As the war in Europe enters its decisive phase, public attention in the United States is increasingly focused on the difficulties that can arise when peace treaties are submitted to the Senate with a request for approval of their ratification. The possibility that many international adaptations could be made after this war by executive agreements and not by formal treaties, which must be approved with two-thirds of the majorities in the House of Lords, has hardly been respected. Some foreign relations experts have recently argued that the practice of the international agreement has developed so that some modern executive agreements no longer fit into the three generally accepted categories of executive agreements69. who argue for a new form of executive agreement arguing that it is not necessary to determine a specific authorisation status or constitutional power if the President already has the national power to implement the executive agreement; The agreement does not require any changes to national legislation; 71 Opponents of this proposed new paradigm of the executive agreement argue that it is not compatible with the principles of separation of powers, which they believe require the President to authorize the conclusion of international agreements either by the Constitution, by a ratified treaty or by an act of Congress. For much of U.S. history, the U.S. courts231 and U.S. officials232, international law has been considered a binding U.S. national law in the absence of an executive or legislative oversight. Around 1900, in The Habana Package, the Supreme Court declared that international law “is part of our law”” 233 Although this description may seem simple, developments in the 20th century complicate the relationship between international customary and domestic law. Executive agreement, an agreement between the United States and a foreign government that is less formal than a treaty and is not subject to the constitutional requirement for ratification by two-thirds of the U.S.
Senate. In the case of executive agreements, it seems generally accepted that the president, if he has the independent power to enter into an executive agreement, can denounce the agreement independently, without the approval of Congress or the Senate. 187 The same principle would apply to political commitments: to the extent that the President has the authority to make non-binding commitments without the approval of the Senate or Congress, the President may also unilaterally withdraw from those commitments.188 The Case-Zablocki Act of 1972 requires the President to be empowered to make non-binding commitments without the agreement of the Senate or Congress. to inform the Senate within 60 days. one of the executive agreements reached. The president`s powers to conclude such agreements have not been restricted.