Executive agreements are often used to circumvent the requirements of national constitutions for treaty ratification. Many nations that are republics with written constitutions have constitutional rules on treaty ratification. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is based on executive agreements. The presidents have also reaffirmed the power to unilaterally withdraw from agreements between Congress and the executive branch, but there is a scientific debate about the extent to which the Constitution allows the president to act in such circumstances without legislative approval. Some scholars claim that the president has the power, unilaterally withdrawing from the executive agreements of Congress, although he is not allowed to end the domestic effects of a law implementing laws.194 But others argue that Congress must approve the end of executive agreements that confer exclusive powers on Congress, such as power over international trade. , and which have obtained congressional approval after being concluded by the executive branch.195 Although this debate is still developing.195 Although this debate is still developing. , the president`s unilateral end to the executive agreements of Congress has not been the subject of much litigation, and previous studies have found that such dismissal has not generated much resistance from the legislative department.196 International customary law plays a direct role in the U.S. legal system when Congress introduces it through federal law. Some statutes explicitly refer to international law and allow courts to interpret their requirements and contours.245 Thus, federal law prohibits “the crime of piracy under international law .
. . .” 246 And the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act removes protection against legal actions granted to foreign sovereign nations in certain categories of cases where property rights are “held in violation of international law.” 247 Recently, some foreign relations experts have 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.