‘In light of the evolving nature of international relations and conflicts, how can Parliaments adapt their monitoring capacities regarding the executive’s foreign and defence policies?’
I. Background and challenges
The international order that emerged from the Second World War is going through a profound crisis which has led to a reconfiguration the outcome of which remains largely uncertain. The rise of authoritarian nationalism, the return of power politics, the calling into question of the rules of international law and the erosion of multilateral regulatory mechanisms are weakening the balances in place since 1945. Conflicts are multiplying and intensifying whilst societies are facing major climate, economic and social challenges. In this context, foreign and defence policies play an increasingly central role in national public debates.
Policies relating to foreign affairs and defence are characterized by a strong sovereign dimension and thus traditionally fall within the realm of the executive branch. A state’s foreign policy defines relations with other countries and international organizations and fosters the promotion and defence of certain interests and values. Like its defence policy, it must ensure the integrity of the territory and the protection of the population against armed aggression. Consequently, all policies concerning foreign affairs and defence must meet requirements of responsiveness, confidentiality and unity in the chain of decision-making. These requirements have historically justified the pre-eminence of the executive, largely confining Parliaments to a role of monitoring government action a posteriori.
Nevertheless, for several decades now, a trend toward strengthening the role of Parliaments has been observed across G7 democracies fuelled by a dual dynamic: on the one hand by an increasing demand for democratic legitimacy and, on the other hand, by lessons learned from past military engagements. This evolution takes different forms depending on the constitutional traditions of each country. Parliamentary powers vary from nation to nation concerning authorization for the ratification of international agreements and treaties, the passing of budgets and multi-year planning laws, authorization for the deployment of armed forces abroad and oversight of its provisions as well as the monitoring of intelligence activities.
At the same time, international parliamentary relations have gradually developed, to the extent that there is now a real network of parliamentary diplomacy, recognized as an integral component of foreign policy, complementary to the action of the executive branch. This includes the role of Speakers of assemblies to provide impetus, the work of standing committees, the activities of friendship groups as well as the role of international parliamentary assemblies (Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA), etc.).
Despite this dynamism, a paradox still exists: although parliamentary powers have been strengthened, their concrete influence on foreign and defence policy decisions remains limited. This can be explained because urgency-related imperatives define the relationship between the executive and legislative branches in this field. Hybrid conflicts that fall outside traditional legal frameworks, foreign interference particularly targeting Parliaments and the questioning of the multilateral order as well as the rules of international law, widen this gap.
In a globalized world increasingly characterised in our democracies by public mistrust towards political institutions, enabling Parliaments to play a greater role in foreign and defence policy decisions that commit both states and their citizens may offer a response. This is necessary to ensure democratic monitoring of the particularly extensive powers vested in the executive branch.
II. Key questions for the discussion
➢ In a world marked by the increasing brutality of international relations, how can Parliaments, which embody political plurality and the aspirations of the people, assert themselves as democratic guarantors of foreign and defence policies? What instruments do Parliaments have to make external action more transparent, more understandable and more accountable to citizens?
➢ What powers do Parliaments wield to influence foreign and defence policy decisions and how can these be strengthened?
➢ In the field of defence policy, how can institutional frameworks be adapted to the new realities in international relations and to the new provisions for the deployment of armed forces abroad?
➢ In the face of hybrid warfare in the digital age, which threatens state sovereignty and the ability to make independent decisions, what powers does the lawmaker have?
➢ As artificial intelligence and digital technologies expand rapidly, parliamentary oversight of intelligence activities is essential to hold government agencies accountable and ensure their legitimacy. How can Parliaments carry out this oversight and yet satisfy the requirements of democratic transparency, operational effectiveness and the protection of confidentiality?
➢ How can parliamentary diplomacy be better integrated into the implementation of foreign policy? How can it become a genuine instrument for diplomatic priorities while reflecting the diversity of opinions?
