Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
a treaty is a contract. As such, it is afflicted with all of the clarities and vagaries of contract law and contract practicalities - including (1) changes in the totality of circumstances (beyond the control of one or more parties to the contract); and (2) realization by one or more of the parties to the effect that - "why on earth did I agree to this ?"

One could also cite basic contract principles such as "meeting of the minds" (which do not always meet initially, and later can diverge even if they did initially meet); and "quid pro quo" (mutual consideration), which may or may not be "paid" - and which in hindsight may seem inadequate to one or more of the parties.

For a small nation dealing with a more powerful neighbor, a treaty (contract) is a slim reed on which to hang ten - since it is too easy to get hung. True, the small nation may seek a bigger brother - and that may be successful, if the big brother is in a position to provide realistic assistance or deterrence.

If it is able, the small nation (even if allied) would seem best advised to develop a self-contained defense capability - not to defeat the powerful neughbor, but to make an invasion non-cost-effective for that bear-like creature - and not to engage in bear-baiting.
with ALL of that