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

Answer: memoranda of understanding

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. <hl> For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding . <hl>

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are <hl> memoranda of understanding <hl>.

For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are <hl> memoranda of understanding <hl> .


Question: Nations can be careful about terming an agreement a treaty because it has the effect of recognizing that the other side is a what?

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.

Answer: a sovereign state

<hl> One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. <hl> Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is <hl> a sovereign state <hl> and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.


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

Answer: international law

<hl> One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law . <hl> Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under <hl> international law <hl>. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under <hl> international law <hl> .


Question: Parties to a treaty may disagree over a desire to create an obligation under what?

Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.

Answer: international law

<hl> Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law , but the other party does not. <hl> This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.

Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under <hl> international law <hl>, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.

Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under <hl> international law <hl> , but the other party does not.


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

Answer: North Korea and the United States

Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. <hl> This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation. <hl>

Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between <hl> North Korea and the United States <hl> over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.


Question: Discussion between North Korea and the United States have been influenced by one party's desire to create obligations under international law with respect to what two topics?

Answer: security guarantees and nuclear proliferation

Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. <hl> This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation . <hl>

Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over <hl> security guarantees and nuclear proliferation <hl>.

This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over <hl> security guarantees and nuclear proliferation <hl> .


Question: North Korea and the United States have been characterized by a disagreement over one parties desire to create what with respect to security guarantees and nuclear proliferation?

Answer: to create an obligation under international law

<hl> Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law , but the other party does not. <hl> This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.

Another situation can occur when one party wishes <hl> to create an obligation under international law <hl>, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.

Another situation can occur when one party wishes <hl> to create an obligation under international law <hl> , but the other party does not.


Question: What is the Treaty of Waitangi internationally considered to be?

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

Answer: documents under domestic law

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. <hl> Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law . <hl>

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be <hl> documents under domestic law <hl>.

Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be <hl> documents under domestic law <hl> .


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

Answer: convention, protocol, or simply agreement

<hl> The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement . <hl> Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a <hl> convention, protocol, or simply agreement <hl>. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a <hl> convention, protocol, or simply agreement <hl> .


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

Answer: named something other than a treaty,

<hl> The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. <hl> Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is <hl> named something other than a treaty, <hl> such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.


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

Answer: the Treaty of Waitangi

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. <hl> Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law. <hl>

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as <hl> the Treaty of Waitangi <hl> are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.


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

Answer: terminology

<hl> The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. <hl> Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

The <hl> terminology <hl> can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.


Question: Traditionally, what must a state do in order for an obligation to arise in international law?

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

Answer: consent

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. <hl> As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states <hl> , many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the <hl> consent <hl> of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:


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

Answer: procedures of notification

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. <hl> As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification . <hl> For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain <hl> procedures of notification <hl>. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain <hl> procedures of notification <hl> .


Question: Are treaties permanently binding upon the signatory parties?

Answer: not necessarily

<hl> Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. <hl> As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

Treaties are <hl> not necessarily <hl> permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:


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

Answer: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. <hl> For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. <hl> Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, <hl> the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs <hl> provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:


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

Answer: Article 56

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. <hl> Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless: <hl>

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. <hl> Article 56 <hl> of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:


Question: What is an example of a treaty from which it is not possible to withdraw?

The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

Answer: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. <hl> It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . <hl> When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from <hl> the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights <hl>. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from <hl> the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights <hl> .


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

Answer: North Korea

The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. <hl> When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. <hl> Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When <hl> North Korea <hl> declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.


Question: Who, acting as registrar, informed North Korea that withdrawal was deliberately precluded by the original signatories of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?

Answer: the Secretary-General of the United Nations

The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. <hl> When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations , acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. <hl> Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this <hl> the Secretary-General of the United Nations <hl>, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

When North Korea declared its intention to do this <hl> the Secretary-General of the United Nations <hl> , acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it.


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

Answer: the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire

<hl> The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire . <hl> It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

The possibility of withdrawal depends on <hl> the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire <hl>. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

The possibility of withdrawal depends on <hl> the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire <hl> .


Question: The terms and travaux preparatoire of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were both factors in determining what aspect of the treaty as it relates to North Korea's stated intentions?

Answer: The possibility of withdrawal

<hl> The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. <hl> It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

<hl> The possibility of withdrawal <hl> depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.


