What Defines An Executive Agreement

Note: An exec­u­tive agree­ment does not have the same weight as a treaty unless it is sup­port­ed by a joint res­o­lu­tion. Unlike a treaty, an exec­u­tive agree­ment can replace a con­flict­ing state law, but not a fed­er­al law. The Case Zabloc­ki Act of 1972 requires the pres­i­dent to noti­fy the Sen­ate of any exec­u­tive agree­ment […]

Note: An exec­u­tive agree­ment does not have the same weight as a treaty unless it is sup­port­ed by a joint res­o­lu­tion. Unlike a treaty, an exec­u­tive agree­ment can replace a con­flict­ing state law, but not a fed­er­al law. The Case Zabloc­ki Act of 1972 requires the pres­i­dent to noti­fy the Sen­ate of any exec­u­tive agree­ment with­in 60 days. The Pow­ers of the Pres­i­dent to con­clude such agree­ments have not been divid­ed. The noti­fi­ca­tion require­ment allowed Con­gress to vote to can­cel an exec­u­tive agree­ment or refuse to fund its imple­men­ta­tion. [3] [4] This arti­cle deals with exec­u­tive arrange­ments between nations in gen­er­al. For more infor­ma­tion on exec­u­tive agree­ments in U.S. for­eign pol­i­cy, see U.S. For­eign Policy.An exec­u­tive agree­ment is an agree­ment between the heads of gov­ern­ment of two or more coun­tries that has not been rat­i­fied by the leg­is­la­ture when treaties are rat­i­fied. Exec­u­tive agree­ments are con­sid­ered polit­i­cal­ly bind­ing to dis­tin­guish them from legal­ly bind­ing treaties. In the Unit­ed States, exec­u­tive agree­ments are con­clud­ed exclu­sive­ly by the Pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States. They are one of three mech­a­nisms through which the Unit­ed States enters into bind­ing inter­na­tion­al com­mit­ments. Some authors con­sid­er exec­u­tive treaties to be inter­na­tion­al treaties because they bind both the Unit­ed States and anoth­er sov­er­eign state.

How­ev­er, under U.S. con­sti­tu­tion­al law, exec­u­tive agree­ments are not con­sid­ered treaties with­in the mean­ing of the treaty clause of the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion, which requires the Coun­cil and the approval of two-thirds of the Sen­ate to be con­sid­ered a treaty. Oth­er coun­tries have sim­i­lar pro­vi­sions regard­ing the rat­i­fi­ca­tion of treaties. It is specif­i­cal­ly with­in the direct frame­work of the leader of anoth­er coun­try and says, “Don‘t nego­ti­ate with these guys because we‘re going to change that,” it‘s wrong because they can‘t change an exec­u­tive agree­ment. The use of exec­u­tive treaties increased con­sid­er­ably after 1939. By 1940, the U.S. Sen­ate had rat­i­fied 800 treaties and pres­i­dents had con­clud­ed 1,200 exec­u­tive agree­ments; From 1940 to 1989, dur­ing World War II and the Cold War, pres­i­dents signed near­ly 800 treaties but nego­ti­at­ed more than 13,000 exec­u­tive agree­ments. The U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion does not explic­it­ly give the 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 author­i­ty con­ferred on it to con­duct for­eign rela­tions. Despite the ques­tion of the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of exec­u­tive agree­ments, the Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that they had the same pow­er as treaties.

Since exec­u­tive agree­ments are con­clud­ed under the author­i­ty of the out­go­ing pres­i­dent, they do not nec­es­sar­i­ly bind his suc­ces­sors. In the Unit­ed States, exec­u­tive agree­ments are con­clud­ed exclu­sive­ly by the Pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States. They are one of three mech­a­nisms through which the Unit­ed States enters into bind­ing inter­na­tion­al com­mit­ments. Some authors con­sid­er exec­u­tive treaties to be inter­na­tion­al treaties because they bind both the Unit­ed States and anoth­er sov­er­eign state. How­ev­er, under U.S. con­sti­tu­tion­al law, exec­u­tive agree­ments are not con­sid­ered treaties with­in the mean­ing of the treaty clause of the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion, which requires the Coun­cil and the approval of two-thirds of the Sen­ate to be con­sid­ered a treaty. In the Unit­ed States, exec­u­tive agree­ments are inter­na­tion­al­ly bind­ing when nego­ti­at­ed and con­clud­ed under the author­i­ty of the pres­i­dent in for­eign pol­i­cy, as com­man­der-in-chief of the armed forces, or based on an ear­li­er act of Con­gress. For exam­ple, as com­man­der-in-chief, the pres­i­dent nego­ti­ates and con­cludes sta­tus-of-forces agree­ments (SOFIA) that gov­ern the treat­ment and dis­po­si­tion of U.S.

forces sta­tioned in oth­er coun­tries. How­ev­er, the pres­i­dent can­not uni­lat­er­al­ly con­clude exec­u­tive agree­ments on mat­ters beyond his con­sti­tu­tion­al authority. . 

INGEN KOMMENTARER

Kommentarfeltet til denne artikkelen er nå stengt. Ta kontakt med redaksjonen dersom du har synspunkter på artikkelen.

til toppen