In rare cases, such as Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, local governments were able to use treaties to at least mitigate the effects of European colonization. This included learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs, and then using treaties to prevent the government from overstaking its agreement or by pitting different powers against one another. [Citation required] The consent of a party to a contract is void if it has been given by an agent or entity authorized to do so under the national laws of that State. States are reluctant to investigate the internal affairs and processes of other States, and therefore, a “manifest violation” is necessary for it to be “objectively obvious to any State dealing with the issue”. At the international level, there is a strong suspicion that a head of State has acted within the framework of his authority-based violence. It appears that no contract has ever been declared invalid for this provision. [Citation required] The wording of treaties should be interpreted, as that of a law or contract, if the wording does not appear clear or does not appear immediately as to how it is to be applied in a perhaps unforeseen circumstance. The Vienna Convention provides that contracts must be interpreted “in good faith” according to the “ordinary meaning attached to the terms of the contract in their context and in the light of their purpose and purpose”. International legal experts also often invoke the “principle of maximum efficiency”, which interprets the wording of the contract in such a way that it has the greatest possible force and effect in establishing obligations between the parties.
Prior to 1871, the U.S. government regularly entered into treaties with Native Americans, but the Indian Appropriations Act of March 3, 1871 (chap. 120, 16 Stat. 563) had attached a rider (US 25.C§ 71) who effectively terminated the President`s drafting of the treaty by providing that no Indian nation or tribe should be considered an independent nation, The tribe or power with which the United States may enter into contracts is recognized. The federal government maintained similar contractual relations with Indian tribes after 1871 through implementing agreements, laws, and regulations.  There are several reasons why an otherwise valid and agreed treaty can be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which lead to problems that arose during the formation of the treaty. [Citation required] For example, the Japanese-Korean serial treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested;  and they were confirmed as “already null and void” in the 1965 Treaty on Fundamental Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.  The distinctions relate primarily to their method of approval […].