Despite the complexity of national self-doctrine, treaties and other international agreements operate in a dual international and national legal context.126 In the international context, international agreements have traditionally been binding treaties between sovereign nations and create rights and obligations that nations owe to each other under international law.127 how it implements its contractual agreement. 128 The doctrine of self-execution concerns the implementation of a treaty provision in the United States. 129 When a treaty is ratified or an executive agreement is concluded, the United States acquires obligations under international obligations, independent of self-performance, and it may be overdue in its obligations, unless implementing legislation is passed.130 Because the enumerated powers of Congress and the President have been widely interpreted, most of the agreements proposed as treaties could have been proposed as agreements between Congress and the `executive. That`s why the U.S. government has often chosen to use agreements between Congress and the executive rather than contracts for controversial deals that are unlikely to get the required super-majority in the Senate. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1992 and the agreement with which the United States became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 are examples of controversial proposals dealt with in the form of agreements between Congress and the executive. Congressional Executive Agreement, a binding agreement between the United States and a foreign country that is easier to adopt than a formal, but technically more limited treaty. In the case of executive agreements, it seems generally accepted that if the president has independent power to enter into an executive agreement, the president can terminate the agreement independently, even without the consent of Congress or the Senate. 186 Thus, observers seem to agree that while the Constitution gives the president the power to enter into single executive agreements, the president can also unilaterally denounce those agreements.187 The same principle would apply to political commitments: to the extent that the president is empowered to make non-binding commitments without the consent of the Senate or Congress, the President may also unilaterally withdraw from these obligations. .188 Unlike the process of denouncing executive agreements, which in the past has not met with total opposition from Congress, the constitutional requirements for the termination of treaties ratified by the Senate have been the subject of occasional debate between the legislative and executive powers. .