Executive Agreements Binding
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.   The U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Pink (1942) found that international executive agreements, validly concluded, have the same legal status as treaties and do not require Senate approval. To Reid v. Concealed (1957), the Tribunal, while reaffirming the President`s ability to enter into executive agreements, found that such agreements could not be contrary to existing federal law or the Constitution. The vast majority of international agreements concluded by the United States are not treaties, but executive agreements – executive agreements that are not submitted to the Senate for consideration and approval.41 Federal law requires the executive branch to notify Congress at the entry of such an agreement.42 Executive agreements are not specifically discussed in the Constitution.
But they are nevertheless considered to be valid international pacts according to Supreme Court jurisprudence and historical practice.43 Although the United States has entered into international pacts through executive agreements since the early days of the Republic, 44 executive agreements have been much more frequently implemented since World War II.45 Commentators estimate that more than 90% of international legal agreements concluded by the United States have taken the form of an executive agreement46. Treaties described under Article II by the presidency – and reached a new low point in the Trump administration, which has introduced only one such treaty in the Senate. This decline does not mean that the United States has stopped entering into international agreements. Each year, the United States concludes dozens of binding international agreements – often more than 100 – but generally does so in the form of an “executive agreement of Congress” (i.e. legislated agreements) and not Article II. As a result, the United States has effectively converted to an administrative regime for drafting international agreements, but it has not yet put in place an adequate system of control and accountability to comply with that regime. Most executive agreements were concluded in accordance with a treaty or an act of Congress. However, presidents have sometimes reached executive agreements to achieve goals that would not find the support of two-thirds of the Senate.
For example, after the outbreak of World War II, but before the Americans entered the conflict, President Franklin D. Roosevelt negotiated an executive agreement that gave the United Kingdom 50 obsolete destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on some British naval bases in the Atlantic. Some foreign relations experts have recently argued that the practice of the international agreement has developed so that some modern executive agreements no longer fit into the three generally accepted categories of executive agreements69. who argue for a new form of executive agreement arguing that it is not necessary to determine a specific authorisation status or constitutional power if the President already has the national power to implement the executive agreement; The agreement does not require any changes to national legislation; 71 Opponents of this proposed new paradigm of the executive agreement argue that it is not compatible with the principles of separation of powers, which they believe require the President to authorize the conclusion of international agreements either by the Constitution, by a ratified treaty or by an act of Congress.