An Executive Agreement Differs from a Treaty Because

Executive agreements and treaties are common tools used by nations to formalize their relations with each other. Both of these agreements are legally binding and require certain protocols for their establishment.

However, executive agreements and treaties are not the same. Although both agreements are used to establish formal relationships between nations, they serve different functions and are subject to different legal requirements.

So, what is the difference between an executive agreement and a treaty? In this article, we will explore the key differences between these two international instruments.

1. Constitutional process

One of the most significant differences between an executive agreement and a treaty is the process by which they are established. Executive agreements are created by the president of the United States and do not require the approval of the Senate. In contrast, treaties are subject to the constitutional requirement that they be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

This difference in constitutional process means that executive agreements can be established more quickly than treaties. While treaties may take years to negotiate and ratify, executive agreements can be established more efficiently.

2. Applicability and scope

Another key difference between executive agreements and treaties is their applicability and scope. Treaties are generally used to establish broad and long-lasting relationships between nations. They often cover a wide range of issues, such as trade, human rights, and security.

In contrast, executive agreements are typically used to address specific issues or situations. They may cover a narrower range of topics, such as military cooperation, environmental protection, or extradition of criminals.

3. Binding power

A critical aspect of both executive agreements and treaties is their binding power. Both agreements are legally binding and enforceable under international law.

However, the process by which they are enforced differs. Treaties are subject to higher legal scrutiny and can be overturned by the courts if they are found to conflict with the Constitution. Conversely, executive agreements are more vulnerable to being overturned by a future administration, as they are not subject to the same degree of legal scrutiny.

4. Duration

Another significant difference between executive agreements and treaties is their duration. Treaties are intended to be long-lasting and are often established for extended periods, sometimes even decades. Executive agreements, on the other hand, are typically established for a much shorter duration and may expire after a few years.

Conclusion

In conclusion, executive agreements and treaties serve different functions and are subject to different legal requirements. Executive agreements are established more quickly, are more narrow in scope, and are subject to less legal scrutiny than treaties. Conversely, treaties are broader in scope, are intended to be long-lasting and are subject to more legal scrutiny.

It is important to understand the differences between these two international instruments to appreciate their relevance and applicability in different scenarios. As a professional, it is also essential to ensure that the appropriate terminology is used in articles and other written materials to communicate these distinctions effectively.