There could scarcely be a more appropriate time than the present to address the issue of oversight of security and intelligence services. In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, the Iraq war, and the bombings in Madrid on March 11, 2001, many of those responsible for overseeing intelligence in both the legislative and the executive branches of government are currently involved in investigating the intelligence services and the way political leaders use or misuse the intelligence they receive. The U.S. 9/11 Commission 1 and the U.K. Butler Commission, 2 to mention just two inquiries, have dealt with formidable questions indeed: Are intelligence officials working effectively and within the rule of law? Do political leaders politicize intelligence? Do intelligence services need additional legal powers and resources in order to deal with terrorist threats? These and other questions illustrate that the process of intelligence oversight has two important goals in democratic societies: keeping the services in line with their legally defined mandate and ensuring their effectiveness. In this article the focus is on comparing legislative oversight practices in selected democratic states, with the goal of making recommendations for strengthening intelligence oversight.3 A focus on strengthening oversight is necessary because the changed security climate since 9/11 has underlined the need to balance our commitments to security and democracy. This can only be achieved if the new powers that have been granted to the intelligence services are accompanied by enhanced intelligence oversight.

No abstract

No abstract

While the use of force under international auspices has increased substantially, the same does not hold for the parliamentary accountability of troops committed to multinational peace support operations of the UN, NATO and EU. This article argues that a democratic deficit exists both at the international and national level, leading to a 'double democratic deficit'. Analysing the problematic nature of parliamentary accountability as regards the international use of force, the article concludes with recommendations for narrowing the accountability gap.

The objective of this article is to explore the role of parliament in police governance in selected countries in Asia and Europe, including Belgium, Germany, India, Indonesia, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Thailand and the United Kingdom. Based on a comparative framework of analysis, the country case studies demonstrate that parliaments apply their generic functions to the police, including the legislative, budget control and oversight function. Furthermore, parliaments in all case studies have a dedicated committee or subcommittee dealing with police affairs, endowed with subpoena and contempt powers to compel government and police officers to appear before committee meetings and to submit required documents. In addition, for police to be fully accountable, parliaments have legislated and set up independent oversight bodies, including independent police complaints bodies, ombudspersons and national human rights institutions as well as anticorruption/financial audit bodies and dataprotection commissioners.