Which of the following Best Describes the Advantages of a Treaty and an Executive Agreement

The use of executive agreements increased considerably after 1939. By 1940, the U.S. Senate had ratified 800 treaties and presidents had concluded 1,200 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. Hathaway went on to describe the results of an investigation conducted by the three co-authors into executive agreements and related cover letters that the executive branch submitted to Congress between 1989 and 2017, which they received at the request of the Freedom of Information Act. Their analysis revealed major gaps with the online publishing regime, as only 31 percent of executive agreements reported to Congress were included in the official online database — far fewer than could be found in comparable private databases. Other problems also arose in the Congressional reporting system, as a significant number of cover notes indicated that the executive agreements in question had been submitted late, while private databases contained several thousand such agreements that had never been submitted to Congress. More problematically, the cover letters showed that the legal basis for many of the executive`s uses of executive agreements was questionable, as less than half highlighted the explicit legal authority to participate in the executive agreement in question, while 17% cited statutes that could not be plausibly interpreted as such an approval. To address these issues, Hathaway argued that Congress could require the executive branch to publish more widely all international agreements and related cover letters — with specific descriptions of the legal basis of the executive agreement in question — in order to allow for greater public oversight, and perhaps limit the use of funds for them or their entry into effect until they are published or transmitted. Or even without legislation, relevant congressional committees could promote public transparency by choosing to publish the executive agreements and cover letters they receive and by asking authorities for more details about legal authorities in the letters they receive. The Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Pink (1942) noted that international executive treaties that were validly concluded had the same legal status as treaties and did not require Senate approval. Also in Reid v.

Covert (1957), while reaffirming the President`s ability to make executive arrangements, the Court held that such agreements cannot conflict with existing federal law or the Constitution. Executive Agreement, an agreement between the United States and a foreign government that is less formal than a treaty and is not subject to the constitutional requirement to be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give the 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 authority conferred on it to conduct foreign relations. Despite questions about the constitutionality of executive treaties, the Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that they had the same power as treaties. Since executive agreements are concluded by order of the outgoing president, they are not necessarily binding on his successors.

The task force then moved on to an open discussion on these and related topics. These included questions on how Congress could better structure the approval of legislation for executive agreements, what steps Congress might be able to take to signal the need for adequate compliance with disclosure and reporting obligations with foreign partners, the challenges faced by relevant Congressional committees, both in overseeing the use of executive agreements, and in the factors that have led to a decrease in the use of traditional contracts under Article II. To discuss this topic, the task force was joined by three prominent U.S. foreign relations law experts: Curt Bradley of Duke University School of Law and a former international law advisor at the U.S. Department of State; Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School, former Special Counsel at the U.S. Department of Defense; and Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School, former Assistant Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice. Before the meeting, they shared excerpts from their upcoming article, “The Failed Transparency Regime for Executive Agreements,” which has since been published in the Harvard Law Review. In addition, the coordinator of the task force, Scott R. Anderson, distributed a document (to download here) containing information on the competent judicial authorities. The Case-Zablocki Act of 1972 requires the President to notify the Senate within 60 days of the conclusion of an executive agreement.

The Powers of the President to conclude such agreements have not been limited. The notification requirement allowed Congress to vote on cancelling an executive agreement or refusing to fund its implementation. [3] [4] On April 3, 2020, the Congressional Study Group on Foreign Relations and National Security met online to discuss the use of executive agreements by the executive branch and their oversight by Congress. While the Constitution provides only one way to strike international agreements, the U.S. now uses several — including executive agreements that presidents often pursue with little or no direct input from Congress. But what does Congress really know about how these executive agreements are used? In the United States, executive agreements are concluded exclusively by the President of the United States […].