Executive Agreements Research Articles

Treaties and Executive Agreements in the United States: Their Separate Roles and Limitations

Treaties and Executive Agreements in the United States: Their Separate Roles and Limitations

Duration of Executive Agreements

Duration of Executive Agreements

Treaties and Executive Agreements - Treaties and Executive Agreements. By Elbert ByrdJr. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. 1960. Pp. x, 276. $5.60.)

Treaties and Executive Agreements - Treaties and Executive Agreements. By Elbert ByrdJr. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. 1960. Pp. x, 276. $5.60.)

Treaties and Executive Agreements in the United States

Treaties and Executive Agreements in the United States

United States v. Guy W. Capps, Inc.

Treaties — Operation of — Executive Agreements — Executive Agreement Contravening Previous Statute — Unenforceability in Municipal Court — The Law of the United States of America.

Etlimar Société Anonyme of Casablanca v. United States.

Belligerent Occupation — Respect for Private Property — Requisitions — Payment for.Treaties — Forms of — Executive Agreements — The Law of the United States of America — Belligerent Occupation — Requisition of Private Property Under — Obligation to Pay Compensation.

Attempts to Transmute Indemnity into Discharge of Claims in Executive Agreements

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Constitutional Law: Executive Agreements: Effect When in Conflict with Constitutional Rights

Constitutional Law: Executive Agreements: Effect When in Conflict with Constitutional Rights

Executive Agreements and Emanations From the Fifth Amendment

Executive Agreements and Emanations From the Fifth Amendment

The Bricker Amendment, Executive Agreements, and Imported Potatoes

The Bricker Amendment, Executive Agreements, and Imported Potatoes

Executive Agreements and the Proposed Constitutional Amendments to the Treaty Power

Executive Agreements and the Proposed Constitutional Amendments to the Treaty Power

Proposed Limitations Upon Executive Agreements

Proposed Limitations Upon Executive Agreements

Presidential Discretion in World Affairs Through Executive Agreements

Presidential Discretion in World Affairs Through Executive Agreements

American-Swiss Private International Law

In the period between the World Wars American business men and their attorneys have become increasingly concerned with international and with the of foreign countries. This phenomenon is likely to become even more marked in the future. Among other circumstances, the growth of airmail service has considerably facilitated trans-oceanic commercial transactions and litigation. The broadened interest of Americans in foreign countries has multiplied the problems facing the legal profession. It is common knowledge that the training of American lawyers in international has long been inadequate: for example, in this article several American cases will be noted in which a pertinent treaty was ignored. To acquaint American lawyers with the proper legal sources new techniques must be devised. The preparation of studies on international law, or more specifically, on the private-international relations between the United States and a particular foreign country, offers one method of supplying the legal profession with the required information. Such studies of AngloAmerican, Mexican-American, Brazilian-American and other bilateral relations would be of great value to lawyers working in the international field. The principal source for the studies would be the treaties-so much neglected in university courses and casebooks. In addition, executive agreements, reciprocity declarations, public acts, and related judicial and administrative decisions should be consulted. But investigations should not be confined to international proper. For the practitioner of international more serious problems are often presented by such questions as jurisdiction of courts, enforcement of foreign judgments and proof of foreign law, all procedural matters long dealt with in texts and courses on international law. These bilateral studies should follow the same line, with the emphasis. naturally, upon the foreign rather than the domestic law. Finally, in the light of practical considerations, attention should be devoted to municipal external law, or municipal concerning foreign relations, to the extent that it bears upon the legal relations of aliens, citizens or corporations. Here the term private international law may be taken in a non-technical, very broad sense. The writer proposes to illustrate this plan by inquiry into AmericanSwiss international law. This choice was influenced by earlier studies of the writer,1 but it can also be justified on independent grounds. Through