Question: What factor, in practice, allows a state to withdraw from any treaty at any time?

In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.

Answer: sovereignty

<hl> In practice, because of sovereignty , any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. <hl> The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.

In practice, because of <hl> sovereignty <hl>, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.

In practice, because of <hl> sovereignty <hl> , any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time.


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

Answer: how other states will react

In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. <hl> The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation. <hl>

In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of <hl> how other states will react <hl> to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.


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

Answer: impose sanctions or go to war

In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. <hl> The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation. <hl>

In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might <hl> impose sanctions or go to war <hl> over a treaty violation.


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

Answer: In practice

<hl> In practice , because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. <hl> The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.

<hl> In practice <hl>, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.

<hl> In practice <hl> , because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time.


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

Answer: at any time

<hl> In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty at any time . <hl> The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.

In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty <hl> at any time <hl>. The question of whether this is permitted is really a question of how other states will react to the withdrawal; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.

In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can withdraw from any treaty <hl> at any time <hl> .


Question: What happens to a state's obligations under a treaty upon its withdrawal from the treaty?

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]

Answer: terminated

<hl> If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated , and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. <hl> When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered <hl> terminated <hl>, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered <hl> terminated <hl> , and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty.


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

Answer: a bilateral treaty

<hl> If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. <hl> When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from <hl> a bilateral treaty <hl> of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]


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

Answer: remain in force

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, <hl> that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed] <hl>

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise <hl> remain in force <hl> among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]


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

Answer: withdrawal

<hl> If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. <hl> When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]

If a state party's <hl> withdrawal <hl> is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]


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

Answer: agreed upon between the remaining states parties

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. <hl> When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed] <hl>

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as <hl> agreed upon between the remaining states parties <hl> to the treaty.[citation needed]


Question: What may be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating a treaty?

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.

Answer: A material breach

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. <hl> A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself. <hl>

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. <hl> A material breach <hl> may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.


Question: In addition to terminating the treaty itself, what actions by the other parties might result from one party materially violating or beaching its obligations?

Answer: temporarily suspending their obligations to that party

<hl> If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. <hl> A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for <hl> temporarily suspending their obligations to that party <hl> under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.


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

Answer: terminating the treaty itself

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. <hl> A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself . <hl>

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently <hl> terminating the treaty itself <hl>.

A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently <hl> terminating the treaty itself <hl> .


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

Answer: the other parties

<hl> If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. <hl> A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, <hl> the other parties <hl> may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.


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

Answer: suspending their obligations to that party

<hl> If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. <hl> A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily <hl> suspending their obligations to that party <hl> under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.


Question: What might a tribunal or an arbiter be asked to determine regarding a breach of a treaty?

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

Answer: the seriousness of a breach

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. <hl> Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. <hl> An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for <hl> the seriousness of a breach <hl> to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.


Question: Using what to determine the seriousness of a breach can prevent a party from prematurely suspending its obligations due to another party's alleged material breach?

Answer: a tribunal or other independent arbiter

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. <hl> Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter . <hl> An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by <hl> a tribunal or other independent arbiter <hl>. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by <hl> a tribunal or other independent arbiter <hl> .


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

Answer: does not

<hl> A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. <hl> It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

A treaty breach <hl> does not <hl> automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.


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

Answer: how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. <hl> It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it . <hl> Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on <hl> how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it <hl>. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

It depends on <hl> how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it <hl> .


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

Answer: how they resolve to respond to it

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. <hl> It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it . <hl> Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and <hl> how they resolve to respond to it <hl>. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and <hl> how they resolve to respond to it <hl> .


Question: Some treaties contains provisions for what to happen if certain defined conditions are met?

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Answer: self-termination

<hl> Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination , meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. <hl> Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Treaties sometimes include provisions for <hl> self-termination <hl>, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Treaties sometimes include provisions for <hl> self-termination <hl> , meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met.


Question: What provision might a treaty include if it's meant to be only temporarily binding?

Answer: set to expire on a given date

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. <hl> Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date . <hl> Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are <hl> set to expire on a given date <hl>. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are <hl> set to expire on a given date <hl> .


Question: In addition to passing an expiration date, what might cause a treaty to self-terminate?

