rajpurkar/squad huggingface dataset:
Title: Treaty

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
Title: Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: What is true of acts such as genocide and piracy in regard to treaty law?
Answer: no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts

Question: What distinguishes peremptory norms from other principles of customary law?
Answer: permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations

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

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

Question: What is the judiciary organ of the United Nations?
Answer: the International Court of Justice

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

Question: Why does the United Nations Charter state that treaties must be registered with the United Nations?
Answer: to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties

Question: In which centuries did a proliferation of secret treaties occur that led the United Nations Charter to include an obligation to register treaties to be invoked before it?
Answer: 19th and 20th century

Question: What section of the United Nations Charter states that its members' obligation under the charter outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties?
Answer: Section 103
Title: Treaty

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

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

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

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

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
Title: Treaty

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 United Nations has been compared to what government in function and effectiveness?
Answer: the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government

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

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

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

Question: What legal document formed the basis of the pre-Constitutional Federal government of the United States?
Answer: Articles of Confederation
Title: Treaty

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 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

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

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

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

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

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 Brazilian Federal Supreme Court has ruled that treaties enjoy what position relative to ordinary legislation?
Answer: same hierarchical position

Question: In what year did the Brazilian Supreme Court rule that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above ordinary legislation?
Answer: 2008

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

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

Question: What is the Portuguese term for ordinary laws?
Answer: leis ordinárias
Title: Treaty

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

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

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

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
Title: Treaty

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: 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

Question: Under US law, what primarily distinguishes treaties, executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements?
Answer: their method of approval

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

Question: What type of agreement may a US president enter by acting alone?
Answer: 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?
Answer: congressional-executive agreements
Title: 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 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 the United States, what is the ratio of executive agreements to treaties?
Answer: 10:1

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

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

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

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

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: 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

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

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

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

Question: Any treaty provision that conflicts with the US Constitution is considered what under US law?
Answer: null and void
Title: Treaty

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: Into what 3 lists are legislation subjects divided in India?
Answer: Union List, State List and Concurrent List

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

Question: What is the central legislative body in India?
Answer: Parliament of India

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

Question: What subjects can only be legislated by the central legislative body in India?
Answer: the subjects in Union list
Title: Treaty

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 formed an important part of European colonization?
Answer: Treaties

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

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

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

Question: What did Europeans try to legitimize all over the world by signing treaties with indigenous people?
Answer: their sovereignty
Title: Treaty

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: 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

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

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

Question: In addition to preventing a power from overstepping their agreement, how was Ethiopia able to mitigate the impact of European colonization?
Answer: by playing different powers against each other

Question: Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China were both able to prevent European powers from doing what to their agreements?
Answer: overstepping
Title: Treaty

In other cases, such as New Zealand and Canada, treaties allowed native peoples to maintain a minimum amount of autonomy. In the case of indigenous Australians, unlike with the Māori of New Zealand, no treaty was ever entered into with the indigenous peoples entitling the Europeans to land ownership, under the doctrine of terra nullius (later overturned by Mabo v Queensland, establishing the concept of native title well after colonization was already a fait accompli). Such treaties between colonizers and indigenous peoples are an important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st century, the treaties being discussed have international standing as has been stated in a treaty study by the UN.

Question: What were native peoples able to maintain a minimum amount of through treaties?
Answer: autonomy

Question: What indigenous people of New Zealand entered into a treaty entitling Europeans to land ownership?
Answer: Māori

Question: What doctrine was overturned by Mabo v Queensland establishing the concept of native title?
Answer: terra nullius

Question: The concept of native title was established by what court case?
Answer: Mabo v Queensland

Question: Treaties between indigenous peoples and what other groups formed an important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st century?
Answer: colonizers
Title: Treaty

Prior to 1871, the government of the United States regularly entered into treaties with Native Americans but the Indian Appropriations Act of March 3, 1871 (ch. 120, 16 Stat. 563) had a rider (25 U.S.C. § 71) attached that effectively ended the President’s treaty making by providing that no Indian nation or tribe shall be acknowledged as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty. The federal government continued to provide similar contractual relations with the Indian tribes after 1871 by agreements, statutes, and executive orders.

Question: What legislative act provided that no Indian nation shall be acknowledged as an independent nation with whom the United States may contract by treaty?
Answer: Indian Appropriations Act of March 3, 1871

Question: By what did the US federal government provide contractual relations with Indian tribes following the Indian Appropriations Act of March 3, 1871?
Answer: agreements, statutes, and executive orders

Question: Prior to what year did the United States regularly enter into treaties with Native Americans?
Answer: 1871

Question: A rider to the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 provided that no Indian nation shall be acknowledged as what?
Answer: an independent nation, tribe, or power

Question: A rider to the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 provided that the US government could not do what with an Indian nation?
Answer: contract by treaty
Title: Josip_Broz_Tito

Josip Broz Tito (Cyrillic: Јосип Броз Тито, pronounced [jǒsip brôːz tîto]; born Josip Broz; 7 May 1892[nb 1] – 4 May 1980) was a Yugoslav revolutionary and statesman, serving in various roles from 1943 until his death in 1980. During World War II he was the leader of the Partisans, often regarded as the most effective resistance movement in occupied Europe. While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian, and concerns about the repression of political opponents have been raised, Tito was "seen by most as a benevolent dictator" due to his economic and diplomatic policies. He was a popular public figure both in Yugoslavia and abroad. Viewed as a unifying symbol, his internal policies maintained the peaceful coexistence of the nations of the Yugoslav federation. He gained further international attention as the chief leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, working with Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and Sukarno of Indonesia.

Question: In what year did Josip Broz Tito die?
Answer: 1980

Question: During World War II what resistance movement did he lead?
Answer: the Partisans,

Question: For what country is Tito viewed as  unifying figure?
Answer: Yugoslavia

Question: In the Non-Aligned Movement, which Egyptian leader did Tito work with?
Answer: Gamal Abdel Nasser

Question: In the Non-Aligned Movement, which Indonesian leader did Tito work with?
Answer: Sukarno