Executive control over declaring war or starting military missions has long been a controversial topic. According to the U.S. Constitution, only the legislative branch can order military attacks. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, sometimes called the War Powers Clause, declares that Congress has the power “to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

Despite Congress having authorization authority, many presidents have used their executive powers to send soldiers into battle without an official declaration of war. This has been done in order to quickly activate military forces until Congress has time to pass funding and other approval measures. One might think that this violates the Constitution and has the president undermining Congress. So what powers does the president have in commanding military operations?

A Complicated History

Due to the process of checks and balances, Congress and the president both have roles in military actions. Congressional approval is needed to declare war, fund armed missions, and make laws that shape the execution of the mission. The president has the power to sign off on or veto the declaration of war, just like on other congressional bills. The president is also the Commander-in-Chief and oversees the mission once Congress has declared war. So in short, if the president vetoes a congressional declaration of war, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, and still force the president to control military action he does not support.

For more than 200 years presidents have asked Congress for approval of war, but many presidents have wanted to bypass Congress to put their own military operations into place. It wasn’t until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 that Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1941, which gave the executive branch more power over military interventions and homeland protection, including ordering war participation from independent government agencies, and expurgating communications with foreign countries. These powers lasted until six months after the military operation. The Second War Powers Act was passed the following year, which gave the executive branch more authority overseeing War World II operations. It was this act that allowed the U.S. to relocate and incarcerate more than 100,000 Japanese Americans.

Presidents used the War Powers Act numerous times over the next 20 years. Neither the Korean or Vietnam Wars were technically wars, but were military interventions in intense foreign conflicts because neither of them were passed as a declaration of war. This angered legislators who believed the president had too much control of the military. In response, they passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which President Richard Nixon vetoed arguing that it undermined his role as Commander-in-Chief; however, his veto was overridden by Congress.

What does the Resolution do?

The resolution extends the president’s power by allowing him to conduct military operations without congressional approval, but there are limits. The War Powers Resolution allows the president to send armed forces without congressional approval only if there is an attack on American soil or its territories; otherwise the military intervention would require congressional approval. It also forces the president to notify Congress within the first 48 hours of the mission and forbids armed forces from intervening longer than 60 days, with an additional 30 days to withdraw.

Has the War Powers Resolution been violated?

Since the beginning of the resolution, numerous presidents have put military actions into play without congressional support, sometimes well past the 60-day window. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton continued the assault on Kosovo past the deadline. In this case, Congress did not directly approve the missions, but approved funding for them.

After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress overwhelming passed a law permitting President George W. Bush to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Support for the invasion of several Middle Eastern countries was high at first, but after years of fighting with no end in sight, approval for the “War on Terror” fell and so did public opinion of Bush’s handling of the war.

In 2011, President Barack Obama faced backlash from Congress and voters who claimed his use of executive powers as Commander-in-Chief were being stretched and that his actions overreached his authority. When the Libyan army started to kill its own citizens for protesting their government, Obama and leaders from several European countries decided to aid the Libyan civilian rebels by enforcing no-fly zones and providing aid for the cause. Because the president put into place a military action on his own, congressional Republicans called foul, saying he overstepped his boundaries by not first getting Congressional approval. The president defended his actions saying that U.S. military involvement did not meet the constitutional definition of a war and that it was not the U.S. that was leading the mission, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Despite his assertion, in a letter addressed to President Obama, Speaker John Boehner demanded that the president withdraw troops; ten lawmakers from both sides of the aisle filed a lawsuit against the President for not getting congressional approval for the intervention.

Fighting ended on October 31 and NATO ended its operations following the death of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi. The suit, along with ideas for other potential legal actions, then ceased for the most part, due to dismissal precedent of similar cases.

How do voters feel about President Obama’s intervention?

At its beginning, most Americans were supportive of the president’s intervention in Libya. In March 2011, a Washington Post-ABC poll found that 56 percent of those polled were in favor of the U.S. implementing a no-fly zone across the region in order to protect Libyan rebels from government attacks. While the support for assistance was very high, Americans overwhelming believed that activating troops on the ground was too much, with polls showing disapproval around 90 percent.

Support for the military action was strong in the first weeks, with about 60 percent of Americans supporting the president’s initiatives, but as time marched on without any end in sight, support began to wane. By early June, only 26 percent of those surveyed believed the U.S. should continue the mission, according to a Rasmussen Report poll.

These polls seem to show that Americans don’t like unchecked military actions that go on too long. Does that mean the War Powers Act should be replaced with something that better balances executive actions and congressional approval?

Is repeal of the resolution on the horizon?

Congress has not officially declared war since June 1942 during World War II when it unanimously voted for war against the Axis countries of Bulgaria, Hungry, and Romania. Many lawmakers think that because the U.S. response to foreign conflicts has become quicker due to improvements in technology and intergovernmental military alliances–like NATO–that the War Powers Resolution is no longer needed.

