id
stringlengths 24
24
| title
stringlengths 3
59
| context
stringlengths 148
3.71k
| question
stringlengths 1
25.7k
| answers
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
56f75884a6d7ea1400e171e7 | Treaty | There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may exist rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. | What treaties between Japan and Korea are examples of treaties that were declared null and void? | {
"text": [
"the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910"
],
"answer_start": [
223
]
} |
56f75884a6d7ea1400e171e8 | Treaty | There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may exist 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. | In what treaty were the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907, and 1910 confirmed as "already null and void?" | {
"text": [
"the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea"
],
"answer_start": [
348
]
} |
56f75884a6d7ea1400e171e9 | Treaty | There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may exist rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. | Which two states signed a treaty that declared previous treaties between the two from 1905, 1907, and 1910 to be already void? | {
"text": [
"Japan and the Republic of Korea"
],
"answer_start": [
391
]
} |
56f75884a6d7ea1400e171ea | Treaty | There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may exist rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. | An otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as what for several reasons most of which involve problems created at the formation of a treaty? | {
"text": [
"a binding international agreement"
],
"answer_start": [
87
]
} |
56f75adda6d7ea1400e171f8 | Treaty | A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to make so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed] | A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under what? | {
"text": [
"that state's domestic law"
],
"answer_start": [
111
]
} |
56f75adda6d7ea1400e171f9 | Treaty | A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to make so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed] | For what does a strong presumption exist internationally that a head of state has acted within in entering into a treaty? | {
"text": [
"his proper authority"
],
"answer_start": [
433
]
} |
56f75adda6d7ea1400e171fa | Treaty | A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to make so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed] | What is required to invalidate a party's consent due to a reluctance to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states? | {
"text": [
"a \"manifest violation\""
],
"answer_start": [
234
]
} |
56f75adda6d7ea1400e171fb | Treaty | A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to make so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed] | A manifest violation is required to invalidate a party's consent to a treaty due to a reluctance internationally to inquire into what aspects of other states? | {
"text": [
"the internal affairs and processes"
],
"answer_start": [
175
]
} |
56f75adda6d7ea1400e171fc | Treaty | A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to make so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed] | What might a party's consent to a treaty be considered if it has been given by an agent without the power under the state's domestic law to do so? | {
"text": [
"invalid"
],
"answer_start": [
33
]
} |
56f75cbfaef2371900625b55 | Treaty | Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed] | If a state's representative ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign, what might that state's consent to a treaty be considered to be? | {
"text": [
"invalid"
],
"answer_start": [
16
]
} |
56f75cbfaef2371900625b56 | Treaty | Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed] | Who might place restrictions on a representative during negotiation of a treaty? | {
"text": [
"his sovereign"
],
"answer_start": [
104
]
} |
56f75cbfaef2371900625b57 | Treaty | Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed] | 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? | {
"text": [
"the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing"
],
"answer_start": [
146
]
} |
56f75cbfaef2371900625b58 | Treaty | Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed] | Who must have been notified of the ignored restrictions placed by a sovereign on his representative prior to the signing of a treaty in order for a state's consent to be considered invalid? | {
"text": [
"the other parties"
],
"answer_start": [
146
]
} |
56f75e62aef2371900625b67 | Treaty | According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not presume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail. | The preamble of what states that treaties are a source of international law? | {
"text": [
"The Law of Treaties"
],
"answer_start": [
29
]
} |
56f75e62aef2371900625b68 | Treaty | According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not presume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail. | Which will prevail in a conflict between international and domestic law? | {
"text": [
"international law"
],
"answer_start": [
296
]
} |
56f75e62aef2371900625b69 | Treaty | According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not presume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail. | What are started to be a source of international law in the preamble in The Law of Treaties? | {
"text": [
"treaties"
],
"answer_start": [
50
]
} |
56f75e62aef2371900625b6a | Treaty | According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not presume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail. | Approval under what law will not make an act or lack thereof legal if condemned under international law? | {
"text": [
"internal law"
],
"answer_start": [
225
]
} |
56f75e62aef2371900625b6b | Treaty | According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not presume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail. | An act or lack thereof cannot be made legal under what law even if made legal under internal law? | {
"text": [
"international law"
],
"answer_start": [
