This is the definition of a treaty:
a : an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation: (1) : a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (such as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state (2) : private treaty
b : a document in which such a contract is set down
When there is negotiation for an agreement or treaty, it is not unilateral, meaning not one sided. By all means, one party may be in a stronger position to negotiate with terms and conditions apparently more favorable, but this does not mean it is unilateral nor does it mean one party dictates all the terms and conditions. If that were the case, then this one party can just dictate, there is no need for an agreement or treaty. This one party might just as well set all the rules and punish those who are not following them, and this is call dictatorship.
You can still have an agreement/treaty and one or both parties might not follow through with it, but that does not mean it is a unilateral agreement/treaty. Both parties did sign and agree to the terms and conditions in the beginning so there is bilateral agreement/treaty. Things can happen during the period of the treaty that lead a party to breach the terms, but that does not mean the agreement/treaty is unilateral. You might not be able to contest it (in court or otherwise) due to circumstances such as financing or other terms, but that does not mean the agreement was made unilaterally by one party alone defining the terms and conditions.
In terms of city agreement in your example, there are agreements such as restrictive covenants and caveats that tie to the land and not the person. The terms of these agreements will be transferred to the new owner as they run with the land. However, usually these agreements (i.e. restrictive covenants) might have term limits, which means the agreement with the city on the covenants may end in 40-50 years then the owner can have that agreement (i.e. restrictive covenant) discharged from the land. These matters are related to municipal laws and property laws.
From wiki.
Does that qualify it as unilateral, or only one party benefits?
A contract must show Intent to contract, or an offer to contract is extended, someone Accepts the Offer, without duress, without coercion or without being compelled AT ALL, the contract offers EQUAL consideration of both parties resources, meaning that both parties are to gain and both are putting something substantial to the other party's offer. Without these things it cannot be called an Agreement, only an Imposition, only an Order, only a dictatorship indeed.
The thin veneer that covers these contracts and glosses them as Lawful or Agreement peels off effortlessly, exposing that for example the Natives had no concept of land ownership yet the treaties are primarily centered on land ownership, which demonstrates that there wasn't any "accord" only the appearance of accord, in reality what was agreed to was to allow the Queen to use their lands, not to buy them or to own them and among others the promise to provide schools or teachers, not to make the native's culture and heritage illegal and force assimilation, a thoroughly failed experiment, and such actions display the disparaging chasm between what the two parties interpretations of the terms were, and that is not even touching on the fact that there was no Equal Consideration of both parties resources, it was very much One Sided and will always remain One Sided solely because the Dominating Winner, the Queen afforded nothing to the Natives that could replace their land or could be equal consideration.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
we're not debating history here. It already happened and circumstances and feelings at that time would perhaps be different from today. Regardless, we are only observers, and also are not historians. I thought the point of this debate is on the existence of an agreement/treaty, whether it was breached by non-performance, violence, etc. to render it invalid. If so, how should it be remedied going forward. Are there any remedies available? Not here to re-hash feelings or circumstances of the people from ages ago when the treaty was formed. It's more important to deal with the present situation and find remedies to improve the relationship and/or uphold or renegotiate a settlement.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If we cannot approach the foundation of the treaty then what is there to renegotiate or improve? Obviously the history and the circumstances are crucial, what do you think gives the Queen any leeway to renegotiate and why should the natives contract with their abuser?
The situation is that the treaties were unilateral, that the parties didn't agree to the same things and as such they wouldn't have entertained the terms and the meaning behind them that the Queen offered, and why should they, as no leader or individual knowing full well what they are doing would give away a fortune for a bowl of porridge. Agreement under unclear terms, and under duress or coercion renders the Agreement void.
What is born of fraud and deceit with time doesn't become ture and good, it always remains deceit and fraud. Apologies are meaningless gestures if the underlying issue is fraud. Clearly the international community needs to make the Queen pay, the end.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit