Another view seemed to be the basis of the Supreme Court`s decision in the United States. Belmont,491 gives effect to Litvinov`s allocation. The opinion of Sutherland J.A. was based on his curtiss-Wright492 opinion. A first instance would have erred in dismissing a complaint filed by the United States as an agent of the Soviet Union for certain funds formerly held by a Russian metallurgical group whose assets had been acquired by the Soviet government. The President`s act in recognizing the Soviet government and the agreements that accompany it represented an international pact that the president, as the “only body” of international relations for the United States, could enter without consulting the Senate. State laws and policies have also made no difference in such a situation; While the supremacy of treaties is explicitly defined by the Constitution, the same rule applies “in the case of all international pacts and agreements, that full power over international affairs belongs to the national government and cannot and cannot be subject to circumcision or interference by individual states.” Ass`v. Garamendi.497 Considering that the Victim Insurance Relief Act in California was anticipated as interference with the federal government`s conduct in foreign relations, as expressed in the executive agreements, the Court stated that “valid executive agreements are likely to anticipate state law, as are treaties.” 498 Preventive implementation of executive agreements is the result of “the constitutional allocation of foreign policy power to the national government.” 499 Given that there has been a “clear conflict” between California law and the policy adopted by the valid exercise of the federal executive branch (the count of Holocaust-era insurance claims is “well within the purview of the foreign executive”), state law has been anticipated.500 If the president enters into an executive agreement, what kind of obligation does he impose in the United States? It is clear that it can impose international obligations with potentially serious consequences, and it is equally clear that these obligations can be extended over a long period of time.488 The nature of national obligations imposed by executive agreements is not so obvious. Do contracts and executive agreements have the same impact on domestic policy?489 contracts pre-exist state law by applying the supremacy clause.

While agreements made under the authorization or contractual commitment of Congress also stem from the preventive force of the supremacy clause, this textual basis for the pre-emption period is probably absent for executive agreements based exclusively on the president`s constitutional powers. 491 301 U.S. 324 (1937). In B. Altman-Co. v. United States, 224 U.S. 583 (1912), the Court recognized that the reference to a “treaty” of a court statute included an executive arrangement. A treaty is an international agreement established in writing and by international law between two or more sovereign states, whether inscribed in a single instrument or in two or more related acts. Treaties have many names: conventions, agreements, pacts, pacts, charters and statutes, among others.