The term “executive agreement,” which is not widely used outside the United States, but has its foreign equivalent, is understood by the State Department as generally referring to any international agreement that comes into force with respect to the United States without the Council and Senate approval, which are constitutionally necessary for treaties. In particular, it concerns three types of agreements: those concluded on the basis of or in conformity with an existing contract; those that are subject to approval or implementation by Congress (“agreements between Congress and the Executive”); and those concluded within and in accordance with the constitutional powers of the President (“Single Executive Agreements”). None of these executive agreements is subject to the formal contractual process set out in Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2, of the Constitution. In the United States, executive agreements are concluded exclusively by the President of the United States. They are one of three mechanisms through which the United States make binding international commitments. Some authors consider executive agreements to be treaties under international law, as 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. Britannica.com: Encyclopedia articles on the executive agreement In summary, all three categories of executive agreements have a historical tendency towards strong executive leadership in foreign policy. Just add three last points. First, the cessation of the use of these agreements instead of the contractual alternative is essentially politically influenced by environmental circumstances rather than abstract legal theories.

Second, once in force, executive agreements are likely to be binding on the United States and other parties under international law, to the same extent and in the same manner as treaties. Thirdly, international commitments under such agreements survive any subsequent restrictions or restrictions of national law. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give a president the power to enter into executive agreements. However, it may be authorized to do so by Congress or it may do so on the basis of the power to manage foreign relations granted to it. Despite the question of the constitutionality of executive agreements, the Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that they have the same force as treaties. As executive agreements are concluded on the authority of the President-in-Office, they do not necessarily bind his successors. An agreement between Congress and the executive branch is based either on a prior act or on a subsequent act of Congress, which authorizes the authorization of the agreement or provides general authority for the executive measures necessary at the international level to implement the legislation in question. The scope or purpose of the agreement is the same whether the act of the Congress takes place before or after the negotiation of the agreement; The act of congress often takes the form of an authorization to conclude or reach an agreement already negotiated. In principle, however, the agreement must reside within the common powers of Congress and the president to have constitutional validity.