During the 19th century, the government`s practice dealt with the power to terminate contracts as they were shared between legislative and executive departments.205 Congress often authorized206 or instructed the president207 to terminate the contract with foreign governments during that period. In rare cases, the Senate single-time passed a resolution authorizing the president to terminate a contract.208 Presidents have consistently complied with the authorization or instruction of the legislative branch.209 On other occasions, Congress or the Senate approved the president`s resignation, while the foreign government executive had already resigned.210 In foreign relations, U.S. presidents have exercised increasing independence using executive agreements. The U.S. Constitution stipulates that two-thirds of the Senate must ratify a proposed treaty, but does not provide for other forms of international agreements. In 1942, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of executive treaties and, since World War II, they have overtaken treaties by more than ten to one. Are presidents flouted in the Constitution or are they trying to streamline the diplomatic process? The implementation of executive agreements increased considerably after 1939. Prior to 1940, the U.S. Senate had ratified 800 treaties and presidents had concluded 1,200 executive agreements; From 1940 to 1989, during World War II and the Cold War, presidents signed nearly 800 treaties, but concluded more than 13,000 executive treaties. 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 If an agreement stipulates that it must be concluded in several languages, The Supreme Court has analyzed language versions to facilitate an understanding of the terms of the agreement.166 The Court is also considering the broader ”purpose and purpose” of an international agreement.167 In some cases, the Supreme Court has considered extratextual documents, such as the development of history,168 the views of other contracting states.168 .169 and the practices that followed the ratification of other nations.170 The Court, however, drew attention to this point. 171 Pending the application of the implementing laws, existing national legislation on an issue that falls under a non-autonomous provision remains unchanged, and the right of control in the United States is clear, of course, that the non-authoritarian provisions contained in international agreements do not supersede existing state or federal legislation. , there is an important scientific debate on the distinction between self-executive and non-self-expression provisions, including the capacity of the United States.