Waging War and the Royal Prerogative

Should the power to declare war be made more democratic? Should it be the power of people rather than of Kings asks Michael Waite in the Guardian, July 2006.http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,1832004,00.html 

The House of Lords Constitution Committee’s Fifteenth Report of Session 2005-06 – “Waging War: Parliament’s role and responsibility” (published July 2006) recommended that the role of Parliament in deploying UK forces abroad be established in a new convention.  

The introduction to the report provides a very useful description of the nature of the prerogative power to declare war and deploy forces abroad, its evolution and the constraints upon it. Is accountability to Parliament enough? You might also read the conclusion to the report as a timesaving device. The Committee concluded at paragraph 103 that:  

“The exercise of the Royal prerogative by the Government to deploy armed force overseas is outdated and should not be allowed to continue as the basis for legitimate war-making in our 21st century democracy. Parliament’s ability to challenge the executive must be protected and strengthened. There is a need to set out more precisely the extent of the Government’s deployment powers, and the role Parliament can—and should—play in their exercise.” The Committee recommended: “that there should be a parliamentary convention determining the role Parliament should play in making decisions to deploy force or forces outside the United Kingdom to war, intervention in an existing conflict or to environments where there is a risk that the forces will be engaged in conflict.” [para 108] 

Which should comprise the following features [para 110]:

“(1)  Government should seek Parliamentary approval (for example, in the House of Commons, by the laying of a resolution) if it is proposing the deployment of British forces outside the United Kingdom into actual or potential armed conflict;

(2)  In seeking approval, the Government should indicate the deployment’s objectives, its legal basis, likely duration and, in general terms, an estimate of its size;

(3)  If, for reasons of emergency and security, such prior application is impossible, the Government should provide retrospective information within 7 days[169] of its commencement or as soon as it is feasible, at which point the process in (1) should be followed;

(4)    The Government, as a matter of course, should keep Parliament informed of the progress of such deployments and, if their nature or objectives alter significantly should seek a renewal of the approval.”

Summary found in press release at:  http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_press_notices/pn270706const.cfm

See also summary of Government’s response of 7 November 2006 at: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_press_notices/pn231106const.cfm