Question: The preamble of what states that treaties are a source of international law?

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.

Answer: The Law of Treaties

<hl> According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties , treaties are a source of international law. <hl> 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.

According to the preamble in <hl> The Law of Treaties <hl>, 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.

According to the preamble in <hl> The Law of Treaties <hl> , treaties are a source of international law.


Question: Which will prevail in a conflict between international and domestic law?

Answer: international law

<hl> According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law . <hl> 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.

According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of <hl> international law <hl>. 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.

According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of <hl> international law <hl> .


Question: What are started to be a source of international law in the preamble in The Law of Treaties?

Answer: treaties

<hl> According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. <hl> 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.

According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, <hl> treaties <hl> 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.


Question: Approval under what law will not make an act or lack thereof legal if condemned under international law?

Answer: internal law

According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. <hl> If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law . <hl> This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.

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 <hl> internal law <hl>. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.

If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by <hl> internal law <hl> .


Question: An act or lack thereof cannot be made legal under what law even if made legal under internal law?

Answer: international law

<hl> According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law . <hl> 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.

According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of <hl> international law <hl>. 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.

According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of <hl> international law <hl> .


Question: Which articles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the ways that treaties can be invalidated?

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.

Answer: Articles 46–53

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

<hl> Articles 46–53 <hl> 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.


Question: In addition to the circumstances by which a state party joined a treaty, why might a treaty be invalidated?

Answer: the content of the treaty itself

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. <hl> 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 . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> the content of the treaty itself <hl>. 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 will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to <hl> the content of the treaty itself <hl> .


Question: In addition to the content of the treaty itself, why might a treated by invalidated?

Answer: the circumstances by which a state party joined the 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. <hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty <hl>, 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 will be invalidated due to either <hl> the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty <hl> , or due to the content of the treaty itself.


Question: A treaty might be considered what if it's considered unenforceable and void under international law?

Answer: invalidated

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be <hl> invalidated <hl>—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.

Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be <hl> invalidated <hl> —considered unenforceable and void under international law.


Question: Which processes simply alter the consent given by parties to a previously valid treaty rather than invalidating the consent completely?

Answer: withdrawal, suspension, or termination

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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> withdrawal, suspension, or termination <hl> (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.


Question: What on behalf of a state cannot invalidate that state's consent to a 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.

Answer: own conduct

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. <hl> Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct , or if the truth should have been evident. <hl>

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 <hl> own conduct <hl>, or if the truth should have been evident.

Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's <hl> own conduct <hl> , or if the truth should have been evident.


Question: Consent to a treaty will not be invalidated if what should have been evident?

Answer: the truth

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. <hl> Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident. <hl>

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 <hl> the truth <hl> should have been evident.


Question: What may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion of a treaty?

Answer: A state's consent

<hl> 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. <hl> Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

<hl> A state's consent <hl> 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.


Question: 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?

Answer: formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent

<hl> 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 . <hl> Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which <hl> formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent <hl>. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which <hl> formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent <hl> .


Question: What, if it formed the "essential basis" of a state's consent to a treaty, may invalidate that consent?

Answer: an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation

<hl> 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. <hl> Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was <hl> an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation <hl> 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.


Question: What type of conduct of a party to a treaty can invalidate the consent of another party?

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.

Answer: fraudulent conduct

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the <hl> fraudulent conduct <hl> 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.


Question: 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?

Answer: corruption

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "<hl> corruption <hl>" 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.

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect " <hl> corruption <hl> " of its representative by another party to the treaty.


Question: Coercion of a representative or a state itself will result in what happening to its consent to a treaty?

Answer: invalidate that consent

will invalidate that consent .

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, <hl> will invalidate that consent . <hl>

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 <hl> invalidate that consent <hl>.

will <hl> invalidate that consent <hl> .


Question: 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?

Answer: representative

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> representative <hl> 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.


Question: What must be true of coercion through the threat or use of force of a party to treaty for it to invalidate the state's consent to a treaty?

