An Executive Agreement Is A Binding Agreement Between

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. The vast majority of international agreements concluded by the United States are not treaties, but executive agreements – executive agreements that are not submitted to the Senate for consideration and approval.41 Federal law requires the executive branch to notify Congress at the entry of such an agreement.42 Executive agreements are not specifically discussed in the Constitution. 43 Although the United States considered that international pacts had been valid since the beginning of the Republic through executive agreements, 44 executive agreements have been much more frequently implemented since World War II.45 Commentators estimate that more than 90% of international legal agreements concluded by the United States have taken the form of an executive agreement.46 The nature of federal power Foreign relations has long been claimed by the Supreme Court. In 1840, for example, the Court declared that one of the main purposes of the Constitution was to make us a people and a nation, insofar as it considered our external relations; 14FootnoteHolmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 pp.) 540, 575-76 (1840). See also USA v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 331 (1937) (U.S.

external powers must be exercised without regard to state laws or directives. . . . Respect for our external relations in general, the borders of the state disappear; The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 606 (1889) (For local interests exist the various states of the Union exist; but for national purposes that encompass our relations with foreign nations, we are one people, one nation, one power); Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 63 (1941) (Our system of government .

. . . . . requires that the federal power in this area, which concerns external relations, be left completely free of local interference). One hundred years later, the Court of Justice has remained with regard to exclusive federal exclusivity. No state can rewrite our foreign policy to adapt to its own domestic policy. Power over foreign affairs is not shared by states; it is entrusted exclusively to the national government.

It is not necessary to exercise it in such a way that it is consistent with state laws or state policy, whether translated into constitutions, statutes or judicial decrees. And state policy will be absolutely irrelevant to the judicial investigation if the United States, which acts within its constitutional domain, strives to enforce its foreign policy in court.15FootnoteUnited States v.