For a review of Congress` power to influence U.S. international agreements, international law, and foreign relations through its political powers, such as supervisory powers and financial endowments, see Henkin, note 22 above, at 81-82 [footnote 404] id., 694. See also Ladies &Moore v. Regan, 453 U.P. 654 (1981), in which the Tribunal upheld a series of enforcement actions taken by the President under the Executive Agreement with Iran to resolve the hostage crisis. The Tribunal found that Congress had conferred on the President certain economic powers that underpinned the agreements and that his suspension of rights had been implicitly ratified over time by not denouncing the power invoked by Congress. See also Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.P. 25, 29-30 n. 6 (1982).
[footnote 389] Essay by CRS, a.a.O., n.262, xxxiv-xxxv, 13-16. Of course, not all of these agreements are published, either for reasons of national security/secrecy or because the subject matter is trivial. In a 1953 exchange of hearings, Foreign Minister Dulles estimated that about 10,000 executive agreements had been concluded under the NATO treaty. “Every time we open a new insider, we have to have an executive agreement.” Hearing on S.J. Res. 1 and S.J. Res. 43, Before a Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 83d Congress, 1st Anniversary. (1953), 877.
[footnote 390] One authority concluded that, of the executive agreements concluded between 1938 and 1957, only 5.9% were based exclusively on the constitutional authority of the president. McLaughlin, The Scope of the Treaty Power in the United States-II, 43 minn. L. Rev. 651, 721 (1959). Another study, which overlapped somewhat, showed that during the period 1946-1972, 88.3% of executive agreements were based, at least in part, on legal powers; 6.2% were based on contracts and 5.5% were based exclusively on the executive branch. International Agreements: An Analysis of Executive Regulations and Practices, A Study Prepared for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations by the Congressional Research Service, 95th Cong, 1st. ( Comm. Print) (1977), 22.
Despite the complexity of national self-doctrine, treaties and other international agreements operate in a dual international and national legal context.126 In the international context, international agreements have traditionally been binding treaties between sovereign nations and create rights and obligations that nations owe to each other under international law.127 how it implements its contractual agreement. 128 The doctrine of self-enforcement concerns the implementation of a treaty provision in the United States. . . .