sentence-transformers/squad huggingface dataset:
Passage: The signatures of the parties' representatives follow at the very end. When the text of a treaty is later reprinted, such as in a collection of treaties currently in effect, an editor will often append the dates on which the respective parties ratified the treaty and on which it came into effect for each party.

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

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

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

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

Question: Even if signed and ratified on the same date, the treaty might have done what on different dates?
Passage: Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states or entities. It is possible, however, for a bilateral treaty to have more than two parties; consider for instance the bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) following the Swiss rejection of the European Economic Area agreement. Each of these treaties has seventeen parties. These however are still bilateral, not multilateral, treaties. The parties are divided into two groups, the Swiss ("on the one part") and the EU and its member states ("on the other part"). The treaty establishes rights and obligations between the Swiss and the EU and the member states severally—it does not establish any rights and obligations amongst the EU and its member states.[citation needed]

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

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

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

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

Question: The treaty between Switzerland and the European Union is an example of what kind of treaty?
Passage: A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries. The agreement establishes rights and obligations between each party and every other party. Multilateral treaties are often regional.[citation needed] Treaties of "mutual guarantee" are international compacts, e.g., the Treaty of Locarno which guarantees each signatory against attack from another.

Question: What is a treaty concluded among several countries?

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

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

Question: What type of treaty is a mutual guarantee?

Question: Multilateral treaties are often entered into by countries that share the same what?
Passage: Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. Reservations are unilateral statements purporting to exclude or to modify the legal obligation and its effects on the reserving state. These must be included at the time of signing or ratification, i.e. "a party cannot add a reservation after it has already joined a treaty".

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

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

Question: When must reservations be included in a treaty?

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

Question: A reserving party to a treaty may include a statement that attempts to do what to its legal obligations or their effects?
Passage: Originally, international law was unaccepting of treaty reservations, rejecting them unless all parties to the treaty accepted the same reservations. However, in the interest of encouraging the largest number of states to join treaties, a more permissive rule regarding reservations has emerged. While some treaties still expressly forbid any reservations, they are now generally permitted to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the treaty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: In addition to the often long and protracted nature of treaty renegotiation, what negative outcome might result from the process?
Passage: In international law and international relations, a protocol is generally a treaty or international agreement that supplements a previous treaty or international agreement. A protocol can amend the previous treaty, or add additional provisions. Parties to the earlier agreement are not required to adopt the protocol. Sometimes this is made clearer by calling it an "optional protocol", especially where many parties to the first agreement do not support the protocol.

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

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

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

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

Question: A protocol may add additional provisions to a treaty or else do what?
Passage: Some examples: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established a framework for the development of binding greenhouse gas emission limits, while the Kyoto Protocol contained the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon.

Question: The Kyoto Protocol is associated with what treaty?

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

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

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

Question: The agreement that contained specific provisions related to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an example of what agreement that supplements a treaty?
Passage: Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action. Other treaties may be non-self-executing and require 'implementing legislation'—a change in the domestic law of a state party that will direct or enable it to fulfill treaty obligations. An example of a treaty requiring such legislation would be one mandating local prosecution by a party for particular crimes.

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

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

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

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

Question: Signing a self-executing treaty automatically does what for a party?
Passage: The division between the two is often not clear and is often politicized in disagreements within a government over a treaty, since a non-self-executing treaty cannot be acted on without the proper change in domestic law. If a treaty requires implementing legislation, a state may be in default of its obligations by the failure of its legislature to pass the necessary domestic laws.

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

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

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

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

Question: A treaty may be politicized due to disagreements within a party because the division between a self-executing treaty and a non-self-executing treaty can often be described as what?
Passage: The language of treaties, like that of any law or contract, must be interpreted when the wording does not seem clear or it is not immediately apparent how it should be applied in a perhaps unforeseen circumstance. The Vienna Convention states that treaties are to be interpreted "in good faith" according to the "ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose." International legal experts also often invoke the 'principle of maximum effectiveness,' which interprets treaty language as having the fullest force and effect possible to establish obligations between the parties.

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

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

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

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

Question: Besides unclear language what might also arise that necessitates the interpretation of the language of a treaty?
Passage: No one party to a treaty can impose its particular interpretation of the treaty upon the other parties. Consent may be implied, however, if the other parties fail to explicitly disavow that initially unilateral interpretation, particularly if that state has acted upon its view of the treaty without complaint. Consent by all parties to the treaty to a particular interpretation has the legal effect of adding another clause to the treaty – this is commonly called an 'authentic interpretation'.

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

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

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

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

Question: The legal effect of adding another clause to a treaty that occurs when all parties to a treaty consent to a particular interpretation of the treaty is commonly known as what?
Passage: International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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?

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?
Passage: 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?

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

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

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

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

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

Question: Are treaties permanently binding upon the signatory parties?

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

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

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

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?

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

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?
Passage: 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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