Democratic Accountability and the Use of Force in International Law

An analysis of the authority of internationally-authorized armed interventions, considering experiences of nine democracies.

The spread of democracy to a majority of the world's states and the legitimization of the use of force by multilateral institutions such as NATO and the UN have been two key developments since World War II. In the last decade these developments have become intertwined, as multilateral forces moved from traditional peacekeeping to peace enforcement among warring parties. This book explores the experiences of nine countries (Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, Norway, Russia, UK and US) in the deployment of armed forces under the UN and NATO, asking who has been and should be accountable to the citizens of these nations, and to the citizens of states who are the object of deployments, for the decisions made in such military actions. The authors conclude that national-level mechanisms have been most important in assuring democratic accountability of national and international decision-makers.

List of figures; List of tables; Notes on contributors; Preface; List of abbreviations; Part I. Introduction: 1. Broaching the issues Charlotte Ku and Harold K. Jacobson; Part II. The Domestic and International Context: 2. The interface of national constitutional systems with international law and institutions on using military forces: changing trends in executive and legislative powers Lori F. Damrosch; 3. Domestic political factors and decisions to use military forces Karen A. Mingst; 4. Collective security, peacekeeping, and ad hoc multilateralism Edwin M. Smith; 5. The legal responsibility of military personnel Robert C. R. Siekmann; Part III. Traditional Contributors to International Military Operations: 6. Canada: committed contributor of ideas and forces, but with growing doubts and problems Fen Osler Hampson; 7. Norway: political consensus and the problem of accountability Knut G. Nustad and Henrik Thune; 8. India: democratic, poor, internationalist Ramesh Thakur and Dipankar Banerjee; Part IV. Newcomers to International Military Operations: 9. Japan: moderate commitment within legal strictures Akiho Shibata; 10. Germany: ensuring political legitimacy for the use of military forces by requiring constitutional accountability Georg Nolte; Part V. Permanent Members of the UN Security Council: 11. Russian Federation: the pendulum of powers and accountability Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov; 12. France: Security Council legitimacy and executive primacy Yves Boyer, Serge Sur and Olivier Fleurence; 13. The United Kingdom: increasing commitment requires greater parliamentary involvement Nigel D. White; 14. The United States: democracy, hegemony, and accountability Michael J. Glennon; Part VI. Conclusion: 15. Towards a mixed system of democratic accountability Charlotte Ku and Harold K. Jacobson; Appendix A: uses of military forces under the auspices of the UN and NATO; Appendix B: country participation in international operations, 1945–2000; References; Index.

Nine democracies discussed (Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, Norway, Russia, UK and US) contribute to military operations sanctioned by the UN and NATO. On whose authority, and with what oversight? This analysis of internationally-authorized armed interventions and democratic accountability raises concerns about the nation-state, international organizations, and democratic armed forces.