Royal Prerogative Pros And Cons

862 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Advantages and disadvantages of royal prerogative

‘The exercise of the Royal prerogative by the Government to deploy armed force overseas is outdated and should not be allowed to continue as the basis for legitimate war-making in our 21st century democracy.’
M00536987
Saoirse Walsh
Public Law
Word Count: 914

Under the Royal prerogative powers, the Government can declare war and deploy armed forces to conflicts abroad without the backing or consent of Parliament 1, however in 2003 the government agreed to allow the Parliament to have a say in weather or not to deploy armed forces overseas but however in 2004 the House of Common’s public Administration Select Committee, released a report on the Minister’s prerogative powers stating that ‘any decision to engage in armed conflict should be …show more content…

I think that the Royal Prerogative should not have a complete and total decision over what happens to the people and citizens of the United Kingdom when it comes to deploying armed forces. I think that the Royal Prerogative should be keeping the Parliament up to date and correctly informed with any progress of deployments and the duration time of how long they will be gone for. I believe that the Government should be seeking the approval of Parliament if they are deciding to deploy British forces into potential or actual armed conflict, putting their lives in danger outside of the United Kingdom, “While the government which has taken it should be required to explain and justify its decision to Parliament and to the people, the decision itself should not be dictated by the immediate views and reactions of Parliament or of the people” 4It has previously been proposed that the best way to establish a legitimate source of authority for the deployment of armed forces would have to be ‘for Parliament to pass a law saying that all of the prerogative powers of war-making are now transferred to the Prime Minister’5. “the use of military force is so important, it is a unique capability where the state authorizes the use of lethal force ... that Parliament must necessarily take a view on when and where it is used, if it is to be used”6, there is a lot of major consequences when it comes to big decisions like deploying armed forces, because it affects and disrupts countries and citizens involved, so it should only be necessary to do so in deploying them as there are many devastating consequences

Show More
Related

  • The Failure Of Charles I's Personal Rule

    1284 Words  | 3 Pages

    How far were the events in Scotland responsible for the failure of Charles I’s Personal Rule?

    Read More

  • Supreme Command bny Elliot Cohen

    1859 Words  | 4 Pages

    The basic question, without reference to the here and now, has been asked throughout the ages. As Elliot Cohen observes in his book, Supreme Command , it goes as far back as 168bc when speaker Consul Lucius Aemilius addressed his audience on the resumption of war with Macedonia: “I am not, fellow-citizens, one who believes that no advice may be given to leaders... Generals should receive advice, in the first place from the experts who are both specially skilled in military matters and have learned from experience; secondly, from those who are on the scene of action, who see the terrain, the enemy...”. In order to answer this question the author will look at three factors before drawing a conclusion. The first will be to look at the theory of civil-military relations, highlighting some examples from recent history of how those theories have been put into practice. The second will be to look at how the character of conflict has evolved, the definition of modern British conflict and the difference between hard and soft power. The third factor will be to consider the effects of globalisation, mass media and the weight of public opinion on the decisions made about future conflicts by our politicians and military leaders.

    Read More

  • Absolute vs. New Monarchs

    1025 Words  | 3 Pages

    Monarchy was not at all a new institution in the 15th, 16th, or 17th centuries. It wasn’t even very different with respect to the goals that prevailed in each monarchy. However, the differences between the New and Absolute Monarchy come in the way of the methods, theories, and conditions prevalent throughout the different monarchical reigns.

    Read More

  • Uncodified Constitution Of The UK

    1198 Words  | 3 Pages

    However, the UK has remained the same throughout history. Some countries have changed their constitution as a result of civil disorder, while others have changed it just for the benefit of the countries. There have been many attempts in the past to change the constitutional framework of the UK. In 2003, under Tony Blair’s regime, the UK and the US controversially sent troops in Iraq on the basis that it had “weapons of mass destruction” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27852832) As a result a great discussion arose. Would it be any different if the power to declare war would be in the hands of the parliament instead of just the Prime Minister alone?

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of King George

    277 Words  | 1 Pages

    I really enjoyed this video. It's crazy the amount of informaton that gets packed into a three minute video. I think the cartoon and music that accompanies it helps because you're being entertained as well as informed. I think it's easier for me to remember a fun fact from the video versus reading a whole chapter from a book.

    Read More

  • Profits of New Monarchs

    687 Words  | 2 Pages

    New monarchs paved the way for a more profitable future for the most powerful countries in Europe. Fledgling countries such as Spain, France, and England, profited from their new monarchs, ultimately becoming the powerful world powers they are today. The key components of a new monarch include limiting the nobles' power, increasing economic prosperity, uniting their nation, and stabilizing their army. The monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, King Louis XI of France, and King Henry VII of England, are prime examples of new monarchs. New monarchs strengthened their nations considerably, in more ways than one.

