Abstract
The move from territorial defence to ‘wars of choice’ has influenced the domestic politics of military interventions. This paper examines the extent to which both the substance and the procedure of military interventions are contested among political parties. Regarding the substance, our analysis of Chapel Hill Expert Survey data demonstrates that across European states political parties on the right are more supportive of military missions than those on the left. On the decision-making procedures, our case studies of Germany, France, Spain and the United Kingdom show that political parties on the left tend to favour strong parliamentary control whereas those on the right tend to prefer an unconstrained executive, although with differences across countries. These findings challenge the view that ‘politics stops at the water’s edge’ and contribute to a better understanding of how political parties and parliaments influence military interventions.
Highlights
The move from territorial defence to ‘wars of choice’ has influenced the domestic politics of military interventions
Given our findings that political parties systematically differ in their support for military missions, we examine to what extent such preferences about policy translate into preferences about procedure, namely the role of parliament in deployment decisions
Contrary to the widely held assumption in international relations literature that national interests override party political visions over foreign policy, our analysis shows that support for military missions systematically differs across political parties in Europe
Summary
On the decision-‐making procedures, our case studies of Germany, France, Spain and the United Kingdom show that political parties on the left tend to favour strong parliamentary control whereas those on the right tend to prefer an unconstrained executive, with differences across countries These findings challenge the view that ‘politics stops at the water’s edge’ and contribute to a greater understanding of how political parties and parliaments influence military interventions. Section three turns to the politics of legislativeexecutive relations in decision-making procedures on the use of armed force by examining the party politics of legislative-executive relations in Germany, Spain, France and the United Kingdom (UK) in depth These four countries have played important roles in military missions but represent different constitutional traditions and political-strategic cultures. This article argues that, contrary to the commonly held assumption that ‘politics stops at the water’s edge’, the role of parliaments in foreign policy (the subject of this Special Issue) is very much a point of ideological contestation among political parties
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.
