id stringlengths 24 24 | title stringlengths 3 59 | context stringlengths 151 3.71k | question stringlengths 12 217 | answers dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
56f73afcaef2371900625a1a | Treaty | The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law. | What other terms might be used to refer to a treaty? | {
"text": [
"convention, protocol, or simply agreement"
],
"answer_start": [
121
]
} |
56f73afcaef2371900625a1b | Treaty | The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law. | What common terminological problem can sometimes lead to confusion surrounding a treaty? | {
"text": [
"named something other than a treaty,"
],
"answer_start": [
74
]
} |
56f73afcaef2371900625a1c | Treaty | The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law. | What's an example of a treaty that is considered internationally to be documents under domestic law? | {
"text": [
"the Treaty of Waitangi"
],
"answer_start": [
204
]
} |
56f73afcaef2371900625a1d | Treaty | The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law. | Convention, protocol, and agreement are examples of examples of different kinds of what that can create confusion about a treaty? | {
"text": [
"terminology"
],
"answer_start": [
4
]
} |
56f7451fa6d7ea1400e17122 | Treaty | Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless: | Traditionally, what must a state do in order for an obligation to arise in international law? | {
"text": [
"consent"
],
"answer_start": [
163
]
} |
56f7451fa6d7ea1400e17123 | Treaty | Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless: | What is the only barrier to withdrawal contained in many treaties? | {
"text": [
"procedures of notification"
],
"answer_start": [
262
]
} |
56f7451fa6d7ea1400e17124 | Treaty | Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless: | Are treaties permanently binding upon the signatory parties? | {
"text": [
"not necessarily"
],
"answer_start": [
13
]
} |
56f7451fa6d7ea1400e17125 | Treaty | Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless: | What treaty will terminate if the number of parties falls below 40 as a result of denunciations? | {
"text": [
"the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs"
],
"answer_start": [
303
]
} |
56f7451fa6d7ea1400e17126 | Treaty | Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless: | Which article of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that there is a presumption that treaties cannot be unilaterally denounced? | {
"text": [
"Article 56"
],
"answer_start": [
498
]
} |
56f7477aa6d7ea1400e17148 | Treaty | The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible. | What is an example of a treaty from which it is not possible to withdraw? | {
"text": [
"the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"
],
"answer_start": [
167
]
} |
56f7477aa6d7ea1400e17149 | Treaty | The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible. | What state declared its intention to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? | {
"text": [
"North Korea"
],
"answer_start": [
230
]
} |
56f7477aa6d7ea1400e1714a | Treaty | The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible. | Who, acting as registrar, informed North Korea that withdrawal was deliberately precluded by the original signatories of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? | {
"text": [
"the Secretary-General of the United Nations"
],
"answer_start": [
276
]
} |
56f7477aa6d7ea1400e1714b | Treaty | The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible. | What two factors determine whether it is possible to withdraw from a treaty? | {
"text": [
"the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire"
],
"answer_start": [
41
]
} |
56f7477aa6d7ea1400e1714c | Treaty | The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible. | The terms and travaux preparatoire of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were both factors in determining what aspect of the treaty as it relates to North Korea's stated intentions? | {
"text": [
"The possibility of withdrawal"
],
"answer_start": [
0
]
} |
56f7489aaef2371900625ab7 | Treaty | In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation. | What factor, in practice, allows a state to withdraw from any treaty at any time? | {
"text": [
"sovereignty"
],
"answer_start": [
24
]
} |
56f7489aaef2371900625ab8 | Treaty | In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation. | What really determines whether withdrawal from a treaty is permitted? | {
"text": [
"how other states will react"
],
"answer_start": [
155
]
} |
56f7489aaef2371900625ab9 | Treaty | In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation. | What might a state do in response to another state's withdrawal from a treaty? | {
"text": [
"impose sanctions or go to war"
],
"answer_start": [
236
]
} |
56f7489aaef2371900625aba | Treaty | In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation. | Although withdrawal from a treaty may not be possible in theory, when might it be possible anyway? | {
"text": [
"In practice"
],
"answer_start": [
0
]
} |
56f7489aaef2371900625abb | Treaty | In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation. | Because of sovereignty when may a state withdrawal from a treaty? | {
"text": [
"at any time"
],
"answer_start": [
76
]
} |
56f74a32a6d7ea1400e17168 | Treaty | If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed] | What happens to a state's obligations under a treaty upon its withdrawal from the treaty? | {
"text": [
"terminated"
],
"answer_start": [
94
]
} |
56f74a32a6d7ea1400e17169 | Treaty | If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed] | What kind of treaty is terminated by the withdrawal of just one party? | {
