In the United States, executive agreements are binding at the international level when negotiated and concluded under the authority of the President on foreign policy, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces or from a previous congressional record. For example, the President, as Commander-in-Chief, negotiates and concludes Armed Forces Agreements (SOFAs) that govern the treatment and disposition of U.S. forces deployed in other nations. However, the President cannot unilaterally enter into executive agreements on matters that are not in his constitutional jurisdiction. In such cases, an agreement should take the form of an agreement between Congress and the executive branch or a contract with the Council and the approval of the Senate. [2] Some other nations have similar provisions for treaty ratification. The executive`s purported intention to make full use of executive agreements in the implementation of post-war colonies was repeatedly cited during the Senate debate during the 1943 session of Congress. ”We are told,” said Senator O`Mahoney (D., Wyo.) during the debate on the prorogation of the Trade Agreements Act, that there will be no need to end this war with a peace treaty. During the Panama Claims Agreement debate, Senator Clark (D., Mo.) stated that ”there is no intention to present to Congress the terms of the peace settlement.” It is planned to agree the terms of peace by an executive agreement, ”subject to the agreement of the President.” According to Senator Taft (R., O.): ”The Constitution wisely provides that treaties must be approved by the Senate, but increasingly the president will whip this provision of the Constitution.” Executive agreements are often used to circumvent the requirements of national constitutions for treaty ratification. Many nations that are republics with written constitutions have constitutional rules on treaty ratification.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is based on executive agreements.
