In the United States against Pink, 445 decided five years later, the same course of argument was repeated with further insistence. The question was whether, under the 1933 executive agreement, the United States was allowed to recover the assets of the New York branch of a Russian insurance company. The company argued that the Soviet government`s forfeiture decrees do not apply to its property in New York and could not be challenged by the U.S. And New York Constitutions. The court, which was decided by Justice Douglas, brushed aside these arguments. An official statement from the Russian government itself resolved the issue of the extraterritorial operation of the Russian nationalization decree and was binding on the US courts. The power to remove such obstacles to the full recognition of the claims of our nationals was “a modest tacit power of the president, who is “the only organ of the federal government in the field of international relations”. It was the verdict of the political department that the full recognition of the Soviet government required the resolution of outstanding problems, including the claims of our nationals. We would take over the executive if we felt that the court decision was not final and conclusive.
[Note 391] “The distinction between `executive agreements` and `treaties` is purely constitutional and has no international significance. Harvard Research in International Law, Draft Convention on the Law of Treaty of Treaty, 29 Amer. J. Int. L. 697 (Supp.) (1935). See E. Byrd, Op. cit., 292, 148-151. Many scientists have been aggressive in favour of the implementation of executive agreements, unlike treaties, in order to strengthen the role of the United States, particularly the role of the president, in the international system. See McDougal – Lans, Congressional Executive or Presidential Agreements: Interchangeable Instruments of National Policy (Pts.
I – II), 54 Yale L. J. 181, 534 (1945). The constitutionality of trade agreements .-In Field v. Clark, 403 this type of legislation was upheld against the objection that it had attempted an unconstitutional delegation “both legislative and contractual powers.” The Court faced the first objection with a comprehensive review of similar legislation since the inauguration of the government, in accordance with the Constitution. The second objection he raised was “what has been said also applies to the objection that the third part of the act confers contractual power on the President. The Court considers that the third part of the act of October 1, 1890 is not subject to the objection it confers on the President legislative and contractual power. 404 Although two judges disagreed, the issue was never revived. However, in B. Altman – Co. v.
United States, 405, he decided twenty years later that a question of accompaniment had been forwarded. Whether it was an act of Congress, the federal district courts of the appelal court for cases where “the validity or construction of a contract . . . . has been implicated.” The Court stated: “It is true that this trade agreement concluded under the customs act of 1897, paragraph 3, was not a treaty that had the dignity of a treaty that must be ratified by the United States Senate, but it was an international pact negotiated between the representatives of two sovereign nations and concluded on behalf of the States Parties. , and looked at the important trade relations between the two countries and was proclaimed by the President. While it is not technically a treaty that requires ratification, nevertheless, it was a pact approved by the United States Congress, negotiated and proclaimed under the authority of its president.