Several members of Congress have suggested the repeal of the War Powers Resolution entirely, or replacing it with a measure that gives the president diminished power. In January 2014, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) revealed a piece of legislation, the War Powers Consultation Act of 2014, that would replace the resolution and restrict the president’s military power. It would require the president to consult with Congress before using military forces in foreign conflicts and require the president to consult Congress within three days of deployment. It also sought to create a Joint Congressional Consultation Committee that would enforce a dialog between the executive and legislative branches. The act would not apply to humanitarian or covert missions. After the Libyan conflict ended in a substantial NATO victory in October 2011, support for reform fell until military intervention in Syria in 2014.

Conclusion

The definition of war makes it difficult to effectively apply the War Powers Resolution. Does war mean boots on the ground, weaponry assistance, or no-fly zones? This question is hard to answer and is debated with almost every military intervention.

Americans tend to support giving an incumbent president more power over military decisions when citizens are attacked on U.S. soil, and during the early part of missions. Once the mission seems to be dragging on, support and morale fall, and so does congressional support. If a president wants to go rogue on his own, he has to get the job done fast or the missions might fail to maintain support. The War Powers Resolution has helped the U.S. respond to foreign conflicts quickly and without that power many missions may never have been started.

Resources

Primary

Library of Congress: The War Powers Act

Additional

Washington Post: Conditional Support For Libya No-Fly Zone

IBT: Majority of Americans Against Sending Ground Troops to Libya

Washington Post: White House Should be Moderately Worried on Libya

U.S. Senate: Official Declarations of War by Congress

Senator Tim Kaine: Kaine, McCain Introduce Bill to Reform War Powers Resolution

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post War Powers Act: Has it Outlasted Its Usefulness? appeared first on Law Street.

In discussions of international politics, we hear a lot of talk about nuclear weapons, but another deadly type of weapon often goes overlooked. Chemical weapons have both proven their deadliness on the battlefield and have been deployed with greater frequency in contemporary times. Nevertheless, just two-and-a-half years since President Obama made his infamous “Red Line” speech against the use of chemical weapons in Syria, this issue has drifted from the public consciousness. While interest has waned publicly, these weapons are still being used on battlefields across the globe, even as legislation and efforts are being made to eliminate them for good. Read on to learn about chemical warfare, the legal framework for using chemical weapons, and how successful efforts to eliminate them have been.

History of Chemical Warfare

While chemical weapons in rudimentary forms have been in use for millennia, it was only relatively recently that they were harnessed in a modern sense. Chemical weapons made their debut on the stage of WWI. During that war, toxic gases such as chlorine and mustard gas were released from canisters on the battlefield. The results were devastating for two reasons. Not only were chemical weapons responsible for over a million causalities on the battlefield, but they also left a strong impression on the public’s consciousness. The video below explains the use of chemical warfare, particularly in WWI.

Nevertheless the use of the weapons continued through the inter-war years, particularly in places such as Russia and Africa. Usage was ramped up again in WWII. In the Far East, the Japanese used a variety of chemical agents in their attempted conquest of China. Meanwhile, in the Atlantic theater, chemical weapons were used by a number of parties, most notoriously by the Nazis in their death camps.

Even after WWII chemical weapons continued to be used. In one of the most glaring instances, the United States used instruments such as Agent Orange in Vietnam. The Americans were not alone, as the Soviets later employed chemical weapons in Afghanistan. Iraq utilized the deadly agents in its war against Iran as well as against its own Kurdish citizens.

Additionally, the usage of chemical weapons by individuals and terrorist groups has become a concern too. The most prominent example came in Japan in 1995, when the Aum Shinrikyo cult used nerve agent Sarin in a Tokyo subway. Chemical weapons were also used by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan during the American occupation. Even ISIS has deployed chemical weapons in its battles against Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers.

The most recent high profile and controversial use occurred in Syria in 2013. In late March it was reported that the use of chemical weapons had been detected. While both the Syrian military and the rebels denied using the weapons, each blaming the other side, the usage of chemicals had crossed what President Obama called a “red line.”

While the episode in Syria was just one in a long line of chemical weapons attacks, it aroused concern over whether the existing framework to prevent the creation and use of chemical weapons was adequate. So, what is that framework?

Legality of Chemical Weapons

The horror of chemical weapon usage in WWI left a lasting image in the minds of many people. Thus in 1925, the first legislation aimed at prohibiting the dissemination of chemical weapons was passed. This was known as the Geneva Protocol and it prohibited the use of chemical weapons in warfare. However, the treaty proved inadequate in several ways as it allowed for the continued production of chemical weapons. Additionally, it also gave countries the right to use chemical weapons against non-signatories and in retaliation if weapons were used against them.

