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] COUNT 5
QSN1 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? ANS1 that state's domestic law QSN2 For what does a strong presumption exist internationally that a head of state has acted within in entering into a treaty? ANS2 his proper authority QSN3 What is required to invalidate a party's consent due to a reluctance to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states? ANS3 a "manifest violation" QSN4 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? ANS4 the internal affairs and processes QSN5 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? ANS5 invalid