Compare Bradford C. Clark, Domesticating Sole Executive Agreements, 93 Va. L. Rev. 1573, 1661 (2007) (arguing that the text and history of the Constitution support the position that treaties and executive agreements are not interchangeable, and also argue that the supreme clause should be read in order to avoid, in general, exclusive executive agreements being contrary to existing legislation); Laurence H. Tribe, Taking Text and Structure Seriously: Reflections on Free-Form Method in Constitutional Interpretation, 108 Harv. L. Rev. 1221, 1249-67 (1995) (on the grounds that the contractual clause is the exclusive means for Congress to approve important international agreements); John C.
Yoo, Laws as Treaties?: The Constitutionality of Congressional Executive Agreements, 99 Me. L. Rev. 757, 852 (2001) (on the grounds that treaties are the constitutional form required for Congress to approve an international agreement on measures outside the constitutional powers of Congress, including human rights, political/military alliances and arms control issues, but are not necessary for agreements of measures within the competence of Congress, such as the International Trade Agreement. B). With third restatement, see 1, 303 n.8 (“Previously, it was argued that certain agreements could only be concluded in the form of contracts under the constitutional procedure. The scientific opinion rejected this view.” Henkin, supra note 22, at 217 (“Whatever its theoretical advantages, it is now widely accepted that the Executive Agreement of Congress is available for broad use, including for general use, and is a complete alternative to a contract. . . . “); Hathaway, supra note 45, at 1244 (affirms that “the weight of scientific opinion” has been regarded since the 1940s in favour of the idea that congressional contracts and executive agreements are interchangeable); Bruce Ackerman – David Golove, IS NAFTA Constitutional?, 108 Harv. L.
Rev. 799, 861-96 (1995) (arguing that the developments of the Second World War changed the historical understanding of the distribution of power among government entities to make a complete alternative a treaty). In addition to treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate and signed by the U.S. President, there were also laws of Congress and executive orders dealing with land contracts. The U.S. military and representatives of a tribe or sub-unit of a tribe signed documents that were then considered contracts and not weapons, ceasefires and ceasefires. Office of Treaty Affairs (L/T): The Office of the Assistant Contract Counsel of the Office of legal counsel provides guidance on all aspects of U.S. and international contract law and international contract practice. It manages the process by which the State Department authorizes the negotiation and conclusion of all international agreements to which the United States must agree.
Komentáře