Although the two agreements are both treaties and agreements between Congress and the Executive, they are legally different instruments. For example, agreements between Congress and the executive branch cannot deal with matters outside the listed powers of Congress and the President (those powers, which were expressly granted to Congress and the President in Article I, Section 8 and Section II, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution), while treaties can do so. Moreover, according to the Constitution, a treaty will only be ratified if at least two-thirds of the Senate votes in favour of it. On the other hand, an executive agreement of Congress with a single simple majority becomes mandatory in both houses of Congress. Agreements between Congress and the executive branch should not be confused with executive agreements reached by the president alone. 483 id. on 391-93. Attorney General Jackson`s defense of presidential power relied on the president`s „inherent“ powers under the Commander-in-Chief clause and as the exclusive body of foreign relations, but ultimately found appropriate legal authority to take measures deemed desirable.
39 op. Atty. In analyzing an international agreement for its domestic application, U.S. courts have the ultimate power to interpret the importance of the agreement.163 In general, the Supreme Court has stated that its purpose in interpreting an agreement is to recognize the intent of the contracting nations.164 The interpretation process begins with a review of the text of the [memorandum] and context. in which written words are used. 165 While an agreement stipulates that it must be concluded in several languages, the Supreme Court has analyzed language versions to help understand the terms of the agreement.166 The Court also considers the broader „purpose and purpose“ of an international agreement.167 In some cases, the Supreme Court has cautioned extratextual documents, such as the development of history. .168 the views of the other contracting states.168,169 and practices after the ratification of other nations.170 The Court warned against this practice. 171 In the case of executive agreements, it seems generally accepted that, if the President has independent power to enter into an executive agreement, he may denounce the agreement independently without the consent of Congress or the Senate. 186 Observers thus seem to agree that if the Constitution authorizes the President to enter into exclusive executive agreements, the President may unilaterally denounce these agreements.187 The same principle would apply to political commitments: to the extent that the President is empowered to make non-binding commitments without the consent of the Senate or Congress, the President may also unilaterally withdraw from those commitments.188 As McKinley`s foreign minister, he initiated his open-door policy with notes to Britain, Germany and Russia, which were quickly followed by notes similar to those of France, Italy and Japan. They essentially asked the beneficiaries to formally declare that they would not seek to expand their respective interests in China at the expense of one of the others; and all responded positively.477 Then, in 1905, the first Roosevelt to reach a diplomatic agreement with Japan initiated an exchange of views between the then Minister of War Taft in the Far East and Count Katsura, who amounted to a secret treaty by which the Roosevelt administration committed to establishing a military protectorate in Korea by Japan.478 Three years later Three years later , Foreign Minister Root and the Japanese Ambassador to Washington concluded the root-Takahira 479 agreement Meanwhile, in 1907, through a „gentleman`s agreement“, Mikado`s government had agreed to stem the emigration of Japanese subsectors to the United States and thus relieve the Washington government of the need to take measures that would have cost Japan the loss.