Parliaments and Foreign Policy

Research output: Chapter in Book / Report / Conference proceedingEntry for encyclopedia/dictionaryAcademic

Abstract

Parliaments differ enormously in their foreign policy competences. This is best documented in the area of “war powers,” understood as decision-making on the use of force. In other issue areas, such as treaty-making, defense budgets, sanctions, or arms exports, differences across countries are far less researched. The available data, however, suggests that differences in those areas are no smaller than in the area of war powers. What is more, the data also show that parliamentary competences across issue areas within particular countries also differ a lot. Parliaments are not strong or weak across the full spectrum of foreign policy competences. Instead, parliamentary competences are country, as well as issue specific. A general trend toward a parliamentarization or deparliamentarization of foreign affairs is not discernible.
Partly inspired by institutionalist versions of democratic peace theory, numerous studies have examined whether parliamentary powers have any effect on countries’ propensity to use armed force. Case-study research tends to find that variation in parliamentary powers impacts on decision-making on the use of force but also emphasizes that the effects of institutional constraints need to be understood in conjunction with the preferences of the public, parliament, and government. Statistical studies have found some evidence for a “parliamentary peace,” but because of problematic indicators and a lack of controls, doubts remain as to robustness and significance of this effect. In any case, theories of legislative-executive relations in parliamentary systems suggest that open confrontations between parliament and government are exceptional. Instead of an institutional constraint in a system of checks and balances, parliamentary war powers can be understood as an additional reassurance against unpopular decisions to use force.
Most studies of parliaments in foreign affairs are characterized by “methodological nationalism”—that is, the assumption that nation-states are the natural units of analysis. However, parliaments’ activities in foreign affairs are not exhausted by their monitoring and scrutiny of national executives. In addition, there is a long tradition of “parliamentary diplomacy” and engagement in interparliamentary institutions. The most powerful parliamentary actor beyond the nation-state is the European Parliament. Although its formal competences are limited, it has been very effective in using its powers to influence European foreign policy.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationOxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics
EditorsPatrick Haney, Sebastian Harnisch, Juliet Kaarbo, Kai Oppermann, Atsushi Tago
Place of PublicationOxford
PublisherThe Oxford University Press
ISBN (Electronic)9780190228637
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2017

Publication series

NameOxford Research Encyclopedias

Fingerprint

parliament
foreign policy
nation state
peace
European foreign policy
decision making
European Parliament
diplomacy
sanction
treaty
military
budget
monitoring
lack
trend
evidence

Cite this

Wagner, W. M. (2017). Parliaments and Foreign Policy. In P. Haney, S. Harnisch, J. Kaarbo, K. Oppermann, & A. Tago (Eds.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics (Oxford Research Encyclopedias). Oxford: The Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.461
Wagner, W.M. / Parliaments and Foreign Policy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. editor / Patrick Haney ; Sebastian Harnisch ; Juliet Kaarbo ; Kai Oppermann ; Atsushi Tago. Oxford : The Oxford University Press, 2017. (Oxford Research Encyclopedias).
@inbook{dc927b24927b436889e4a3878b8a0717,
title = "Parliaments and Foreign Policy",
abstract = "Parliaments differ enormously in their foreign policy competences. This is best documented in the area of “war powers,” understood as decision-making on the use of force. In other issue areas, such as treaty-making, defense budgets, sanctions, or arms exports, differences across countries are far less researched. The available data, however, suggests that differences in those areas are no smaller than in the area of war powers. What is more, the data also show that parliamentary competences across issue areas within particular countries also differ a lot. Parliaments are not strong or weak across the full spectrum of foreign policy competences. Instead, parliamentary competences are country, as well as issue specific. A general trend toward a parliamentarization or deparliamentarization of foreign affairs is not discernible.Partly inspired by institutionalist versions of democratic peace theory, numerous studies have examined whether parliamentary powers have any effect on countries’ propensity to use armed force. Case-study research tends to find that variation in parliamentary powers impacts on decision-making on the use of force but also emphasizes that the effects of institutional constraints need to be understood in conjunction with the preferences of the public, parliament, and government. Statistical studies have found some evidence for a “parliamentary peace,” but because of problematic indicators and a lack of controls, doubts remain as to robustness and significance of this effect. In any case, theories of legislative-executive relations in parliamentary systems suggest that open confrontations between parliament and government are exceptional. Instead of an institutional constraint in a system of checks and balances, parliamentary war powers can be understood as an additional reassurance against unpopular decisions to use force.Most studies of parliaments in foreign affairs are characterized by “methodological nationalism”—that is, the assumption that nation-states are the natural units of analysis. However, parliaments’ activities in foreign affairs are not exhausted by their monitoring and scrutiny of national executives. In addition, there is a long tradition of “parliamentary diplomacy” and engagement in interparliamentary institutions. The most powerful parliamentary actor beyond the nation-state is the European Parliament. Although its formal competences are limited, it has been very effective in using its powers to influence European foreign policy.",
author = "W.M. Wagner",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.461",
language = "English",
series = "Oxford Research Encyclopedias",
publisher = "The Oxford University Press",
editor = "Patrick Haney and Sebastian Harnisch and Juliet Kaarbo and Kai Oppermann and Atsushi Tago",
booktitle = "Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics",

}

Wagner, WM 2017, Parliaments and Foreign Policy. in P Haney, S Harnisch, J Kaarbo, K Oppermann & A Tago (eds), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford Research Encyclopedias, The Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.461

Parliaments and Foreign Policy. / Wagner, W.M.