Answer: certain defined conditions are met

<hl> Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met . <hl> Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if <hl> certain defined conditions are met <hl>. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if <hl> certain defined conditions are met <hl> .


Question: What happens to a treaty that was designed to terminate under certain conditions when those conditions are actually met?

Answer: automatically terminated

<hl> Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. <hl> Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is <hl> automatically terminated <hl> if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]


Question: What may we assume the parties to a treaty intended the treaty's obligations to be if the treaty included an expiration date?

Answer: temporarily binding

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. <hl> Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. <hl> Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only <hl> temporarily binding <hl> and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[citation needed]


Question: What might result in a party to a treaty claiming a treaty should be terminated even absent an express provision for its termination?

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]

Answer: a fundamental change in circumstances

<hl> A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances . <hl> Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been <hl> a fundamental change in circumstances <hl>. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been <hl> a fundamental change in circumstances <hl> .


Question: A party cannot base its claim of a fundamental change in circumstances if the change was brought about by what?

Answer: its own breach of the treaty

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. <hl> A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty . <hl> This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by <hl> its own breach of the treaty <hl>. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]

A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by <hl> its own breach of the treaty <hl> .


Question: The claim of a fundamental change in circumstances cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew what?

Answer: political boundaries

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. <hl> This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries .[citation needed] <hl>

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew <hl> political boundaries <hl>.[citation needed]

This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew <hl> political boundaries <hl> .[citation needed]


Question: The radical transformation of what aspect of the obligations between the parties is a necessary condition for a claim of a fundamental change in circumstances to terminate a treaty?

Answer: the extent of obligations

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. <hl> Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. <hl> A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms <hl> the extent of obligations <hl> between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]


Question: In order to be considered a fundamental change, a change in circumstances must have been what at the time of the adoption of the treaty?

Answer: unforeseen

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. <hl> Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen , if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. <hl> A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if <hl> unforeseen <hl>, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[citation needed]

Such a change is sufficient if <hl> unforeseen <hl> , if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed.


Question: The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against what tribe in February 624?

The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa.

Answer: the Banu Qaynuqa tribe

<hl> The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. <hl> This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa.

The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against <hl> the Banu Qaynuqa tribe <hl> known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa.


Question: Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking what treaty?

Answer: the Constitution of Medina

<hl> The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. <hl> This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa.

The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as <hl> the Constitution of Medina <hl> by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa.


Question: Who's insistence led the Prophet Muhammad to expel the Banu Qaynuqa Jews instead of kill them?

Answer: Abdullah ibn Ubayy

The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 <hl> The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy 's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa. <hl>

The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to <hl> Abdullah ibn Ubayy <hl>'s insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa.

The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to <hl> Abdullah ibn Ubayy <hl> 's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa.


Question: Pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being what, was the action that allegedly violated the Constitution of Medina?

Answer: stripped naked

<hl> The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. <hl> This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa.

The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being <hl> stripped naked <hl> As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa.


Question: What chained actions resulted from the alleged violation of the Constitution of Medina by the Banu Qaynuqa Jews?

Answer: revenge killings

The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. <hl> This escalated to a chain of revenge killings , and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 <hl> The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa.

The Islamic Prophet Muhammad carried out a siege against the Banu Qaynuqa tribe known as the Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in February 624 Muhammad ordered his followers to attack the Banu Qaynuqa Jews for allegedly breaking the treaty known as the Constitution of Medina by pinning the clothes of a Muslim woman, which led to her being stripped naked As a result, a Muslim killed a Jew in retaliation, and the Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of <hl> revenge killings <hl>, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122 The tribe eventually surrendered to Muhammad, who initially wanted to kill the members of Banu Qaynuqa but ultimately yielded to Abdullah ibn Ubayy's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa.

This escalated to a chain of <hl> revenge killings <hl> , and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa, leading to the siege of their fortress.:122


Question: What angel, according to Muslim tradition, ordered Muhammad to order a siege on the Banu Qurayza?

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed

Answer: Gabriel

<hl> Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel . <hl> Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel <hl> Gabriel <hl>. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel <hl> Gabriel <hl> .


Question: Who claims Muhammad had a treaty with the Banu Qurayza that was torn apart?

