These examples are automatically selected from different online sources of information to reflect the current use of the term “executive agreement.” The opinions expressed in the examples do not reflect the views of Merriam-Webster or its publishers. Send us comments. An executive agreement is an agreement with the executive of another country, such as the nuclear agreement with Iran. An executive agreement[1] is an agreement between heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature, since the treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from legally binding contracts. The U.S. Supreme Court Pink (1942) found that international agreements, which were concluded in law, have the same legal status as treaties and do not require Senate approval. To Reid v. Concealed (1957), the Tribunal, while reaffirming the President`s ability to enter into executive agreements, found that such agreements could not be contrary to existing federal law or the Constitution. The executive`s purported intention to make full use of executive agreements in the implementation of post-war colonies was repeatedly cited during the Senate debate during the 1943 session of Congress. “We are told,” said Senator O`Mahoney (D., Wyo.) during the debate on the prorogation of the Trade Agreements Act, that there will be no need to end this war with a peace treaty. During the Panama Claims Agreement debate, Senator Clark (D., Mo.) stated that “there is no intention to present to Congress the terms of the peace settlement.” It is planned to agree the terms of peace by an executive agreement, “subject to the agreement of the President.” According to Senator Taft (R., O.): “The Constitution wisely provides that treaties must be approved by the Senate, but increasingly the president will whip this provision of the Constitution.” As the war in Europe enters its decisive phase, public attention in the United States is increasingly focused on the difficulties that can arise when peace treaties are submitted to the Senate with a request for approval of their ratification. The possibility that many international adaptations could be made after this war by executive agreements and not by formal treaties, which must be approved with two-thirds of the majorities in the House of Lords, has hardly been respected. In the United States, executive agreements are made exclusively by the President of the United States.

They are one of three mechanisms through which the United States makes binding international commitments. Some authors view executive agreements as treaties of international law 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 contractual clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the Council and the approval of two-thirds of the Senate to be considered a treaty. Executive agreements are often used to circumvent the requirements of national constitutions for treaty ratification. Many nations that are republics with written constitutions have constitutional rules on treaty ratification. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is based on executive agreements.

The implementation of executive agreements increased considerably after 1939. Prior to 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 concluded more than 13,000 executive treaties. In the United States, executive agreements are binding at the international level when negotiated and concluded under the authority of the President on foreign policy, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces or from a previous congressional record.

Category : 미분류