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

Answer: an editor

The signatures of the parties' representatives follow at the very end. <hl> 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. <hl>

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, <hl> an editor <hl> will often append the dates on which the respective parties ratified the treaty and on which it came into effect for each party.


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

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.

Answer: ratified the treaty

The signatures of the parties' representatives follow at the very end. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> ratified the treaty <hl> and on which it came into effect for each party.


Question: Even if signed and ratified on the same date, the treaty might have done what on different dates?

Answer: came into effect

The signatures of the parties' representatives follow at the very end. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> came into effect <hl> for each party.


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

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]

Answer: two

<hl> Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states or entities. <hl> 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]

Bilateral treaties are concluded between <hl> two <hl> 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: Is it possible for a bilateral treaty to have more than two parties?

Answer: It is possible

Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states or entities. <hl> 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. <hl> 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]

Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states or entities. <hl> It is possible <hl>, 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]

<hl> It is possible <hl> , 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.


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

Answer: the European Economic Area agreement

Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states or entities. <hl> 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 . <hl> 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]

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 <hl> the European Economic Area agreement <hl>. 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]

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 <hl> the European Economic Area agreement <hl> .


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

Answer: it does not

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"). <hl> 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] <hl>

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—<hl> it does not <hl> establish any rights and obligations amongst the EU and its member states.[citation needed]

The treaty establishes rights and obligations between the Swiss and the EU and the member states severally— <hl> it does not <hl> establish any rights and obligations amongst the EU and its member states.[citation needed]


Question: The treaty between Switzerland and the European Union is an example of what kind of treaty?

Answer: bilateral

Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states or entities. <hl> 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. <hl> 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]

Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states or entities. It is possible, however, for a <hl> bilateral <hl> 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: What is a treaty concluded among several countries?

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.

Answer: A multilateral treaty

<hl> A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries. <hl> 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.

<hl> A multilateral treaty <hl> 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: Between which parties does a multilateral treaty establish rights and obligations?

Answer: each party and every other party

A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries. <hl> The agreement establishes rights and obligations between each party and every other party . <hl> 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.

A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries. The agreement establishes rights and obligations between <hl> each party and every other party <hl>. 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.

The agreement establishes rights and obligations between <hl> each party and every other party <hl> .


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

Answer: attack

A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries. The agreement establishes rights and obligations between each party and every other party. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> attack <hl> from another.


Question: What type of treaty is a mutual guarantee?

Answer: international compacts

A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries. The agreement establishes rights and obligations between each party and every other party. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> international compacts <hl>, e.g., the Treaty of Locarno which guarantees each signatory against attack from another.

Multilateral treaties are often regional.[citation needed] Treaties of "mutual guarantee" are <hl> international compacts <hl> , e.g., the Treaty of Locarno which guarantees each signatory against attack from another.


Question: Multilateral treaties are often entered into by countries that share the same what?

Answer: region

A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries. The agreement establishes rights and obligations between each party and every other party. <hl> Multilateral treaties are often region al.[citation needed] Treaties of "mutual guarantee" are international compacts, e.g., the Treaty of Locarno which guarantees each signatory against attack from another. <hl>

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 <hl> region <hl>al.[citation needed] Treaties of "mutual guarantee" are international compacts, e.g., the Treaty of Locarno which guarantees each signatory against attack from another.

Multilateral treaties are often <hl> region <hl> al.[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 are caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty?

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".

Answer: Reservations

<hl> Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. <hl> 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".

<hl> Reservations <hl> 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 unilateral statements purporting to exclude or to modify the legal obligation and its effects on a state?

Answer: Reservations

<hl> Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. <hl> 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".

<hl> Reservations <hl> 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: When must reservations be included in a treaty?

Answer: at the time of signing or ratification

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. <hl> 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". <hl>

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 <hl> at the time of signing or ratification <hl>, i.e. "a party cannot add a reservation after it has already joined a treaty".

These must be included <hl> at the time of signing or ratification <hl> , i.e. "a party cannot add a reservation after it has already joined a treaty".


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

Answer: add a reservation

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. <hl> 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". <hl>

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 <hl> add a reservation <hl> after it has 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?

Answer: exclude or to modify

Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. <hl> Reservations are unilateral statements purporting to exclude or to modify the legal obligation and its effects on the reserving state. <hl> 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".

Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. Reservations are unilateral statements purporting to <hl> exclude or to modify <hl> 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: A more permissive rule regarding what emerged to encourage the largest number of states to join treaties?

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.

Answer: reservations

<hl> Originally, international law was unaccepting of treaty reservations , rejecting them unless all parties to the treaty accepted the same reservations. <hl> 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.

Originally, international law was unaccepting of treaty <hl> reservations <hl>, 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.

Originally, international law was unaccepting of treaty <hl> reservations <hl> , rejecting them unless all parties to the treaty accepted the same reservations.


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

Answer: inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the treaty

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. <hl> 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 . <hl>

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 <hl> inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the treaty <hl>.

While some treaties still expressly forbid any reservations, they are now generally permitted to the extent that they are not <hl> inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the treaty <hl> .


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

Answer: rejecting them

<hl> Originally, international law was unaccepting of treaty reservations, rejecting them unless all parties to the treaty accepted the same reservations. <hl> 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.

Originally, international law was unaccepting of treaty reservations, <hl> rejecting them <hl> 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: Originally reservations were rejected under international law unless which parties of the treaty accepted them?

Answer: all parties

<hl> Originally, international law was unaccepting of treaty reservations, rejecting them unless all parties to the treaty accepted the same reservations. <hl> 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.

Originally, international law was unaccepting of treaty reservations, rejecting them unless <hl> all parties <hl> 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: Because they are generally accepted under international law, a treaty must forbid reservations in what manner to prevent their adoption?

Answer: expressly

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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> expressly <hl> 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: When a state adds reservations to a treaty, other parties to the treaty can respond to those reservations in what ways?

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.

Answer: accept those reservations, object to them, or object and oppose them

<hl> 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 . <hl> 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.

When a state limits its treaty obligations through reservations, other states party to that treaty have the option to <hl> accept those reservations, object to them, or object and oppose them <hl>. 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.

When a state limits its treaty obligations through reservations, other states party to that treaty have the option to <hl> accept those reservations, object to them, or object and oppose them <hl> .


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

Answer: other parties to the treaty

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. <hl> 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 ). <hl> 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.

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 <hl> other parties to the treaty <hl>). 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.

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 <hl> other parties to the treaty <hl> ).


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

Answer: drop out completely

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). <hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> drop out completely <hl> 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: What legal obligations exist between two state parties if one objects and opposes the other's reservations?

Answer: no legal obligations

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. <hl> Finally, if the state objects and opposes, there are no legal obligations under that treaty between those two state parties whatsoever. <hl> The objecting and opposing state essentially refuses to acknowledge the reserving state is a party to the treaty at all.

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 <hl> no legal obligations <hl> 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: If a state party objects and opposes another state's reservations it essentially refuses to acknowledge what?

Answer: the reserving state is a party to the treaty

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. <hl> The objecting and opposing state essentially refuses to acknowledge the reserving state is a party to the treaty at all. <hl>

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 <hl> the reserving state is a party to the treaty <hl> at all.


Question: How many ways are there to amend an existing 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.

Answer: three

<hl> There are three ways an existing treaty can be amended. <hl> 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.

There are <hl> three <hl> 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: What must state parties to a treaty repeat to adopt a formal amendment to the treaty?

Answer: the ratification process

There are three ways an existing treaty can be amended. <hl> First, formal amendment requires State parties to the treaty to go through the ratification process all over again. <hl> 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.

There are three ways an existing treaty can be amended. First, formal amendment requires State parties to the treaty to go through <hl> the ratification process <hl> 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: What amendment process is generally reserved for changes that rectify obvious errors in the text?

Answer: a procès-verbal

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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> a procès-verbal <hl>; 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.

Minor corrections to a treaty may be adopted by <hl> a procès-verbal <hl> ; 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: Parties to an original treaty and an amended treaty are bound to what terms?

Answer: the terms they both agreed upon

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. <hl> 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 . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> the terms they both agreed upon <hl>. 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.

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 <hl> the terms they both agreed upon <hl> .


Question: In addition to the often long and protracted nature of treaty renegotiation, what negative outcome might result from the process?

Answer: some parties to the original treaty will not become parties to the amended 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. <hl> 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 . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> some parties to the original treaty will not become parties to the amended treaty <hl>. 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.