Answer: used to obtain the consent of that state to a 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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty <hl>, will invalidate that consent.

Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if <hl> used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty <hl> , will invalidate that consent.


Question: What will a treaty be if it is in violation of a peremptory norm?

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.

Answer: null and void

<hl> A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. <hl> 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.

A treaty is <hl> null and void <hl> 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.


Question: What type of norm is recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations?

Answer: peremptory norm

<hl> A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm . <hl> 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.

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a <hl> peremptory norm <hl>. 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.

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a <hl> peremptory norm <hl> .


Question: What is true of acts such as genocide and piracy in regard to treaty law?

Answer: no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts

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. <hl> 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 . <hl>

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 <hl> no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts <hl>.

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 <hl> no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts <hl> .


Question: What distinguishes peremptory norms from other principles of customary law?

Answer: permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. <hl> These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations <hl>. 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.

These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as <hl> permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations <hl> .


Question: 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?

Answer: genocide

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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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, <hl> genocide <hl> 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.


Question: What is the judiciary organ of the United Nations?

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.

Answer: the International Court of Justice

<hl> 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 . <hl> 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.

The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, <hl> the International Court of Justice <hl>. 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.

The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, <hl> the International Court of Justice <hl> .


Question: 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?

Answer: The United Nations Charter

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

<hl> The United Nations Charter <hl> 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.


Question: Why does the United Nations Charter state that treaties must be registered with the United Nations?

Answer: to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties

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. <hl> This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. <hl> Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.

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 <hl> to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties <hl> 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.


Question: 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?

Answer: 19th and 20th century

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. <hl> This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century . <hl> Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.

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 <hl> 19th and 20th century <hl>. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.

This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the <hl> 19th and 20th century <hl> .


Question: What section of the United Nations Charter states that its members' obligation under the charter outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties?

Answer: Section 103

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. <hl> Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties. <hl>

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. <hl> Section 103 <hl> of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.


Question: Treaties and their amendments must follow the official legal procedures of what body after their adoption?

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.

Answer: the United Nations

<hl> 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. <hl>

After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of <hl> the United Nations <hl>, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force.

After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of <hl> the United Nations <hl> , as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force.


Question: Which office of the United Nations is in charge of applying its official legal procedures?

Answer: the Office of Legal Affairs

<hl> 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. <hl>

After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by <hl> the Office of Legal Affairs <hl>, including signature, ratification and entry into force.

After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by <hl> the Office of Legal Affairs <hl> , including signature, ratification and entry into force.


Question: When must all treaties and their amendments follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations?

Answer: After their adoption

<hl> 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. <hl>

<hl> After their adoption <hl>, 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.

<hl> After their adoption <hl> , 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.


Question: In addition to signature and ratification, what legal procedure of the United Nations must all treaties follow after their adoption?

Answer: entry into force

<hl> 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 . <hl>

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 <hl> entry into force <hl>.

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 <hl> entry into force <hl> .


Question: What are three official legal procedures of the United Nations that all treaties must follow after their adoption?

Answer: signature, ratification and entry into force

<hl> 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 . <hl>

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 <hl> signature, ratification and entry into force <hl>.

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 <hl> signature, ratification and entry into force <hl> .


Question: The United Nations has been compared to what government in function and effectiveness?

Answer: the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government

<hl> 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. <hl>

In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to <hl> the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government <hl> by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.


Question: In which aspects has the United Nations been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government?

Answer: function and effectiveness

<hl> 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. <hl>

In <hl> function and effectiveness <hl>, 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 <hl> function and effectiveness <hl> , 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.


Question: 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?

Answer: modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation

<hl> 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 . <hl>

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 <hl> modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation <hl>.

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 <hl> modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation <hl> .


Question: Modern treaty law can be compared in function and effectiveness to the historical Articles of Confederation by comparing the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government with what modern institution?

Answer: the UN

<hl> 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. <hl>

In function and effectiveness, <hl> the UN <hl> 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.


Question: What legal document formed the basis of the pre-Constitutional Federal government of the United States?

