Modern contracts, whatever the subject matter, usually contain articles that govern where the final authentic copies of the contract are deposited and as all subsequent disputes over their interpretation are settled peacefully. The distinctions concern in the first place their type of authorization. Contracts require the deliberation and approval of two-thirds of the senators present, but only executive agreements can be executed by the president alone. Some contracts give the President the power to fill in the gaps through executive agreements and not through additional contracts or protocols. Finally, agreements between Congress and the executive branch require a majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate before or after the president signed the treaty. The Australian Constitution allows the executive government to enter into contracts, but the practice is for treaties to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament at least 15 days before signing. Treaties are considered a source of Australian law, but sometimes require an Act of Parliament to be passed in different types. The contracts are managed and maintained by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which stated that “the general position of Australian law is that contracts to which Australia has adhered, with the exception of those that end a state of war, are not directly and automatically incorporated into Australian law. Signature and ratification do not have the effect of making treaties work in the national territory. In the absence of legislation, contracts cannot impose obligations on the individual or create rights under national law. Yet international law, including contract law, is a legitimate and important influence on the development of the common law and can be used in the interpretation of laws.  Treaties can be implemented through executive action and existing laws are often sufficient to ensure compliance with a treaty. In the case of indigenous Australians, no treaty was ever concluded with indigenous peoples, giving Europeans land ownership, mostly the doctrine of terra nullius (with the exception of Southern Australia). This concept was later overturned by Mabo v Queensland, who established the concept of national title in Australia, long after colonization was met with a fait accompli.
If a party has breached or materially breached its contractual obligations, the other parties may invoke that breach as a ground for the temporary suspension of its obligations to that party. A substantial infringement may also be invoked as a ground for permanent termination of the contract itself.  The end of the preamble and the beginning of the agreement itself are often indicated by the words “agreed as follows”. However, a breach of contract does not automatically suspend or terminate the contractual relationship. It depends on how the other parties view the infringement and how they decide to respond to it. Sometimes contracts provide that the seriousness of a breach is determined by a court or other independent arbitrator.  One of the advantages of such an arbitrator is that it prevents a party from suspending or termbating its own obligations because of an alleged material breach by another party. . .