The Case-Zablocki Act of 1972 requires the President to notify the Senate within 60 days of an executive agreement. The president`s powers to conclude such agreements have not been restricted. The reporting requirement allowed Congress to vote in favor of repealing an executive agreement or to refuse funding for its implementation. [3] [4] Note: an executive agreement does not have the same weight as a treaty, unless it is supported by a common resolution. Unlike a treaty, an executive agreement may succeed an adversarial state law, but not a federal law. An agreement between Congress and the Executive is based either on an earlier act or on a subsequent act of Congress, which approves the agreement or provides general authority for the executive measures necessary at the international level to implement the legislation in question. The scope or purpose of the agreement is the same whether the act of Congress arrives before or after the agreement is negotiated; the act of Congress often takes the form of an authorization to conclude or reach an agreement already negotiated. However, in principle, the agreement must be governed by the common powers of Congress and the President to have constitutional validity. An agreement outside the legal jurisdiction of Congress or the President, on which the authorities generally agree, would be unconstitutional.

On the other hand, as the American Law Institute has pointed out, “the source of authority to reach an agreement between Congress and the executive branch may even be broader than the sum of the respective powers of Congress and the President,” and “in international matters, the President and Congress together have all the powers of the United States inherent in their sovereignty and nationality. , and can therefore conclude any international agreement on any subject. In any case, the vast majority of U.S. executive agreements, in part in the interest of controlling and balancing the president in the conduct of foreign policy- is of this kind. Like its contract-based counterpart, derived from one of the elements of the “supreme law of the land,” the agreement between Congress and the executive branch replaces all the inconsistent laws of the state and follows the usual rule that favors the instrument later in case of contradictions with a federal law. Apart from two of the two issues, there is broad consensus on the scope and impact of executive conventions alone as a matter of constitutional law. Like the other two types of executive agreements, they are subject to the same restrictions as those that apply to contracts, they are not limited by the tenth amendment and they replace all inconsistent laws of the state. The term “executive agreement,” which is not widely used outside the United States but has its equivalents abroad, is understood by the State Department to refer in general to any international agreement that enters into force with respect to the United States without the Council and Senate approval, which is required by the Constitution for treaties. In particular, these are three types of agreements: those concluded within the framework or in accordance with an existing contract; subject to congressional approval or implementation (“Executive Agreements of Congress”); and are taken within the framework and respect of the President`s constitutional powers (“single executive arrangements”). None of these executive agreements are subject to the formal contractual procedure under Article II, Section 2, of Clause 2 of the Constitution. Executive agreements are often used to circumvent the requirements of national constitutions for treaty ratification. Many nations that are republics with written constitutions have constitutional rules on treaty ratification.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is based on executive agreements. The implementation of executive agreements increased considerably after 1939.