Friday, October 21, 2005

Blair's right to use force challenged


In the wake of the Vietnam war, the US Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to curb the power of presidents to declare war.  Today, a member of the British Parliament, Clare Short, attempted to push through a British version due to her discontent over British involvement in the Iraq War:
But Clare Short's efforts were thwarted following a lengthy debate in
the House of Commons. Her private bill failed after too few lawmakers
voted for it to pass to the next stage and it ran out of parliamentary
time.

Short challenged the government's power to authorize military action
without the approval of Parliament and insisted lawmakers must be given
the right of veto.
"The accountability of the executive to Parliament is a very important
democratic principle which should surely be extended to the making of
war," said Short, who resigned from her post as international
development secretary following the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Under her proposal, the executive would have to show both chambers of
Parliament the case and legal justification for war and receive their
backing before committing British troops. A prime minister would still
be allowed to take urgent action without approval, but would be forced
to withdraw troops if Parliament later rejected the move.
Oddly enough, the bill would be have altered Britian's unwritten constitution because the right to declare war is considered a Royal Perogative that is now exercised for the soverign by the prime minister.  The debate highlights the unusual nature of the British constitutional order and begs the question of whether the use of force by a government should be constrained by more than just norms.

No comments: