During the 19th century, the government`s practice dealt with the power to terminate contracts as they were shared between legislative and executive departments.205 Congress often authorized206 or instructed the president207 to terminate the contract with foreign governments during that period. In rare cases, only the Senate passed a resolution, 208 presidents regularly complied with the authorization or instructions of the legislature.209 On other occasions, Congress or the Senate approved the resignation of the president after the fact, while the foreign government executive had already resigned.210 See z.B Louis Henkin, U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Treaty: Ghost of Bricker, 89 Am. J. Int`l L. 341, 343-44 (1995) (on the grounds that the United States is able to fully discharge its obligations under certain human rights instruments through existing national legislation, treaties are unnecessary and inconsistent with their purpose); Fourth restatment: design 2, top note 28, 105 cmt. 3 (“[R]eservations are generally not permitted by international law if they are “incompatible with the purpose and purpose of the treaty”. (Cite the Vienna Convention, see 13, art. 19 (c)). 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. In analyzing an international agreement for its domestic application, U.S.
courts have the ultimate power to interpret the meaning of the agreement.163 In general, the Supreme Court has stated that its purpose in interpreting an agreement is to recognize the intent of the contracting party nations.164 The interpretation process begins with an examination of the “text of the agreement and the context in which the written words are used.” 165 When an agreement stipulates that it must be concluded in several languages, the Supreme Court has analyzed language versions to facilitate understanding of the terms of the agreement.166 The Court also considers the broader “purpose and purpose” of an international agreement.167 In some cases, the Supreme Court has extratextual documents, 168,169 and practices that followed the ratification of other nations.170 However, the Court warned that consultation with sources outside the text of the treaty may not be appropriate if the text is clear.171 See Reid/.