romikgosai/squad_modified_2 huggingface dataset:
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.

Q1: When a state adds reservations to a treaty, other parties to the treaty can respond to those reservations in what ways?
A1: accept those reservations, object to them, or object and oppose them
Q2: Who remains unaffected when a party's reservation is accepted by a second party?
A2: other parties to the treaty
Q3: What happens to the parts of the treaty affected by a rejected reservation as they concern the reserving and rejecting parties?
A3: drop out completely
Q4: What legal obligations exist between two state parties if one objects and opposes the other's reservations?
A4: no legal obligations
Q5: If a state party objects and opposes another state's reservations it essentially refuses to acknowledge what?
A5: the reserving state is a party to the treaty
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.

Q1: How many ways are there to amend an existing treaty?
A1: three
Q2: What must state parties to a treaty repeat to adopt a formal amendment to the treaty?
A2: the ratification process
Q3: What amendment process is generally reserved for changes that rectify obvious errors in the text?
A3: a procès-verbal
Q4: Parties to an original treaty and an amended treaty are bound to what terms?
A4: the terms they both agreed upon
Q5: In addition to the often long and protracted nature of treaty renegotiation, what negative outcome might result from the process?
A5: 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.

Q1: What is a treaty that supplements a previous treaty in international law?
A1: a protocol
Q2: A protocol may either amend a previous treaty or do what?
A2: add additional provisions
Q3: Do parties to a treaty have an obligation to adopt a later protocol?
A3: not required
Q4: What do we sometimes call an agreement that supplements a treaty especially when few parties to the treaty support the protocol?
A4: an "optional protocol"
Q5: A protocol may add additional provisions to a treaty or else do what?
A5: 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.

Q1: The Kyoto Protocol is associated with what treaty?
A1: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Q2: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was supplemented by what protocol?
A2: the Kyoto Protocol
Q3: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established a framework for the development of what?
A3: binding greenhouse gas emission limits
Q4: While the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established a framework for developing greenhouse gas emission limits, the Kyoto Protocol contained what?
A4: the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon
Q5: 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?
A5: 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.

Q1: A treaty that puts all of its obligations in action simply by becoming a party to it is known as what?
A1: self-executing
Q2: What do non-self-executing treaties typically require from a party to enable it to fulfill its obligations?
A2: implementing legislation
Q3: What is "implementing legislation" that is required by a party to a treaty to enable it to fulfill its obligations under the treaty?
A3: a change in the domestic law of a state party
Q4: A treaty requiring local prosecution by a party for particular crimes is an example of which type of treaty?
A4: non-self-executing
Q5: Signing a self-executing treaty automatically does what for a party?
A5: 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.

Q1: What type of treaty cannot be acted on without the proper change in domestic law?
A1: a non-self-executing treaty
Q2: A state party may be in default of its obligations under a non-self-executing treaty if its legislature fails to do what?
A2: pass the necessary domestic laws
Q3: What institution of a party to a treaty must act to fulfill the party's obligations under a non-self-executing treaty?
A3: its legislature
Q4: 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?
A4: politicized
Q5: 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?
A5: 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.

Q1: What principle is often invoked by legal experts when interpreting the language of treaties?
A1: principle of maximum effectiveness
Q2: The principle of maximum effectiveness interprets the language of treaties as having what effect to establish obligations between parties?
A2: the fullest force and effect
Q3: 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?"
A3: The Vienna Convention
Q4: What property of treaties must often be interpreted when it's not clear?
A4: The language
Q5: Besides unclear language what might also arise that necessitates the interpretation of the language of a treaty?
A5: 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'.

Q1: No one party to a treaty can do what to the other parties?
A1: impose its particular interpretation of the treaty
Q2: What may be implied of other parties fail to explicitly disavow a party's initially unilateral interpretation of a treaty?
A2: Consent
Q3: 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?
A3: complaint
Q4: Consent by all parties to a treaty to a particular interpretation of the treaty has what legal effect?
A4: adding another clause to the treaty
Q5: 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?
A5: 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.

Q1: What are international tribunals and arbiters often called upon to resolve in regards to treaties?
A1: substantial disputes over treaty interpretations
Q2: What judicial bodies might be called upon to resolve disputes pertaining to the interpretation of treaties?
A2: International tribunals and arbiters
Q3: In addition to the final, signed treaty what else might arbiters review to establish the meaning of a treaty in context?
A3: the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty
Q4: For what purpose might an international tribunal review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of a treaty?
A4: To establish the meaning in context
Q5: 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?
A5: 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.

Q1: What are agreements between states within the United States called?
A1: compacts
Q2: What are agreements between states and the federal government called within the United States?
A2: memoranda of understanding
Q3: In the United States, what are agreements between agencies of the federal government called?
A3: memoranda of understanding
Q4: Nations can be careful about terming an agreement a treaty because it has the effect of recognizing that the other side is a what?
A4: a sovereign state
Q5: Under what do all parties to a treaty recognize the provisions of the treaty are enforceable?
A5: 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.

