India vs US : Treaty process

While it is acknowledged that Foreign Policy of a nation is determined by the executive branch, the legislature also exercises some amount of influence on it. It might even have some powers over certain aspects of foreign policy.

While the President has executive powers to enter into a treaty, it will only be applicable to the United States when the Senate (The upper House) agrees to it by two-thirds majority. The House of Representatives (Lower House) has no role in ratifying a treaty. The lower house only has a role if the treaty needs funds to be operationalised which can only be sanctioned by the House of Representatives.

Another way to sanction a treaty is to pass it as a common bill. Thus, both the houses vote on it as any other ordinary bill. If the subject of any treaty lies within the domain of the president’s executive power, he can enter into the agreement. However, it is not binding on the US and can be revoked by any future president.

The Indian Constitution does not expressly spell out the conditions of treaty ratification. However, it has given parliament the right to regulate the same by passing any law. Since, the Parliament has not done so, treaties are entered into by the executive and do not need any parliamentary ratification.

Only if a treaty needs a constitutional amendment or a legislation to be operationalised is the parliament involved. Eg. LBA agreement with Bangladesh. Both houses of the parliament have equal rights in the matter. Parliament can also bring No-Confidence -Motion–as against Jawaharlal Nehru on the issue of Chinese aggression.

Thus, we can see the difference between the Indian and US system of treaty ratification. Apart from this, both houses also exercise an advisory influence over their respective executives. And the executive does give due consideration to the wishes of the legislature.