In the world of international diplomacy and politics, there are two types of agreements that countries can make with each other: treaties and executive agreements. While both are legally binding and have the power to affect the relationships between countries, there are some key differences between the two.

A treaty is a formal agreement between two or more countries that is negotiated, signed, and ratified by each country’s respective government. Treaties are often used to establish or modify international law, regulate trade, or resolve disputes. They require a two-thirds majority vote in the US Senate for ratification and are binding upon the signatory countries.

Executive agreements, on the other hand, are agreements between the heads of state or government of two or more countries. They do not require approval from the US Senate and are not formally ratified. Instead, they are implemented through the authority of the president or his designee, such as the Secretary of State, and are binding upon the signatory countries.

Executive agreements are often used to address less formal or urgent matters, such as military cooperation, the exchange of intelligence, or economic matters. For example, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was implemented as an executive agreement between the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Similarly, the Iran Nuclear Deal was implemented through an executive agreement between the US and other world powers.

One of the main advantages of executive agreements is that they can be implemented more quickly than treaties. Since executive agreements do not require Senate approval, they can be negotiated and implemented on a faster timeline. They are also less formal than treaties, which may make them more useful for addressing less formal or urgent matters.

However, there are also disadvantages to executive agreements. Since they are not subject to Senate ratification, they can be more easily undone by a new administration. Additionally, because executive agreements do not go through the same formal process as treaties, they may not have the same level of scrutiny and oversight.

In summary, while both treaties and executive agreements can be used to establish legal relationships between countries, there are some key differences between the two. While treaties require Senate ratification and are binding upon the signatory countries, executive agreements are implemented through the authority of the president and are binding upon the signatory countries. While executive agreements can be implemented more quickly, they may also be less formal and subject to less scrutiny.