Treaties and Executive Agreements

There have been several recent attempts to change the Constitution by dispensing with the necessity for the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate in the making of treaties. The two-thirds rule is undoubtedly a handicap to the freedom of the Executive in concluding arrangements with foreign countries. It was intended to have such effect; but the check proves to be irksome. It is the author's belief that the check is exceedingly valuable to a democratic government, and while it unquestionably slows up the process of making international commitments, it insures a popular control over treaties and it safeguards the small states in a manner which an easier method of approval might escape.The first method of eliminating the Senate was suggested in 1941 when Mr. Wallace McClure, of the Department of State, wrote his book advocating the interchangeability of the treaty and executive agreement, concluding that anything that could be done by treaty could also be done by executive agreement, with the approval of Congress if necessary, without the approval of Congress if possible. In his support, he invoked what purported to be a growing usage to this effect, as proof of which he cited numerous agreements. These statistics have doubtless been aided by the supposedly unlimited power over foreign affairs assigned to the federal government by Justice Sutherland in the Curtiss-Wright case, a case which has been much misunderstood and the dictum of which has been vigorously criticized. I ventured to review Mr. McClure's book, and came to the conclusion that the dilapidation of the Constitution which he foreshadowed was unjustified by the facts and harmful to the United States. While Mr. McClure's views met a somewhat mixed reception in the Department of State, there is some evidence that his proposals appealed to certain groups.

Treaties and Executive Agreements: A Reply

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers Part of the Commercial Law Commons, Conflicts of Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Contracts Commons, Corporation and Enterprise Law Commons, Courts Commons, Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, Foreign Law Commons, Legal History, Theory and Process Commons, Politics Commons, President/Executive Department Commons, and the Products Liability Commons

United States v. Belmont.

Federal States — In General — Conduct of Foreign Relations — Executive Agreements.Recognition — Of Governments — Effects of — Retroactivity of Recognition — Recognition of Acts of Foreign Governments.Treaties — Forms of — Executive Agreements — The Law of the United States.34Recognition of Acts of Foreign Governments — Extraterritorial Effect of — Nationalisation Decrees of Soviet Russia — Retroactivity of Recognition — Considerations of Public Order — Effect of Executive Agreements — The Law of the United States — Public Policy of States and the Conduct of the International Relations of the United States

Shall the Executive Agreement Replace the Treaty?

IN recent years many political leaders and publicists have sought to prove that the treaty-making process, requiring the approval of two-thirds of the Senate, has become too cumbersome, inefficient, and undemocratic. Because of well established usage, they claim, it has become valid and desirable to substitute for the treaty the executive agreement, preferably without congressional approval or, if necessary, with approval by a majority of Congress.' Advocates of the change point out that some 1300 executive agreements have been concluded during our national history, as contrasted with some 900 treaties. It is not mentioned, however, that up to 1928 only 15 treaties had been rejected by the Senate, usually for good reasons; that 47 were not acted upon; and that while some 160 treaties have been amended by the Senate,2 in most cases the changes have benefited the nation.

Shall the Executive Agreement Replace the Treaty?

IN recent years many political leaders and publicists have sought to prove that the treaty-making process, requiring the approval of two-thirds of the Senate, has become too cumbersome, inefficient, and undemocratic. Because of well established usage, they claim, it has become valid and desirable to substitute for the treaty the executive agreement, preferably without congressional approval or, if necessary, with approval by a majority of Congress.' Advocates of the change point out that some 1300 executive agreements have been concluded during our national history, as contrasted with some 900 treaties. It is not mentioned, however, that up to 1928 only 15 treaties had been rejected by the Senate, usually for good reasons; that 47 were not acted upon; and that while some 160 treaties have been amended by the Senate,2 in most cases the changes have benefited the nation.

Presidential Power to Regulate Commerce and Lend-Lease Transactions

Although the Constitution of the United States grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, American constitutional usage reveals that the regulation of foreign commerce is by no means a monopoly of the Legislature. On the contrary, in the course of time many executive devices have been developed which bear directly upon commercial relations between and among nations. Especially under the Neutrality Acts (1935-1939), the Trade Agreements Act (1934) and the Lend-Lease Act (1941), name but a few examples, has the scope of executive action in regard foreign commerce been considerably enlarged. The President's power regulate commerce by executive action is being exercised through various devices. In American state practice, Presidential proclamations and so-called executive agreements are the legal instrumentalities most frequently applied in the executive regulation of foreign commerce. Lend-Lease -transactions, though in part carried out in the form of executive agreements, constitute a comparatively new type of executive action which have their own characteristics. PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS. American Presidents have on many occasions acted by proclamation in matters relating foreign commerce. Such action is, in principle, independent of Congress, although usually expressly authorized by Congress. The Act of February 9, 1799, for instance, expressly empowered the President remit and discontinue by proclamation all restraints of trade vis-a-vis France 1 which were in force at that time. The President's discretion in exercising this authority was virtually unlimited, for he was entitled invoke this statutory authorization when-