The re-negotiation of treaty provisions can be long and protracted, and often <hl> some parties to the original treaty will not become parties to the amended treaty <hl> .


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

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.

Answer: a protocol

<hl> In international law and international relations, a protocol is generally a treaty or international agreement that supplements a previous treaty or international agreement. <hl> 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.

In international law and international relations, <hl> a protocol <hl> 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: A protocol may either amend a previous treaty or do what?

Answer: add additional provisions

In international law and international relations, a protocol is generally a treaty or international agreement that supplements a previous treaty or international agreement. <hl> A protocol can amend the previous treaty, or add additional provisions . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> add additional provisions <hl>. 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.

A protocol can amend the previous treaty, or <hl> add additional provisions <hl> .


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

Answer: not required

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. <hl> Parties to the earlier agreement are not required to adopt the protocol. <hl> Sometimes this is made clearer by calling it an "optional protocol", especially where many parties to the first agreement do not support the protocol.

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 <hl> not required <hl> 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 do we sometimes call an agreement that supplements a treaty especially when few parties to the treaty support the protocol?

Answer: an "optional protocol"

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. <hl> Sometimes this is made clearer by calling it an "optional protocol" , especially where many parties to the first agreement do not support the protocol. <hl>

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 <hl> an "optional protocol" <hl>, especially where many parties to the first agreement do not support the protocol.

Sometimes this is made clearer by calling it <hl> an "optional protocol" <hl> , especially where many parties to the first agreement do not support the protocol.


Question: A protocol may add additional provisions to a treaty or else do what?

Answer: amend the previous 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 <hl> can amend the previous treaty , or add additional provisions. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> amend the previous treaty <hl>, 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.

can <hl> amend the previous treaty <hl> , or add additional provisions.


Question: The Kyoto Protocol is associated with what treaty?

Answer: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

<hl> 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. <hl>

Some examples: the <hl> United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change <hl> (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 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was supplemented by what protocol?

Answer: the Kyoto Protocol

<hl> 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. <hl>

Some examples: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established a framework for the development of binding greenhouse gas emission limits, while <hl> the Kyoto Protocol <hl> contained the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon.


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

Answer: binding greenhouse gas emission limits

<hl> 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. <hl>

Some examples: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established a framework for the development of <hl> binding greenhouse gas emission limits <hl>, while the Kyoto Protocol contained the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon.

Some examples: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established a framework for the development of <hl> binding greenhouse gas emission limits <hl> , while the Kyoto Protocol contained the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon.


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

Answer: the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon

<hl> 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 . <hl>

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 <hl> the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon <hl>.

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 <hl> the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon <hl> .


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?

Answer: Protocol

<hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> Protocol <hl> contained the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon.


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

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.

Answer: self-executing

<hl> Treaties may be seen as ' self-executing ', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action. <hl> 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.

Treaties may be seen as '<hl> self-executing <hl>', 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.

Treaties may be seen as ' <hl> self-executing <hl> ', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action.


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

Answer: implementing legislation

Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action. <hl> 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. <hl> An example of a treaty requiring such legislation would be one mandating local prosecution by a party for particular crimes.

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 '<hl> implementing legislation <hl>'—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.

Other treaties may be non-self-executing and require ' <hl> implementing legislation <hl> '—a change in the domestic law of a state party that will direct or enable it to fulfill treaty 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?

Answer: a change in the domestic law of a state party

Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action. <hl> 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. <hl> An example of a treaty requiring such legislation would be one mandating local prosecution by a party for particular crimes.

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'—<hl> a change in the domestic law of a state party <hl> 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.

Other treaties may be non-self-executing and require 'implementing legislation'— <hl> a change in the domestic law of a state party <hl> that will direct or enable it to fulfill treaty obligations.


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

Answer: non-self-executing

Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action. <hl> 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. <hl> An example of a treaty requiring such legislation would be one mandating local prosecution by a party for particular crimes.

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 <hl> non-self-executing <hl> 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: Signing a self-executing treaty automatically does what for a party?

Answer: puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action

<hl> Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action . <hl> 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.

Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party <hl> puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action <hl>. 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.

Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party <hl> puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action <hl> .


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

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.

Answer: a non-self-executing treaty

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

The division between the two is often not clear and is often politicized in disagreements within a government over a treaty, since <hl> a non-self-executing treaty <hl> 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: A state party may be in default of its obligations under a non-self-executing treaty if its legislature fails to do what?

Answer: pass the necessary domestic laws

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. <hl> 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 . <hl>

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 <hl> pass the necessary domestic laws <hl>.

If a treaty requires implementing legislation, a state may be in default of its obligations by the failure of its legislature to <hl> pass the necessary domestic laws <hl> .


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

Answer: its legislature

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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> its legislature <hl> to pass the necessary domestic laws.


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?

Answer: politicized

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

The division between the two is often not clear and is often <hl> politicized <hl> 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: 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?

Answer: not clear

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

The division between the two is often <hl> not clear <hl> 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 principle is often invoked by legal experts when interpreting the language of treaties?

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.

Answer: principle of maximum effectiveness

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." <hl> 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. <hl>

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 '<hl> principle of maximum effectiveness <hl>,' which interprets treaty language as having the fullest force and effect possible to establish obligations between the parties.

International legal experts also often invoke the ' <hl> principle of maximum effectiveness <hl> ,' which interprets treaty language as having the fullest force and effect possible to establish obligations between the parties.


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

Answer: the fullest force and effect

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." <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> the fullest force and effect <hl> possible to establish obligations between the 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?"

Answer: The Vienna Convention

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. <hl> 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." <hl> 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.

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. <hl> The Vienna Convention <hl> 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 property of treaties must often be interpreted when it's not clear?

Answer: The language

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

<hl> The language <hl> 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: Besides unclear language what might also arise that necessitates the interpretation of the language of a treaty?

Answer: a perhaps unforeseen circumstance

<hl> 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 . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> a perhaps unforeseen circumstance <hl>. 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.

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 <hl> a perhaps unforeseen circumstance <hl> .


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

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'.

Answer: impose its particular interpretation of the treaty

No one party to a treaty <hl> can impose its particular interpretation of the treaty upon the other parties. <hl> 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'.

No one party to a treaty can <hl> impose its particular interpretation of the treaty <hl> 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: What may be implied of other parties fail to explicitly disavow a party's initially unilateral interpretation of a treaty?

Answer: Consent

No one party to a treaty can impose its particular interpretation of the treaty upon the other parties. <hl> 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. <hl> 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'.

No one party to a treaty can impose its particular interpretation of the treaty upon the other parties. <hl> Consent <hl> 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: 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?

Answer: complaint

No one party to a treaty can impose its particular interpretation of the treaty upon the other parties. <hl> 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 . <hl> 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'.

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 <hl> complaint <hl>. 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'.

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 <hl> complaint <hl> .


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

Answer: adding another clause to the treaty

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. <hl> 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'. <hl>

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 <hl> adding another clause to the treaty <hl> – this is commonly called an 'authentic interpretation'.


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?

Answer: an 'authentic interpretation'

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. <hl> 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' . <hl>

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 <hl> an 'authentic interpretation' <hl>.

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 <hl> an 'authentic interpretation' <hl> .


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

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.

Answer: substantial disputes over treaty interpretations

<hl> International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations . <hl> 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.

International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve <hl> substantial disputes over treaty interpretations <hl>. 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.

International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve <hl> substantial disputes over treaty interpretations <hl> .


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

Answer: International tribunals and arbiters

<hl> International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. <hl> 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.

<hl> International tribunals and arbiters <hl> 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: In addition to the final, signed treaty what else might arbiters review to establish the meaning of a treaty in context?

Answer: the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty

International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty <hl> as well as the final, signed treaty itself.


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

Answer: To establish the meaning in context

International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. <hl> 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. <hl>

International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. <hl> To establish the meaning in context <hl>, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself.

<hl> To establish the meaning in context <hl> , 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: 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?

Answer: the final, signed treaty itself

International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. <hl> 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 . <hl>

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 <hl> the final, signed treaty itself <hl>.

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 <hl> the final, signed treaty itself <hl> .


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

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.

Answer: compacts

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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> compacts <hl> and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.


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

Answer: memoranda of understanding

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. <hl> 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 . <hl>

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 <hl> memoranda of understanding <hl>.

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 <hl> memoranda of understanding <hl> .