Congressional Record


Book Description










CIS Annual


Book Description










The War Powers Resolution


Book Description

This report discusses and assesses the War Powers Resolution and its application since enactment in 1973, providing detailed background on various cases in which it was used, as well as cases in which issues of its applicability were raised. It will be revised biannually. In the post-Cold War world, Presidents have continued to commit U.S. Armed Forces into potential hostilities, sometimes without a specific authorization from Congress. Thus the War Powers Resolution and its purposes continue to be a potential subject of controversy. On June 7, 1995, the House defeated, by a vote of 217-201, an amendment to repeal the central features of the War Powers Resolution that have been deemed unconstitutional by every President since the law's enactment in 1973. In 1999, after the President committed U.S. military forces to action in Yugoslavia without congressional authorization, Representative Tom Campbell used expedited procedures under the Resolution to force a debate and votes on U.S. military action in Yugoslavia, and later sought, unsuccessfully, through a federal court suit to enforce presidential compliance with the terms of the War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Resolution P.L. 93-148 was passed over the veto of President Nixon on November 7, 1973, to provide procedures for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities. Section 4(a)(1) requires the President to report to Congress any introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. When such a report is submitted, or is required to be submitted, Section 5(b) requires that the use of forces must be terminated within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes such use or extends the time period. Section 3 requires that the "President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing" U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. From 1975 through March 2017, Presidents have submitted 168 reports as the result of the War Powers Resolution, but only one, the 1975 Mayaguez seizure, cited Section 4(a)(1), which triggers the 60-day withdrawal requirement, and in this case the military action was completed and U.S. armed forces had disengaged from the area of conflict when the report was made. The reports submitted by the President since enactment of the War Powers Resolution cover a range of military activities, from embassy evacuations to full-scale combat military operations, such as the Persian Gulf conflict, and the 2003 war with Iraq, the intervention in Kosovo, and the anti-terrorism actions in Afghanistan. In some instances, U.S. Armed Forces have been used in hostile situations without formal reports to Congress under the War Powers Resolution. On one occasion, Congress exercised its authority to determine that the requirements of Section 4(a)(1) became operative on August 29, 1983, through passage of the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution (P.L. 98-119). In 1991 and 2002, Congress authorized, by law, the use of military force against Iraq. In several instances none of the President, Congress, or the courts has been willing to initiate the procedures of or enforce the directives in the War Powers Resolution.




War Powers


Book Description

This study provides a balanced and scholarly analysis of the war powers controversy, a controversy as old as the Constitution and as current as the conflicts in the Persian Gulf and the Balkans. The work examines the debates among the Founding Fathers, Congressional and United Nations resolutions, communications between the Executive and Congress, as well as other issues surrounding the use of military force in foreign conflicts. The author considers the impact on the war powers controversy of the ways in which warfare has changed: from conventional to electronic and from major ground force actions to swift air strikes and rapid response troop deployments. Particularly relevant is the author's examination of war powers in the present time of overall world peace but sporadic regional conflict, the context in which the struggle between Congress and the Executive over war-making limits and constraints continues. This work will be of interest to scholars and students alike in American government, politics, and military studies.




Clinton, Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Interventionism


Book Description

This volume re-examines the evidence surrounding the rise and fall of peacekeeping policy during the first Clinton Administration. Specifically, it asks: what happened to cause the Clinton Executive to abandon its previously favoured policy platform of humanitarian multilateralism? Clinton, Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Interventionism aims to satisfy a large gap in our understanding of events surrounding 1990s peacekeeping policy, humanitarian intervention and the Rwandan genocide, as well as shedding some light on US policy on Africa, and the issues surrounding the current peacekeeping debate. Leonie Murray takes an unorthodox stance with regard to the role of public opinion on peacekeeping policy, and delves deeper into the roles that the legislature, the military, and in particular, the executive had to play in the development of US peacekeeping policy in the 1990s. The conclusions reached concerning the role of the United States and the International Community in the face of the Rwandan Genocide are of particular note in their departure from the accepted wisdom on the subject. This book will be of interest to students of peacekeeping, international relations, US foreign policy and humanitarian intervention.




Legitimacy and the Use of Armed Force


Book Description

This book examines the concept of legitimacy as it may be used to explain the success, or failure, of key stability operations since the end of the Cold War. In the success of stability operations, legitimacy is key. In order to achieve success, the intervening force must create a sense of legitimacy of the mission among the various constituencies concerned with and involved in the venture. These parties include the people of the host nation, the host government (whose relations with the local people must be legitimate), political elites and the general public worldwide—including the intervening parties’ own domestic constituencies, who will sustain (or not sustain) the intervention by offering (or withdrawing) support. This book seeks to bring into close scrutiny the legitimacy of stability interventions in the post-Cold War era, by proposing a concept that captures both the multi-faceted nature of legitimacy and the process of legitimation that takes place in each case. Case studies on Liberia, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Afghanistan and Iraq explain how legitimacy related to the outcome of these operations. This book will be of much interest to students of stability operations, counterinsurgency, peace operations, humanitarian intervention, and IR/security studies in general.