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. ed. / Patrick Haney; Sebastian Harnisch; Juliet Kaarbo; Kai Oppermann; Atsushi Tago. Oxford : The Oxford University Press, 2017. (Oxford Research Encyclopedias).

Research output: Chapter in Book / Report / Conference proceedingEntry for encyclopedia/dictionaryAcademic

TY - CHAP

T1 - Parliaments and Foreign Policy

AU - Wagner, W.M.

PY - 2017/4

Y1 - 2017/4

N2 - Parliaments differ enormously in their foreign policy competences. This is best documented in the area of “war powers,” understood as decision-making on the use of force. In other issue areas, such as treaty-making, defense budgets, sanctions, or arms exports, differences across countries are far less researched. The available data, however, suggests that differences in those areas are no smaller than in the area of war powers. What is more, the data also show that parliamentary competences across issue areas within particular countries also differ a lot. Parliaments are not strong or weak across the full spectrum of foreign policy competences. Instead, parliamentary competences are country, as well as issue specific. A general trend toward a parliamentarization or deparliamentarization of foreign affairs is not discernible.Partly inspired by institutionalist versions of democratic peace theory, numerous studies have examined whether parliamentary powers have any effect on countries’ propensity to use armed force. Case-study research tends to find that variation in parliamentary powers impacts on decision-making on the use of force but also emphasizes that the effects of institutional constraints need to be understood in conjunction with the preferences of the public, parliament, and government. Statistical studies have found some evidence for a “parliamentary peace,” but because of problematic indicators and a lack of controls, doubts remain as to robustness and significance of this effect. In any case, theories of legislative-executive relations in parliamentary systems suggest that open confrontations between parliament and government are exceptional. Instead of an institutional constraint in a system of checks and balances, parliamentary war powers can be understood as an additional reassurance against unpopular decisions to use force.Most studies of parliaments in foreign affairs are characterized by “methodological nationalism”—that is, the assumption that nation-states are the natural units of analysis. However, parliaments’ activities in foreign affairs are not exhausted by their monitoring and scrutiny of national executives. In addition, there is a long tradition of “parliamentary diplomacy” and engagement in interparliamentary institutions. The most powerful parliamentary actor beyond the nation-state is the European Parliament. Although its formal competences are limited, it has been very effective in using its powers to influence European foreign policy.

AB - Parliaments differ enormously in their foreign policy competences. This is best documented in the area of “war powers,” understood as decision-making on the use of force. In other issue areas, such as treaty-making, defense budgets, sanctions, or arms exports, differences across countries are far less researched. The available data, however, suggests that differences in those areas are no smaller than in the area of war powers. What is more, the data also show that parliamentary competences across issue areas within particular countries also differ a lot. Parliaments are not strong or weak across the full spectrum of foreign policy competences. Instead, parliamentary competences are country, as well as issue specific. A general trend toward a parliamentarization or deparliamentarization of foreign affairs is not discernible.Partly inspired by institutionalist versions of democratic peace theory, numerous studies have examined whether parliamentary powers have any effect on countries’ propensity to use armed force. Case-study research tends to find that variation in parliamentary powers impacts on decision-making on the use of force but also emphasizes that the effects of institutional constraints need to be understood in conjunction with the preferences of the public, parliament, and government. Statistical studies have found some evidence for a “parliamentary peace,” but because of problematic indicators and a lack of controls, doubts remain as to robustness and significance of this effect. In any case, theories of legislative-executive relations in parliamentary systems suggest that open confrontations between parliament and government are exceptional. Instead of an institutional constraint in a system of checks and balances, parliamentary war powers can be understood as an additional reassurance against unpopular decisions to use force.Most studies of parliaments in foreign affairs are characterized by “methodological nationalism”—that is, the assumption that nation-states are the natural units of analysis. However, parliaments’ activities in foreign affairs are not exhausted by their monitoring and scrutiny of national executives. In addition, there is a long tradition of “parliamentary diplomacy” and engagement in interparliamentary institutions. The most powerful parliamentary actor beyond the nation-state is the European Parliament. Although its formal competences are limited, it has been very effective in using its powers to influence European foreign policy.

U2 - 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.461

DO - 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.461

M3 - Entry for encyclopedia/dictionary

T3 - Oxford Research Encyclopedias

BT - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics

A2 - Haney, Patrick

A2 - Harnisch, Sebastian

A2 - Kaarbo, Juliet

A2 - Oppermann, Kai

A2 - Tago, Atsushi

PB - The Oxford University Press

CY - Oxford

ER -

Wagner WM. Parliaments and Foreign Policy. In Haney P, Harnisch S, Kaarbo J, Oppermann K, Tago A, editors, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford: The Oxford University Press. 2017. (Oxford Research Encyclopedias). https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.461