A second limitation of this study is that, while suggesting that contracts retain their value as a policy instrument, it is not directly interested in the relative importance of the different assumptions for the greater sustainability of contracts. Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain this sustainability, from signal theory to the stability of Senatorial preferences, to the possibility that the consultation and approval process will give negotiators more credible information. Of course, none of these statements are mutually exclusive; In fact, it may be naïve to think that a single theory can explain the choice between engagement devices for any agreement. However, since all the mechanisms in this analysis give results equivalent to observation, the results provide little guidance to those interested in assessing and comparing the relative importance of each of the proposed statements. Executive Agreement, an agreement between the United States and a foreign government that is less formal than a treaty and is not subject to the constitutional requirement of ratification by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. The four steps of the contract search process are described below. The sources you consult vary depending on whether the treaty is bilateral or multilateral and whether or not the United States is a party to the treaty. As specified in 11 FAM 721.2, there are two procedures under national law by which the United States becomes a party to an international agreement. First, international agreements (whatever their title, name or form) whose entry into force with regard to the United States occurs only after two-thirds of the United States. The Senate has given its opinion and approval in accordance with Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2, of the Constitution are “treaties”. Second, international agreements that enter into force with respect to the United States on a different constitutional basis than that of the Council and Senate approval are “non-treaty international agreements” and are often referred to as “executive agreements.” There are several types of executive agreements.

While the treaties and agreements between Congress and the executive do not differ qualitatively, it seems difficult to rationalize the reasons why negotiators sometimes show such interest in the choice of instrument. Therefore, some scholars seem to criticize the alleged lack of usefulness of treaties. Arguments come in different forms; Some suggest that a president`s use of the treaty would mean a particularly high degree of commitment,footnote 15 that the fight for senators` approval could lead the government to divulge valuable information,footnote 16 or that greater stability in Senate preferences helps ensure long-term compliance. Footnote 17 All of these reports have in common the assumption that treaties, while politically more costly than agreements between Congress and the executive, bring certain benefits to the parties, which in turn justifies their sustainability as a valuable policy instrument of the United States. For Hathaway, the treaty is a less reliable instrument and should be abandoned in favor of the congress-executive agreement.