Treaties Vs Executive Agreements

International agreements can be repealed at any time and survival times are therefore continuous in nature. However, as noted above, survival times are measured only once a year on the basis of TIF publication. In principle, continuously grouped data allows the application of parametric and semi-parametric models. However, as explained in the appendix, the semiparametric derivative of the modelFootnote 90 cox-proportional is most appropriate for the current scenario, footnote 91, as it is a semiparametric model based on a small number of assumptions. Footnote 92 The complementary log-log model serves as a robustness test. 62 For a discussion on the importance and difficulty of measuring compliance with international agreements see Downs, George W., Rocke, David M. Barsoom, Peter N., Is the Good News Compliance Good News About Cooperation?, 50 Int`l Org. 379 (1996). 118 Vgl. Lin, Danyu Y., Wei, L.

J. – Ying, Z., Checking the Cox Model with Cumulative Sums of Martingale-Based Residuals, 80 Biometrika 557, 557 (1993) (“The proportional hazard model with the principle of partial probability … (1) has become extremely popular for analysis of error time observations. (Quotes are omitted); See also Tian, Zucker and Wei, supra note 91, at 172 (“The most popular semiparametric regression model for analyzing survival data is the proportional risk (PH) model.) (Quote omitted). For examples of international law, see Elkins, Guzman-Simmons, supra note 91, to 828 (estimate of adoption periods for bilateral investment contracts under a Cox model); Simmons, note 91 above, at 823 (2000) (using Cox`s model to estimate the time until states accept the obligations under Article VIII of the IMF Statutes). Contrary to the assumptions raised in the previous subsection, several reports indicate that the commitments made in the form of a contract differ qualitatively from those made between Congress and the executive branch. These reports are based on the idea that the treaty, while politically more costly, can also bring some benefits to the parties, which may ultimately lead to a firmer commitment. In the case of interactions where benefits outweigh costs, the contract would then be the preferred instrument, while an executive agreement of Congress would be preferred in others. For Hathaway, the treaty is a less reliable instrument and should be abandoned in favor of the executive agreement of Congress. Their assertion has sparked heated discussion among scholars of international law. For example, the American Journal of International Law`s online companion published in 2014 under the title The End of Treaty?, the online companion of the American Journal of International Law, several essays by eminent scholars and State Department officials who discussed whether the treaty would have a place in the future of U.S.

foreign policy. Footnote 44 The second opportunity is that presidents can unilaterally withdraw from contracts, while the exit from congressional executive agreements requires congressional participation. Footnote 41 This would allow presidents to easily deliver on their promise even if a contract is entered through the consultation and approval process. For each agreement, the guide also refers to a “Senate Contract Document Number.” This number is assigned to any contract submitted to the Senate as part of the consultation and approval process. Executive agreements do not receive a contract number from the Senate. The number can therefore be used to determine which agreement is a contract in the database and what agreement has been reached in the form of an executive agreement. The view that treaties and agreements between Congress and the executive branch can be considered legal substitutes, of course, raises the question of why the United States needs two legal instruments to regulate the same types of international relations.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.