Challenging the Royal Prerogative: The Decision on War against Iraq in Parliamentary Debates in 2002–3

Häkkinen, Teemu

doi:10.1111/1750-0206.12184

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The role of parliament is constitutionally or otherwise recognized but by no means given or authorized; rather, it is many cases in a flux (see Häkkinen 2016;Kronlund 2015). Despite the 'normality' of congressional debates on committing US armed forces, they should be considered as separate 'momentums' for Congress to restore its powers in the continuum of discussions on war powers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is in contrast, for example, with the British parliament's authority of war power and its development. In Britain, the fact that parliament had a debate on committing armed forces in Iraq instead of just relying on the executive's 'royal prerogative' in [2002][2003] has been considered as a ' culmination' of the British parliament's role in decision-making on committing armed forces (see Häkkinen 2016). As opposed to the British case, debate in the US Congress is rather expected.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

‘The Iraq War Momentum’ in the Struggle over the Powers of the US Congress

Kronlund

2019

Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How parliaments and legislatures participate in war-making has raised interest among researchers from different disciplines, including constitutional law and political science. While war powers are usually considered to be included in the field of the executive branch, parliaments have played an increasingly relevant role as more democratic decision-making in both normal and exceptional times has gained prominence. The comparative aspect to examine war powers between parliaments or between the branches of government is often adopted to describe the authority and legitimacy of these powers. The US Congress is considered to have strong war powers on paper compared to parliaments in other liberal democracies. Many times, the experienced realities of war have, however, resulted in benefiting the executive branch. This article claims that Congress, however, has not given away its powers but has adapted them to the changing conditions. The debates on authorizations of use of force can be seen as momentum for Congress to address its constitutional war powers. This article draws on congressional debates on war powers with regard to authorization of using US armed forces against Iraq in 2002. The purpose is to show a vivid discussion on struggles concerning constitutional war powers and how these are interpreted, defined and understood against the background of historical, theoretical and constitutional discussions on war powers. As the committing of US armed forces and the separation of powers continue to be in the center of political discussions, it is relevant to examine the debates on war powers in the US Congress.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%