praj-17/QA-MCQ-Open-ended huggingface dataset:
Title: Treaty
Context: Since the late 19th century, most treaties have followed a fairly consistent format. A treaty typically begins with a preamble describing the contracting parties and their joint objectives in executing the treaty, as well as summarizing any underlying events (such as a war). Modern preambles are sometimes structured as a single very long sentence formatted into multiple paragraphs for readability, in which each of the paragraphs begins with a verb (desiring, recognizing, having, and so on).

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

answer: a fairly consistent format

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

answer: a preamble

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

answer: readability

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

answer: a verb

question: In addition to describing the parties and their joint objectives, what else does a modern preamble typically summarize? 

answer: any underlying events (such as a war)
Title: Treaty
Context: The contracting parties' full names or sovereign titles are often included in the preamble, along with the full names and titles of their representatives, and a boilerplate clause about how their representatives have communicated (or exchanged) their full powers (i.e., the official documents appointing them to act on behalf of their respective states) and found them in good or proper form.

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

answer: boilerplate

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

answer: full powers

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

answer: sovereign titles

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

answer: in good or proper form.

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

answer: their representatives
Title: Treaty
Context: After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain the substance of the parties' actual agreement. Each article heading usually encompasses a paragraph. A long treaty may further group articles under chapter headings.

question: What follows the preamble in a treaty? 

answer: numbered articles

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

answer: the substance of the parties' actual agreement

question: What does each article heading usually encompass? 

answer: a paragraph

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

answer: under chapter headings

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

answer: A long treaty
Title: Treaty
Context: Modern treaties, regardless of subject matter, usually contain articles governing where the final authentic copies of the treaty will be deposited and how any subsequent disputes as to their interpretation will be peacefully resolved.

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

answer: peaceful

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

answer: articles

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

answer: their interpretation

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

answer: the final authentic copies

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

answer: disputes
Title: Treaty
Context: The end of a treaty, the eschatocol (or closing protocol), is often signaled by a clause like "in witness whereof" or "in faith whereof," the parties have affixed their signatures, followed by the words "DONE at," then the site(s) of the treaty's execution and the date(s) of its execution. The date is typically written in its most formal, longest possible form. For example, the Charter of the United Nations was "DONE at the city of San Francisco the twenty-sixth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five." If the treaty is executed in multiple copies in different languages, that fact is always noted, and is followed by a stipulation that the versions in different languages are equally authentic.

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

answer: the eschatocol

question: What typically follows the signatures in a treaty? 

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

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

answer: its most formal, longest possible form

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

answer: equally authentic

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

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

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

answer: the parties' representatives

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

answer: in a collection of treaties currently in effect

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

answer: an editor

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

answer: ratified the treaty

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

answer: came into effect
Title: Treaty
Context: Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states or entities. It is possible, however, for a bilateral treaty to have more than two parties; consider for instance the bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) following the Swiss rejection of the European Economic Area agreement. Each of these treaties has seventeen parties. These however are still bilateral, not multilateral, treaties. The parties are divided into two groups, the Swiss ("on the one part") and the EU and its member states ("on the other part"). The treaty establishes rights and obligations between the Swiss and the EU and the member states severally—it does not establish any rights and obligations amongst the EU and its member states.[citation needed]

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

answer: two

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

answer: It is possible

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

answer: the European Economic Area agreement

question: Does the bilateral treaty between Switzerland and the European Union establish rights or obligations amongst the EU and its member states? 

answer: it does not

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

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

question: What is a treaty concluded among several countries? 

answer: A multilateral treaty

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

answer: each party and every other party

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

answer: attack

question: What type of treaty is a mutual guarantee? 

answer: international compacts

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

answer: region
Title: Treaty
Context: Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. Reservations are unilateral statements purporting to exclude or to modify the legal obligation and its effects on the reserving state. These must be included at the time of signing or ratification, i.e. "a party cannot add a reservation after it has already joined a treaty".

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

answer: Reservations

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

answer: Reservations

question: When must reservations be included in a treaty? 

answer: at the time of signing or ratification

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

answer: add a reservation

question: A reserving party to a treaty may include a statement that attempts to do what to its legal obligations or their effects? 

answer: exclude or to modify
Title: Treaty
Context: Originally, international law was unaccepting of treaty reservations, rejecting them unless all parties to the treaty accepted the same reservations. However, in the interest of encouraging the largest number of states to join treaties, a more permissive rule regarding reservations has emerged. While some treaties still expressly forbid any reservations, they are now generally permitted to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the treaty.

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

answer: reservations

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

answer: inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the treaty

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

answer: rejecting them

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

answer: all parties

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

answer: expressly
Title: Treaty
Context: When a state limits its treaty obligations through reservations, other states party to that treaty have the option to accept those reservations, object to them, or object and oppose them. If the state accepts them (or fails to act at all), both the reserving state and the accepting state are relieved of the reserved legal obligation as concerns their legal obligations to each other (accepting the reservation does not change the accepting state's legal obligations as concerns other parties to the treaty). If the state opposes, the parts of the treaty affected by the reservation drop out completely and no longer create any legal obligations on the reserving and accepting state, again only as concerns each other. Finally, if the state objects and opposes, there are no legal obligations under that treaty between those two state parties whatsoever. The objecting and opposing state essentially refuses to acknowledge the reserving state is a party to the treaty at all.