The Chemical Weapons Convention

Although seemingly inadequate, the Protocol nonetheless proved to be the only protection against chemical weapons for the next 65 years. Finally in 1992 however, the Chemical Weapons Convention was adopted. It was subsequently opened for signature beginning in 1993 and put into force in 1997. Unlike the Geneva Protocol, the CWC has a much clearer and all-encompassing goal: eliminate an entire category of weapons of mass destruction.

Namely what the treaty calls for is the prohibition of the “development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons by states parties.” The chemicals themselves are divided into three different schedules, which may sound similar to those familiar with the U.S. drug classification regime. In addition, the signatories are responsible for enforcing these protocols within their own countries. Along with stopping the production of chemical weapons, states are required to destroy existing stockpiles and production facilities. Lastly, states are obligated to create a verification system for chemicals and must open themselves to snap inspections by other members. The video below details which chemicals are banned and what the CWC requires of its members.

Chemical Weapons Prohibition Regime: Success or Failure?

So is the current chemical weapons convention (CWC) a success or failure? Different metrics tell different stories.

Arguments for Success 

Membership in the treaty certainly casts a positive glow. As of 1997 when the treaty took effect, 190 countries had joined with only five–Israel, Egypt, North Korea, Angola, and South Sudan–not yet ratifying the treaty. Furthermore, real progress has been made in implementing a number of the treaty’s goals. As of 2007, 100 percent of chemical weapons sites had been “deactivated,” 90 percent of which had either been destroyed or switched to peaceful use. Additionally, over 25 to 30 percent of stockpiles had been destroyed and 2,800 inspections had been carried out. The map below indicates countries’ signing status: light green indicates that the country signed and ratified the CWC, dark green indicates that the CWC is acceded or succeeded, yellow countries have signed but not ratified the CWC, and red countries are not signatories.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia

Arguments For Failure

Conversely, while those metrics point to success, there a number that tell the opposite story. The world has failed to meet the 2012 deadline originally set by the treaty for completely disarming all chemical weapons globally. The two main culprits were also two of the main catalysts behind the treaty in the first place: Russia and the United States. These two countries possess the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons, so their compliance with the treaty carries significant weight. The video below shows the failures of the U.S., Russia, and other nations to uphold the treaty’s protocols.

Along with failure to disarm is the question of favoritism. While the U.S. has been critical of other countries’ efforts to disarm, it has not pressured its close ally Israel to ratify the treaty, let alone destroy its acknowledged stockpile.

Other issues also exist. Several countries, despite having ratified the treaty, have not set up the international policing mechanisms necessary and required by the treaty to give it any actual power. Additionally, the inspection process itself has been described as unfair and inadequate. Because labs are transitioning from large factories to smaller compounds, it’s difficult to inspect and punish individual labs for producing illegal compounds. Furthermore, there are a number of non-lethal compounds used by the police–such as tear gas–that are not covered by the CWC and can be harmful. Lastly, while the treaty covers states, it does nothing to prevent groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda from using the harmful weapons.

Conclusion

As of June 2014, Syria completed the process of either giving up or destroying all of its declared weapons. This was seen as a major coup as most expected Syria to sandbag, especially after it missed prior several deadlines. Although Syria declared its chemical weapons, it is still suspected that other secret caches remain. Additionally, after the first acknowledged use–the event that overstepped the Red Line and led to the agreement between Russia, the U.S., and Syria–there were several more speculated incidents of chemical weapons use in Syria.

This points to the problem with the Chemical Weapons Convention. Like the Non-Proliferation Treaty for nuclear weapons, there is no governing body that can punish a country for violating it. This is because joining the treaty is voluntary and there is no punishment for not joining or even for joining then quitting. Moreover, most of the countries that did join never had chemical weapons to begin with, thus signing a treaty prohibiting them made no difference. The bottom line then is that when it comes to chemical weapons, much like nuclear or biological weapons, the onus is on the individual country to comply.

Resources

Primary

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs: Chemical Weapons Convention

Additional 

Fact Check.org: Obama’s Blurry Red Line

OPCW: Brief History of Chemical Weapons Use

Johnston Archive: Summary of Historical Attacks Using Chemical or Biological Weapons

American Society of International Law: The Chemical Weapons Convention After 10 Years

Arms Control Association: Chemical Weapons Convention Signatories and States-Parties

Washington Times: U.S. and Russia are Slow to Destroy Their Own Chemical Weapons Amid Syria Smackdown

Think Progress: Nobody Thought Syria Would Give Up Its Chemical Weapons. It Just Did

Military.com: U.S. to Destroy Its Largest Remaining Chemical Weapons Cache

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Forgotten WMDs: Chemical Weapons appeared first on Law Street.