296
]
} |
56f76011a6d7ea1400e17216 | Treaty | Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can exist invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will exist invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place. | Which articles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the ways that treaties can be invalidated? | {
"text": [
"Articles 46–53"
],
"answer_start": [
0
]
} |
56f76011a6d7ea1400e17217 | Treaty | Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can exist invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will exist invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place. | In addition to the circumstances by which a state party joined a treaty, why might a treaty be invalidated? | {
"text": [
"the content of the treaty itself"
],
"answer_start": [
290
]
} |
56f76011a6d7ea1400e17218 | Treaty | Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can exist invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will exist invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place. | In addition to the content of the treaty itself, why might a treated by invalidated? | {
"text": [
"the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty"
],
"answer_start": [
220
]
} |
56f76011a6d7ea1400e17219 | Treaty | Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can exist invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will exist invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place. | A treaty might be considered what if it's considered unenforceable and void under international law? | {
"text": [
"invalidated"
],
"answer_start": [
106
]
} |
56f76011a6d7ea1400e1721a | Treaty | Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can exist invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will exist invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place. | Which processes simply alter the consent given by parties to a previously valid treaty rather than invalidating the consent completely? | {
"text": [
"withdrawal, suspension, or termination"
],
"answer_start": [
354
]
} |
56f7e9f4a6d7ea1400e172af | Treaty | A state's consent may exist invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not exist invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident. | What on behalf of a state cannot invalidate that state's consent to a treaty? | {
"text": [
"own conduct"
],
"answer_start": [
265
]
} |
56f7e9f4a6d7ea1400e172b0 | Treaty | A state's consent may exist invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not exist invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident. | Consent to a treaty will not be invalidated if what should have been evident? | {
"text": [
"the truth"
],
"answer_start": [
284
]
} |
56f7e9f4a6d7ea1400e172b1 | Treaty | A state's consent may exist invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not exist invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident. | What may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion of a treaty? | {
"text": [
"A state's consent"
],
"answer_start": [
0
]
} |
56f7e9f4a6d7ea1400e172b2 | Treaty | A state's consent may exist invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not exist invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident. | An erroneous understanding of a fact or situation may only invalidate a state's consent to a treaty if what is also true about the erroneous understanding? | {
"text": [
"formed the \"essential basis\" of the state's consent"
],
"answer_start": [
133
]
} |
56f7e9f4a6d7ea1400e172b3 | Treaty | A state's consent may exist invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not exist invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident. | What, if it formed the "essential basis" of a state's consent to a treaty, may invalidate that consent? | {
"text": [
"an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation"
],
"answer_start": [
50
]
} |
56f7eb38a6d7ea1400e172c3 | Treaty | Consent will also exist invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent. | What type of conduct of a party to a treaty can invalidate the consent of another party? | {
"text": [
"fraudulent conduct"
],
"answer_start": [
58
]
} |
56f7eb38a6d7ea1400e172c4 | Treaty | Consent will also exist invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent. | What type of action, either direct or indirect, of a state's representative by another type of party to a treaty can invalidate a state's consent? | {
"text": [
"corruption"
],
"answer_start": [
125
]
} |
56f7eb38a6d7ea1400e172c5 | Treaty | Consent will also exist invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent. | Coercion of a representative or a state itself will result in what happening to its consent to a treaty? | {
"text": [
"invalidate that consent"
],
"answer_start": [
346
]
} |
56f7eb38a6d7ea1400e172c6 | Treaty | Consent will also exist invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent. | Coercion of a state or its what through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent? | {
"text": [
"representative"
],
"answer_start": [
212
]
} |
56f7eb38a6d7ea1400e172c7 | Treaty | Consent will also exist invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent. | What must be true of coercion through the threat or use of force of a party to treaty for it to invalidate the state's consent to a treaty? | {
"text": [
"used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty"
],
"answer_start": [
287
]
} |
56f7ece0aef2371900625c60 | Treaty | A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot exist altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts. | What will a treaty be if it is in violation of a peremptory norm? | {
"text": [
"null and void"
],
"answer_start": [
12
]
} |
56f7ece0aef2371900625c61 | Treaty | A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot exist altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts. | What type of norm is recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations? | {
"text": [
"peremptory norm"
],
"answer_start": [
53
]
} |
