What Are Executive Agreements Used For

Congressional efforts to curb the practice of executive agreements and stem the tide of unilateralism have been largely unsuccessful. The first and most important effort came in 1951, when Senator John Bricker proposed a constitutional amendment to limit the use and impact of executive agreements and treaties within the United States. Bricker Amendment supporters, including the leaders of the American Bar Association, found virtue in the proposal for a variety of reasons. Some, as Alexander DeConde explained, “have become angry at executive agreements like Yalta`s” and have tried to reduce the president`s unilateralism on foreign policy. Others feared the impact of treaties such as the United Nations Charter, the Genocide Convention and the United Nations draft peace on human rights within the United States. Still others supported them as a useful “isolationist” response to “the internationalism of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. The Bricker Amendment, adopted in June 1953 by the Senate Judiciary Committee, upheld the constitutional supremacy over treaties; Necessary enforcement measures “that would be valid without a contract” before a treaty can be concluded within the United States; and gave Congress the power to oversee all executive agreements. In analyzing an international agreement for its domestic application, U.S. courts have the ultimate power to interpret the importance of the agreement.163 In general, the Supreme Court has stated that its purpose in interpreting an agreement is to recognize the intent of the contracting nations.164 The interpretation process begins with a review of the text of the [memorandum] and context. in which written words are used. 165 While an agreement stipulates that it must be concluded in several languages, the Supreme Court has analyzed language versions to help understand the terms of the agreement.166 The Court also considers the broader “purpose and purpose” of an international agreement.167 In some cases, the Supreme Court has cautioned extratextual documents, such as the development of history. .168 the views of other contracting states.168,169 and practices after ratification of other nations.170 that consultation of sources outside the text of the treaty might not be appropriate if the text is clear.171 Cf. z.B.

Andrew T. Guzman, Saving Customary International Law, 27 J. Int`l L. 115, 124-28 (2005) (Debates on International Law). See also Hamdan v. United States, 696 F.3d 1238, 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Kavanaugh, J.) (“It is often difficult to determine what constitutes the customary law of the peoples, which defines international customary law, and how firmly a standard must be entrenched in order to be considered a standard of habit of peoples.”) who were repealed for unrelated reasons of Al Bahlul against the United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (in bench). Although TIF merges these four reasons, some observers might argue that the expiry of an agreement on the basis of its original terms should be treated differently from other grounds for suppression.

Finally, an agreement that expires on an expiry clause does not appear to “break” in a manner comparable to an agreement that ends, for example, with a withdrawal.