Parliaments and the deployment of troops abroad under UN, NATO and EU auspices: A double democratic deficit?

Born, Hans

doi:10.5771/0175-274x-2004-3-109

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On a general level, this point has already been acknowledged for the side of parliaments. In their often-cited distinction of the ‘3 A’s’, Born and Hänggi (2004, 2005) argue that opportunities for parliament to affect security policy result not only from its formal legal rights (authority). Rather, parliament’s capability to become involved effectively (‘ability’, as in parliamentary resources like budget, staff, and infrastructure) and willingness of Members of Parliament (MPs) to conduct effective oversight (attitude) are important conditions as well.…”

Section: Moving Beyond the State Of The Artmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Where previous research had taken the multilateral character of deployments into account at all, it usually depicted it as a challenge and a problem for national parliaments that were argued to be the losers of the extant two-level games dynamics (e.g. Born and Hänggi, 2004). Schade, however, demonstrates that, in the case of the EU, there are often additional scrutiny mechanisms available to national parliaments.…”

Section: Contribution Of the Special Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Parliaments in security policy: Involvement, politicisation, and influence

Mello

Peters

2018

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While parliaments have long been neglected actors in the analysis of security policy, a research literature on the subject is growing. Current research is focused primarily on how parliaments, relying on formal legal competences, can constrain governmental policies. However, this research needs expansion in three areas. First, informal sources of parliamentary influence on security policy deserve more systematic attention as the significance of parliaments often hinges on contextual factors and individual decision-makers. Second, we still lack a systematic understanding of the effects of parliamentary involvement on security policy. Finally, the role of parliaments for the politics of security is almost completely uncharted territory. When parliaments become involved in security policy, does it foster transparency and contribute to the politicisation of security policy so that security policy becomes a 'normal' political issue? The article reviews current research, derives findings from the contributions to this Special Issue, and spells out their wider implications.

show abstract

Section: Moving Beyond the State Of The Artmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Contribution Of the Special Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

Parliaments in security policy: Involvement, politicisation, and influence

Mello

Peters

2018

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In parliamentary democracies, the conventional wisdom on national assemblies as institutional actors in foreign policy is that they are generally very weak, especially if a single party has a majority in parliament and exclusive representation in the cabinet (see Kesgin and Kaarbo 2010 for a review). Still, foreign policy powers of parliaments vary widely (Pahre 1997; Martin 2001; Born 2004; Dieterich, Hummel, and Marschall 2010) and some wield considerable oversight and ratification authority. In Denmark, for example, treaties require a five‐sixth parliamentary approval, giving parliamentary opposition a clear role in major foreign policy decisions (Martin 2001).…”

Section: Foreign Policy Conflict Between Governing Elites and Politicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contested Roles and Domestic Politics: Reflections on Role Theory in Foreign Policy Analysis and IR Theory1

Cantir¹,

Kaarbo²

2011

Foreign Policy Analysis

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cantir, Cristian and Juliet Kaarbo. (2011) Contested Roles and Domestic Politics: Reflections on Role Theory in Foreign Policy Analysis and IR Theory. Foreign Policy Analysis, doi: 10.1111/j.1743‐8594.2011.00156.x Many of the strengths of research in Foreign Policy Analysis have been overlooked by role theorists. Role theorists often assume that roles are shared across elites and masses, that elites can manipulate masses, or that public opinion on roles constrains elites. Role theorists also tend to assume that there is a consensus among elites over national roles. Research in Foreign Policy Analysis, on the other hand, demonstrates that foreign policy may be contested both vertically (between elites and masses) and horizontally (among elites) and that these conflicts affect foreign policy decision making and foreign policy behavior. We propose that (i) contested roles mean that roles and foreign policy are not as stable as is often implied; (ii) research on contested roles offers Foreign Policy Analysis a less preference‐oriented way of conceptualizing policy disagreements and decision making; and (iii) structures reveal themselves as important when agents use them in domestic discourse over contested roles, but the impact of international norm and role structures is not automatic, as it is shaped by the agents (and domestic structures) in the domestic political process. We suggest that research on the strategic use of roles could bring together these benefits of examining contested roles.

show abstract

Parliaments and the deployment of troops abroad under UN, NATO and EU auspices: A double democratic deficit?

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Parliaments in security policy: Involvement, politicisation, and influence

Parliaments in security policy: Involvement, politicisation, and influence

Contested Roles and Domestic Politics: Reflections on Role Theory in Foreign Policy Analysis and IR Theory1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About