Why Do Presidents Prefer Executive Agreements To Treaties

Many types of executive agreements form the ordinary daily life of the diplomatic mill. These include . B for minor territorial adjustments, border corrections, border surveillance, regulation of fishing rights, requests for private money against another government or its nationals, «simple private rights of sovereignty.» 467 Crandall lists a large number of such agreements with other governments with the president`s permission468. In addition, there are diplomatic arrangements as old as the `protocol`, which marks a step in the negotiation of a treaty, and the modus vivendi, which is to serve as a temporary substitute for a contract. Executive agreements are of constitutional importance if they are a determining factor for the future foreign policy and, therefore, for the fate of the country. Because of our participation in the Second World War and our immersion in the conditions of international tensions that prevailed before and after the war, the presidents made agreements with other governments, some of which moved closer to temporary alliances. However, it cannot be rightly said that they acted without significant support from precedents. Other scholars have relied on historical perspectives to explain the implementation of the treaty. For example, Curtis Bradley and Trevor Morrison proposed that the choice of presidents between the two engagement mechanisms be influenced, at least in part, by the Senate`s continued and concerted insistence on maintaining an important role in the ratification process. Footnote 45 Such insistence, which mainly results in statements and correspondence, would create a «soft law» that would impose political constraints on the options available to the executive. At the same time, the Attention of the Senate is selective, with an emphasis on «big» agreements, for which public engagement and attention are exceptionally high.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.