The argument focuses on how easily a president can break a deal after it is concluded. In particular, Hathaway proposes that the form of the treaty hinders presidents` ability to credentially shackle their hands, because even after ratification, the treaty offers two additional opportunities to break a promise that the congress-executive agreement would not offer. This, in turn, makes it more difficult for other countries to rely on commitments in the form of the treaty. Hathaway completes his theory with an empirical evaluation of 3,119 agreements concluded between 1980 and 2000. It notes that the model of use of the contract observed is incompatible with theories which attribute to the treaty a different quality from the congress-executive agreement. Instead, Hathaway argues that the best way to explain the use of the contractual instrument is a historical lens. Print 5 (2001) (which describes in detail the fact that the Presidents claimed as a basis the general executive power of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution; its power as Commander-in-Chief in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1; its contractual bargaining power in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2; its power to receive ambassadors in Article II, section 3; and its duty to faithfully enforce the laws in article II; Section (3). Similarly, Hathaway`s analysis is purely descriptive and is not able to empirically examine why contracts are more or less common in certain thematic areas. This makes it impossible to determine whether the historical conventions motivate the application of the treaty in different thematic areas or whether other considerations might be at stake. 11 Hathaway, a.a.O.
Note 1, circa 1285 (on the grounds that historical conventions explain the use of the treaty). Bradley, Curtis A. &Morrison, Trevor W., Historical Gloss and the Separation of Powers, 126 Harv. == 411, 474 (2012) (arguing that the use of the contract can be declared “major”, at least in part, by selective senatorial attention). 1. A contract requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate, while an executive agreement does not. 2. A contract is a formal agreement, while an executive agreement is not as formal as a contract. 3.
A treaty shall be transmitted to successive Presidents, while an executive agreement shall be renegotiated each time. 4. An executive agreement has two types, while a contract is not. 5. A president may rely on an executive agreement, but not on a contract. 6. There are many more executive agreements than contracts. 41 i. Around 1336 (“[I]n president, it will probably be more difficult to withdraw unilaterally from a congress-executive agreement than from an Article II treaty.”) . . . .