• Non classé

Treaties Vs Executive Agreement

The data also suggest that theories that explain the use of contracts by historical conventions leave many themes unexplained. Although some scientists, for example, have argued that dependence on pathways explains why treaties are particularly common in human rights and are lacking in trade, Table 2 shows that neither subject is a particularly striking outlier. While in the field of human rights treaties are somewhat widespread (17 per cent of all agreements), the choice of this instrument remains the exception and not the norm. Similarly, the application of contracts in sectors such as trade, trade and finance is close to the 5% average, raising the question of whether the scarcity of the instrument in these areas can best be explained by historical events or whether it reflects another aversion to the treaty, which also concerns other areas. In summary, it is difficult to explain the diversity of contract prevalence in the different disciplines of conventional theories. 7 According to the data used here, 524 executive agreements were concluded under President Obama during his first term alone. Although a majority of Bond refused to reconsider Hollande`s interpretation of the Tenth Amendment,148 the Court ruled in favour of the accused on the basis of principles of legal interpretation.149 In interpreting a statute to interpret a treaty, Bond stated: « It is appropriate to refer to the fundamental principles of federalism, which are enshrined in the Constitution in order to conclude ambiguity . . . 150 Applying these principles, the Issuing Court found that Congress did not intend to enter areas of traditional state authority, that the Chemical Weapons Convention did not apply to the actions of the commercial spouse.151 In other words, the majority of Bond did not express concern about Hollande`s conclusion that the Tenth Amendment did not restrict The power of Congress to pass legislation on the implementation of contracts.

But Bond believed that the principles of federalism, reflected in the Tenth Amendment, could impose the interpretation of such enforcement laws by the courts152 The view that treaties and executive agreements in Congress can be considered legal substitutes naturally raises the question of why the United States needs two legal instruments to regulate the same types of international relations. Indeed, some commentators have asked why the United States should not abandon the treaty in favour of the agreement between Congress and the executive branch. Footnote 38 It cannot be ruled out, however, that at least part of the difference in sustainability is driven by nuanced considerations that the model is unable to grasp. For example, the attention of the Senate within a particular purpose may be selectively directed towards certain types of agreements, such as those. B, of particular importance, and that this selection is also correlated with sustainability. The categories of landlocked themes may be too crude to grasp this dynamic, and it is possible that a more detailed measurement of the object will lead to a broader and more complete understanding of the link between the content of an agreement and the choice of engagement mechanism, which could explain at least part of the observed difference. Footnote 104 A second assumption about some of these restrictions is that the treaty`s high legislative barriers help to address engagement issues arising from executive rotation.