In the United States, executive agreements are binding at the international level when negotiated and concluded under the authority of the President on foreign policy, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces or from a previous congressional record. For example, the President, as Commander-in-Chief, negotiates and concludes Armed Forces Agreements (SOFAs) that govern the treatment and disposition of U.S. forces deployed in other nations. However, the President cannot unilaterally enter into executive agreements on matters that are not in his constitutional jurisdiction. In such cases, an agreement should take the form of an agreement between Congress and the executive branch or a contract with the Council and the approval of the Senate.  Before proceeding with the analysis, it is important to correct any limitations of this file. Although TIF is the most comprehensive collection of international agreements to date, there is no data set listing each previous international agreement reached by the United States. Footnote 78 Researchers may try to supplement TIF with other contract collections to establish a more complete list of agreements. However, this is neither desirable nor feasible for several reasons. Another report that explains the choice of presidents between the two instruments is the “bypass hypothesis.” Note 46 Particularly prevalent in the writings of political scientists, this reasoning indicates that the president`s primary motivation for electing one instrument over the other is the president`s support for the agreement in the Senate.If an agreement is easy to get through the Senate, according to the argument, the presidents will rely on the treaty.
However, if a two-thirds majority proves difficult, the president can, according to this argument, pass the congressional executive agreement without significant consequences. The implementation of executive agreements increased considerably after 1939. Prior to 1940, the U.S. Senate had ratified 800 treaties and presidents had concluded 1,200 executive agreements; From 1940 to 1989, during World War II and the Cold War, presidents signed nearly 800 treaties, but concluded more than 13,000 executive treaties. As explained in the text, as international agreements can be repealed at any time, survival periods are of an ongoing nature. However, since survival periods are measured only once a year when the TIF is published, the data can be described as continuous data grouped by year. For truly continuous data in which an event can occur at any time, the Cox Proportion Hazard ModelFootnote 117 has emerged as a preferred choice by researchers, notes 118, as it is a semi-parametric model based on a few hypotheses. The popularity of this model is due to the fact that it can be estimated without making parametric assumptions about the base risk rate. For example, the researcher is not obliged to consider that survival decreases over time, exponentially or in other predefined ways at constant speed.
However, the Cox model assumes that the data do not contain links, which means that no observations have exactly the same survival time. This is because links cannot occur when survival times are measured on a truly continuous scale. Researchers have developed several techniques that make the Cox model mobile even in the presence of links. The most accurate approach is the “precise method” developed by veal and Prentice meat. Footnote 119 Intuitively, when two subjects survive exactly at i and k n periods, the exact method considers the alternative that I survived longer than k and the alternative that has survived longer than i, and opts for the jeniser which is more likely. Footnote 120 In data sets with many themes, periods and links, the exact method is not feasible because it is very intense mathematically.