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. 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. 388 In recent decades, the differences, which may have been more marked, have been greatly erased in practice. Once a son-in-law of the family, where treaties were preferred descendants, the executive agreement exceeded the number and perhaps the international influence of the formally signed treaty, subject to Senate ratification and announced at ratification. Many types of executive agreements form the ordinary daily life of the diplomatic mill. These include .
B for minor territorial adjustments, border corrections, borders, fishing rights regulation, private money claims against another government or its nationals, “simple private sovereign rights.” 417 Crandall lists a large number of such agreements with other governments with the president`s permission. 418 Such agreements were generally geared towards specific and relatively trivial disputes and, in resolving these effects, they are extinguished ipso facto. In addition, there are diplomatic arrangements as old as the `protocol`, which is a step in the negotiation of a treaty, and the modus vivendi, which must be tolerated as a temporary replacement of it. Executive agreements are of constitutional importance if they are a determining factor for the future foreign policy and, therefore, for the fate of the country. Because of our participation in the Second World War, and in particular the conditions of international tension that prevailed before the end and after the war, the presidents made agreements with other governments, some of which brought temporary alliances closer together. However, it cannot be rightly said that they acted without significant support from precedents. The overlap of contractual power through cooperation between Congress and the executive branch in international agreements is also demonstrated by the use of resolutions that approve U.S. membership in international organizations 408 and participation in international conventions. 409 [footnote 447] The decision in the Case of Ladies and Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981), is rich in learning on many topics with executive agreements, but the Court`s conclusion that Congress had either authorized various presidential actions or accepted long in others, makes the case too little our specific issue of this section.