Authorities for Military Operations Against Terrorist Groups: The State of the Debate and Options for Congress

Chivvis, Christopher S.; Liepman, Andrew

doi:10.7249/rr1145-1

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Disagreement also emerged over the question whether and how Congress should issue a new authorization. The two most prominent schools of thought in Congress were represented by Republicans favoring broad authorities for the executive to combat ISIS, and Democrats who preferred a narrower authorization with restrictions such as a sunset provision, prohibition of ground forces and geographical limits (Chivvis and Liepman, 2016: 17). The contra-intuitive support for presidential prerogatives by the Republican leadership was again connected to the issue of national security interests.…”

Section: Congress and Obama’s Warsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unleashing the watchdogs: explaining congressional assertiveness in the politics of US military interventions

Böller

Müller

2018

Eur. Pol. Sci. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article contributes to a burgeoning literature on parliamentary war powers by investigating the case of the US Congress drawing on both International Relations (IR) research and traditional war powers studies. Applying a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis and case study method, we examine the conditions shaping congressional assertiveness. The article shows that the lack of national security interests and divided government are important conditions for members of Congress to criticize presidential intervention policies. While previous US war powers studies focused on the influence of partisanship, this article holds that domestic as well as international factors influence congressional behavior. A short comparative case study of two US military interventions (Libya 2011, ISIS 2014–15) during the Obama presidency serves to illustrate the findings.

show abstract

Section: Congress and Obama’s Warsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unleashing the watchdogs: explaining congressional assertiveness in the politics of US military interventions

Böller

Müller

2018

Eur. Pol. Sci. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7 In addition, the White House should make a concerted effort to be transparent about strikes overseas, both in discussing the results of operations and explaining the legal and policy framework for authorizing them. 8 Hartig, 2016;Chivvis and Liepman, 2016. some types of operations, such as hostage rescue missions and special operations raids, authorizing the deployment of U.S. military boots on the ground should still involve senior-level deliberations because the U.S. foreign policy implications are particularly significant. The use of lethal force outside designated areas of active hostilities should as well.…”

Section: Delegate Authority Downwardmentioning

confidence: 99%