romikgosai/squad_modified huggingface dataset:
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: How many ways are there to amend an existing treaty?
A: three', '
Q: What must state parties to a treaty repeat to adopt a formal amendment to the treaty?
A: the ratification process', '
Q: What amendment process is generally reserved for changes that rectify obvious errors in the text?
A: a procès-verbal', '
Q: Parties to an original treaty and an amended treaty are bound to what terms?
A: the terms they both agreed upon', '
Q: In addition to the often long and protracted nature of treaty renegotiation, what negative outcome might result from the process?
A: some parties to the original treaty will not become parties to the amended treaty']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What is a treaty that supplements a previous treaty in international law?
A: a protocol', '
Q: A protocol may either amend a previous treaty or do what?
A: add additional provisions', '
Q: Do parties to a treaty have an obligation to adopt a later protocol?
A: not required', '
Q: What do we sometimes call an agreement that supplements a treaty especially when few parties to the treaty support the protocol?
A: an "optional protocol"', '
Q: A protocol may add additional provisions to a treaty or else do what?
A: amend the previous treaty']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: The Kyoto Protocol is associated with what treaty?
A: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change', '
Q: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was supplemented by what protocol?
A: the Kyoto Protocol', '
Q: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established a framework for the development of what?
A: binding greenhouse gas emission limits', '
Q: While the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established a framework for developing greenhouse gas emission limits, the Kyoto Protocol contained what?
A: the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon', '
Q: 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?
A: Protocol']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: A treaty that puts all of its obligations in action simply by becoming a party to it is known as what?
A: self-executing', '
Q: What do non-self-executing treaties typically require from a party to enable it to fulfill its obligations?
A: implementing legislation', '
Q: What is "implementing legislation" that is required by a party to a treaty to enable it to fulfill its obligations under the treaty?
A: a change in the domestic law of a state party', '
Q: A treaty requiring local prosecution by a party for particular crimes is an example of which type of treaty?
A: non-self-executing', '
Q: Signing a self-executing treaty automatically does what for a party?
A: puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What type of treaty cannot be acted on without the proper change in domestic law?
A: a non-self-executing treaty', '
Q: A state party may be in default of its obligations under a non-self-executing treaty if its legislature fails to do what?
A: pass the necessary domestic laws', "
Q: What institution of a party to a treaty must act to fulfill the party's obligations under a non-self-executing treaty?
A: its legislature", '
Q: 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?
A: politicized', '
Q: 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?
A: not clear']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What principle is often invoked by legal experts when interpreting the language of treaties?
A: principle of maximum effectiveness', '
Q: The principle of maximum effectiveness interprets the language of treaties as having what effect to establish obligations between parties?
A: the fullest force and effect', '
Q: 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?"
A: The Vienna Convention', "
Q: What property of treaties must often be interpreted when it's not clear?
A: The language", '
Q: Besides unclear language what might also arise that necessitates the interpretation of the language of a treaty?
A: a perhaps unforeseen circumstance']
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'.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: No one party to a treaty can do what to the other parties?
A: impose its particular interpretation of the treaty', "
Q: What may be implied of other parties fail to explicitly disavow a party's initially unilateral interpretation of a treaty?
A: Consent", "
Q: 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?
A: complaint", '
Q: Consent by all parties to a treaty to a particular interpretation of the treaty has what legal effect?
A: adding another clause to the treaty', "
Q: 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?
A: an 'authentic interpretation'"]
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What are international tribunals and arbiters often called upon to resolve in regards to treaties?
A: substantial disputes over treaty interpretations', '
Q: What judicial bodies might be called upon to resolve disputes pertaining to the interpretation of treaties?
A: International tribunals and arbiters', '
Q: In addition to the final, signed treaty what else might arbiters review to establish the meaning of a treaty in context?
A: the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty', '
Q: For what purpose might an international tribunal review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of a treaty?
A: To establish the meaning in context', '
Q: 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?
A: the final, signed treaty itself']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What are agreements between states within the United States called?
A: compacts', '
Q: What are agreements between states and the federal government called within the United States?
A: memoranda of understanding', '
Q: In the United States, what are agreements between agencies of the federal government called?
A: memoranda of understanding', '
Q: Nations can be careful about terming an agreement a treaty because it has the effect of recognizing that the other side is a what?
A: a sovereign state', '
Q: Under what do all parties to a treaty recognize the provisions of the treaty are enforceable?
A: international law']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Parties to a treaty may disagree over a desire to create an obligation under what?
A: international law', "
Q: Discussions between what two countries have been influence by one party's desire to create an obligation under international law?
A: North Korea and the United States", "
Q: 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?
A: security guarantees and nuclear proliferation", '
Q: 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?
A: to create an obligation under international law']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What is the Treaty of Waitangi internationally considered to be?
A: documents under domestic law', '
Q: What other terms might be used to refer to a treaty?
A: convention, protocol, or simply agreement', '
Q: What common terminological problem can sometimes lead to confusion surrounding a treaty?
A: named something other than a treaty,', "
Q: What's an example of a treaty that is considered internationally to be documents under domestic law?
A: the Treaty of Waitangi", '
Q: Convention, protocol, and agreement are examples of examples of different kinds of what that can create confusion about a treaty?
A: terminology']
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:

