# If W strikes a non-treaty "agreement" with Iraq, is it binding on the next admin?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-w-strikes-a-non-treaty-agreement-with-iraq-is-it-binding-on-the-next-admin/446391>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [April 22, 2008, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-w-strikes-a-non-treaty-agreement-with-iraq-is-it-binding-on-the-next-admin/446391 "2008-04-22T13:15:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2008, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-w-strikes-a-non-treaty-agreement-with-iraq-is-it-binding-on-the-next-admin/446391/1 "2008-04-22T13:15:11Z")

</div>

Story [here.](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/iraq.usa)

> [@](#):
>
> A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.
> 
> The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked “secret” and “sensitive”, is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to “conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security” without time limit.
> 
> The authorisation is described as “temporary” and the agreement says the US “does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq”. But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.

Thing is, this “status of forces” agreement is not a treaty, therefore does not require Senate approval.

But, in that case, is it legally binding on the U.S. government, and especially on the next administration, or is it not?

(This might be moot – the story says the Iraqi Parliament almost certainly will reject the agreement in its present form.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2008, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-w-strikes-a-non-treaty-agreement-with-iraq-is-it-binding-on-the-next-admin/446391/2 "2008-04-22T15:45:58Z")

</div>

This is what is called an “executive agreement.” The law on executive agreements is pretty thin. [This answers.com page](http://www.answers.com/topic/executive-agreement?cat=biz-fin) offers a surprisingly good summary.

There are two big hurdles to overcome for such an agreement to be binding on the next President.

First, the content of the agreement would have to be considered part of the President’s inherent foreign affairs power. This is probably doable, but as you know there is some debate about whether the Congress has some power to withdraw troops other than by cutting off all funds.

The bigger obstacle is the binding aspect. The case law is all about who the President can trump because of his inherent power (Congress, states, the judiciary). But trumping a latter holder of the same office is an entirely different matter. I suppose the best argument that it would be binding is that the armistices negotiated by executive agreement should also be binding–what’s the point of an armistice if, after an election, your country can renege? But, of course, this argument would be diametrically opposed to everything the Bush administration has ever said about the binding nature of international agreements of any kind.