56f7ece0aef2371900625c62 | Treaty | A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot exist altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts. | What is true of acts such as genocide and piracy in regard to treaty law? | {
"text": [
"no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts"
],
"answer_start": [
495
]
} |
56f7ece0aef2371900625c63 | Treaty | A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot exist altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts. | What distinguishes peremptory norms from other principles of customary law? | {
"text": [
"permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations"
],
"answer_start": [
143
]
} |
56f7ece0aef2371900625c64 | Treaty | A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot exist altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts. | What is an example of a type of universally prohibited action that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit through a treaty? | {
"text": [
"genocide"
],
"answer_start": [
327
]
} |
56f7ee11aef2371900625c6a | Treaty | The United Nations Charter states that treaties must exist registered with the UN to exist invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties. | What is the judiciary organ of the United Nations? | {
"text": [
"the International Court of Justice"
],
"answer_start": [
139
]
} |
56f7ee11aef2371900625c6b | Treaty | The United Nations Charter states that treaties must exist registered with the UN to exist invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties. | What document states that treaties must be registered with the United Nations to be invoked before it or enforced in the International Court of Justice? | {
"text": [
"The United Nations Charter"
],
"answer_start": [
0
]
} |
56f7ee11aef2371900625c6c | Treaty | The United Nations Charter states that treaties must exist registered with the UN to exist invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties. | Why does the United Nations Charter state that treaties must be registered with the United Nations? | {
"text": [
"to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties"
],
"answer_start": [
189
]
} |
56f7ee11aef2371900625c6d | Treaty | The United Nations Charter states that treaties must exist registered with the UN to exist invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties. | In which centuries did a proliferation of secret treaties occur that led the United Nations Charter to include an obligation to register treaties to be invoked before it? | {
"text": [
"19th and 20th century"
],
"answer_start": [
258
]
} |
56f7ee11aef2371900625c6e | Treaty | The United Nations Charter states that treaties must exist registered with the UN to exist invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties. | What section of the United Nations Charter states that its members' obligation under the charter outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties? | {
"text": [
"Section 103"
],
"answer_start": [
281
]
} |
56f7ef08a6d7ea1400e172e1 | Treaty | After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to postdate the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force. | Treaties and their amendments must follow the official legal procedures of what body after their adoption? | {
"text": [
"the United Nations"
],
"answer_start": [
107
]
} |
56f7ef08a6d7ea1400e172e2 | Treaty | After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to postdate the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force. | Which office of the United Nations is in charge of applying its official legal procedures? | {
"text": [
"the Office of Legal Affairs"
],
"answer_start": [
141
]
} |
56f7ef08a6d7ea1400e172e3 | Treaty | After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to postdate the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force. | When must all treaties and their amendments follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations? | {
"text": [
"After their adoption"
],
"answer_start": [
0
]
} |
56f7ef08a6d7ea1400e172e4 | Treaty | After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to postdate the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force. | In addition to signature and ratification, what legal procedure of the United Nations must all treaties follow after their adoption? | {
"text": [
"entry into force"
],
"answer_start": [
208
]
} |
56f7ef08a6d7ea1400e172e5 | Treaty | After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to postdate the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force. | What are three official legal procedures of the United Nations that all treaties must follow after their adoption? | {
"text": [
"signature, ratification and entry into force"
],
"answer_start": [
180
]
} |
56f7f0b9aef2371900625c88 | Treaty | In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the diachronic Articles of Confederation. | The United Nations has been compared to what government in function and effectiveness? | {
"text": [
"the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government"
],
"answer_start": [
59
]
} |
56f7f0b9aef2371900625c89 | Treaty | In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the diachronic Articles of Confederation. | In which aspects has the United Nations been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government? | {
"text": [
"function and effectiveness"
],
"answer_start": [
3
]
} |
56f7f0b9aef2371900625c8a | Treaty | In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the diachronic Articles of Confederation. | The comparison of the United Nations to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government gives us a comparison between what modern and historical legal topics of interest? | {
"text": [
"modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation"
],
"answer_start": [
169
]
} |
56f7f0b9aef2371900625c8b | Treaty | In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the diachronic Articles of Confederation. | Modern treaty law can be compared in function and effectiveness to the historical Articles of Confederation by comparing the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government with what modern institution? | {
"text": [
"the UN"
],
"answer_start": [
31
]
} |
