What Is The Difference Between A Treaty And An Executive Agreement
The use of shelf life as a substitute for force of use is justified for three reasons. Let`s start with another approach to strength of engagement – the ability of an agreement to withstand shocks in the political or economic environment. Footnote 64 The likelihood of shocks increases over time, and agreements are therefore more resistant to changing circumstances, including those that take longer. Therefore, sustainability is also positively correlated with this alternative concept of use force. Second, from a purely practical point of view, the duration of a contract can be measured objectively, while the competing concept of force of engagement would require a number of subjective decisions, such as the severity of the shock and the extent to which the agreement has withstood or has not withstood external pressure. Footnote 65 Third, different theories use interchangeable bonding force and durability concepts, suggesting that both concepts can be considered substitutes. Footnote 66 A second data restriction is that it is not able to identify individual management agreements. This is important because the question of whether the executive agreement should replace the treaty in its entirety is raised only from the perspective of agreements between Congress and the executive branch; it is generally accepted that executive agreements are very different political instruments, which fall under the presidential power and do not require legislative participation. Footnote 81 The reason for the inability to individually identify exclusive executive agreements is that neither TIF nor the executive agreements themselves indicate their licensing rules.
Therefore, the identification of exclusive executive agreements would require a search for licensing laws for each executive convention in the Broad Statute, a process that requires an unenforceable workforce and cannot simply be automated. However, previous studies have shown that the share of single executive agreements is minimal, with an estimated share of 5% to 6% in all international agreements. Footnote 83 The analysis below deals with this restriction through a conservative estimation method. Footnote 84 80 Hathaway combines multiple sources, resulting in a total of 3,119 agreements over the 1980-2000 period. See Hathaway, supra note 1, at 1258-60. In contrast, the data set used here contains 6,148 agreements over the same period. This study should examine whether the commitments in the form of a contract are far more sustainable than those made as agreements between Congress and the executive branch. The analysis suggests that this is indeed the case. If all the characteristics observed are maintained at a constant level, an agreement adopted as a treaty takes longer statistically and materially than a similar agreement in the form of an executive treaty. This applies to all model specifications and even assuming that the shortest 10% of permanent executive agreements are exclusive executive agreements that could not replace the treaty. Figure 3 shows that there is a 14% probability for an agreement at the end of the observation period, provided it is in effect by then. For executive agreements, this probability is 40%.
Similarly, there is a 15 per cent probability that a contract will be broken between 1982 and 2012, while the probability is 50 per cent for executive agreements. As printing resources have been migrated online, it is now possible to complete the first two or three steps of the contract search process using an online contract database, such as the HeinOnline Treaty and Accords Library, HeinOnline`s World Treaty Library or the U.N.