Hans Born, Heiner Hänggi
The use of force under international auspices has increased substantially in the past decade, but the same cannot be said of its democratic accountability. Standards of parliamentary accountability for the use of force under international auspices illustrate the national and international dimensions of what can be termed "a double democratic deficit".
The basic question is what rights parliaments should have, but their near exclusion from the sensitive judgements surrounding intervention seems incongruous in a democracy age. Modest improvements could be sought by more networking among national parliaments, enhanced procedural rights and information-handling methods, and - at the international level - more reporting to parliamentary bodies and a greater role both for the European Parliament and national assemblies in scrutinising the EU's security and defence policy.
Table of Contents
2. Deficits in Parliamentary Accountability at the National Level
2.1. âAuthorityâ: the Formal Power to Hold the Government Accountable
2.2. âAbilityâ: Resources, Staff and Expertise Needed
2.3. âAttitudeâ: the Willingness to Hold the Government Accountable
3. Deficits in Parliamentary Accountability at the International Level
3.1. Parliamentary Accountability and UN-led PSOs
3.2. Parliamentary Accountability and NATO-led PSOs
3.3. Parliamentary Accountability and EU-led PSOs
3.4. Parliamentary Accountability and ad hoc Coalition-led PSOs
4. Strengthening Parliamentary Accountability at the National and International Levels