56f7f0b9aef2371900625c8c | Treaty | In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the diachronic Articles of Confederation. | What legal document formed the basis of the pre-Constitutional Federal government of the United States? | {
"text": [
"Articles of Confederation"
],
"answer_start": [
206
]
} |
56f7f1d8a6d7ea1400e172f5 | Treaty | The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to come_in into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities. | What part of the Brazilian federal consitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress? | {
"text": [
"articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I"
],
"answer_start": [
160
]
} |
56f7f1d8a6d7ea1400e172f6 | Treaty | The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to come_in into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities. | In practice the Brazilian president must get the prior approval of what body in order to negotiate and sign a treaty? | {
"text": [
"Congress"
],
"answer_start": [
400
]
} |
56f7f1d8a6d7ea1400e172f7 | Treaty | The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to come_in into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities. | What Brazilian institution has ruled that a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree? | {
"text": [
"the Federal Supreme Court"
],
"answer_start": [
424
]
} |
56f7f1d8a6d7ea1400e172f8 | Treaty | The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to come_in into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities. | In order for a treaty to be valid in Brazil, a presidential decree incorporating the treaty into domestic law must be published where in order to be valid? | {
"text": [
"the federal register"
],
"answer_start": [
606
]
} |
56f7f1d8a6d7ea1400e172f9 | Treaty | The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to come_in into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities. | In what office is the power to enter into treaties vested according to the Brazilian federal constitution? | {
"text": [
"president"
],
"answer_start": [
97
]
} |
56f7f36daef2371900625cba | Treaty | The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and bask the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions bask a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure bask the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa. | The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court has ruled that treaties enjoy what position relative to ordinary legislation? | {
"text": [
"same hierarchical position"
],
"answer_start": [
107
]
} |
56f7f36daef2371900625cbb | Treaty | The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and bask the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions bask a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure bask the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa. | In what year did the Brazilian Supreme Court rule that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above ordinary legislation? | {
"text": [
"2008"
],
"answer_start": [
257
]
} |
56f7f36daef2371900625cbc | Treaty | The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and bask the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions bask a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure bask the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa. | What amendment to the Brazilian constitution states that human rights treaties approved by means of a special procedure by Congress enjoy the same position as a constitutional amendment? | {
"text": [
"the 45th amendment"
],
"answer_start": [
480
]
} |
56f7f36daef2371900625cbd | Treaty | The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and bask the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions bask a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure bask the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa. | The hierarchical position of treaties relative to domestic legislation in Brazil determines whether the latter can do what to the former and vice versa? | {
"text": [
"abrogate"
],
"answer_start": [
817
]
} |
56f7f36daef2371900625cbe | Treaty | The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and bask the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions bask a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure bask the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa. | What is the Portuguese term for ordinary laws? | {
"text": [
"leis ordinárias"
],
"answer_start": [
159
]
} |
56f7f497a6d7ea1400e17313 | Treaty | The Brazilian federal constitution does not have_got a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation. | What kind of clause does the United States constitution have that the Brazilian constitution does not have with the same effects? | {
"text": [
"supremacy clause"
],
"answer_start": [
51
]
} |
56f7f497a6d7ea1400e17314 | Treaty | The Brazilian federal constitution does not have_got a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation. | A supremacy clause in a federal constitution is relevant to the discussion on the relation between treaties and what other type of legislation? | {
"text": [
"state legislation"
],
"answer_start": [
209
]
} |
56f7f497a6d7ea1400e17315 | Treaty | The Brazilian federal constitution does not have_got a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation. | What clause of the United States Constitution is relevant to the discussion of the relation between treaties and U.S. legislation? | {
"text": [
"supremacy clause"
],
"answer_start": [
51
]
} |
56f7f497a6d7ea1400e17316 | Treaty | The Brazilian federal constitution does not have_got a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation. | The Brazilian constitution does not have a supremacy clause that would be of interest to the relation between state legislation and what other legal agreements? | {
"text": [
"treaties"
],
"answer_start": [
196
]
} |
56f7f5e9aef2371900625ce8 | Treaty | In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President. | Treaties, executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements are the same under international law but different with respect to what? | {
"text": [
"internal American law"
