A Nation That Avoids Entering Into International Agreements Pursues Policies

كتب - آخر تحديث - 27 نوفمبر 2020

9]Vladimir Putin, “Novyi integratsionnyi proekt dlya Evrazii- budushcheye, kotoroye rozhdayetsya segodnya” [New integration project for Eurasia – the future that is born today], Izvestiya, 3 October 2011, iz.ru/news/502761. In 1904 and 1905, Secretary of State John Hay negotiated a series of treaties that provide for the general arbitration of international disputes. Article II of the Treaty with Great Britain, for example, provided that “in each particular case, the High Contracting Parties enter into a special agreement before being called before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, clearly specifying the issue and the extent of the powers of arbitrators and setting the deadlines for the formation of the arbitration tribunal and the various stages of the proceedings.” 460 The Senate approved the British treaty by a constitutional majority, having first amended it by “agreement” by imposing the word “treaty.” President Theodore Roosevelt, who called “ratification” a rejection, sent the treaties to the archives. “In historical practice,” said Dr. McClure, “the compromise in which disputes were settled includes both contracts and executive agreements in good numbers,” 461 a statement supported by Willoughby and Moore.462 A former executive treaty case was the agreement with which President Monroe set the limits of armament on the Great Lakes in 1817. 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 a council and Senate approval were required. The Senate approved the agreement by the required two-thirds majority, and it was immediately proclaimed by the President, without any formal exchange of ratification.469 Of one type, and because of the ability of the President as commander-in-chief, a number of agreements with Mexico between 1882 and 1896 was the right according to each country, 470 Commenting on such an agreement, the Court noted somewhat uncertain: “While no act of Congress authorizes the executive branch to authorize the introduction of foreign troops, it was probably assumed that the power to grant such authorization without legislative authorization existed from the authority of the President as commander-in-chief of the United States military and naval forces. But it is questionable whether this power could be extended to fear of deserters [of foreign vessels] in the absence of positive legislation to this effect. 471 Gray J.A. and three other judges held that such action by the President should be based on an explicit treaty or status.472 Russian society and its political elite have traditionally viewed their country as a great power, an assumption that needs to be rethought – not in the sense of abandoning the term altogether, but with regard to what it means today.