    Read More

  • The War Powers Act or The War Powers Resolution

    558 Words  | 2 Pages

    The War Powers Act or sometimes referred to as the War Powers Resolution is passed by congress. A group of Senators led by Jacov K. Javits of New York proposes fundamentally to change the constitutional relationship between President and Congress in the field of foreign affairs (Rostow). This act is an aftermath of the Vietnam War and it addresses a set of procedure for both President and Congress in the situation where the United States forces abroad could lead the United States into armed conflict. This act can be broken down into several parts. The first part asserts the policy behind the law, and the President’s power as a Commander in Chief is exercised only as a respond to declaration of war by Congress or in respond to national emergency; an attack upon the United States. The second part requires the President to discuss and consult with Congress before take an action in the U.S. Armed forces into hostilities and continue to discuss as long as the U.S. Armed forces remain in such condition. The third part explains that President should meet the requirement when he wants to introduce U.S Armed forces. The fourth part concerns more in congressional action and procedure. For instance, this part explains the procedure regarding legislation to withdraw the U.S. forces. The fifth part states the rules to be used in interpreting the War Power Act. At last, the sixth part explains separability provision in which if there is any part of the law is invalid, the rest of the law shall not considered invalid too.

    Read More

  • The Relationship between Congress and the President in Policymaking from Mid-19th century to Present-Day.

    580 Words  | 2 Pages

    The U.S. Constitution gives military responsibility to both the executive branch and legislative branch, but scholars have long debated the jurisdiction of their War Powers. In the past century presidents have further and further ignored the constitutional requirements for taking military action.

    Read More

  • The Vietnam War and The Tonkin Gulf Resolution

    931 Words  | 2 Pages

    Williams, Charles F. "War Powers: A New Chapter in a Continuing Debate." Social Education. April 2003: 128-133. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 07 May. 2014.

    Read More

  • The Lives of Children during the American Revolution

    578 Words  | 2 Pages

    Who would have thought just a few years ago that we would eventually declare war on Great Britain? Well, we have. Everyone talked about the possibility of it for so long that it wasn’t much of a surprise at the time, but now it’s starting to sink in. In hindsight I think Britain should have seen this coming, but who knows. It was a rather bold move on the colonies’ part. Some people, even Patriots, think that it was a bit too bold. After all, we’re just a group of small colonies that have only been here a hundred years or so. Great Britain is a huge empire with many soldiers, while we only have small militias.

    Read More

  • The Title of Nobility Amendment

    931 Words  | 2 Pages

    There are 33 amendments that have been offered up by Congress of those six flopped ratification by the mandatory three quarters of the state senates and four are officially still awaiting decision before state politicians. Beginning with the eighteenth amendment every amendment that was presented except for the nineteenth amendment and the still unresolved child labor amendment of 1924 has a definite time limit for ratification. There lies a mystery in the very first Thirteenth Amendment, the Titles of Nobility Amendment presented in 1810, which would have eliminated the citizenship of any American acquiring a title of nobility or honor from any foreign power or otherwise, the mystery is whether this amendment was ratified and has been illegally removed from the Constitution (Mount, 2010).

    Read More

  • What Would Happen If The King Had Authority Essay

    445 Words  | 1 Pages

    Do you think the king of England had authority over everybody in the colonies? After all it was him that had given the colonists permission to go to America.The king wanted to have the first English colony in America.It was his idea to go to America in the first place.One final reason is, that the king sent a governor to each colony.

    Read More

  • On War by Carl Von Clausewitz

    1315 Words  | 3 Pages

    Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...

    Read More

  • Essay About Conscription

    610 Words  | 2 Pages

    Many Australians reject the idea of conscription to an overseas war, and believe conscription should be used here as a home defense, for exampl...

    Read More

  • The Royal Prerogative

    2051 Words  | 5 Pages

    The royal prerogative is a source of constitutional law; it is derived from common law powers that have been handed down from the monarchy to the executive. The significance of the prerogative in constitutional law is that it provides the executive with considerable power to act without following ‘normal’ parliamentary procedures. As Dicey explained, the prerogative is ‘every act which the executive government can lawfully do without the authority of an Act of Parliament’. In constitutional terms, it is therefore important to explore the means by which the UK constitution secures the accountability for the exercise of prerogative powers by the executive. Historically the prerogative was exercised by the monarchy, the majority of powers are now used by ministers, and very few remained the personal preserve of the sovereign.

    Read More

More about Royal Prerogative Pros And Cons

Open Document