Caspiana is a small state located in Central Asia. Caspiana has been a staunch U.S. ally for many years and is an important source of many precious metals utilized by the defense industry in the production of advanced weaponry. U.S. defense contractors

Question

and the U.S. government have been Caspiana's primary customers for these precious metals, many of which are found nowhere else in the world. Additionally, Caspiana's territory has served as a base for U.S. antiterrorism efforts in Central Asia. Caspiana shares a border with Arala. Arala is a much larger state ruled by a military dictatorship and possessing a large military. However, Arala lacks the mineral wealth possessed by Caspiana. In recent years, Arala military forces have crossed the border, seized stockpiles of precious metals and returned to Arala. Last week, Aralan forces crossed the border with Caspiana and seized a portion of Caspiana's territory containing numerous precious metal mines. Arala subsequently declared the seized territory to be part of Arala. In response to this crisis, the president of the United States immediately negotiated an agreement with the government of Caspiana providing that U.S. forces would terminate Arala's occupation through military force and would establish a permanent base in the country. The president signed this agreement without prior consultation with or the receipt of authorization from the U.S. Congress. The president claimed that such consultation and approval were not necessary. What type of agreement has the president negotiated with Caspiana? What do such agreements provide? Utilizing the opinion in Dole v. Carter, would a judicial challenge to the agreement by a member of Congress be successful? Why or why not? What statute could the president utilize to respond to the crisis in Caspiana? When may this statute be utilized? What actions may the president take utilizing this statute?

Answer 1

The president has negotiated a sole executive agreement. A sole executive agreement is an executive agreement negotiated by the president and put into effect without congressional approval. The usual subject matter of a sole executive agreement is the narrow interests of the United States in its relations with other states. Members of Congress may prevail in their challenge applying the holding in Dole v. Carter. The reasons for this conclusion are that the agreement provides for a substantial ongoing commitment by the United States; concerns a major rather than a minor subject matter; exposes the United States to considerable risk; and is for an unlimited duration of time.

The president could utilize the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). IEEPA grants the president authority to regulate economic transactions and place restrictions on importing and exporting during national emergencies. A national emergency is any unusual and extraordinary foreign threat originating outside of the United States relating to national security, foreign policy or the U.S. economy. The president may prevent the transfer of money, goods and securities to Arala. The president also may freeze Arala assets located in the United States and impose a trade embargo on Arala.