But what are the differences between the two? Are there things to be done through a treaty and not an executive agreement? Are executive agreements considered binding by U.S. courts? Are the two types of agreements generally used for different purposes or are there significant overlaps? For Hathaway, the treaty is a less reliable instrument and should be abandoned in favor of the executive agreement of Congress. Their assertion has sparked heated discussion among scholars of international law. For example, the American Journal of International Law`s online companion published in 2014 under the title The End of Treaty?, the online companion of the American Journal of International Law, several essays by eminent scholars and State Department officials who discussed whether the treaty would have a place in the future of U.S. foreign policy. Footnote 44 69 See z.B. U.S. Department of State, A Guide to the United States Treaty in Force, at vii (Igor I. Kavass ed., 2016) (“T] here is a very weak correlation between bilateral and multilateral categories. The existing treaties do not have a numerical list or a list of bilateral and multilateral agreement themes.
Nor does it seek to merge agreements in another way, which is comfortable for researchers. »). 70 This procedure is correct, with the exception of a few exceptions that are caused by peculiarities in the publication process. For example, the guide (2011) lists the START-I agreement as being indexed in TIF (2010) and not in TIF (2011), although the agreement expired on December 5, 2009 (The corresponding identifier is KAV 3172, see the State Sub-Department, A Guide to the United States Treaty in Force 870 (Igor I. Kavass ed., 2011).) This is because the contract expired too shortly before the 2010 TIF publication deadline. However, all agreements are also concerned with the specifics of the underlying publication mechanism, making it unlikely that these errors would distort the estimate. Nevertheless, it cannot be concluded that there is certainly no difference between treaties and ex post-Congress executive agreements. Failure to reject the zero hypothesis differs from the evidence of the zero hypothesis. The number of ex post executive agreements in the sample is small.
Therefore, the failure to reject the zero hypothesis may be due simply to large standard errors due to data scarcity. This is especially true for models (2) (5), which include a large number of covariates, resulting in data savings in many subgroups. The fact that almost all model specifications provide negative coefficients certainly allows a larger number of data to obtain a statistically significant difference, although a small one.