Kronlund, Anna Parliamentary oversight of the exceptional situations in a presidential system. Debating the reassertion of the constitutional powers of the US Congress. Jyvaskyla, University of Jyvaskyla, 2013, 252 p. (Jyvaskyla Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research, ISSN 0075-4625; 468) ISBN 978-951-39-5218-1 (nid.) ISBN 978-951-39-5219-8 (PDF) Finnish summary Diss. The study examines, through politically and historically relevant examples, the differences and conflicts between presidential and parliamentary powers for dealing with exceptional situations. The study investigates the US Congress debates of the 1970s and after 9/11 in relation to the Weimar debates on constitutional interpretation as a context of reference for the ‘state of exception’ problematic. The debates on the Weimar 1919 Constitution and its Article 48 raise questions that can be applied to the US Congress debates of the 1970s and after 9/11. The study’s approach to parliamentary oversight is illustrated by Walter Bagehot’s The English Constitution (1867). Bagehot emphasized how control of the executive and parliamentary supremacy can be me maintained through the parliamentary debate. The parliament is approached on the presumption that the motions of the agenda are debated from opposing views according to the rules of parliamentary procedures which is also applicable in a balance of powers system. The distinctive approach of the study is to analyze the primary sources by drawing on rhetorical and conceptual reading of the war and emergency powers debates. The growth of executive branch powers in foreign policy has been a dominant trend in the United States since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency. The Congress, however, has not submitted to this trend without raising opposing arguments. The study examines a period of time that could be also described as a (lost) momentum of the reassertion of the Congress’ powers through the debates of the War Powers Resolution (1973) and the National Emergencies Act (1976). These two congressional debates and decisions are set against a third example of an extraordinary political situation: the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The study provides a new point of view for examining how the US Congress understands its role within a presidential system. The connection between the state of exception problematic and parliamentary powers provides also a new perspective on the study of constitutional law and politics.

Parliamentary oversight of the exceptional situations in a presidential system : debating the reassertion of the constitutional powers of the US Congress

Starting in 2010, the Obama administration engaged in an effort to justify drone strikes relying on the concept of ‘imminence’ The aim of this article is to understand the reasons behind such insistence and to assess the administration’s efforts at conceptual change Building on Skinner’s and Bentley’s work, the article argues that the administration has followed an ‘innovating ideologist’ strategy The analysis shows how waves of criticisms exposed the administration to a key contradiction between its rhetoric of change that emphasised international law and the need for aggressive counterterrorism Reacting to this criticism, the administration has relied on imminence due to its connection with legitimate uses of force, while working to change the criteria for the concept, causing a shift away from imminent as ‘immediate’ Reassessing Skinner’s place in IR, the article identifies conceptual change as a lens to assess foreign policy rhetoric and practice The analysis emphasises the connection between actors’ intentions, beliefs, and practices It highlights the importance of criticism in engendering contradictions, exploring why only some criticisms are confronted Finally, the article develops an original typology of the limits confronted by the innovating ideologist and methods to assess whether the actor has respected them

/pdf/the-obama-administration-s-conceptual-change-imminence-and-5fodwttqm1.pdf

The Obama administration’s conceptual change: Imminence and the legitimation of targeted killings

: This thesis analyzes the dilemmas that both democratic and democratizing states face while dealing with terrorism-related problems. This problem has been equally pressing to a country like Uganda because it has been experiencing the problem of terrorism while undergoing the process of democratization. Much of the discussion boils down to whether and at what point forceful measures against terrorism protect or imperil the democracy. The challenge is how to balance counterterrorism measures and uphold democratic principles. The thesis discusses various approaches and experiences used by democratic states, using the United States and the United Kingdom as examples in tackling the problem of terrorism. From a policy perspective, immediately after 9/11, leaders from the United States and the United Kingdom introduced broad new authorities and legal measures in such laws as the U.S. Patriot Act and The Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act of 2001 of the UK. Using the experiences of these countries, Uganda adopted similar approaches by introducing the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002, through which counterterrorism efforts have been handled. This study concludes by identifying some of the contradictions brought about by the new policies and examining their impact on both developed democracies and democratizing states like Uganda.

/pdf/the-dilemma-of-combating-terrorism-in-democratizing-states-a-40bf68lylf.pdf

The dilemma of combating terrorism in democratizing states: a case study of the Republic of Uganda

https://biblio.univ-annaba.dz/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/SADAOUI-Lamia.pdf

People's Democratic Republic of Algeria Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research

Reluctant students often criticize the study of history as irrelevant to the present day. In the case of one important and controversial piece of legislation, nothing could be farther from the truth. The 1973 War Powers Resolution (WPR), which places limits on presidential power to deploy troops in combat situations, has ample application to the political functioning of the United States today. Thus, investigating and studying the resolution remains relevant and important today. The WPR became law in 1973, overcoming a predictable veto by President Nixon. The legislation has consistently been a flashpoint for political controversy – eliciting criticism by both parties, and both opponents and supporters of expansive presidential power. Not only has it created political controversy, but its effectiveness has been a constant source of study, debate, and disagreement. This thesis will argue that the WPR has been largely ineffective at achieving its goals of restricting presidential powers. It will analyze several conflicts that the United States has been involved in since its passage. This paper will examine the political climate at the time of its initial passage, and then examine the effect it has had on subsequent conflicts. Ultimately, this paper will contend that the WPR has been an ineffective attempt at restricting presidential war powers, due to its political nature, vague language, and the modern strength of the American president. THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION AND THE PRESIDENCY 4

/pdf/repeating-history-the-ineffectiveness-of-the-1973-war-powers-1gyo9ghf8k.pdf

Repeating History: The Ineffectiveness of the 1973 War Powers Resolution

The issue before us is the constitutional authority of Congress and the President to commit forces to armed combat and questions related to such authority. These questions have been the subject of considerable debate and scholarly attention.' Unfortunately, they are often approached polemically, with one side arguing the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and the other asserting Congress' constitutional power to declare war; the implication often given is that these powers are somehow incompatible. On the contrary, the framers of the Constitution intended that there be a proper balance between the roles of the President and Congress in decisions to use force in the conduct of foreign policy. In discussing these issues, I will first review the historical background of the war powers question, beginning with the Constitution itself and tracing the practice of the nation throughout our history. Then, placing the war powers issue in the modern context, I will discuss the issues which bear upon the exercise of presidential and congressional powers now and in the foreseeable future. Finally, from this perspective, I will describe what I believe the national interest requires in terms of a proper balance between the President and the Congress. At the outset I would like to stress my belief that cooperation and consultation between the executive and legislative branches is the heart of the political process as conceived by the framers of the Constitution. In the absence of such cooperation, no legislation which seeks to define constitutional powers more rigidly can be effective. Conversely, given such cooperation, such legislation is unnecessary. The execu-

William P. Rogers

Papers

Congress, the President, and the War Powers