An executive agreement based on a contract, insofar as it falls within the intention, scope and purpose of the parent contract, has the same validity and effect as the contract itself and is subject to the same constitutional limitations. Derived from one of the elements of the „supreme law of the land,“ it prevails over all inconsistent state laws and follows the usual rule that favors the instrument later in the event of inconsistency with a federal law. A striking example of a contract-based executive agreement is the traditional compromise, which defines the conditions for submission to a decision or arbitration under a basic agreement. Another is found in the hundreds of status-of-forces agreements and other agreements necessary for the implementation of the North Atlantic Treaty, the linchpin of U.S. policy in Europe since World War II. An executive agreement[1] is an agreement between the heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature when treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are considered politically binding in order to distinguish them from legally binding treaties. In addition to the two above issues, there is broad consensus on the extent and effect of exclusive exercise agreements as a matter of constitutional law. Like the other two types of executive agreements, they are subject to the same restrictions as those applicable to contracts, they are not limited by the Tenth Amendment and replace all inconsistent state laws. Note: An executive agreement does not have the same weight as a treaty, unless it is supported by a joint resolution. Unlike a contract, an executive agreement can replace a conflicting national law, but not a federal law. Executive Agreement, an agreement between the United States and a foreign government that is less formal than a treaty and is not subject to the constitutional requirement for ratification by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.

. . .