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. In the United States, executive agreements are binding at the international level when negotiated and concluded under the authority of the President on foreign policy, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces or from 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.  An executive agreement 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. Executive agreement of Congress, a binding agreement between the United States and a foreign country, which is easier to enact than a formal treaty, but is technically more limited. It is high time that Congress took a close look at the process of international agreements. These agreements are essential to the effective functioning of the United States in the world, but they should be concluded so that the American people can understand the commitments made on their behalf.
Despite the growth and development of the U.S. agreement processes, Congress has not seriously overhauled the Case Act regime and has never sought to introduce administrative rigor into the process of developing the agreement. It`s time for a change. One might think that even if Congress is unable to rescind the agreements, disclosure to Congress and the publication of the agreements required by the Case Act provide sufficient accountability. But there is reason to believe that this is not true. First, the State Department has an uneven mission of internal collection and disclosure to Congress and the public of agreements reached by the United States. As we will explain in more detail in a later article, the TIAS does not appear to be complete, nor do previous reports of the Department of Foreign Affairs` Online Cases Act. In addition, the Brennan Center for Justice has demonstrated that there are many "secret" executive agreements - classified agreements. And even if the agreements themselves are reported to the public, the legal basis is not. Under an executive order that came into effect in 1981, when the executive branch notifies its executive agreements to Congress, it contains a citation from the judicial authorities that it believes allows it to conclude the agreement without obtaining the advice and approval of the Senate.