Some foreign relations experts have recently argued that the practice of the international agreement has developed so that some modern executive agreements no longer fit into the three generally accepted categories of executive agreements69. who argue for a new form of executive agreement arguing that it is not necessary to determine a specific authorisation status or constitutional power if the President already has the national power to implement the executive agreement; The agreement does not require any changes to national legislation; 71 Opponents of this proposed new paradigm of the executive agreement argue that it is not compatible with the principles of separation of powers, which they believe require the President to authorize the conclusion of international agreements either by the Constitution, by a ratified treaty or by an act of Congress. It is possible to understand this ambiguity in the empirical results by observing that previous studies all follow a similar approach. The researcher analyzes the environment in which an international agreement has been reached and attempts to identify models that help predict the type of instrument used. If the model corresponds to a motivation that places different importance on the treaties and executive agreements of Congress, it is proof that these instruments differ in their quality. Thus, Martin concludes that contracts are used when the partner country has a high GDP per capita, that contracts are preferred when the stakes are high, and that they must therefore be more reliable engagement mechanisms than agreements between Congress and the executive branch. Similarly, Hathaway concludes that few commercial contracts are concluded, that the decision to use the treaty must be driven by historic conventions that have made the agreement between Congress and the executive attractive for trade negotiations. The United States has two separate mechanisms for concluding binding international agreements. Footnote 19 The first option is the traditional contract. The treaties follow the consultation and approval procedure under Article II of the Constitution, where a treaty, although negotiated by the executive, must nevertheless be approved by a two-thirds majority in the Senate to be ratified and binding. Footnote 20 There is an active scientific debate about the extent of the president`s power to withdraw the United States from its international agreements, with particular emphasis on whether the constitutional barriers to denouncing agreements between Congress and the executive branch are greater than those of the treaty. Footnote 113 The results of this study indicate that in addition to educational issues, an analysis of political economy can also provide valuable lessons.