Executive Agreements as a Foreign Policy Tool During the Bush and Obama Administrations

Abstract

Modern presidents complete 95% of their international agreements as executive agreements, a unilateral tool, rather than as treaties, a power shared with the Senate. Close examination of the use of executive agreements vis-a-vis treaties during the 21st century indicates significant differences in how the Obama Administration completes its international agreements compared to the Bush Administration. Both Bush and Obama completed far fewer treaties than executive agreements; however, Obama has used far fewer treaties than any other modern president, including Bush. Both presidents used executive agreements to complete a broad range of international agreements, from the mundane to the truly significant. I argue that Obama’s singular reliance on executive agreements represents an important change that is largely a result of polarization in the Senate and the attractiveness of unilateral authority. To understand the importance of this shift in foreign policy making, I undertake an extensive analysis of the hundreds of agreements signed from 2005 to 2012. Over 1,900 executive agreements are coded on a variety of variables, including topic, agreement partner, agency, etc. The evidence supports the notion that the presidents during the 21st century, but especially Obama, are violating the norms developed during the 20th century that most significant agreements will be completed as treaties or with some direct input from Congress. The implications of this change are discussed.