header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 August 2019 / Alec Samuels
Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Constitutional law , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

War of words

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Is parliamentary approval required before the government takes us into war, asks Alec Samuels
  • What should be the nature and extent of the powers of government?

Is parliamentary approval required before the government takes us into war? Is there a convention to this effect? Or is there a law? The Society of Conservative Lawyers has considered the matter and issued a report with recommendations.

Rule of war

Traditionally the constitutional and legal position has been that going to war is a matter for the royal prerogative, exercised by the sovereign on the advice of the prime minister of the government of the day. Government carries the responsibility and is thus accountable. Parliament should scrutinise the conduct of the government and call it to account.

This traditional rule has mostly applied in modern history. In 1939 Chamberlain took us into war, though he soon lost the confidence of Parliament and was replaced by Churchill who formed a coalition. In 1956 Eden took us into Suez, there was massive parliamentary

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll