Context: 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]

Question: What might result in a party to a treaty claiming a treaty should be terminated even absent an express provision for its termination?
Answer: a fundamental change in circumstances

Question: A party cannot base its claim of a fundamental change in circumstances if the change was brought about by what?
Answer: its own breach of the treaty

Question: The claim of a fundamental change in circumstances cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew what?
Answer: political boundaries

Question: 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?
Answer: the extent of obligations

Question: 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?
Answer: unforeseen