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. That some recently concluded executive agreements were not based on a defined source of presidential authority, such as an individual status or an autonomous claim of constitutional authority70 Supporters of a new form of executive agreement argue, however, that the identification of a particular authorisation status or constitutional power is not necessary if the President already has the national power to execute 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. Compare Bradford C. Clark, Domesticating Sole Executive Agreements, 93 Va. L. Rev. 1573, 1661 (2007) (arguing that the text and history of the Constitution support the position that treaties and executive agreements are not interchangeable, and also argue that the supreme clause should be read in order to avoid, in general, exclusive executive agreements being contrary to existing legislation); Laurence H. Tribe, Taking Text and Structure Seriously: Reflections on Free-Form Method in Constitutional Interpretation, 108 Harv. L. Rev. 1221, 1249-67 (1995) (on the grounds that the contractual clause is the exclusive means for Congress to approve important international agreements); John C. Yoo, Laws as Treaties?: The Constitutionality of Congressional Executive Agreements, 99 Me. L.

Rev. 757, 852 (2001) (on the grounds that treaties are the constitutional form required for Congress to approve an international agreement on measures outside the constitutional powers of Congress, including human rights, political/military alliances and arms control issues, but are not necessary for agreements of measures within the competence of Congress, such as the International Trade Agreement. B). avec troisième restatement, p. 1, N° 303 n.8 (« Auparavant, il était fait valoir que certains accords ne sont considérés que comme traités selon les dispositions de la Constitution. . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . The scientific opinion rejected this view.» Henkin, supra note 22, at 217 («Whatever its theoretical advantages, it is now widely accepted that the Executive Agreement of Congress is available for broad use, including for general use, and is a complete alternative to a contract. .

. . «); Hathaway, supra note 45, at 1244 (affirms that «the weight of scientific opinion» has been regarded since the 1940s in favour of the idea that congressional contracts and executive agreements are interchangeable); Bruce Ackerman – David Golove, IS NAFTA Constitutional?, 108 Harv. L. Rev. 799, 861-96 (1995) (arguing that the developments of the Second World War changed the historical understanding of the distribution of power among government entities to make a complete alternative a treaty). «It is, of course, true that even treaties with foreign nations are carefully interpreted not to depart from the authority and jurisdiction of the states of that nation, unless it is clearly necessary to conduct national policy. . . . But state law must yield if it is incompatible or contrary to the policy or provisions of a treaty or an international pact or agreement.

Second, the power of a state to refuse the application of rights on the basis of foreign law, which goes to the