Abstract
This short article considers the two primary legal frameworks that can operate to control decisions by a State, in this case the UK, to deploy troops to conflict or post-conflict zones—British constitutional law and international law, and how they have both been thrown into sharp relief by the continuing debate about the possible adoption by the House of Commons of a non-statutory war powers resolution.
Highlights
This short article considers the two primary legal frameworks that can operate to control decisions by a State, in this case the UK, to deploy troops to conflict or postconflict zones—British constitutional law and international law, and how they have both been thrown into sharp relief by the continuing debate about the possible adoption by the House of Commons of a non-statutory war powers resolution
The role of Parliament in such decisions has been more significant politically than legally, in that the ‘prerogative’ nature of the decision to go to war has meant that legally speaking it belongs to the Crown, which nowadays means the executive branch of government.[1]
The Government appeals to international law to garner support for, and bolster the legitimacy of, its military interventions, but in so doing it opens itself up to counterarguments about the legal basis of the war
Summary
This short article considers the two primary legal frameworks that can operate to control decisions by a State, in this case the UK, to deploy troops to conflict or postconflict zones—British constitutional law and international law, and how they have both been thrown into sharp relief by the continuing debate about the possible adoption by the House of Commons of a non-statutory war powers resolution. It is argued here that this dynamic, where formal constitutional legal constraints are few, but international legal constraints are applicable (in terms of rules governing both the use of force and the conduct of hostilities),[2] means it is international law that should play an increased role in helping to shape such decisions. This article considers in general terms such Parliamentary debates and the role of international law within them This greater Parliamentary involvement has culminated in current reform proposals that would in a sense formalize and constitutionalize the need for prior Parliamentary approval of decisions to deploy.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