"text": [
"a bilateral treaty"
],
"answer_start": [
139
]
} |
56f74a32a6d7ea1400e1716a | Treaty | If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed] | What happens to a multilateral treaty's rights and obligations among the other parties when just one party withdraws? | {
"text": [
"remain in force"
],
"answer_start": [
276
]
} |
56f74a32a6d7ea1400e1716b | Treaty | If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed] | After what action by a state are its obligations under a treaty considered terminated? | {
"text": [
"withdrawal"
],
"answer_start": [
19
]
} |
56f74a32a6d7ea1400e1716c | Treaty | If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed] | Under what conditions could a single state's withdrawal result in the termination of a multilateral treaty? | {
"text": [
"agreed upon between the remaining states parties"
],
"answer_start": [
380
]
} |
56f74c09a6d7ea1400e17172 | Treaty | If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself. | What may be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating a treaty? | {
"text": [
"A material breach"
],
"answer_start": [
200
]
} |
56f74c09a6d7ea1400e17173 | Treaty | If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself. | In addition to terminating the treaty itself, what actions by the other parties might result from one party materially violating or beaching its obligations? | {
"text": [
"temporarily suspending their obligations to that party"
],
"answer_start": [
127
]
} |
56f74c09a6d7ea1400e17174 | Treaty | If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself. | In addition to suspending their obligations under a treaty to the violating party, what may result from a material breach of treaty obligations? | {
"text": [
"terminating the treaty itself"
],
"answer_start": [
265
]
} |
56f74c09a6d7ea1400e17175 | Treaty | If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself. | Who may invoke a material breach committed by a party to a treaty to suspend their obligations to that party? | {
"text": [
"the other parties"
],
"answer_start": [
71
]
} |
56f74c09a6d7ea1400e17176 | Treaty | If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself. | What temporary actions can parties of a treaty take in response to a material violation of a party's obligations? | {
"text": [
"suspending their obligations to that party"
],
"answer_start": [
139
]
} |
56f74dd9aef2371900625adf | Treaty | A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach. | What might a tribunal or an arbiter be asked to determine regarding a breach of a treaty? | {
"text": [
"the seriousness of a breach"
],
"answer_start": [
216
]
} |
56f74dd9aef2371900625ae0 | Treaty | A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach. | Using what to determine the seriousness of a breach can prevent a party from prematurely suspending its obligations due to another party's alleged material breach? | {
"text": [
"a tribunal or other independent arbiter"
],
"answer_start": [
264
]
} |
56f74dd9aef2371900625ae1 | Treaty | A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach. | Does a material breach necessarily suspend or terminate treaty relations? | {
"text": [
"does not"
],
"answer_start": [
16
]
} |
56f74dd9aef2371900625ae3 | Treaty | A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach. | A treaty breach does not necessarily affect treaty relations depending on how serious the other parties view the breach and what other factor? | {
"text": [
"how they resolve to respond to it"
],
"answer_start": [
145
]
} |
56f74ffaa6d7ea1400e1719a | Treaty | Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed] | Some treaties contains provisions for what to happen if certain defined conditions are met? | {
"text": [
"self-termination"
],
"answer_start": [
42
]
} |
56f74ffaa6d7ea1400e1719b | Treaty | Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed] | What provision might a treaty include if it's meant to be only temporarily binding? | {
"text": [
"set to expire on a given date"
],
"answer_start": [
232
]
} |
56f74ffaa6d7ea1400e1719c | Treaty | Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed] | In addition to passing an expiration date, what might cause a treaty to self-terminate? | {
"text": [
"certain defined conditions are met"
],
"answer_start": [
115
]
} |
56f74ffaa6d7ea1400e1719d | Treaty | Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed] | What happens to a treaty that was designed to terminate under certain conditions when those conditions are actually met? | {
"text": [
"automatically terminated"
],
"answer_start": [
87
]
} |
56f74ffaa6d7ea1400e1719e | Treaty | Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed] | What may we assume the parties to a treaty intended the treaty's obligations to be if the treaty included an expiration date? | {
"text": [
"temporarily binding"
],
"answer_start": [
204
]
} |
56f75218aef2371900625b11 | Treaty | A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed] | What might result in a party to a treaty claiming a treaty should be terminated even absent an express provision for its termination? | {
"text": [
"a fundamental change in circumstances"
],
"answer_start": [
106
]
} |
56f75218aef2371900625b12 | Treaty | A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed] | A party cannot base its claim of a fundamental change in circumstances if the change was brought about by what? | {
"text": [
"its own breach of the treaty"
],
"answer_start": [
432
]
} |
