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 agreements are submitted to the Senate with a request for approval of their ratification. Little account has been taken of the possibility that after the present war many international adjustments will be made by executive agreements and not by formal treaties which must be approved by a two-thirds majority in the House of Lords. The executive`s reported intention to make extensive use of post-war agreements was cited several times during The Senate debate during the 1943 session of Congress. “We are told,” said Senator O`Mahoney (D., Wyo.) during the debate on the renewal of the Trade Agreements Act, that it will not be necessary to end this war by a peace treaty. During the debate on the Panama Claims Agreement, Senator Clark (D., Mo.) stated that it was “common to the Department of Foreign Affairs that there is no intention to submit to Congress the terms of the peace settlement”; Instead, it is planned to agree on the terms of peace through executive agreements “subject to the agreement of the president.” In such cases, an agreement should take the form of an agreement between Congress and the executive or a contract with deliberation and approval by the Senate. [2] The use of executive agreements increased considerably after 1939. Before 1940, the U.S. Senate had ratified 800 treaties and presidents had concluded 1200 executive agreements; From 1940 to 1989, during World War II and the Cold War, presidents signed nearly 800 treaties, but negotiated more than 13,000 executive agreements. The Case Zablocki Act of 1972 requires the president to inform the Senate of any executive agreement within 60 days. The powers of the President to enter into such agreements have not been granted. The notification requirement allowed Congress to vote in favor of cancelling an executive agreement or to refuse to fund its implementation. [3] [4] An executive agreement[1] is an agreement between the heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature when treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are considered politically binding in order to distinguish them from legally binding treaties. Executive agreements are often used to circumvent the requirements of national constitutions for treaty ratification.
Many nations, which are republics with written constitutions, have constitutional requirements for ratifying treaties. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is based on executive agreements. Some other nations have similar provisions regarding the ratification of treaties. 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. . . .