“No state can rewrite our foreign policy to adapt to its own domestic policy. Power over foreign affairs is not shared by states; it is entrusted exclusively to the national government. It is not necessary to exercise it in such a way that it is consistent with state laws or state policy, whether translated into constitutions, statutes or judicial decrees. And state policy will be absolutely irrelevant to the judicial inquiry if the United States, which acts within its constitutional domain, works to enforce its foreign policy in court. 495 For much of U.S. history, courts231 and U.S. officials232, international law has been considered a binding U.S. national law in the absence of executive or legislative oversight. Around 1900, in The Habana Package, the Supreme Court declared that international law “is part of our law”” 233 Although this description may seem simple, developments in the 20th century complicate the relationship between international customary and domestic law. The Case-Zablocki Act of 1972 requires the President to notify the Senate within 60 days of an executive agreement. The president`s powers to conclude such agreements have not been restricted. The reporting requirement allowed Congress to vote in favor of repealing an executive agreement or to refuse funding for its implementation.   In the case of executive agreements, it seems generally accepted that the President, if he has the independent power to enter into an executive agreement, can denounce the agreement independently without the consent of Congress or the Senate.
186 Thus, observers seem to agree that if the Constitution authorizes the President to enter into exclusive executive agreements, the President may unilaterally denounce these 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 those commitments.188 , z.B. Andrew T. Guzman, Saving Customary International Law, 27 Mich. J. Int`l L. 115, 124-28 (2005) (Debate on uncertainties related to customary international law). See also Hamdan v. United States, 696 F.3d 1238, 1250 (D.C.