Executive Agreement President

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. Another view seemed to be the basis of the Supreme Court`s decision in the United States. Belmont,491 gives effect to Litvinov`s allocation. The opinion of Sutherland J.A. was based on his curtiss-Wright492 opinion. A first instance would have erred in dismissing a complaint filed by the United States as an agent of the Soviet Union for certain funds formerly held by a Russian metallurgical group whose assets had been acquired by the Soviet government.

The President`s act in recognizing the Soviet government and the agreements that accompany it represented an international pact that the president, as the « only body » of international relations for the United States, could enter without consulting the Senate. State laws and policies have also made no difference in such a situation; While the supremacy of treaties is explicitly defined by the Constitution, the same rule applies « in the case of all international pacts and agreements, that full power over international affairs belongs to the national government and cannot and cannot be subject to circumcision or interference by individual states. » 493 In the analysis of an international agreement for its national application, U.S. courts have the ultimate power to interpret the importance of the agreement.163 In general, the Supreme Court has stated that its purpose in interpreting an agreement is to recognize the intent of the contracting nations.164 The interpretation process begins with « a review of the text of the agreement and the context in which the written words are used. » 165 When an agreement stipulates that it must be concluded in several languages, the Supreme Court has analyzed language versions to facilitate understanding of the terms of the agreement.166 The Court also considers the broader « purpose and purpose » of an international agreement.167 In some cases, the Supreme Court has extratextual documents, 168,169 and practices that followed the ratification of other nations.170 The Court warned, however, that consultation with sources outside the text of the treaty may not be appropriate if the text is clear.171 The Court addressed these principles five years later in the Usa/V cases.