Conference proceeding
International Commitments in an Era of Unilateral Presidential Power: A Comparison of the Treaties and Executive Agreements made by the Administrations of George W. Bush and Theodore Roosevelt
Benjamin F. Shambaugh Conference (Iowa City, Iowa, USA)
10/13/2006
Abstract
<p>Paper prepared for the Shambaugh Conference, “Building Synergies Institutions and Cooperation in World Politics,” October 12-15, University of Iowa. <h3>Abstract</h3></p>\n<p>Treaty-making involves the constitutional struggle for policy control. Both Congress and the presdient are defined as official actors in the making of international commitments, and both closely guard their constitutionally defined roles. Yet extant scholarship generally concludes Congress rarely matters in establishing U.S. formal commitments abroad. Indeed, it is frequently pointed out that only 21 treaties have been voted down by the U.S. Senate in its 230 year existence. While true, such a figure presents an incomplete picture of congressional influence. Presidents may covet greater institutional capacity to direct unilaterally U.S. foreign policy, but opposition in both the House and Senate frequently reins in an uncompromising White House. In this paper we compare the international commitments made by Presidents George W. Bush (2001-2004) and Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909). We find the Senate’s role in influencing and/or altering treaties has been under-estimated in most analyses. While the Senate rarely rejects a treaty negotiated by the president with a recorded floor vote, the Senate can and does attach amendments and reservations to treaties that affect U.S. obligations and responsibilities. More importantly, though, and even less recognized are treaties killed by the Senate through inaction. At least 21 treaties during Roosevelt’s administration were rejected by the Senate, none of them by a formal floor vote. By ignoring Senate influence before an official floor vote risks under-estimating the influence the Senate has on U.S. commitments abroad. This paper also explores the domestic political authority under which presidents negotiate international agreements. Most scholars conclude that international agreements signal unilateral presidential power. Yet, many are negotiated pursuant to congressional statutes or previously ratified treaties. In both cases, Congress maintains influence over the process.</p>
Details
- Title: Subtitle
- International Commitments in an Era of Unilateral Presidential Power: A Comparison of the Treaties and Executive Agreements made by the Administrations of George W. Bush and Theodore Roosevelt
- Creators
- Brandon C Prins - Texas Tech UniversityBryan W Marshall - Miami University (Ohio)
- Contributors
- Brian H Lai (Contributor) - University of Iowa, Political ScienceSara McLaughlin Mitchell (Contributor) - University of Iowa, Political Science
- Resource Type
- Conference proceeding
- Conference
- Benjamin F. Shambaugh Conference (Iowa City, Iowa, USA)
- Copyright
- Copyright © Brandon C. Prins, Bryan W. Marshall, 2006.
- Language
- English
- Date published
- 10/13/2006
- Academic Unit
- Benjamin F Shambaugh Conference; International Programs; Political Science; Public Policy Center (Archive); Center for Social Science Innovation
- Record Identifier
- 9984111965202771
Metrics
341 File views/ downloads
92 Record Views