An executive agreement[1] is an agreement between the heads of government of two or more countries that has not been ratified by the legislator when the treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from legally binding treaties. These sample sentences are automatically selected from various online information sources to reflect the current use of the word “Executive Agreement.” The opinions expressed in the examples do not reflect the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Note: An executive agreement does not have the same weight as a treaty unless it is supported by a joint resolution. Unlike a treaty, an executive agreement can replace a conflicting state law, but not a federal law. The proposed Iran nuclear deal is conventionally an executive deal and doesn`t need to be a treaty with Senate advice and approval, but Congress should be able to do so because the sanctions ordered by Congress would have to be lifted. Most executive agreements were entered into under a treaty or an act of Congress. Sometimes, however, presidents have entered into executive agreements to achieve goals that would not receive the support of two-thirds of the Senate. For example, after the outbreak of World War II, but before the United States entered the conflict, President Franklin D. Roosevelt negotiated an executive agreement that gave the United Kingdom 50 overflow destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases for some British naval bases in the Atlantic. The Case Zablocki Act of 1972 requires the president to notify the Senate of any executive agreement within 60 days. The Powers of the President to conclude such agreements have not been divided. The notification requirement allowed Congress to vote to cancel an executive agreement or refuse to fund its implementation.

[3] [4] The U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Pink (1942), ruled that international executive treaties that have been validly concluded have the same legal status as treaties and do not require Senate approval. Also in Reid v. Covert (1957), he affirmed the president`s ability to enter into executive agreements, but decided that such agreements could not be contrary to applicable federal law or the Constitution. As far as we are concerned, Congress has no way of changing an executive agreement. Executive agreements are often used to circumvent the requirements of national constitutions for treaty ratification. Many nations that are republics with written constitutions have constitutional rules for ratifying treaties.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is based on executive agreements. In the United States, executive agreements are concluded exclusively by the President of the United States. They are one of three mechanisms through which the United States enters into binding international commitments. Some authors consider executive treaties to be international treaties because they bind both the United States and another sovereign state. However, under U.S. constitutional law, executive agreements are not considered treaties within the meaning of the treaty clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the Council and the approval of two-thirds of the Senate to be considered a treaty. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give the president the power to enter into executive agreements. However, it may be authorized to do so by Congress, or it may do so on the basis of the authority conferred on it to conduct foreign relations. Despite the question of the constitutionality of executive agreements, the Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that they had the same power as treaties. Since executive agreements are concluded under the authority of the outgoing president, they do not necessarily bind his successors.

The use of executive treaties increased considerably after 1939. .