[footnote 391] “The distinction between `executive agreements` and `treaties` is purely constitutional and has no international significance. Harvard Research in International Law, Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties, 29 Amer. J. Int. L. 697 (Supp.) (1935). See E. Byrd, A.O.A., No. 292, 148-151. Many scientists have aggressively encouraged the use of executive agreements, unlike treaties, as a means of strengthening the role of the United States, especially the role of the president, in the international system. See McDougal & Lans, Treaties and Congressional Executive or Presidential Agreements: Interchangeable Instruments of National Policy (Pts I and II), 54 Yale L. J.

181, 534 (1945). [footnote 449] There were many variations in the language, but section 3 of S.J. Res. 1 was typical, as reported by the Senate Justice Committee, 83d Congress, 1. Sess. In recent years, the growth in executive agreements is also explained by the volume of business between the United States and other countries, combined with the already high workload of the Senate. Many international agreements are relatively small and would unnecessarily burden the Senate if they were subject to deliberations and approvals in the form of treaties. Another factor has been the adoption of laws authorizing the executive to conclude international agreements in certain areas such as external aid, agriculture and trade. Contracts have also been adopted authorizing other agreements between the parties.