While some doctrinal criticism persists about the widespread application of the congressional executive agreement in place of the treaty, footnote 34 is now the prevailing view that treaties and executive agreements in Congress legally replace the vast majority of agreements under national law. Footnote 35 This view is also reflected in Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. Footnote 36 This is where the American Law Institute finds that the United States has two different mechanisms for concluding binding international agreements. Footnote 19 The first option is the traditional contract. The treaties follow the consultation and approval procedure under Article II of the Constitution, where a treaty, although negotiated by the executive, must nevertheless be approved by a two-thirds majority in the Senate to be ratified and binding. The footnote 20 of the treaties is an international agreement described in Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution. With respect to the United States as an international agreement, a treaty is imposed only after a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate has debated and approved. These agreements deal with foreign policy related to peace or trade.
Treaties are also binding under international conventions and national law. A treaty is a formal agreement of the president of the S. It is transferred to successive officials. According to the latest statistics, the United States participates in some 900 contracts. This figure is much lower than the number of executive agreements. One reason for this difference could be the mandatory two-thirds majority required for a contract. Another likely reason is U.S. contacts and foreign relations. 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. Table 4 presents the results of Cox`s model. The model (1) contains only the contractual indicator. It can be seen as a simple descriptible comparison of the sustainability of contracts and all executive agreements, without taking into account other characteristics. The model (2) includes the chair and the theme of fixed effects. They indicate the average difference in sustainability, given that two agreements were concluded by the same president and in the same discipline. The model (3) also contains fixed country effects.
Footnote 99 If the choice between executive treaties and contracts was the result of a historical dependence irrelevant to the current content, there should be no difference in the permanence of treaties and executive treaties if all of these characteristics are maintained constantly. The contractual coefficient should therefore be small and statistically insignificant. Model (4) new controls for the part of the presidential party`s seat in the Senate, as well as for a divided government to examine whether differences between treaties and executive agreements are declared by a president`s intention to bypass the Senate. If this is the main motivation for the treaty decision, then the inclusion of one of these covariates should make the treaty coefficient small and insignificant. Model (5) does not control the share of seats, but the LPPC values, which are probably a better substitute for the costs that pass through the Senate through the Senate.