Answer: Al-Waqidi

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. <hl> Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. <hl> Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. <hl> Al-Waqidi <hl> claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed


Question: How many members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after surrendering to Muhammad and his followers according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham?

Answer: 600-900

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. <hl> 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). <hl> Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. <hl> 600-900 <hl> members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed


Question: According to Sunni Hadith which members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after surrendering to Muhammad and his followers?

Answer: all Males and 1 woman

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). <hl> Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). <hl> Two Muslims were killed

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says <hl> all Males and 1 woman <hl> beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). Two Muslims were killed


Question: How many Muslims were killed during the invasion of Banu Qurayza?

Answer: Two

Two Muslims were killed

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). <hl> Two Muslims were killed <hl>

Muhammad also ordered another siege on the Banu Qurayza during the Invasion of Banu Qurayza, because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. 600-900 members of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded after they surrendered (according to Tabari and Ibn Hisham). Another source says all Males and 1 woman beheaded (according to Sunni Hadith). <hl> Two <hl> Muslims were killed


Question: When are most of the problems created that might result in an otherwise valid treaty being rejected as a binding international agreement?

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.

Answer: at the formation of the treaty

<hl> There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty .[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. <hl>

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created <hl> at the formation of the treaty <hl>.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created <hl> at the formation of the treaty <hl> .[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.


Question: What treaties between Japan and Korea are examples of treaties that were declared null and void?

Answer: the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910

<hl> There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. <hl>

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, <hl> the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 <hl> were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.


Question: In what treaty were the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907, and 1910 confirmed as "already null and void?"

Answer: the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea

<hl> There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea . <hl>

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in <hl> the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea <hl>.

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in <hl> the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea <hl> .


Question: Which two states signed a treaty that declared previous treaties between the two from 1905, 1907, and 1910 to be already void?

Answer: Japan and the Republic of Korea

<hl> There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea . <hl>

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between <hl> Japan and the Republic of Korea <hl>.

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between <hl> Japan and the Republic of Korea <hl> .


Question: An otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as what for several reasons most of which involve problems created at the formation of a treaty?

Answer: a binding international agreement

<hl> There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement , most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. <hl>

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as <hl> a binding international agreement <hl>, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as <hl> a binding international agreement <hl> , most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.


Question: A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under what?

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

Answer: that state's domestic law

<hl> A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law . <hl> States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under <hl> that state's domestic law <hl>. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under <hl> that state's domestic law <hl> .


Question: For what does a strong presumption exist internationally that a head of state has acted within in entering into a treaty?

Answer: his proper authority

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". <hl> A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority . <hl> It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within <hl> his proper authority <hl>. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within <hl> his proper authority <hl> .


Question: What is required to invalidate a party's consent due to a reluctance to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states?

Answer: a "manifest violation"

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. <hl> States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". <hl> A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so <hl> a "manifest violation" <hl> is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]


Question: A manifest violation is required to invalidate a party's consent to a treaty due to a reluctance internationally to inquire into what aspects of other states?

Answer: the internal affairs and processes

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. <hl> States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". <hl> A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into <hl> the internal affairs and processes <hl> of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]


Question: What might a party's consent to a treaty be considered if it has been given by an agent without the power under the state's domestic law to do so?

Answer: invalid

<hl> A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. <hl> States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

A party's consent to a treaty is <hl> invalid <hl> if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]


Question: If a state's representative ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign, what might that state's consent to a treaty be considered to be?

Answer: invalid

<hl> Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed] <hl>

Consent is also <hl> invalid <hl> if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed]


Question: Who might place restrictions on a representative during negotiation of a treaty?

Answer: his sovereign

<hl> Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed] <hl>

Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by <hl> his sovereign <hl> during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed]


Question: What must be true of the ignored restrictions placed on a representative by his sovereign in order for a state's consent to a treaty to be considered invalid?

Answer: the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing

<hl> Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing .[citation needed] <hl>

Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if <hl> the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing <hl>.[citation needed]

Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if <hl> the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing <hl> .[citation needed]


Question: Who must have been notified of the ignored restrictions placed by a sovereign on his representative prior to the signing of a treaty in order for a state's consent to be considered invalid?

Answer: the other parties

<hl> Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed] <hl>

Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if <hl> the other parties <hl> to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed]