131 In the early years of constitutional practice, a debate erupted over whether Congress was obliged – and not merely authorized – to transpose legislation transposing non-autonomous provisions into national law. , because it has not been dealt with in a judicial opinion and the executive agreements in the United States are concluded 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. During the 19th century, the government`s practice dealt with the power to terminate contracts as they were shared between legislative and executive departments.205 Congress often authorized206 or instructed the president207 to terminate the contract with foreign governments during that period. In rare cases, only the Senate has passed a resolution authorizing the President to terminate a contract.208 Presidents have consistently complied with the authorization or instructions of the legislature.209 On other occasions, Congress or the Senate approved the president`s resignation after the fact, while the executive branch of the foreign government had already terminated.210 , public attention in the United States is increasingly drawn to the difficulties that can arise when peace agreements are reached. 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 part because the powers of Congress and the president have been widely interpreted, most of the agreements proposed as treaties could have been proposed as executive agreements of Congress.
That`s why the U.S. government has often chosen to use congressional executive agreements over treaties for controversial agreements that are unlikely to get the super-majority required in the Senate. The 1992 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the agreement by which the United States became members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 are examples of controversial proposals that are dealt with in the form of agreements between Congress and the executive branch. See z.B. Andrew T. Guzman, Saving Customary International Law, 27 J. Int`l L. 115, 124-28 (2005) (Debate on Uncertainties Related to Customary International Law). See also Hamdan v. United States, 696 F.3d 1238, 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Kavanaugh, J.) (“It is often difficult to determine what constitutes the customary law of the peoples, which defines international customary law, and how firmly a standard must be entrenched in order to be considered a standard of habit of peoples.”) who were repealed for unrelated reasons of Al Bahlul against the United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C.
Cir. 2014) (in bench). An executive agreement 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.