Answer: Articles of Confederation

<hl> 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 . <hl>

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 <hl> Articles of Confederation <hl>.

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 <hl> Articles of Confederation <hl> .


Question: What part of the Brazilian federal consitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress?

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

Answer: articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I

<hl> The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress ( articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I ). <hl> In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (<hl> articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I <hl>). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress ( <hl> articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I <hl> ).


Question: In practice the Brazilian president must get the prior approval of what body in order to negotiate and sign a treaty?

Answer: Congress

<hl> The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). <hl> In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by <hl> Congress <hl> (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.


Question: What Brazilian institution has ruled that a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree?

Answer: the Federal Supreme Court

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. <hl> Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities. <hl>

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, <hl> the Federal Supreme Court <hl> has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.


Question: In order for a treaty to be valid in Brazil, a presidential decree incorporating the treaty into domestic law must be published where in order to be valid?

Answer: the federal register

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. <hl> Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities. <hl>

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in <hl> the federal register <hl> in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.


Question: In what office is the power to enter into treaties vested according to the Brazilian federal constitution?

Answer: president

<hl> The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). <hl> In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the <hl> president <hl> and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.


Question: The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court has ruled that treaties enjoy what position relative to ordinary legislation?

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

Answer: same hierarchical position

<hl> The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). <hl> A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the <hl> same hierarchical position <hl> as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.


Question: In what year did the Brazilian Supreme Court rule that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above ordinary legislation?

Answer: 2008

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). <hl> A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. <hl> Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in <hl> 2008 <hl> has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.


Question: What amendment to the Brazilian constitution states that human rights treaties approved by means of a special procedure by Congress enjoy the same position as a constitutional amendment?

Answer: the 45th amendment

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. <hl> Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. <hl> The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per <hl> the 45th amendment <hl> to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.


Question: The hierarchical position of treaties relative to domestic legislation in Brazil determines whether the latter can do what to the former and vice versa?

Answer: abrogate

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) <hl> the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa. <hl>

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can <hl> abrogate <hl> the former and vice versa.


Question: What is the Portuguese term for ordinary laws?

Answer: leis ordinárias

<hl> The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation ( leis ordinárias , or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). <hl> A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (<hl> leis ordinárias <hl>, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation ( <hl> leis ordinárias <hl> , or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese).


Question: What kind of clause does the United States constitution have that the Brazilian constitution does not have with the same effects?

Answer: supremacy clause

<hl> The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation. <hl>

The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a <hl> supremacy clause <hl> with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation.


Question: A supremacy clause in a federal constitution is relevant to the discussion on the relation between treaties and what other type of legislation?

Answer: state legislation

<hl> The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation . <hl>

The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and <hl> state legislation <hl>.

The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and <hl> state legislation <hl> .


Question: What clause of the United States Constitution is relevant to the discussion of the relation between treaties and U.S. legislation?

Answer: supremacy clause

<hl> The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation. <hl>

The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a <hl> supremacy clause <hl> with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation.


Question: The Brazilian constitution does not have a supremacy clause that would be of interest to the relation between state legislation and what other legal agreements?

Answer: treaties

<hl> The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation. <hl>

The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between <hl> treaties <hl> and state legislation.


Question: Treaties, executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements are the same under international law but different with respect to what?

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

Answer: internal American law

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. <hl> All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law . <hl> The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of <hl> internal American law <hl>. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of <hl> internal American law <hl> .


Question: Under US law, what primarily distinguishes treaties, executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements?

Answer: their method of approval

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. <hl> The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval . <hl> Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning <hl> their method of approval <hl>. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

The distinctions are primarily concerning <hl> their method of approval <hl> .


Question: What percentage of United States Senators must give advice and consent in order for the US to enter a treaty?

Answer: two-thirds

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. <hl> Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. <hl> Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by <hl> two-thirds <hl> of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.


Question: What type of agreement may a US president enter by acting alone?

