The argument relates to the ease with which a president can renounce an agreement after an agreement has been reached. In particular, Hathaway proposes that the form of the treaty interfere with the ability of presidents to credibly tie their hands, because even after ratification, the treaty offers two additional opportunities to renounce a promise that the agreement between Congress and the executive branch would not offer. This, in turn, makes it difficult for other countries to rely on obligations in the form of the treaty. 75 This decision is based on the rationale that the President-in-Office has the most influence on its content at the time the agreement was signed. However, the content of all results is the same when a categorical variable is used for the president under whom the agreement came into force. Relevant regressions are included in the online schedule. The treaty and executive agreements are subject to international law and diplomatic relations. These two documents are legal documents that explain the content of an agreement/contract between two actors on the international scene. However, treaties are concluded between sovereign states and/or international organizations, while executive agreements are concluded between the heads of two or more states. Similarly, treaties are legally binding, while executive agreements are politically binding. That is the main difference between the treaty and the executive agreement. Most executive agreements were concluded in accordance with a treaty or an act of Congress.
However, presidents have sometimes reached executive agreements to achieve goals that would not find the support of two-thirds of the Senate. For example, after the outbreak of World War II, but before the Americans entered the conflict, President Franklin D. Roosevelt negotiated an executive agreement that gave the United Kingdom 50 obsolete destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on some British naval bases in the Atlantic. 30 See McClure, note 3, 4, 247 (the finding that 1,200 out of 2,000 agreements were concluded as executive agreements of Congress and that this serves as the basis for the promotion of a basis for legitimization of their use); see also Wright, Quincy, The United States and International Agreements, 38 AJIL 341, 354 n. 62 (1944) (reversal of previous opinions based on the “practice of Congress and the Executive”); Ackerman, Bruce Golove, David, IS NAFTA Constitutional?, 108 Harv. L. Rev. 799, 868 (1995) (shows how McClure`s account makes coherent practice a necessary and sufficient condition for interchangeability. Even on Wright`s change of mind.). See Generally McDougal, Myers S.
– Lans, Asher, Congressional Contracts and Executive Agreements or Presidential Agreements: Interchangeable Instruments of National Policy: I, 54 Yale L.J.