Most executive agreements were entered into under a treaty or an act of Congress. Sometimes, however, presidents have entered into executive agreements to achieve goals that would not receive the support of two-thirds of the Senate. For example, after the outbreak of World War II, but before the United States entered the conflict, President Franklin D. Roosevelt negotiated an executive agreement that gave the United Kingdom 50 overflow destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases for some British naval bases in the Atlantic. These agreements are essential to the proper functioning of the United States in the world, but they should be concluded in such a way that the American people can understand the commitments made on their behalf. Despite the growth and development of agreement processes in the United States, Congress has not seriously revised the Case Act regime and has never attempted to shape the reconciliation process with administrative rigour. It is time for that to change. Despite the complexity of the doctrine of self-execution at home, treaties and other international treaties operate in a dual international and domestic legal context.126 In the international context, international agreements have traditionally been binding treaties between sovereign nations and create rights and obligations that nations owe each other under international law.127 But international law generally allows for each nation to decide: how it implements its contractual agreement. 128 The doctrine of self-implementation concerns the implementation of a treaty provision in the United States.
. . .