56f75218aef2371900625b13 | Treaty | A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed] | The claim of a fundamental change in circumstances cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew what? | {
"text": [
"political boundaries"
],
"answer_start": [
543
]
} |
56f75218aef2371900625b14 | Treaty | A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed] | The radical transformation of what aspect of the obligations between the parties is a necessary condition for a claim of a fundamental change in circumstances to terminate a treaty? | {
"text": [
"the extent of obligations"
],
"answer_start": [
277
]
} |
56f75218aef2371900625b15 | Treaty | A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed] | In order to be considered a fundamental change, a change in circumstances must have been what at the time of the adoption of the treaty? | {
"text": [
"unforeseen"
],
"answer_start": [
176
]
} |
56f754cea6d7ea1400e171c4 | Treaty | The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa. | The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against what tribe in February 624? | {
"text": [
"the Banu Qaynuqa tribe"
],
"answer_start": [
57
]
} |
56f754cea6d7ea1400e171c5 | Treaty | The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa. | Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking what treaty? | {
"text": [
"the Constitution of Medina"
],
"answer_start": [
241
]
} |
56f754cea6d7ea1400e171c6 | Treaty | The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa. | Who's insistence led the Prophet Muhammad to expel the Banu Qaynuqa Jews instead of kill them? | {
"text": [
"Abdullah ibn Ubayy"
],
"answer_start": [
717
]
} |
56f754cea6d7ea1400e171c7 | Treaty | The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa. | Pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being what, was the action that allegedly violated the Constitution of Medina? | {
"text": [
"stripped naked"
],
"answer_start": [
333
]
} |
56f754cea6d7ea1400e171c8 | Treaty | The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa. | What chained actions resulted from the alleged violation of the Constitution of Medina by the Banu Qaynuqa Jews? | {
"text": [
"revenge killings"
],
"answer_start": [
472
]
} |
56f756b2aef2371900625b25 | Treaty | Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed | What angel, according to Muslim tradition, ordered Muhammad to order a siege on the Banu Qurayza? | {
"text": [
"Gabriel"
],
"answer_start": [
173
]
} |
56f756b2aef2371900625b26 | Treaty | Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed | Who claims Muhammad had a treaty with the Banu Qurayza that was torn apart? | {
"text": [
"Al-Waqidi"
],
"answer_start": [
182
]
} |
56f756b2aef2371900625b27 | Treaty | Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed | How many members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after surrendering to Muhammad and his followers according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham? | {
"text": [
"600-900"
],
"answer_start": [
405
]
} |
56f756b2aef2371900625b28 | Treaty | Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed | According to Sunni Hadith which members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after surrendering to Muhammad and his followers? | {
"text": [
"all Males and 1 woman"
],
"answer_start": [
536
]
} |
56f756b2aef2371900625b29 | Treaty | Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed | How many Muslims were killed during the invasion of Banu Qurayza? | {
"text": [
"Two"
],
"answer_start": [
596
]
} |
56f75884a6d7ea1400e171e6 | Treaty | There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. | When are most of the problems created that might result in an otherwise valid treaty being rejected as a binding international agreement? | {
"text": [
"at the formation of the treaty"
],
"answer_start": [
161
]
} |
56f75884a6d7ea1400e171e7 | Treaty | There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. | What treaties between Japan and Korea are examples of treaties that were declared null and void? | {
"text": [
"the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910"
],
"answer_start": [
223
]
} |
56f75884a6d7ea1400e171e9 | Treaty | There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. | Which two states signed a treaty that declared previous treaties between the two from 1905, 1907, and 1910 to be already void? | {
"text": [
"Japan and the Republic of Korea"
],
"answer_start": [
391
]
} |
56f75884a6d7ea1400e171ea | Treaty | There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. | An otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as what for several reasons most of which involve problems created at the formation of a treaty? | {
"text": [
"a binding international agreement"
],
"answer_start": [
87
]
} |
56f75adda6d7ea1400e171f8 | Treaty | A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed] | A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under what? | {
"text": [
"that state's domestic law"
],
"answer_start": [
111
]
} |
56f75adda6d7ea1400e171f9 | Treaty | A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed] | For what does a strong presumption exist internationally that a head of state has acted within in entering into a treaty? | {
"text": [
"his proper authority"
],
"answer_start": [
433
]
} |
56f75adda6d7ea1400e171fa | Treaty | A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed] | What is required to invalidate a party's consent due to a reluctance to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states? | {
"text": [
"a \"manifest violation\""
],
"answer_start": [
234
]
} |
