Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


Bleacher Report


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Liver Kick


MMA Mania


Bloody Elbow


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


Yahoo MMA Blog


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


Audio Corner


Oddscast


Sherdog Radio


Eddie Goldman


Video Corner


Fight Hub


Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index


To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site


Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback


Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

« | Home | »

Executive Agreement Vs Executive Order

By Zach Arnold | December 8, 2020

Print Friendly and PDF

An executive agreement[1] is an agreement between heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature, since the treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from legally binding contracts. An executive agreement is one of three mechanisms through which the United States enters into binding international agreements. Some authors consider them to be treaties because the term is used under international law, since they bind both the United States and a foreign sovereign state. However, they are not considered treaties, since the term is used under U.S. constitutional law, since the treaty procedure of the U.S. Constitution requires the Council and the approval of two-thirds of the Senate, and these agreements are concluded exclusively by the President of the United States. Some other nations have similar provisions for treaty ratification. However, it cannot be ruled out that at least part of the difference in shelf life is driven by nuanced considerations that the model cannot grasp. For example, the attention of the Senate within a particular purpose may be selectively directed towards certain types of agreements, such as those. B, of particular importance, and that this selection is also correlated with sustainability. The categories of landlocked themes may be too crude to grasp this dynamic, and it is possible that a more detailed measurement of the object will lead to a broader and more complete understanding of the link between the content of an agreement and the choice of engagement mechanism, which could explain at least part of the observed difference.

Footnote 104 Figure 3 shows that there is a 14 per cent probability of an agreement at the end of the observation period, provided it is in effect by then. For executive agreements, this probability is 40%. Similarly, there is a 15 per cent probability that a contract will be broken between 1982 and 2012, while the probability is 50 per cent for executive agreements. In total, the data set contains 7,966 agreements. Each agreement is monitored once a year once a year, as long as it is in force, and once it ends, resulting in a total of 129,518 observations per year and by agreement. 11 Hathaway, above 1, circa 1285 (on the grounds that historical conventions explain the application of the treaty). Bradley, Curtis A. & Morrison, Trevor W., Historical Gloss and the Separation of Powers, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 411, 474 (2012) (arguing that the implementation of the treaty can be explained, at least in part, by selective Senate attention, which is devoted to “big” agreements).

Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Comments are closed.