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

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

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

answer: other parties to the treaty

question: What happens to the parts of the treaty affected by a rejected reservation as they concern the reserving and rejecting parties? 

answer: drop out completely

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

answer: no legal obligations

question: If a state party objects and opposes another state's reservations it essentially refuses to acknowledge what? 

answer: the reserving state is a party to the treaty
Title: Treaty
Context: There are three ways an existing treaty can be amended. First, formal amendment requires State parties to the treaty to go through the ratification process all over again. The re-negotiation of treaty provisions can be long and protracted, and often some parties to the original treaty will not become parties to the amended treaty. When determining the legal obligations of states, one party to the original treaty and one a party to the amended treaty, the states will only be bound by the terms they both agreed upon. Treaties can also be amended informally by the treaty executive council when the changes are only procedural, technical change in customary international law can also amend a treaty, where state behavior evinces a new interpretation of the legal obligations under the treaty. Minor corrections to a treaty may be adopted by a procès-verbal; but a procès-verbal is generally reserved for changes to rectify obvious errors in the text adopted, i.e. where the text adopted does not correctly reflect the intention of the parties adopting it.

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

answer: three

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

answer: the ratification process

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

answer: a procès-verbal

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

answer: the terms they both agreed upon

question: In addition to the often long and protracted nature of treaty renegotiation, what negative outcome might result from the process? 

answer: some parties to the original treaty will not become parties to the amended treaty
Title: Treaty
Context: In international law and international relations, a protocol is generally a treaty or international agreement that supplements a previous treaty or international agreement. A protocol can amend the previous treaty, or add additional provisions. Parties to the earlier agreement are not required to adopt the protocol. Sometimes this is made clearer by calling it an "optional protocol", especially where many parties to the first agreement do not support the protocol.

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

answer: a protocol

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

answer: add additional provisions

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

answer: not required

question: What do we sometimes call an agreement that supplements a treaty especially when few parties to the treaty support the protocol? 

answer: an "optional protocol"

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

answer: amend the previous treaty
Title: Treaty
Context: Some examples: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established a framework for the development of binding greenhouse gas emission limits, while the Kyoto Protocol contained the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon.

question: The Kyoto Protocol is associated with what treaty? 

answer: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

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

answer: the Kyoto Protocol

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

answer: binding greenhouse gas emission limits

question: While the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established a framework for developing greenhouse gas emission limits, the Kyoto Protocol contained what? 

answer: the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon

question: The agreement that contained specific provisions related to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an example of what agreement that supplements a treaty? 

answer: Protocol
Title: Treaty
Context: Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action. Other treaties may be non-self-executing and require 'implementing legislation'—a change in the domestic law of a state party that will direct or enable it to fulfill treaty obligations. An example of a treaty requiring such legislation would be one mandating local prosecution by a party for particular crimes.

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

answer: self-executing

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

answer: implementing legislation

question: What is "implementing legislation" that is required by a party to a treaty to enable it to fulfill its obligations under the treaty? 

answer: a change in the domestic law of a state party

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

answer: non-self-executing

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

answer: puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action
Title: Treaty
Context: The division between the two is often not clear and is often politicized in disagreements within a government over a treaty, since a non-self-executing treaty cannot be acted on without the proper change in domestic law. If a treaty requires implementing legislation, a state may be in default of its obligations by the failure of its legislature to pass the necessary domestic laws.

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

answer: a non-self-executing treaty

question: A state party may be in default of its obligations under a non-self-executing treaty if its legislature fails to do what? 

answer: pass the necessary domestic laws

question: What institution of a party to a treaty must act to fulfill the party's obligations under a non-self-executing treaty? 

answer: its legislature

question: The often unclear division between a self-executing treaty and a non-self-executing treaty can lead to a treaty being what if disagreements exist within a party? 

answer: politicized

question: A treaty may be politicized due to disagreements within a party because the division between a self-executing treaty and a non-self-executing treaty can often be described as what? 

answer: not clear
Title: Treaty
Context: The language of treaties, like that of any law or contract, must be interpreted when the wording does not seem clear or it is not immediately apparent how it should be applied in a perhaps unforeseen circumstance. The Vienna Convention states that treaties are to be interpreted "in good faith" according to the "ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose." International legal experts also often invoke the 'principle of maximum effectiveness,' which interprets treaty language as having the fullest force and effect possible to establish obligations between the parties.

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

answer: principle of maximum effectiveness

question: The principle of maximum effectiveness interprets the language of treaties as having what effect to establish obligations between parties? 

answer: the fullest force and effect

question: What states that treaties are to be interpreted "in good faith" according to the "ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose?" 

answer: The Vienna Convention

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

answer: The language

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

answer: a perhaps unforeseen circumstance
Title: Treaty
Context: No one party to a treaty can impose its particular interpretation of the treaty upon the other parties. Consent may be implied, however, if the other parties fail to explicitly disavow that initially unilateral interpretation, particularly if that state has acted upon its view of the treaty without complaint. Consent by all parties to the treaty to a particular interpretation has the legal effect of adding another clause to the treaty – this is commonly called an 'authentic interpretation'.

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

answer: impose its particular interpretation of the treaty

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

answer: Consent

question: Consent for a party's unilateral interpretation of a treaty may be implied if that state has acted upon its view of the treat without what from another party? 

answer: complaint

question: Consent by all parties to a treaty to a particular interpretation of the treaty has what legal effect? 

answer: adding another clause to the treaty

question: The legal effect of adding another clause to a treaty that occurs when all parties to a treaty consent to a particular interpretation of the treaty is commonly known as what? 

answer: an 'authentic interpretation'
Title: Treaty
Context: International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself.

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

answer: substantial disputes over treaty interpretations

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

answer: International tribunals and arbiters

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

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

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

answer: To establish the meaning in context

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

answer: the final, signed treaty itself