Q1: Parties to a treaty may disagree over a desire to create an obligation under what?
A1: international law
Q2: Discussions between what two countries have been influence by one party's desire to create an obligation under international law?
A2: North Korea and the United States
Q3: 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?
A3: security guarantees and nuclear proliferation
Q4: 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?
A4: 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.

Q1: What is the Treaty of Waitangi internationally considered to be?
A1: documents under domestic law
Q2: What other terms might be used to refer to a treaty?
A2: convention, protocol, or simply agreement
Q3: What common terminological problem can sometimes lead to confusion surrounding a treaty?
A3: named something other than a treaty,
Q4: What's an example of a treaty that is considered internationally to be documents under domestic law?
A4: the Treaty of Waitangi
Q5: Convention, protocol, and agreement are examples of examples of different kinds of what that can create confusion about a treaty?
A5: 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:

Q1: Traditionally, what must a state do in order for an obligation to arise in international law?
A1: consent
Q2: What is the only barrier to withdrawal contained in many treaties?
A2: procedures of notification
Q3: Are treaties permanently binding upon the signatory parties?
A3: not necessarily
Q4: What treaty will terminate if the number of parties falls below 40 as a result of denunciations?
A4: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
Q5: Which article of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that there is a presumption that treaties cannot be unilaterally denounced?
A5: 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.

Q1: What is an example of a treaty from which it is not possible to withdraw?
A1: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Q2: What state declared its intention to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
A2: North Korea
Q3: 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?
A3: the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Q4: What two factors determine whether it is possible to withdraw from a treaty?
A4: the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire
Q5: 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?
A5: 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.

Q1: What factor, in practice, allows a state to withdraw from any treaty at any time?
A1: sovereignty
Q2: What really determines whether withdrawal from a treaty is permitted?
A2: how other states will react
Q3: What might a state do in response to another state's withdrawal from a treaty?
A3: impose sanctions or go to war
Q4: Although withdrawal from a treaty may not be possible in theory, when might it be possible anyway?
A4: In practice
Q5: Because of sovereignty when may a state withdrawal from a treaty?
A5: 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]

Q1: What happens to a state's obligations under a treaty upon its withdrawal from the treaty?
A1: terminated
Q2: What kind of treaty is terminated by the withdrawal of just one party?
A2: a bilateral treaty
Q3: What happens to a multilateral treaty's rights and obligations among the other parties when just one party withdraws?
A3: remain in force
Q4: After what action by a state are its obligations under a treaty considered terminated?
A4: withdrawal
Q5: Under what conditions could a single state's withdrawal result in the termination of a multilateral treaty?
A5: 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.

Q1: What may be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating a treaty?
A1: A material breach
Q2: In addition to terminating the treaty itself, what actions by the other parties might result from one party materially violating or beaching its obligations?
A2: temporarily suspending their obligations to that party
Q3: In addition to suspending their obligations under a treaty to the violating party, what may result from a material breach of treaty obligations?
A3: terminating the treaty itself
Q4: Who may invoke a material breach committed by a party to a treaty to suspend their obligations to that party?
A4: the other parties
Q5: What temporary actions can parties of a treaty take in response to a material violation of a party's obligations?
A5: 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.

Q1: What might a tribunal or an arbiter be asked to determine regarding a breach of a treaty?
A1: the seriousness of a breach
Q2: 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?
A2: a tribunal or other independent arbiter
Q3: Does a material breach necessarily suspend or terminate treaty relations?
A3: does not
Q4: What determines whether a breach automatically suspends or terminates treaty relations?
A4: how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it
Q5:  A treaty breach does not necessarily affect treaty relations depending on how serious the other parties view the breach and what other factor?
A5: 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]

Q1: Some treaties contains provisions for what to happen if certain defined conditions are met?
A1: self-termination
Q2: What provision might a treaty include if it's meant to be only temporarily binding?
A2: set to expire on a given date
Q3: In addition to passing an expiration date, what might cause a treaty to self-terminate?
A3: certain defined conditions are met
Q4: What happens to a treaty that was designed to terminate under certain conditions when those conditions are actually met?
A4: automatically terminated
Q5: What may we assume the parties to a treaty intended the treaty's obligations to be if the treaty included an expiration date?
A5: 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]

Q1: What might result in a party to a treaty claiming a treaty should be terminated even absent an express provision for its termination?
A1: a fundamental change in circumstances
Q2: A party cannot base its claim of a fundamental change in circumstances if the change was brought about by what?
A2: its own breach of the treaty
Q3: The claim of a fundamental change in circumstances cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew what?
A3: political boundaries
Q4: 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?
A4: the extent of obligations
Q5: 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?
A5: unforeseen