The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money cases that “contracts” do not have a privileged position over laws of Congress and can be repealed or amended for the purposes of U.S. law by a subsequent act of Congress, like any other ordinary law. The Court also ruled in Reid v. Verdeckt that the provisions of the treaty that conflict with the U.S. Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.  If, after the certification of a text, the signatory States and the States parties agree that it contains an error, it may be corrected by initialling the corrected text of the Treaty, by the execution or exchange of an instrument containing the correction, or by the execution of the corrected text of the entire Treaty in the same procedure as in the case of the original text. Where there is a depositary, the depositary shall notify all signatory and contracting States of the proposed corrections. In the practice of the United Nations, the Secretary-General, in his capacity as depositary, shall inform all Parties of errors and of the proposal to correct them. If, after a reasonable time, no objection is raised by the signatory States and the States Parties, the depositary shall circulate oral correction proceedings and cause the authentic text(s) to be corrected. In the case of indigenous Australians, no treaty was ever concluded with indigenous peoples that allowed Europeans to own land and mainly adopted the doctrine of terra nullius (with the exception of South Australia).
This concept was later abolished by Mabo v Queensland, who established the concept of Indigenous title in Australia long after colonization was already a fait accompli. Revision has basically the same meaning as change. However, some treaties provide for a revision in addition to an amendment (i.e. Article 109 of the Charter of the United Nations). In this case, the term “revision” refers to a priority acceptance of the contract according to changing circumstances, while the term “modification” refers only to a modification of individual provisions. The term “adoption” is the formal act by which the form and content of a draft treaty are determined. As a general rule, the adoption of the text of the treaty takes place with the consent of the States participating in the process of concluding the treaty. Contracts negotiated within an international organization are generally adopted by decision of a representative organ of the organization whose composition is more or less equal to the potential participation in the contract in question. A treaty may also be adopted by an international conference convened specifically for the elaboration of the treaty by a vote of two-thirds of the States present and the vote, unless they have decided by the same majority to apply a different rule.
The term “amendment” refers to the modification of certain contractual provisions only between certain contracting parties to a contract, while in their relations with the other contracting parties, the original contractual provisions remain applicable. If the contract is silent on the modifications, they are only allowed if the modifications do not affect the rights or obligations of the other contracting parties and do not violate the purpose and object of the contract. The preamble is followed by numbered articles containing the content of the agreement itself between the parties. Each article title usually includes a paragraph. A long contract can summarize other articles under chapter titles. The treaties are signed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which consists of four parties: the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. After signing a treaty, the different parts of the kingdom decide whether they want to be bound by it. The separation between the two is often unclear and is often politicized by disagreements within a government over a treaty, as a non-self-executing contract cannot be implemented without the appropriate amendment of national legislation. If a treaty requires implementing provisions, a State cannot fulfil its obligations by not enacting the necessary national laws. The consent of a party to a contract is void if it has been granted by an agent or entity that is not 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 firm presumption that a head of state acted on his own initiative.