],
"answer_start": [
377
]
} |
56f7f5e9aef2371900625ce9 | Treaty | In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President. | Under US law, what primarily distinguishes treaties, executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements? | {
"text": [
"their method of approval"
],
"answer_start": [
442
]
} |
56f7f5e9aef2371900625cea | Treaty | In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President. | What percentage of United States Senators must give advice and consent in order for the US to enter a treaty? | {
"text": [
"two-thirds"
],
"answer_start": [
515
]
} |
56f7f5e9aef2371900625ceb | Treaty | In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President. | What type of agreement may a US president enter by acting alone? | {
"text": [
"sole executive agreements"
],
"answer_start": [
551
]
} |
56f7f5e9aef2371900625cec | Treaty | In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President. | What type of agreement requires majority approval by both the House and the Senate before or after a treaty is signed by the United States president? | {
"text": [
"congressional-executive agreements"
],
"answer_start": [
778
]
} |
56f7f7dea6d7ea1400e1732f | Treaty | Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the comparative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty. | In the United States, what is the ratio of executive agreements to treaties? | {
"text": [
"10:1"
],
"answer_start": [
106
]
} |
56f7f7dea6d7ea1400e17330 | Treaty | Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the comparative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty. | What is it about the approval process of executive agreements might lead a US president to prefer them over treaties? | {
"text": [
"the relative ease"
],
"answer_start": [
120
]
} |
56f7f7dea6d7ea1400e17331 | Treaty | Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the comparative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty. | The president of the United States might prefer the formal treaty process on matters that require Congress to do what? | {
"text": [
"pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds"
],
"answer_start": [
340
]
} |
56f7f7dea6d7ea1400e17332 | Treaty | Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the comparative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty. | The president of the United States might prefer the formal treaty process for agreements that impose what type of legal obligations on the US? | {
"text": [
"long-term, complex"
],
"answer_start": [
425
]
} |
56f7f7dea6d7ea1400e17333 | Treaty | Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the comparative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty. | The international deal between the US, other countries, and what controversial nation is not a treaty? | {
"text": [
"Iran"
],
"answer_start": [
528
]
} |
56f7f923aef2371900625d0e | Treaty | The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have_got a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law. | In what cases did the US Supreme Court rule that treaties do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress? | {
"text": [
"Head Money Cases"
],
"answer_start": [
31
]
} |
56f7f923aef2371900625d0f | Treaty | The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have_got a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law. | The US Supreme Court ruled that treaties can be repealed or modified by what for the purposes of US law? | {
"text": [
"Act of Congress"
],
"answer_start": [
201
]
} |
56f7f923aef2371900625d10 | Treaty | The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have_got a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law. | What Supreme Court case ruled that a treaty provision that conflicts with the US Constitution is null and void under US law? | {
"text": [
"Reid v. Covert"
],
"answer_start": [
288
]
} |
56f7f923aef2371900625d11 | Treaty | The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have_got a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law. | The US Supreme Court ruled that treaties can be repealed or modified for the purposes of US law just like what by any subsequent Act of Congress? | {
"text": [
"any other regular law"
],
"answer_start": [
233
]
} |
56f7f923aef2371900625d12 | Treaty | The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have_got a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law. | Any treaty provision that conflicts with the US Constitution is considered what under US law? | {
"text": [
"null and void"
],
"answer_start": [
370
]
} |
56f7fa5da6d7ea1400e1734b | Treaty | In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only exist legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists. | Into what 3 lists are legislation subjects divided in India? | {
"text": [
"Union List, State List and Concurrent List"
],
"answer_start": [
61
]
} |
56f7fa5da6d7ea1400e1734c | Treaty | In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only exist legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists. | What type of legislative subjects can both the central legislative body and state legislatures make laws? | {
"text": [
"Concurrent subjects"
],
"answer_start": [
338
]
} |
56f7fa5da6d7ea1400e1734d | Treaty | In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only exist legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists. | What is the central legislative body in India? | {
"text": [
"Parliament of India"
],
"answer_start": [
231
]
} |
56f7fa5da6d7ea1400e1734e | Treaty | In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only exist legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists. | In order to implement international treaties, for what subjects can the Parliament of India legislate to override the general division of subject lists? | {
"text": [
"any subject"
],
"answer_start": [
465
]
} |
56f7fa5da6d7ea1400e1734f | Treaty | In India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only exist legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists. | What subjects can only be legislated by the central legislative body in India? | {
"text": [