56f75adda6d7ea1400e171fb | Treaty | A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed] | A manifest violation is required to invalidate a party's consent to a treaty due to a reluctance internationally to inquire into what aspects of other states? | {
"text": [
"the internal affairs and processes"
],
"answer_start": [
175
]
} |
56f75adda6d7ea1400e171fc | Treaty | A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed] | What might a party's consent to a treaty be considered if it has been given by an agent without the power under the state's domestic law to do so? | {
"text": [
"invalid"
],
"answer_start": [
33
]
} |
56f75cbfaef2371900625b55 | Treaty | Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed] | If a state's representative ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign, what might that state's consent to a treaty be considered to be? | {
"text": [
"invalid"
],
"answer_start": [
16
]
} |
56f75cbfaef2371900625b56 | Treaty | Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed] | Who might place restrictions on a representative during negotiation of a treaty? | {
"text": [
"his sovereign"
],
"answer_start": [
104
]
} |
56f75cbfaef2371900625b58 | Treaty | Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed] | Who must have been notified of the ignored restrictions placed by a sovereign on his representative prior to the signing of a treaty in order for a state's consent to be considered invalid? | {
"text": [
"the other parties"
],
"answer_start": [
146
]
} |
56f75e62aef2371900625b67 | Treaty | According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail. | The preamble of what states that treaties are a source of international law? | {
"text": [
"The Law of Treaties"
],
"answer_start": [
29
]
} |
56f75e62aef2371900625b68 | Treaty | According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail. | Which will prevail in a conflict between international and domestic law? | {
"text": [
"international law"
],
"answer_start": [
296
]
} |
56f75e62aef2371900625b69 | Treaty | According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail. | What are started to be a source of international law in the preamble in The Law of Treaties? | {
"text": [
"treaties"
],
"answer_start": [
50
]
} |
56f75e62aef2371900625b6a | Treaty | According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail. | Approval under what law will not make an act or lack thereof legal if condemned under international law? | {
"text": [
"internal law"
],
"answer_start": [
225
]
} |
56f75e62aef2371900625b6b | Treaty | According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail. | An act or lack thereof cannot be made legal under what law even if made legal under internal law? | {
"text": [
"international law"
],
"answer_start": [
296
]
} |
56f76011a6d7ea1400e17216 | Treaty | Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place. | Which articles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the ways that treaties can be invalidated? | {
"text": [
"Articles 46–53"
],
"answer_start": [
0
]
} |
56f76011a6d7ea1400e17217 | Treaty | Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place. | In addition to the circumstances by which a state party joined a treaty, why might a treaty be invalidated? | {
"text": [
"the content of the treaty itself"
],
"answer_start": [
290
]
} |
56f76011a6d7ea1400e17218 | Treaty | Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place. | In addition to the content of the treaty itself, why might a treated by invalidated? | {
"text": [
"the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty"
],
"answer_start": [
220
]
} |
56f76011a6d7ea1400e17219 | Treaty | Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place. | A treaty might be considered what if it's considered unenforceable and void under international law? | {
"text": [
"invalidated"
],
"answer_start": [
106
]
} |
56f76011a6d7ea1400e1721a | Treaty | Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place. | Which processes simply alter the consent given by parties to a previously valid treaty rather than invalidating the consent completely? | {
"text": [
"withdrawal, suspension, or termination"
],
"answer_start": [
354
]
} |
56f7e9f4a6d7ea1400e172af | Treaty | A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident. | What on behalf of a state cannot invalidate that state's consent to a treaty? | {
"text": [
"own conduct"
],
"answer_start": [
265
]
} |
56f7e9f4a6d7ea1400e172b0 | Treaty | A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident. | Consent to a treaty will not be invalidated if what should have been evident? | {
"text": [
"the truth"
],
"answer_start": [
284
]
} |
56f7e9f4a6d7ea1400e172b1 | Treaty | A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident. | What may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion of a treaty? | {
"text": [
"A state's consent"
],
"answer_start": [
0
]
} |
56f7e9f4a6d7ea1400e172b2 | Treaty | A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident. | An erroneous understanding of a fact or situation may only invalidate a state's consent to a treaty if what is also true about the erroneous understanding? | {
"text": [
"formed the \"essential basis\" of the state's consent"
],
"answer_start": [
133
]
} |
56f7e9f4a6d7ea1400e172b3 | Treaty | A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident. | What, if it formed the "essential basis" of a state's consent to a treaty, may invalidate that consent? | {
"text": [
"an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation"
],
"answer_start": [
50
]
} |
56f7eb38a6d7ea1400e172c3 | Treaty | Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent. | What type of conduct of a party to a treaty can invalidate the consent of another party? | {
