Jeanpierre, Eric (2017) A comparison of the developing role of parliaments in foreign military interventions in France, Germany and the United Kingdom : towards a jus common, or is there more than meets the eye? In: 3rd International Workshop on Law and Politics; 09 - 10 Sep 2017, Istanbul, Turkey. (Unpublished)
Abstract
On the 2nd of December 2015 the House of Commons of the UK Parliament passed a resolution approving military involvement by British forces in Syria. On the 4th December 2015 the German Bundestag followed suit. Both decisions were precipitated by the attacks in Paris on the 13th November 2015, and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249 which followed them. There were however some significant differences: In the UK House of Commons the motion which ended by saying that the House “supports Her Majesty's Government in taking military action, specifically airstrikes, exclusively against ISIL in Syria; and offers its wholehearted support to Her Majesty's Armed Forces” was passed by a majority of 397 to 223. In the German Bundestag the recommendation of the foreign affairs committee on the application of the federal government for the deployment of German armed forces for the averting and preventing of terrorist activities by the terrorist organisation IS was approved by a majority of 445 to 146 with 7 abstentions. The House of Commons debate lasted about ten hours. The Bundestag debate lasted for two periods of 77 minutes. In France, where the attacks took place, a 4 hour Parliamentary debate without a vote had already preceded a military intervention on 15 Sep. 2015. Parliament further approved a continuation of the French military intervention in Syria on 25 November 2015 following a 2 hour by an overwhelming majority of 515 to 4 with 10 abstentions at the Assemblée Nationale and a near unanimous majority of 325 to 0 with 21 abstentions at the Sénat. These debates demonstrate a clear recognition that democratic legitimation of some kind is necessary when a government uses armed force outside its territory, but the basis, procedure, timing for doing so is markedly different. It therefore seems appropriate to review the stages reached in these three countries in a growing tendency to require democratic legitimation of the use of armed force abroad, and determine whether it is heading towards a jus common, or whether the differences will remain entrenched as highlighted by Pierre Legrand’s theory that, despite the appearances, European legal systems are actually not converging
Actions (Repository Editors)
 |
Item Control Page |