Hull Lothian Deal case brief

Hull Lothian Deal (1948; p. 40):

• US Sec of State and the UK broker a deal to trade ships for army bases, but made it look like it wasn’t a quid pro quo.
• They cldn’t break intl law (the US was at peace w/ the UK’s enemies and thus, could not sell it warships).
• They argued that belligerents were estopped from raising questions about their possible breaking of the Hague Convention.
• This isn’t a treaty b/c the exec branch can’t make a treaty by itself.
• Was the US bound since this wasn’t sent to the Senate? Yes even if the agreement is illegal under US law. If you view the world in a dualist point of view. See Article 46 of the Vienna Convention (p. 882).
• How to know the difference in an executive agreement and a treaty:
  • Treaty—requires implementation in American law.
  • This was an exec agreement. (Pres pwr is plenary)
  • Exec agreements can be secret if they involve natl security—Just have to inform the intelligence committees on in both houses of the leg.