|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
The Constitution, Foreign Policy, and Deterrence: The Separation of Powers in a Dangerous World
| Article
# : |
11931 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
8 / 1987 |
3,232 Words |
| Author
: |
John Norton Moore
John Norton Moore is Walter L. Brown Professor of Law at
the University of Virginia. Formerly he served as counselor
on international law to the Department of State, as a U.S.
ambassador, as a member of the U.S. delegation to the
Athens round of the Helsinki process, and as chairman of
the American Bar Association Standing Committee on
Law and National Security. |
The Vietnam War began an intense contemporary debate concerning the appropriate roles of Congress and the president in the conduct of foreign policy. The first salvo in that debate was directed against the presidency and was characterized by emotional charges of "an imperial presidency." More recently, a backlash against the resulting congressional activism in foreign policy has produced charges of congressional "micromanagement."
Much of the debate has been highly legalistic and has centered on competing theories of the constitutional parameters of the separation of powers. Typically, debate has been triggered by congressional legislation that embodies a congressional view of separation of powers with respect to war powers and the extent of oversight responsibility for covert actions. What has been lacking is a sustained focus on the effects particular congressional actions have on the U.S. ability to achieve its foreign policy goals. Concomitantly, there has been little recognition of the presidential perspective in this separation of powers or the functional strengths and weaknesses of both branches. But most importantly here has been little analysis of the effects of the new congressional activism on "deterrence," a key element in American foreign policy and national security.
A policy of deterrence has failed when a nation is forced to fight a war or resist an armed attack, whether the attack is open or secret. Effective deterrence, then, is among the most important components of American foreign policy. It is imperative that the current debate about proper presidential and congressional roles be broadened to include effects on deterrence.
The Present Threat
Today a major threat to world stability results from the failure to sustain a deterrent against aggressive attack, particularly secret warfare. This threat is the synergistic product of a growing network or radical regimes and movements that believe in the use of force to expand their ideology and interests and of a balance of nuclear weaponry that channels conflict to a spectrum of low-intensity and secret warfare. A historical difficulty with democracies has been their slowness in perceiving and deterring totalitarian aggression; this difficulty may have particularly disastrous consequences in an era of sophisticated secret attack.
One contributor to this difficulty in the American regime is the principle of the separation of powers. As with other obstacles to an
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
