So far, the analysis has not distinguished between different types of executive agreements. However, there are considerable differences between these instruments, although these differences have not been properly taken into account in previous empirical scholarships. Ex-Congress executive agreements must be approved by Congress for individual agreement. Martin`s theory implies that this requirement for individual authorization can reduce the difference in cost compared to a contract. Moreover, the only executive agreements are very different political instruments, which are entirely within the presidential power and do not require legislative participation. It may therefore be reasonable to argue that only executive agreements should be omitted in the analysis. These two issues are dealt with one after the other. 70 This procedure is correct, with the exception of a few exceptions that are caused by peculiarities in the publication process. For example, the guide (2011) lists the START-I agreement as being indexed in TIF (2010) and not in TIF (2011), although the agreement expired on December 5, 2009 (The corresponding identifier is KAV 3172, see the State Sub-Department, A Guide to the United States Treaty in Force 870 (Igor I.

Kavass ed., 2011).) This is because the contract expired too shortly before the 2010 TIF publication deadline. However, all agreements are also concerned with the specifics of the underlying publication mechanism, making it unlikely that these errors would distort the estimate. The empirical results of this study are ill-suited to assess the theoretical benefits of these assertions. Future research to understand not only the legal differences, but also the political implications of an exit from a treaty in relation to the agreement between Congress and the executive branch, could shed more information and shed light on whether the fate of international agreements such as the Paris Agreement or NAFTA would have been less controversial if they had been concluded in the form of treaties. Nevertheless, it cannot be concluded that there is certainly no difference between treaties and ex post-Congress executive agreements. Failure to reject the zero hypothesis differs from the evidence of the zero hypothesis. The number of ex post executive agreements in the sample is small. Therefore, the failure to reject the zero hypothesis may be due simply to large standard errors due to data scarcity.

This is especially true for models (2) (5), which include a large number of covariates, resulting in data savings in many subgroups. The fact that almost all model specifications provide negative coefficients certainly allows a larger number of data to obtain a statistically significant difference, although a small one. The main difference between the treaty and the executive agreement is that the treaty is a formally concluded, ratified and binding agreement between sovereign states and/or international organizations, while an executive agreement is an agreement between the heads of government of two or more nations.