Answer: sole executive agreements

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. <hl> United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements . <hl> All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and <hl> sole executive agreements <hl>. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and <hl> sole executive agreements <hl> .


Question: What type of agreement requires majority approval by both the House and the Senate before or after a treaty is signed by the United States president?

Answer: congressional-executive agreements

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. <hl> United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements , and sole executive agreements. <hl> All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, <hl> congressional-executive agreements <hl>, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, <hl> congressional-executive agreements <hl> , and sole executive agreements.


Question: In the United States, what is the ratio of executive agreements to treaties?

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.

Answer: 10:1

<hl> Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1 . <hl> Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of <hl> 10:1 <hl>. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of <hl> 10:1 <hl> .


Question: What is it about the approval process of executive agreements might lead a US president to prefer them over treaties?

Answer: the relative ease

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. <hl> Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. <hl> For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite <hl> the relative ease <hl> of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.


Question: The president of the United States might prefer the formal treaty process on matters that require Congress to do what?

Answer: pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. <hl> Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds , and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. <hl> For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to <hl> pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds <hl>, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.

Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to <hl> pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds <hl> , and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States.


Question: The president of the United States might prefer the formal treaty process for agreements that impose what type of legal obligations on the US?

Answer: long-term, complex

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. <hl> Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. <hl> For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose <hl> long-term, complex <hl> legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.


Question: The international deal between the US, other countries, and what controversial nation is not a treaty?

Answer: Iran

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. <hl> For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty. <hl>

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, <hl> Iran <hl> and other countries is not a Treaty.


Question: In what cases did the US Supreme Court rule that treaties do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress?

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.

Answer: Head Money Cases

<hl> The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. <hl> The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.

The Supreme Court ruled in the <hl> Head Money Cases <hl> that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.


Question: The US Supreme Court ruled that treaties can be repealed or modified by what for the purposes of US law?

Answer: Act of Congress

<hl> The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress , just like with any other regular law. <hl> The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent <hl> Act of Congress <hl>, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent <hl> Act of Congress <hl> , just like with any other regular law.


Question: What Supreme Court case ruled that a treaty provision that conflicts with the US Constitution is null and void under US law?

Answer: Reid v. Covert

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. <hl> The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law. <hl>

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in <hl> Reid v. Covert <hl> that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.


Question: The US Supreme Court ruled that treaties can be repealed or modified for the purposes of US law just like what by any subsequent Act of Congress?

Answer: any other regular law

<hl> The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law . <hl> The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with <hl> any other regular law <hl>. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with <hl> any other regular law <hl> .


Question: Any treaty provision that conflicts with the US Constitution is considered what under US law?

Answer: null and void

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. <hl> The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law. <hl>

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are <hl> null and void <hl> under U.S. law.


Question: Into what 3 lists are legislation subjects divided in India?

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.

Answer: Union List, State List and Concurrent List

<hl> In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists - Union List, State List and Concurrent List . <hl> In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -<hl> Union List, State List and Concurrent List <hl> . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists - <hl> Union List, State List and Concurrent List <hl> .


Question: What type of legislative subjects can both the central legislative body and state legislatures make laws?

Answer: Concurrent subjects

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. <hl> While for Concurrent subjects , both center and state can make laws. <hl> But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for <hl> Concurrent subjects <hl>, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.

While for <hl> Concurrent subjects <hl> , both center and state can make laws.


Question: What is the central legislative body in India?

Answer: Parliament of India

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . <hl> In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India , for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. <hl> While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called <hl> Parliament of India <hl>, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.

In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called <hl> Parliament of India <hl> , for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate.


Question: In order to implement international treaties, for what subjects can the Parliament of India legislate to override the general division of subject lists?

Answer: any subject

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. <hl> But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists. <hl>

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on <hl> any subject <hl> overriding the general division of subject lists.


Question: What subjects can only be legislated by the central legislative body in India?

Answer: the subjects in Union list

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . <hl> In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. <hl> While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.

In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, <hl> the subjects in Union list <hl> can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.