Arbitration agreements.- In 1904 and 1905, Secretary of State John Hay negotiated a series of contracts that provide for the general arbitration of international disputes. Article II of the Treaty with Great Britain, for example, provided that “in each particular case, the High Contracting Parties enter into a special agreement before being called before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, clearly specifying the issue and the extent of the powers of arbitrators and setting the deadlines for the formation of the arbitration tribunal and the various stages of the proceedings.” 460 The Senate approved the British treaty by a constitutional majority, having first amended it by “agreement” by imposing the word “treaty.” President Theodore Roosevelt, who called “ratification” a rejection, sent the treaties to the archives. “In historical practice,” said Dr. McClure, “the compromise in which disputes were settled includes both contracts and executive agreements in good numbers,”461 a statement supported by Willoughby and Moore462 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. Some foreign relations experts have recently argued that the practice of the international agreement has developed so that some modern executive agreements no longer fit into the three generally accepted categories of executive agreements69. who argue for a new form of executive agreement arguing that it is not necessary to determine a specific authorisation status or constitutional power if the President already has the national power to implement the executive agreement; The agreement does not require any changes to national legislation; 71 Opponents of this proposed new paradigm of the executive agreement argue that it is not compatible with the principles of separation of powers, which they believe require the President to authorize the conclusion of international agreements either by the Constitution, by a ratified treaty or by an act of Congress. Unlike the executive contract termination procedure, which has not received much opposition from Congress in the past, constitutional requirements to end Senate-approved ratified treaties have been the subject of occasional debate between the legislature and the executive branch.