There is an active scientific debate about the scope of the president`s power to withdraw the United States from its international agreements, with a particular focus on whether the constitutional obstacles to denouncing congressional and executive agreements are higher than those of the treaty. Footnote 113 The results of this study suggest that in addition to doctrinal issues, an analysis of political economy can also provide valuable lessons. For much of U.S. history, U.S. courts231 and officials232 have understood customary international law as binding U.S. law in the absence of an executive or legislative act of control. Around 1900, the Supreme Court declared in The Paquete Habana that international law “is part of our law.” 233 Although this description seems simple, developments in the twentieth century complicate the relationship between the right of use of peoples and national law. An executive agreement is an agreement between the heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature when treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are considered politically binding in order to distinguish them from legally binding treaties. 70 That procedure is correct, with the exception of a few exceptions which are due to peculiarities in the publication process. For example, the Guide (2011) lists the START I agreement as indicated in the TIF (2010) and is not indicated in the TIF (2011), Although the agreement expired on 5 December 2009 (The corresponding identifier is LAV 3172, see U.S.
Department of State, A Guide to the United States Treaties in Force 870 (Igor I. Kavass ed., 2011)). This is due to the fact that the contract expired too shortly before the deadline for publication of the TIF 2010. However, all agreements are affected in the same way by characteristics of the underlying disclosure mechanism, making it unlikely that these errors will create distortions in the estimate. 6 This figure is based on a census of library of Congress contract documents approved by the 111th, 112th, 113th, or 114th Congresses of the United States. See www.congress.gov. The work of John SetearFootnote 49 and Lisa Martin illustrates a presentation that attributes political benefits to the treaty. Footnote 50 Your argument focuses on the high legislative obstacles to the procedure for consultation and approval of treaties. . .