Executive Agreements Do Not Have To Be Approved By


The agreement, by which President Monroe set the limits of armament on the Great Lakes in 1817, was an early example of the development of executive contracts. The agreement was reached through an exchange of notes, which was submitted nearly a year later to the Senate as to whether it was under the power of the President or whether Council and Senate approval were required. It is doubtful, however, whether this power can be extended to the arrest of deserters [of foreign ships] if there is no positive legislation to that effect. 471 Justice Gray and three other judges held that such an action by the President should be based on an explicit treaty or statute.472 Some defenders of international law have sometimes criticized the Senate`s use of certain reservations, understandings and declarations (RUDs). 35 For example, some critics have argued that RUDs in conflict with the “purpose and purpose” of a treaty are in conflict; And scientists are debating whether RUDs that state that some or all of the provisions contained in a treaty are not self-fulfilling (i.e.: 37 The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give a president the power to enter into executive agreements. However, it may be authorized to do so by Congress or it may do so on the basis of the power to manage foreign relations granted to it. Despite the question of the constitutionality of executive agreements, the Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that they have the same force as treaties. As executive agreements are concluded on the authority of the President-in-Office, they do not necessarily bind his successors. One of us (Hathaway) has previously argued that the Article II process is obsolete and that it is better, normatively, for agreements to be passed by a majority in both houses of Congress than a super-majority vote in the Senate. .

. .

Comments are closed.