"the subjects in Union list"
],
"answer_start": [
141
]
} |
56f7fb59aef2371900625d22 | Treaty | Treaties formed an of_import part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing. | What formed an important part of European colonization? | {
"text": [
"Treaties"
],
"answer_start": [
0
]
} |
56f7fb59aef2371900625d23 | Treaty | Treaties formed an of_import part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing. | With whom did Europeans attempt to sign treaties in order to legitimize their sovereignty during colonization? | {
"text": [
"indigenous peoples"
],
"answer_start": [
169
]
} |
56f7fb59aef2371900625d24 | Treaty | Treaties formed an of_import part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing. | What terms in relation to Europeans did most indigenous people enjoy under treaties? | {
"text": [
"extremely disadvantageous terms"
],
"answer_start": [
226
]
} |
56f7fb59aef2371900625d25 | Treaty | Treaties formed an of_import part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing. | What aspect of the treaties that indigenous people signed with Europeans did the indigenous people typically not understand? | {
"text": [
"the implications"
],
"answer_start": [
309
]
} |
56f7fb59aef2371900625d26 | Treaty | Treaties formed an of_import part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing. | What did Europeans try to legitimize all over the world by signing treaties with indigenous people? | {
"text": [
"their sovereignty"
],
"answer_start": [
126
]
} |
56f7fcbdaef2371900625d2c | Treaty | In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to utilize the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other. | In what two rare cases were local governments able to mitigate the impact of of European colonization through treaties? | {
"text": [
"Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China"
],
"answer_start": [
33
]
} |
56f7fcbdaef2371900625d2d | Treaty | In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to utilize the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other. | What did Ethiopians learn in order to use treaties to prevent a European power from overstepping their agreement? | {
"text": [
"the intricacies of European diplomatic customs"
],
"answer_start": [
199
]
} |
56f7fcbdaef2371900625d2e | Treaty | In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to utilize the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other. | Both Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China learned the intricacies of European diplomatic customs to mitigate what through treaties? | {
"text": [
"the impact of European colonization"
],
"answer_start": [
139
]
} |
56f7fcbdaef2371900625d2f | Treaty | In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to utilize the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other. | In addition to preventing a power from overstepping their agreement, how was Ethiopia able to mitigate the impact of European colonization? | {
"text": [
"by playing different powers against each other"
],
"answer_start": [
330
]
} |
56f7fcbeaef2371900625d30 | Treaty | In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to utilize the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other. | Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China were both able to prevent European powers from doing what to their agreements? | {
"text": [
"overstepping"
],
"answer_start": [
298
]
} |
56f7fdf7aef2371900625d40 | Treaty | In other cases, such as New Zealand and Canada, treaties allowed aboriginal peoples to maintain a minimum amount of autonomy. In the case of indigenous Australians, unlike with the Māori of New Zealand, no treaty was ever entered into with the indigenous peoples entitling the Europeans to land ownership, under the doctrine of terra nullius (later overturned by Mabo v Queensland, establishing the concept of aboriginal title well after colonization was already a fait accompli). Such treaties between colonizers and indigenous peoples are an important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st century, the treaties being discussed have international standing as has been stated in a treaty study by the UN. | What were native peoples able to maintain a minimum amount of through treaties? | {
"text": [
"autonomy"
],
"answer_start": [
112
]
} |
56f7fdf7aef2371900625d41 | Treaty | In other cases, such as New Zealand and Canada, treaties allowed aboriginal peoples to maintain a minimum amount of autonomy. In the case of indigenous Australians, unlike with the Māori of New Zealand, no treaty was ever entered into with the indigenous peoples entitling the Europeans to land ownership, under the doctrine of terra nullius (later overturned by Mabo v Queensland, establishing the concept of aboriginal title well after colonization was already a fait accompli). Such treaties between colonizers and indigenous peoples are an important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st century, the treaties being discussed have international standing as has been stated in a treaty study by the UN. | What indigenous people of New Zealand entered into a treaty entitling Europeans to land ownership? | {
"text": [
"Māori"
],
"answer_start": [
177
]
} |
56f7fdf7aef2371900625d42 | Treaty | In other cases, such as New Zealand and Canada, treaties allowed aboriginal peoples to maintain a minimum amount of autonomy. In the case of indigenous Australians, unlike with the Māori of New Zealand, no treaty was ever entered into with the indigenous peoples entitling the Europeans to land ownership, under the doctrine of terra nullius (later overturned by Mabo v Queensland, establishing the concept of aboriginal title well after colonization was already a fait accompli). Such treaties between colonizers and indigenous peoples are an important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st century, the treaties being discussed have international standing as has been stated in a treaty study by the UN. | What doctrine was overturned by Mabo v Queensland establishing the concept of native title? | {
"text": [
"terra nullius"
],
"answer_start": [
324
]
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.