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. Of course, the raw figures must be carefully interpreted. Only a very small minority of all executive agreements were based exclusively on the powers of the President as commander-in-chief and external relations body; The rest was approved in advance by Congress by law or by the provisions of the treaty ratified by the Senate. 390 Therefore, consideration of the constitutional importance of executive agreements must begin with a differentiation between the types of agreements that must be classified under this heading. 391 The implementation of executive agreements increased considerably after 1939.
Prior to 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 concluded more than 13,000 executive treaties. During the first half-century of its independence, the United States participated in sixty treaties, but only 27 published executive agreements. At the beginning of the Second World War, there were about 800 treaties and 1,200 executive treaties. During the period 1940-1989, the nation entered into 759 contracts and issued executive contracts. In total, in 1989, the United States was parties to 890 contracts and 5,117 executive contracts. In relative terms, in the first 50 years of its history, the United States has twice as many treaties as executive agreements. In the fiftieth anniversary from 1839 to 1889, there were more executive contracts than contracts.
From 1889 to 1939, almost twice as many executive contracts were entered into as contracts. Since 1939, executive agreements have made more than 90% of international agreements. 389 In the United States against pink, 445 decided five years later, the same argumentative course was repeated with additional insistence. The question was whether, under the 1933 executive agreement, the United States was allowed to recover the assets of the New York branch of a Russian insurance company. The company argued that the Soviet government`s forfeiture decrees do not apply to its property in New York and could not be challenged by the U.S. And New York Constitutions. The court, which was decided by Justice Douglas, brushed aside these arguments. An official statement from the Russian government itself resolved the issue of the extraterritorial operation of the Russian nationalization decree and was binding on the US courts. The power to remove such obstacles to the full recognition of the claims of our nationals was “a modest tacit power of the president, who is “the only organ of the federal government in the field of international relations”.
It was the verdict of the political department that the full recognition of the Soviet government required the resolution of outstanding problems, including the claims of our nationals. We would take over the executive if we felt that the court decision was not final and conclusive. In recent years, the growth of executive agreements has also been due to the volume of business between the United States and other countries, coupled with the already high workload of the Senate. Many international agreements are relatively small and would unnecessarily overburden the Senate if presented in the form of consultation and approval treaties.