> While for Concurrent subjects , both center and state can make laws. <hl> But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for <hl> Concurrent subjects <hl>, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.

While for <hl> Concurrent subjects <hl> , both center and state can make laws.

question: What type of legislative subjects can both the central legislative body and state legislatures make laws?, context: In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.


Question: What is the central legislative body in India?

Answer: Parliament of India

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . <hl> In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India , for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. <hl> While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called <hl> Parliament of India <hl>, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.

In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called <hl> Parliament of India <hl> , for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate.

question: What is the central legislative body in India?, context: In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.


Question: In order to implement international treaties, for what subjects can the Parliament of India legislate to override the general division of subject lists?

Answer: any subject

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. <hl> But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists. <hl>

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on <hl> any subject <hl> overriding the general division of subject lists.

question: In order to implement international treaties, for what subjects can the Parliament of India legislate to override the general division of subject lists?, context: In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.


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

Answer: the subjects in Union list

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . <hl> In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. <hl> While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, <hl> the subjects in Union list <hl> can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.

question: What subjects can only be legislated by the central legislative body in India?, context: In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.


Question: What formed an important part of European colonization?

Answer: Treaties

<hl> Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. <hl> In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.

<hl> Treaties <hl> formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.

question: What formed an important part of European colonization?, context: Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.


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

Answer: indigenous peoples

<hl> Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples . <hl> In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.

Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with <hl> indigenous peoples <hl>. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.

Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with <hl> indigenous peoples <hl> .

question: With whom did Europeans attempt to sign treaties in order to legitimize their sovereignty during colonization?, context: Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.


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

Answer: extremely disadvantageous terms

Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. <hl> In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing. <hl>

Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in <hl> extremely disadvantageous terms <hl> to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.

question: What terms in relation to Europeans did most indigenous people enjoy under treaties?, context: Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.


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

Answer: the implications

Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. <hl> In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing. <hl>

Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate <hl> the implications <hl> of what they were signing.

question: What aspect of the treaties that indigenous people signed with Europeans did the indigenous people typically not understand?, context: Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.


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

Answer: their sovereignty

<hl> Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. <hl> In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.

Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize <hl> their sovereignty <hl> by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.

question: What did Europeans try to legitimize all over the world by signing treaties with indigenous people?, context: Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.


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

Answer: Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China

<hl> In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China , the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. <hl> This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other.

In some rare cases, such as with <hl> Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China <hl>, the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other.

In some rare cases, such as with <hl> Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China <hl> , the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization.

question: In what two rare cases were local governments able to mitigate the impact of of European colonization through treaties?, context: In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other.


Question: What did Ethiopians learn in order to use treaties to prevent a European power from overstepping their agreement?

Answer: the intricacies of European diplomatic customs

In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. <hl> This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other. <hl>

In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning <hl> the intricacies of European diplomatic customs <hl> and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other.

question: What did Ethiopians learn in order to use treaties to prevent a European power from overstepping their agreement?, context: In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other.


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

Answer: the impact of European colonization

<hl> In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization . <hl> This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other.

In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate <hl> the impact of European colonization <hl>. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other.

In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate <hl> the impact of European colonization <hl> .

question: Both Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China learned the intricacies of European diplomatic customs to mitigate what through treaties?, context: In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other.