These examples are automatically selected from different online sources of information to reflect the current use of the term “executive agreement.” The opinions expressed in the examples do not reflect the views of Merriam-Webster or its publishers. Send us comments. In the case of contractual agreements between Congress and the executive branch and executive agreements, the nature of the termination may be dictated by the underlying contract or by the underlying status on which the agreement is based.189 In the case of contract executive agreements, the Senate may indicate that the President cannot enter into executive agreements under the authority of the Treaty without the authorization of the Senate or Congress. 191 Although the Supreme Court has not dealt directly with the problem, many courts and commentators agree that the provisions of international agreements that would require the United States to exercise powers that the Constitution exclusively assigns to Congress should not be considered autonomous and that enforcement laws are necessary 117 Lower courts have ruled That the lower courts have concluded that, because Congress controls the power of the wallet, a provision of the contract requiring expenditures of funds should not be considered self-determined.118 Other leading jurisdictions have proposed that provisions of the treaty that purport to create criminal liability119 or increase revenue120 should not be considered inexhaustible,120 since these powers are the exclusive prerogative of Congress. Some foreign relations experts have recently argued that the practice of the international agreement has developed so that some modern executive agreements no longer fit into the three generally accepted categories of executive agreements69. who argue for a new form of executive agreement arguing that it is not necessary to determine a specific authorisation status or constitutional power if the President already has the national power to implement the executive agreement; The agreement does not require any changes to national legislation; 71 Opponents of this proposed new paradigm of the executive agreement argue that it is not compatible with the principles of separation of powers, which they believe require the President to authorize the conclusion of international agreements either by the Constitution, by a ratified treaty or by an act of Congress. It is now widely accepted that an agreement between Congress and the executive branch is a complete alternative to a treaty: the president can obtain approval of any agreement through a joint resolution of both houses of Congress, instead of a two-thirds majority of the Senate. As a treaty, such an agreement is the law of the country that replaces inconsistent state laws as well as inconsistent provisions in previous treaties, other international agreements or acts of Congress. In the United States, executive agreements are binding at the international level when negotiated and concluded under the authority of the President on foreign policy, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces or from a previous congressional record. For example, as Commander-in-Chief, the President negotiates and concludes the status of military agreements (SOFAs) that govern the treatment and disposition of the United States.