header-logo header-logo

Who should declare war

24 April 2008 / Julian Samiloff
Issue: 7318 / Categories: Features , Public , Procedure & practice , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Julian Samiloff ponders who has the present-day power to start military proceedings

It's a fact of our constitution that under the Royal Prerogative the power to declare war and commit British forces to military operations is vested in the prime minister. Parliament has no formal legal role in sanctioning such use although the government, by convention, does undertake to keep Parliament substantially informed. It may be posited that in exercising this particular prerogative the prime minister enjoys what ancient kings once enjoyed: the use of almost absolute power in the application of a discretion, and that in doing so he knows that such use cannot generally be challenged in the courts or stopped by a Parliament controlled by his party.

With some prerogatives, control by judicial review is possible, however, the courts have limited their use of it on the basis that some matters involving the use of the prerogative are issues of “high policy”, including declaring and conducting war, and are not justiciable.

Lord Roskill in Council of Civil Service

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

Kingsley Napley—Paul Davidoff

Kingsley Napley—Paul Davidoff

Partner joins as lead of international tax desk

Reed Smith—Michael Darowski

Reed Smith—Michael Darowski

International arbitration partner joins disputes team in London

Shakespeare Martineau — 12 newly qualified solicitors

Shakespeare Martineau — 12 newly qualified solicitors

Firm celebrates strong retention and new talent across practice areas

NEWS
MPs have expressed disappointment after the government confirmed it will not consider updating the parental leave system until at least 2027
In July, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, ruling that trial judges had wrongly directed juries to treat profit-motivated Libor submissions as inherently dishonest. In this week’s NLJ, David Stern and James Fletcher of 5 St Andrew’s Hill reflect on the decision
In his latest 'Civil way' column for this week's NLJ, Stephen Gold delivers a witty roundup of procedural updates and judicial oddities. From the rise in litigant-in-person hourly rates (£24 from October) to the Supreme Court’s venue hire options (canapés in Courtroom 1, anyone?), Gold blends legal insight with dry humour
In this week's issue of NLJ, Emma Brunning and Dharshica Thanarajasingham of Birketts unpack the high-conflict financial remedy case TF v SF [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam). The husband’s conduct—described by the judge as a ‘masterclass in gaslighting’—included hiding a £9.5m deferred payment from the sale of a port acquired post-separation. Despite his claims that the port was non-matrimonial, the court found its value rooted in marital assets and efforts
Lord Neuberger, former president of the Supreme Court, shares his views on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in this week's NLJ with William Raven
back-to-top-scroll