To discuss the power of Congress to influence international agreements, international law and U.S. foreign relations through its political powers, such as surveillance and means powers, see Henkin, supra note 22, at 81-82. The vast majority of international agreements concluded by the United States are not treaties, but executive agreements – executive agreements that are not submitted to the Senate for consideration and approval.41 Federal law requires the executive branch to notify Congress at the entry of such an agreement.42 Executive agreements are not specifically discussed in the Constitution. But they are considered to be valid international pacts according to Supreme Court jurisprudence and historical practice.43 Although the United States has entered into international pacts through executive agreements since the early days of the Republic, 45 commentators estimate that more than 90% of international agreements concluded by the United States have taken the form of an executive agreement.46 The United States is binding executive agreements at the international level. if they are negotiated and concluded under the authority of the President on foreign policy, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces or from a previous congressional record. For example, the President, as Commander-in-Chief, negotiates and concludes Armed Forces Agreements (SOFAs) that govern the treatment and disposition of U.S. forces deployed in other nations. However, the President cannot unilaterally enter into executive agreements on matters that are not in his constitutional jurisdiction. In such cases, an agreement should take the form of an agreement between Congress and the executive branch or a contract with the Council and the approval of the Senate.
 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. who argue for a new form of executive agreement arguing that it is not necessary to determine a specific authorisation status or constitutional power if the President already has the national power to implement 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. In analyzing an international agreement for its domestic application, U.S. courts have the ultimate power to interpret the importance 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 nations.164 The interpretation process begins with a review of the text of the [memorandum] and context. in which written words are used. 165 While an agreement stipulates that it must be concluded in several languages, the Supreme Court has analyzed language versions to help understand 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 cautioned extratextual documents, such as the development of history. .168 the views of the other contracting states.168,169 and practices after the ratification of other nations.170 The Court warned against this practice. 171 In the case of executive agreements, it seems generally accepted that, while the President has independent power to enter into an executive agreement, the President is also required to adopt the agreement independently.