"text": [
"fraudulent conduct"
],
"answer_start": [
58
]
} |
56f7eb38a6d7ea1400e172c4 | Treaty | Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent. | What type of action, either direct or indirect, of a state's representative by another type of party to a treaty can invalidate a state's consent? | {
"text": [
"corruption"
],
"answer_start": [
125
]
} |
56f7eb38a6d7ea1400e172c5 | Treaty | Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent. | Coercion of a representative or a state itself will result in what happening to its consent to a treaty? | {
"text": [
"invalidate that consent"
],
"answer_start": [
346
]
} |
56f7eb38a6d7ea1400e172c6 | Treaty | Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent. | Coercion of a state or its what through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent? | {
"text": [
"representative"
],
"answer_start": [
212
]
} |
56f7ece0aef2371900625c60 | Treaty | A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts. | What will a treaty be if it is in violation of a peremptory norm? | {
"text": [
"null and void"
],
"answer_start": [
12
]
} |
56f7ece0aef2371900625c61 | Treaty | A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts. | What type of norm is recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations? | {
"text": [
"peremptory norm"
],
"answer_start": [
53
]
} |
56f7ece0aef2371900625c64 | Treaty | A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts. | What is an example of a type of universally prohibited action that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit through a treaty? | {
"text": [
"genocide"
],
"answer_start": [
327
]
} |
56f7ee11aef2371900625c6a | Treaty | The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties. | What is the judiciary organ of the United Nations? | {
"text": [
"the International Court of Justice"
],
"answer_start": [
139
]
} |
56f7ee11aef2371900625c6b | Treaty | The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties. | What document states that treaties must be registered with the United Nations to be invoked before it or enforced in the International Court of Justice? | {
"text": [
"The United Nations Charter"
],
"answer_start": [
0
]
} |
56f7ee11aef2371900625c6c | Treaty | The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties. | Why does the United Nations Charter state that treaties must be registered with the United Nations? | {
"text": [
"to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties"
],
"answer_start": [
189
]
} |
56f7ee11aef2371900625c6d | Treaty | The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties. | In which centuries did a proliferation of secret treaties occur that led the United Nations Charter to include an obligation to register treaties to be invoked before it? | {
"text": [
"19th and 20th century"
],
"answer_start": [
258
]
} |
56f7ee11aef2371900625c6e | Treaty | The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties. | What section of the United Nations Charter states that its members' obligation under the charter outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties? | {
"text": [
"Section 103"
],
"answer_start": [
281
]
} |
56f7ef08a6d7ea1400e172e1 | Treaty | After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force. | Treaties and their amendments must follow the official legal procedures of what body after their adoption? | {
"text": [
"the United Nations"
],
"answer_start": [
107
]
} |
56f7ef08a6d7ea1400e172e2 | Treaty | After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force. | Which office of the United Nations is in charge of applying its official legal procedures? | {
"text": [
"the Office of Legal Affairs"
],
"answer_start": [
141
]
} |
56f7ef08a6d7ea1400e172e3 | Treaty | After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force. | When must all treaties and their amendments follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations? | {
"text": [
"After their adoption"
],
"answer_start": [
0
]
} |
56f7ef08a6d7ea1400e172e4 | Treaty | After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force. | In addition to signature and ratification, what legal procedure of the United Nations must all treaties follow after their adoption? | {
"text": [
"entry into force"
],
"answer_start": [
208
]
} |
56f7ef08a6d7ea1400e172e5 | Treaty | After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force. | What are three official legal procedures of the United Nations that all treaties must follow after their adoption? | {
"text": [
"signature, ratification and entry into force"
],
"answer_start": [
180
]
} |
56f7f0b9aef2371900625c88 | Treaty | In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation. | The United Nations has been compared to what government in function and effectiveness? | {
"text": [
"the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government"
],
"answer_start": [
59
]
} |
56f7f0b9aef2371900625c89 | Treaty | In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation. | In which aspects has the United Nations been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government? | {
"text": [
"function and effectiveness"
],
"answer_start": [
3
]
} |
56f7f0b9aef2371900625c8a | Treaty | In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation. | The comparison of the United Nations to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government gives us a comparison between what modern and historical legal topics of interest? | {
"text": [
"modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation"
],
"answer_start": [
169
]
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.