The party politics of legislative–executive relations in security and defence policy

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 greater understanding of how political parties and parliaments influence military interventions.

Italian Political Parties and Military Operations: An Empirical Analysis on Voting Patterns

“…Second, according to our findings, the curvilinear model of partisan support for military operations (Wagner et al 2017) seems to better illustrate the case of Italy than the 'traditional left-right' model proposed by Glenn Palmer et al (2004). Indeed, the level of support for troop deployment is very low among far-left parties (PCI and RC); it increases for centre-left parties (DS-PDS) and reaches a peak among centrist and centre-right parties (PD, CCD/CDU-UDC and FI).…”

“…Indeed, the level of support for troop deployment is very low among far-left parties (PCI and RC); it increases for centre-left parties (DS-PDS) and reaches a peak among centrist and centre-right parties (PD, CCD/CDU-UDC and FI). However, differing slightly from the curvilinear model (Wagner et al 2017), in the Italian case the level of support by far-right parties is controversial. In fact, AN supported all the military operations apart from the one in Kosovo.…”

Parliament in gross human rights violations: the case of Darfur

“…At least one MP per party asked questions on Darfur. Our result is not congruent with those from the most recent studies in military affairs showing leftists MPs to oversee the executive more often (Wagner et al, 2017;Sakaki and Lukner, 2017). As noted by Raunio and Wagner (2017, pp.…”

“…They are also less likely to align with US position in the UN General Assembly (Potrafke, 2009). Leftists parties running on a green agenda bring up human rights issues more often than others (Feliu et al, 2015) and abstain or vote against military deployments (Mello, 2014;Wagner et al, 2017). In the case of military missions, leftist parties are more inclined to oversee government foreign policy (Wagner et al, 2017).…”

“…Leftists parties running on a green agenda bring up human rights issues more often than others (Feliu et al, 2015) and abstain or vote against military deployments (Mello, 2014;Wagner et al, 2017). In the case of military missions, leftist parties are more inclined to oversee government foreign policy (Wagner et al, 2017). Studies also point to a different parliamentary behaviour based on parties' position in politics.…”