The Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (BTPAA), which is included in Title XXI of 200211`s Trade Act, gave the president new trade bargaining power. Although power expired in the 110th Congress, the implementation of trade agreement bills concluded before 1 July 2007 remained eligible for accelerated legislative review.17 The 2002 law did not require that laws implementing such an agreement be submitted to Congress by a specific date. On agreements concluded before the 1st The free trade agreements between the United States and Colombia, Korea and Panama were concluded on July 27, 2007 but had not yet been approved by that date.18 Congress approved the three agreements in October 2011 under the BTPAA fast-track procedures. Agreements with Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, Bahrain, Oman, dominican republic-Central American-United States (DR-CAFTA) and Peru had been previously approved as part of this process. During the first half century of its independence, the United States was a party to sixty treaties, but only to twenty-seven published executive agreements. At the beginning of the Second World War, some 800 contracts and 1200 executive agreements were concluded. Between 1940 and 1989, the nation concluded 759 contracts and 13,016 published executive agreements. In 1989, the United States was a party to 890 treaties and 5,117 executive agreements. In relative terms, in the first 50 years of its history, the United States entered into twice as many contracts as executive agreements. During the 50 years from 1839 to 1889, some more executive agreements than contracts were concluded. From 1889 to 1939, almost twice as many executive contracts as contracts were concluded. Between 1939 and 1993, executive agreements constituted more than 90% of the international agreements concluded439. These include slight territorial adaptations, border remediation, border surveillance, regulation of fishing rights, private money rights against another government or its nationals, in the words of Story « the only rights deprived of sovereignty ».
467 Crandall lists a large number of such agreements concluded with other governments with the approval of the President468 These agreements generally concerned specific and relatively trivial disputes, and the settlement which they have as their effect ipso facto loses their effects. There are also diplomatic means as venerable as the « protocol », which marks a phase of negotiation of a contract, and the modus vivendi, which must serve as a temporary substitute for you. Executive agreements become constitutional if they are a determining factor for future foreign policy and, therefore, for the fate of the country. Especially as a result of our participation in the Second World War and our immersion in the conditions of the prevailing international tensions and after the war, presidents reached agreements with other governments, some of which brought temporary alliances closer together. However, it cannot rightly be said that they acted without significant support from precedents. One might think that even if Congress cannot cancel agreements, disclosure to Congress, necessitated by the Case Act and the publication of agreements, offers sufficient accountability. But there are reasons to think that this is not true. First, the State Department does an uneven job of collecting information internally about U.S. agreements and leaving it open to Congress and the public. . .