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Traditionally, what must a state do in order for an obligation to arise in international law?
A: consent', '
Q: What is the only barrier to withdrawal contained in many treaties?
A: procedures of notification', '
Q: Are treaties permanently binding upon the signatory parties?
A: not necessarily', '
Q: What treaty will terminate if the number of parties falls below 40 as a result of denunciations?
A: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs', '
Q: Which article of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that there is a presumption that treaties cannot be unilaterally denounced?
A: Article 56']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What is an example of a treaty from which it is not possible to withdraw?
A: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights', '
Q: What state declared its intention to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
A: North Korea', '
Q: 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?
A: the Secretary-General of the United Nations', '
Q: What two factors determine whether it is possible to withdraw from a treaty?
A: the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire', "
Q: 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?
A: The possibility of withdrawal"]
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What factor, in practice, allows a state to withdraw from any treaty at any time?
A: sovereignty', '
Q: What really determines whether withdrawal from a treaty is permitted?
A: how other states will react', "
Q: What might a state do in response to another state's withdrawal from a treaty?
A: impose sanctions or go to war", '
Q: Although withdrawal from a treaty may not be possible in theory, when might it be possible anyway?
A: In practice', '
Q: Because of sovereignty when may a state withdrawal from a treaty?
A: at any time']
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]

Questions and answers:
["
Q: What happens to a state's obligations under a treaty upon its withdrawal from the treaty?
A: terminated", '
Q: What kind of treaty is terminated by the withdrawal of just one party?
A: a bilateral treaty', "
Q: What happens to a multilateral treaty's rights and obligations among the other parties when just one party withdraws?
A: remain in force", '
Q: After what action by a state are its obligations under a treaty considered terminated?
A: withdrawal', "
Q: Under what conditions could a single state's withdrawal result in the termination of a multilateral treaty?
A: agreed upon between the remaining states parties"]
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What may be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating a treaty?
A: A material breach', '
Q: In addition to terminating the treaty itself, what actions by the other parties might result from one party materially violating or beaching its obligations?
A: temporarily suspending their obligations to that party', '
Q: In addition to suspending their obligations under a treaty to the violating party, what may result from a material breach of treaty obligations?
A: terminating the treaty itself', '
Q: Who may invoke a material breach committed by a party to a treaty to suspend their obligations to that party?
A: the other parties', "
Q: What temporary actions can parties of a treaty take in response to a material violation of a party's obligations?
A: suspending their obligations to that party"]
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What might a tribunal or an arbiter be asked to determine regarding a breach of a treaty?
A: the seriousness of a breach', "
Q: 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?
A: a tribunal or other independent arbiter", '
Q: Does a material breach necessarily suspend or terminate treaty relations?
A: does not', '
Q: What determines whether a breach automatically suspends or terminates treaty relations?
A: how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it', '
Q:  A treaty breach does not necessarily affect treaty relations depending on how serious the other parties view the breach and what other factor?
A: how they resolve to respond to it']
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]

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Some treaties contains provisions for what to happen if certain defined conditions are met?
A: self-termination', "
Q: What provision might a treaty include if it's meant to be only temporarily binding?
A: set to expire on a given date", '
Q: In addition to passing an expiration date, what might cause a treaty to self-terminate?
A: certain defined conditions are met', '
Q: What happens to a treaty that was designed to terminate under certain conditions when those conditions are actually met?
A: automatically terminated', "
Q: What may we assume the parties to a treaty intended the treaty's obligations to be if the treaty included an expiration date?
A: temporarily binding"]
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]

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What might result in a party to a treaty claiming a treaty should be terminated even absent an express provision for its termination?
A: a fundamental change in circumstances', '
Q: A party cannot base its claim of a fundamental change in circumstances if the change was brought about by what?
A: its own breach of the treaty', '
Q: The claim of a fundamental change in circumstances cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew what?
A: political boundaries', '
Q: 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?
A: the extent of obligations', '
Q: 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?
A: unforeseen']