When the president enters into an executive agreement, what kind of obligation does he impose on the United States? That it can impose international obligations with potentially serious consequences is obvious, and that such obligations can remain in place for long periods of time is equally obvious.1Footnote In 1918, Secretary of State Lansing assured the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Lansing-Ishii Agreement had no binding force on the United States, that it was simply a statement of U.S. policy as long as the president and the State Department could choose to pursue it. 1 W. Willoughby, above, at 547. In fact, it took the Washington Conference of 1921, two formal treaties and an exchange of notes to eradicate it, while the gentlemen`s agreement was terminated after 17 years only by an act of Congress. W. McClure, up to 97,100. The nature of the national obligations imposed by executive agreements is not so obvious. Do contracts and executive agreements have the same domestic political effect?2FootnoteSee E. Byrd, above, pp. 151-57.
Treaties prejudge the law of the State by applying the supremacy clause. While executive agreements entered into under congressional approval or treaty obligation may also draw preventive force from the supremacy clause, this textual basis for the right of first refusal is likely lacking for executive agreements based solely on the president`s constitutional powers. Executive Agreement, an agreement between the United States and a foreign government that is less formal than a treaty and is not subject to the constitutional requirement to be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. The proposed Iran nuclear deal is conventionally an executive deal and does not need to be a treaty with the advice and approval of the Senate, but Congress should be able to decide because the sanctions ordered by Congress would have to be lifted. The Constitution does not explicitly authorize executive agreements. Article I prohibits states from entering into “an agreement or pact with another state or with a foreign power” without congressional approval. Some commentators have suggested that this reference suggests that the drafters understood that there are forms of international agreements other than treaties under article II. There is strong evidence that the drafters were referring to international agreements that will not bind the nation in the future. The term “agreement or pact” probably derives from the eighteenth-century Treaty of Emerich de Vattel The Law of Nations. In this treaty, Vattel defined an agreement or contract as a simultaneous exchange that does not impose any future obligations. For example, a state could use a pact to regulate disputed borders with another state or foreign government.
On the other hand, Vattel defined a contract as a permanent obligation of the State. It could be concluded that the drafters intended an article II treaty to bind future administrations, unlike other forms of agreements, including executive agreements. Although congressional treaties and executive agreements are international agreements, the two are legally separate instruments. For example, agreements between Congress and the executive branch cannot deal with matters that do not fall within the enumerated powers of Congress and the President (the powers expressly granted to Congress and the President in Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, respectively), while treaties may. Moreover, according to the constitution, a treaty is ratified only if at least two-thirds of the Senate votes in favor of it. On the other hand, an agreement between Congress and the executive branch becomes binding with only a simple majority in both houses of Congress. Congressional executive agreements should not be confused with executive agreements made by the president alone. A different view seemed to the Supreme Court`s decision in United States v. Belmont, 4Footnote301 U.S. 324 (1937). In B. Altman & Co.c.
United States, 224 U.S. 583 (1912), the Court had recognized that the reference of a law of jurisdiction to a contract included an executive agreement. give a domestic effect to the litvinov allowance. Justice Sutherland`s report was based on his report Curtiss-Wright5FootnoteUnited States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936). Opinion. A subordinate court was wrong, the court ruled, dismissing a lawsuit filed by the United States as a transferee from the Soviet Union for certain funds that had once belonged to a Russian metallurgical company whose assets had been approved by the Soviet government. The president`s act of recognizing the Soviet government and the agreements that accompany it, the judge said, constituted an international pact that the president was authorized to conclude as the sole organ of international relations for the United States without consulting the Senate.
Even state laws and guidelines made no difference in such a situation; Although the primacy of treaties is explicitly established by the Constitution, the same rule applies to all international covenants and agreements arising from the fact that total power over international affairs belongs to the national government and is not and cannot be subject to circumcision or interference by individual states.6Footnote301 United States at 330-31. Second, while it is generally accepted that under the “executive power” clause, the president has the power to enter into exclusive executive agreements that are not contrary to legislation in areas in which Congress has primary responsibility, the question arises as to whether the president alone can enter into an agreement inconsistent with an act of Congress. or whether a single executive agreement can replace previous inconsistent congressional bills. The prevailing view, rooted in the belief that it would be unscrupulous for an act of one person – the president – to repeal an act of Congress is that the executive branch alone is invalid as law in the United States to the extent that it conflicts with an earlier act of Congress in an area of congressional jurisdiction. This is the position of the Federal Court of Appeals in United States v. Guy W. Capps, Inc. (4th Circuit, 1953) and the American Law Institute. However, the Supreme Court has not yet issued a final decision in this regard.
Since 1947, presidents have used Article II treaties and executive agreements interchangeably. The vast majority of all international agreements have taken the form of executive agreements. These include important trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Initially, most judges and academics were of the view that executive agreements based solely on the power of the president did not become the law of the land under the supremacy clause because such agreements are not treaties ratified by the Senate.3Footnote.B United States v. A bag of heavenly feathers, 256 F. 301, 306 (2d Cir. 1919); 1 W. Willoughby, above, p. 589.
The State Department agreed. G. Hackworth, 5 Digest of International Law 426 (1944). However, the Supreme Court found another basis for preventing state laws through executive agreements, and ultimately relied on the transfer of foreign policy power from the Constitution to the national government. In addition to the two issues above, there is broad consensus on the scope and effect of exclusive performance contracts. Like the other two types of executive agreements, they are subject to the same restrictions as those that apply to treaties, they are not limited by the Tenth Amendment and replace all inconsistent state laws. .