How Long Are Executive Agreements In Force
1 décembre 2020
U.S. post-war diplomacy was strongly influenced by the executive agreements reached in Cairo, Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam. 435 For a time, the formal treaty – the signing of the United Nations Charter and the entry into multinational defence pacts such as NATO, LEATO, CENTRO, etc. – became once again the main instrument of US foreign policy, which quickly became clear in the 1960s, in addition to the contractual agreement or by the President`s initiative. that the nation, in one way or another, was obliged to protect that of the world itself. 436 The agitation in Congress is not much more important than the adoption of a « sense of the Senate » that « national commitments » would be made more solemn in the future than in the past. 437 The Hull-Lothian Agreement .-With the case of France in June 1940, President Roosevelt entered into two executive agreements this summer whose overall effect was to transform the role of the United States from strict neutrality in relation to the European war in one of the half-wars. The first agreement was with Canada and provided for the creation of a permanent joint defence commission that would take into account « more broadly the defence of the northern half of the Western Hemisphere. » 432 Second, and more important than the first, the Hull-Lothian Agreement of 2 September 1940, under which the United States, in exchange for leasing certain sites for british West Atlantic naval bases, handed over fifty obsolete destroyers to the British government, which had been recycled and returned to service. 433 And on 9 April 1941, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, taking into account the German occupation of Denmark, concluded an executive agreement with the Danish Min ister in Washington, in which the United States acquired the right to occupy Greenland for defence purposes.
434 This recognition of the preventive effect of executive agreements was part of the movement for a revision of the Constitution in the 1950s to limit the powers of the President in this area, but this movement has failed.496 In the United States, executive agreements are binding at the international level when negotiated and concluded under the authority of the President in foreign policy as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. , or a previous congressional record. For example, the President, as Commander-in-Chief, negotiates and concludes Armed Forces Agreements (SOFAs) that govern the treatment and disposition of U.S. forces deployed in other nations. However, the President cannot unilaterally enter into executive agreements on matters that are not in his constitutional jurisdiction. In such cases, an agreement should take the form of an agreement between Congress and the executive branch or a contract with the Council and the approval of the Senate.  Another view appeared to be the decision of the Supreme Court in the United States. Belmont,491 gives effect to Litvinov`s allocation.
The opinion of Sutherland J.A. was based on his curtiss-Wright492 opinion. A first instance would have erred in dismissing a complaint filed by the United States as an agent of the Soviet Union for certain funds formerly held by a Russian metallurgical group whose assets had been acquired by the Soviet government. The President`s act in recognizing the Soviet government and the agreements that accompany it represented an international pact that the president, as the « only body » of international relations for the United States, could enter without consulting the Senate.