In analyzing an international agreement for its domestic application, U.S. courts have the ultimate power to interpret the importance of the agreement.163 In general, the Supreme Court has stated that its purpose in interpreting an agreement is to recognize the intent of the contracting nations.164 The interpretation process begins with a review of the text of the [memorandum] and context. in which written words are used. 165 While an agreement stipulates that it must be concluded in several languages, the Supreme Court has analyzed language versions to help understand the terms of the agreement.166 The Court also considers the broader « purpose and purpose » of an international agreement.167 In some cases, the Supreme Court has cautioned extratextual documents, such as the development of history. .168 the views of the other contracting states.168,169 and practices after the ratification of other nations.170 The Court warned against this practice. that consultation with sources outside the text of the treaty may not be appropriate if the text is clear.171 Comparison: z.B. Henkin, see 36, to 346 (describes that RUDs without self-enforcement are « contrary to the spirit of the Constitution » because « [t]he envisioned a treaty becoming an ipso facto law when the contract is concluded; it should not require legislative implementation to transpose it into U.S. legislation »; and Malvina Halberstam, Alvarez-Machain II: The Supreme Court`s Reliance on the Non-Self-Executing Declaration In the Senate Resolution Giving Advice and Consent to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1 J. Nat`l Security L. – Pol`y 89, 95 (2005) ([A] declaration that a treaty (or treaty provision) that to terms would be self-execution is not self-execution , the history and purpose of Article VI of the U.S.
Constitution. » with Bradley and Goldsmith, supra note 27, to 446 (arguing that the Constitution does not prohibit the Senate from defining the national scope and applicability of a treaty by the use of RUDs without self-enforcement). The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give a president the power to enter into executive agreements.