In the case of executive agreements, it seems generally accepted that the president, if he has the independent power to enter into an executive agreement, can denounce the agreement independently, without the approval of Congress or the Senate. 186 Thus, observers seem to agree that if the Constitution authorizes the President to enter into exclusive executive agreements, the President may also unilaterally denounce these agreements.187 The same principle would apply to political commitments: to the extent that the President is empowered to make non-binding commitments without the agreement of the Senate or Congress, the President may also unilaterally resign from those commitments.188 [The President] has the power to make non-binding commitments without the agreement. Congress.188 to make non-binding commitments. with the deliberation and approval of the Senate to make contracts, provided that two-thirds of the senators present agree… A treaty is an international agreement established in writing and by international law between two or more sovereign states, whether inscribed in a single instrument or in two or more related acts. Treaties have many names: conventions, agreements, pacts, pacts, charters and statutes, among others. The choice of name has no legal value. Contracts can generally be categorized into one of two main categories: bilateral (between two countries) and multilateral (between three or more countries). 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.
, Congress may dictate how whistleblowing takes place in the law approving or implementing the agreement.191,191 The notable extension of presidential power in this area was first manifested in President McKinley`s administration. At the beginning of the war with Spain, the President announced that the United States would be bound by the last three principles of the Paris Declaration for the duration, a course that, as Professor Wright points out, “would undoubtedly go a long way to defining these three principles as an international law, mandatory for the United States in future wars.” 473 Hostilities with Spain ended in August 1898 with a ceasefire, the terms of which largely determine the subsequent peace treaty,474, as well as the ceasefire of 11 November 1918, largely determine the conditions for final peace with Germany in 1918. It was also President McKinley who, in 1900, relied solely on his sole authority as commander-in-chief, brought a 5,000-strong ground force and a naval force to work with similar contingents of other powers to save the beijing legations from boxers; A year later, without consulting Congress or the Senate, he accepted for the United States the protocol for compensation for boxers between China and the intermediate powers.475 Commenting on the Beijing Protocol, Willoughby quotes with his consent the following remark: “This case is interesting because it shows how the force of circumstances has forced us to adopt European practice in reference to an international agreement. which, with the exception of the issue of compensation, was almost exclusively political in nature . . . . Purely political treaties are usually concluded in Europe only by the executive, within the framework of constitutional practice.
However, the situation in China largely justified President McKinley`s failure to submit the minutes to the Senate.