Table 1 presents summary statistics. As can be seen, 5% of all agreements were concluded between 1982 and 2012 in the form of a treaty, which characterizes the use of the treaty. 20% of all agreements were cancelled during the observation period. The average agreement was valid for 15.26 years. Of the agreements that are no longer in force, the average shelf life is 7.3 years. The LPPC values are between 17 and 17, with an average value of 0.10 euros. On average, 50 per cent of Senate seats were held by the presidential party at the time the agreement was signed. In 71 percent of the agreements, the government was divided, with the White House held by one party, the Senate, the House of Representatives or both by the other. Taken together, these figures indicate that the average agreement could not have been adopted in the form of a treaty without multi-party support, making the treaty a potentially costly instrument. 61 Hathaway, supra note 1, at 1258 (presentation of a table of absolute use of the contract).
50 Martin, note 15 above (with a formal signalling model in which the cost of the agreement determines its credibility). 97 See Panayiota, Alexandropoulos, Enforceability of Executive Congressional Agreements in Lieu of an Article II Extradition Treaty: Elizaphan Ntakirutimana v. Janet Reno, 45 Vill. L. Rev. 107, 113-14 (2000) (on the grounds that the Valentine Supreme Court has clearly established the legality of an extradition under an executive agreement); see also Klarevas, Louis, The Surrender of Alleged War Criminals to International Tribunal: Examining the Constitutionality of Extradition via Congressional-Executive Agreement, 8 UCLA J. Int`l. For. Aff.
77, 107 (2003) (other cases in support of Valentine`s interpretation that she authorized extradition on the basis of an executive agreement). While the contracts and agreements between Congress and the executive branch do not differ qualitatively, it seems difficult to rationalize the reasons why negotiators sometimes show such an interest in choosing the instrument. As a result, some scholars seem to criticize the alleged lack of usefulness of contracts. Arguments come in different forms; Some believe that the use of the treaty by a president would show a particularly high degree of commitment, and the other note 15, that the struggle for Senate approval could encourage the government to disclose valuable information truthfully, footnote 16 or that the greater stability of Senate preferences helps to ensure long-term compliance. Footnote 17 All of these reports have in common the assumption that treaties, while politically more costly than the executive agreements of Congress, provide certain benefits to parties and thus justify their sustainability as a valuable political instrument of the United States. With respect to the identity of the parties, the agreements were concluded in the data set between the United States and one or more of 215 countries or governmental organizations and fifty-two international organizations. Table 3 shows the 20 countries with the highest number of agreements in the data set. A full list of agreements by partner countries is included in the online schedule.
The three most common contractors are all Western European countries, namely France, Italy and Germany. In multilateral agreements, 20% is concluded in the form of a treaty, which far exceeds the share of all bilateral relations. There are mainly two types of contracts, such as bilateral agreements (between two entities) and multilateral treaties (between several agencies or countries, usually regional contracts). The types of executive agreements, on the other hand, include those approved by a previous formal contract, approved by a previous law, which have been approved by law and which concern matters for which the executive has a particular or exclusive jurisdiction, either by constitutional delegation or by historical precedents.