War Powers: A Big Debate but only Partial Answers
Jun 2008, Vol. 153, No. 3
By Jonathan Eyal
As Tony Blair’s rule drew to a close during the 2006-2007 period and the Prime Minister came under increasing pressure from his own backbenchers to retire, the debate about the powers of the Government to commit troops to military operations grew. The debate was couched in lofty legal principles: Britain, it was alleged, lagged behind most Western democracies in allowing its executive to send its uniformed men and women into battle without an explicit approval, or even a reference, to the country’s elected representatives. Though as Eyal asserts, none of the errors of the Iraq war could have been prevented, regardless of Britain’s constitutional arrangements.
Add your comments
By Jonathan Eyal
As Tony Blair’s rule drew to a close during the 2006-2007 period and the Prime Minister came under increasing pressure from his own backbenchers to retire, the debate about the powers of the Government to commit troops to military operations grew. The debate was couched in lofty legal principles: Britain, it was alleged, lagged behind most Western democracies in allowing its executive to send its uniformed men and women into battle without an explicit approval, or even a reference, to the country’s elected representatives. Though as Eyal asserts, none of the errors of the Iraq war could have been prevented, regardless of Britain’s constitutional arrangements.
You need 4 credits to access this item
If you are a member or registered user, please login
Not already a member and have not yet registered?
Add your comments
Copyright © 2008 RUSI