praj-17/QA-MCQ-Open-ended huggingface dataset:
Title: Treaty
Context: One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.

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

answer: compacts

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

answer: memoranda of understanding

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

answer: memoranda of understanding

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

answer: a sovereign state

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

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

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

answer: international law

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

answer: North Korea and the United States

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

answer: security guarantees and nuclear proliferation

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

answer: to create an obligation under international law
Title: Treaty
Context: The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

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

answer: documents under domestic law

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

answer: convention, protocol, or simply agreement

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

answer: named something other than a treaty,

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

answer: the Treaty of Waitangi

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

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

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

answer: consent

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

answer: procedures of notification

question: Are treaties permanently binding upon the signatory parties? 

answer: not necessarily

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

answer: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

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

answer: Article 56
Title: Treaty
Context: The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

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

answer: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

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

answer: North Korea

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

answer: the Secretary-General of the United Nations

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

answer: the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire

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

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

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

answer: sovereignty

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

answer: how other states will react

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

answer: impose sanctions or go to war

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

answer: In practice

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

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

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

answer: terminated

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

answer: a bilateral treaty

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

answer: remain in force

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

answer: withdrawal

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

answer: agreed upon between the remaining states parties
Title: Treaty
Context: If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.

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

answer: A material breach

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

answer: temporarily suspending their obligations to that party

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

answer: terminating the treaty itself

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

answer: the other parties

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

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

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

answer: the seriousness of a breach

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

answer: a tribunal or other independent arbiter

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

answer: does not

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

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

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

answer: how they resolve to respond to it
Title: Treaty
Context: Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

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

answer: self-termination

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

answer: set to expire on a given date

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

answer: certain defined conditions are met

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

answer: automatically terminated

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

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

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

answer: a fundamental change in circumstances

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

answer: its own breach of the treaty

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

answer: political boundaries

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

answer: the extent of obligations

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

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

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

answer: the Banu Qaynuqa tribe

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

answer: the Constitution of Medina

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

answer: Abdullah ibn Ubayy

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

answer: stripped naked

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

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

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

answer: Gabriel

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

answer: Al-Waqidi

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

answer: 600-900

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

answer: all Males and 1 woman

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

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

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

answer: at the formation of the treaty

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

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

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

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

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

answer: Japan and the Republic of Korea

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

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

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

answer: that state's domestic law

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

answer: his proper authority

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

answer: a "manifest violation"

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

answer: the internal affairs and processes

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

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

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

answer: invalid

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

answer: his sovereign

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

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

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

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

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

answer: The Law of Treaties

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

answer: international law

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

answer: treaties

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

answer: internal law

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

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

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

answer: Articles 46–53

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

answer: the content of the treaty itself

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

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

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

answer: invalidated

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

answer: withdrawal, suspension, or termination
Title: Treaty
Context: A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

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

answer: own conduct

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

answer: the truth

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

answer: A state's consent

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

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

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

answer: an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation