Executive Agreements Between Presidents And Heads Of Foreign Countries Are Considered

Most executive agreements were concluded in accordance with a treaty or an act of Congress. However, presidents have sometimes reached executive agreements to achieve goals that would not find the support of two-thirds of the Senate. For example, after the outbreak of World War II, but before the Americans entered the conflict, President Franklin D. Roosevelt negotiated an executive agreement that gave the United Kingdom 50 obsolete destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on some British naval bases in the Atlantic. The executive agreement achieved its modern development as an instrument of foreign policy under President Franklin D. Roosevelt and sometimes threatened to replace contractual power, not formally, but in fact, as a determining element in the field of foreign policy. The first significant use of the executive agreement by the President took the form of an exchange of notes on 16 November 1933 with Maxim M. Litvinov, the foreign commissioner of the USSR, American recognition being extended to the Soviet Union and certain commitments of each official.481 Dictum in Garamendi recognizes some of the issues that can be raised over Zschernig. The Zschernig court did not determine which language in the Constitution and commentators have determined that a respectable argument can be made that the Constitution does not require general action to prevent foreign policy not related to the supremacy clause, and broader than and independently of the specific prohibitions of the Constitution510 and the attribution of power.511 The Garamendi Court raised “a fair question of whether respect for executive external relations required a categorical choice between the opposing theories of the field. and the conflicts that arise in Zschernig`s expertise. Instead, Justice Souter told the Court, a pre-purchase opportunity on the ground might be appropriate if a state legislates “simply without claiming a foreign policy without seriously claiming traditional state responsibility,” and the pre-purchase conditions of conflict might be appropriate when a state legislates in a traditional area of responsibility, “but in a way that influences external relations.” 512 We must wait for further litigation to see if the Court applies this distinction.513 Another view appeared to be the basis of the Supreme Court`s decision in the U.S./513 cases. 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 The ability of the United States to enter into agreements with other nations is not exhausted in contractual power. The Constitution recognizes a distinction between “contracts” and “agreements” or “compacts,” but does not indicate the difference.438 The differences that may have been more obvious have been largely erased in practice in recent decades.

Comments are closed.