Which Of The Following Statements Is True About The Modern Use Of Treaties And Executive Agreements

The Case-Zablocki Act of 1972 requires the President to notify the Senate within 60 days of an executive agreement. The president`s powers to conclude such agreements have not been restricted. The reporting requirement allowed Congress to vote in favor of repealing an executive agreement or to refuse funding for its implementation. [3] [4] As an illustration, you should go back to the SALT II and SORT negotiations, in which Russia insisted on the implementation of a treaty of agreement between Congress and the executive branch. Without the availability of the contractual instrument, it would be possible for the parties to have entered into agreements with different substantive conditions. Given that Russia would not have spent negotiating power on the type of treaty and could, on the contrary, have devoted itself entirely to the content of the agreements, it seems plausible to think that these alternative conditions could have been more favourable to Russia. Assuming that the counterparties` desire to have an instrument with the characteristics of the contract is strong enough, it may even be that, without the contract, some agreements would not have been concluded. Indeed, the momentum around the ex-post executive agreement of Congress is often described as if the executive branch had presented a specific agreement to Congress and that Congress considered this agreement in isolation. It is certainly a clear description of legislation on the implementation of important trade agreements. However, outside the commercial domain, the authorisation process is often very different. In this case, the revision of the known authorisation rules suggests that (1) the language is often vague and that it is not certain that it approves, among other things, a specific agreement; and (2) Authorization is, as a general rule, only a minor aspect of a legal act dealing with a much broader set of substantive issues. As an illustration, the following language should be used in the Budget Balance Act 1996, which should approve the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE): Footnote 109 This ambiguity can be understood in empirical results by observing that previous studies all follow a similar approach.

The researcher analyzes the environment in which an international agreement has been reached and attempts to identify models that help predict the type of instrument used. If the model corresponds to a motivation that places different importance on the treaties and executive agreements of Congress, it is proof that these instruments differ in their quality. Thus, Martin concludes that contracts are used when the partner country has a high GDP per capita, that contracts are preferred when the stakes are high, and that they must therefore be more reliable engagement mechanisms than agreements between Congress and the executive branch. Similarly, Hathaway concludes that few commercial contracts are concluded, that the decision to use the treaty must be driven by historic conventions that have made the agreement between Congress and the executive attractive for trade negotiations. 30 See McClure, note 3, 4, 247 (the finding that 1,200 out of 2,000 agreements were concluded as executive agreements of Congress and that this serves as the basis for the promotion of a basis for legitimization of their use); See also Wright, Quincy, The United States and International Agreements, 38 AJIL 341, 354 n.