Brazil`s Federal Constitution stipulates that the power to enter into contracts is vested in the President of Brazil and that such contracts must be approved by the Brazilian Congress (Article 84, Clause VIII and Clause 49, Clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted to mean that the executive is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but that its ratification by the President requires prior congressional approval. In addition, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that after ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be enshrined in national law by a presidential decree issued in the Federal Register for it to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities. In addition to treaties, there are other less formal international agreements. These include efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and the G7 Global Partnership Against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Although the PSI has a “declaration of prohibition principles” and the G7 Global Partnership includes several statements by G7 heads of state and government, it also does not have a legally binding document that sets specific obligations and is signed or ratified by member states. In Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), the U.S.

Supreme Court ruled that even if the United States signed and agreed to be bound by an international convention, the convention is not really a binding law unless it is self-enforcement or unless Congress passes laws making the convention binding. Currently, the likelihood of international agreements being implemented by an executive agreement is ten times higher. Despite the relative simplification of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to continue the formal process of concluding an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on issues that require Congress to pass appropriate enforcement laws or means, as well as agreements that impose complex long-term legal obligations on the United States. For example, the agreement of the United States, Iran and other countries is not a treaty. An essential part of treaty drafting is that the signing of a treaty implies recognition, that the other party is a sovereign state and that the agreement, considered to be under international law, is applicable. Therefore, nations can be very cautious when it comes to qualifying a treaty agreement. In the United States, for example, interstate agreements are pacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between government authorities are statements of intent. When a state limits its contractual obligations by reservations, other contracting states have the opportunity to accept, contradict or contradict these reserves.