Dependence on contractual power has declined since World War II, as presidents increasingly turn to the use of executive agreements as a means of ensuring unilateral control of U.S. foreign relations. If the president acts unilaterally, the agreement is called a «single executive agreement.» If the president acts with the agreement of a simple majority of both houses of Congress, the agreement is called «legislative and executive agreement.» Presidents have a «margin of appreciation» in deciding whether they wish to pursue an international agreement in the form of a treaty, a single executive agreement or in the form of a legislative and executive agreement. The Speaker`s decision generally depends on political factors, including the likelihood of obtaining Senate approval. Presidents have often chosen to exclude the Senate from concluding some controversial and historic international pacts on the channel of executive agreements, including the basic destructive agreement with Britain in 1940, the Yalta and Potsdam accords of 1945, the Vietnam Peace Agreement of 1973 and the Sinai Accords of 1975. Of course, the raw figures must be carefully interpreted. Only a very small minority of all executive agreements were based exclusively on the powers of the President as commander-in-chief and external relations body; The rest was approved in advance by Congress by law or by the provisions of the treaty ratified by the Senate. 390 Therefore, consideration of the constitutional importance of executive agreements must begin with a differentiation between the types of agreements that must be classified under this heading. 391 The agreement by which President Monroe entered into a delimitation of the armament of the Great Lakes in 1817 was an early example of the establishment of executive contracts. The agreement was reached through an exchange of notes that, almost a year later, was submitted to the Senate to determine whether he was in the president`s office or whether it was necessary to advise and approve the Senate. The Senate approved the agreement by a required two-thirds majority and was immediately proclaimed by the President, without any formal exchange of ratifications.
419 Of a glued type, and because of the president`s ability as commander-in-chief, a series of agreements with Mexico between 1882 and 1896, after each country, was the right to pursue marauding Indians across the common border. 420 With respect to such an agreement, the Court noted a little uncertainty: «While there is no act in Congress authorizing the Executive Department to authorize the introduction of foreign troops, it was probably considered that the power to grant such authorization without legislative authorization was due to the authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military and Naval Forces. It is doubtful, however, that this power could be extended to the capture of deserters [of foreign vessels] if there is no positive legislation to do so. 421 Gray J.A. and three other judges held that such action by the President should be based on an explicit contract or explicit status. 422 Until recently, most judges and scholars felt that this type of executive agreement did not become the «law of the land» under the predominance clause because the contract format was not respected. 440 Another view seemed to fall within the Supreme Court`s decision in B.