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] COUNT 5
QSN1 What might result in a party to a treaty claiming a treaty should be terminated even absent an express provision for its termination? ANS1 a fundamental change in circumstances QSN2 A party cannot base its claim of a fundamental change in circumstances if the change was brought about by what? ANS2 its own breach of the treaty QSN3 The claim of a fundamental change in circumstances cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew what? ANS3 political boundaries QSN4 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? ANS4 the extent of obligations QSN5 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? ANS5 unforeseen