War Power Struggle Between The President And Congress

Due to the constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances, there hasbeen constant struggle over war power between the President and Congress in all the majorand minor wars ever since the founding of the United States. In fact, the struggle hasconstituted an essential part of presidential-congressional struggle over foreign policypowers. Therefore, researches on the subject would be of academic as well as practicalvalue in that they would not only provide insights into American war decision-making butalso facilitate a better understanding of the interplay between the President and Congress inforeign policy-making.Since the Vietnam War, war power struggle has become a focus of scholarly attention in theAmerican academia. Yet most present publications are either researches from aconstitutional or legal approach or case studies centering round the War Powers Resolution.The authors tend to concentrate on the constitutional and political debate of who shouldwield the power of war, and they almost invariably take sides. There have been very fewup-to-date unbiased comprehensive historical studies of war power practice. The study ofwar power struggle in China is just at a beginning stage. So far most publications areintroductory in nature and they usually focus on the War Powers Resolution. No detailed orcomprehensive study has been made. This dissertation is in part an effort to make up forthese deficiencies.This dissertation is intended to be a comprehensive historical study of war power struggleover the course of more than two hundred years since 1789. It comprises both acomprehensive study of the evolution of war power practice and a detailed investigationinto the international and domestic causes of such evolution. The phases, causes and meansof presidential aggrandizement are analyzed and summarized. So are the patterns ofpresidential-congressional interplay in war decision-making and the relevant variables.Besides, efforts are also made to define the nature of war power struggle and to predict itsfuture development. In undertaking the research, "the inter-branch politics model" isemployed as the primary analytical tool. The major research methods adopted aredescriptive historical analysis and case study. Accordingly, analysis is conducted at twolevels: comprehensive historical analysis of war power struggle and practice, and detailedprocess analysis of decision-making in specific cases.Following are the major contents of the dissertation:First, the constitutional and legal framework of war power is analyzed, together with thestruggle over interpretation. The root of war power struggle is the constitutional principle ofseparation of powers and checks and balances. The Constitution, while making a cleardivision of the majority of war powers, leaves some ambiguity over the power to decide onwar, thus enabling different interpretations by the executive and legislative departments andleading to persistent struggle between them. After WWII, the United Nations Charter, themutual-defense treaties like the Rio Treaty, the NATO Treaty, and the SEATO Treaty allinvolved war power and gave rise to repeated controversies. Congress, in its efforts to setup clear procedures for the use of war power, first passed the UN Participation Act in 1945and then enacted the War Powers Resolution in 1973. However, in practice both theexecutive and the legislative departments maintained the practice of interpreting these lawsin their own terms and favor, thus complicating rather than solving the inter-branch conflict.And the judicial department, although in charge of interpreting the Constitution and federallaws, has successfully kept itself from involvement in the struggle by employing varioustechnicalities to abstain from ruling on war power cases between the other two branches.Next, a comprehensive study of war power struggle and practice in different historicalperiods, divided into three phases corresponding to three chapters, reveals the trend ofexpanding presidential war power and demonstrates the evolution of the patterns ofpresidential-congressional interplay in war decision-making. The first phase covers earlyexperience till WWII, during which time war power practice evolved from congressionaldominance to presidential initiative. The second phase, from the Korean War till the WarPowers Resolution, witnessed the evolution from presidential expansion to congressionalreassertion. The third phase, from the enactment of the War Powers Resolution till thepresent Iraq War, features presidential dominance of war power. Since the enactment of theWar Powers Resolution, presidents have maintained that the act is unconstitutional, andthey have evaded compliance in one way or another. Most decisions to use force in thisperiod have been unilaterally made by presidents without much participation fromCongress. The act, instead of fulfilling its intended function of checking the President, hasin fact led to more conflicts and controversies.Last, the phases, causes and means of presidential expansion are analyzed and summarized.Similar analysis and summary are made of the patterns of presidential-congressionalinterplay in war decision-making and the relevant variables. Besides, efforts are also madeto define the nature of war power struggle and to foresee its future development. It ispointed out that the problem of war power struggle is multi-dimensional in nature: inaddition to being constitutional and legal as well as political, it is also cultural and historical.The struggle over war power, predetermined by the unique political culture and politicalsystem of the United States, could not be resolved in the foreseeable future.This dissertation brings innovation to the study of war power struggle in the followingrespects. First, as noted above, most present works are from a constitutional or legalapproach, studying the subject within the context of domestic politics, invariably takingsides in the debate of who should wield war power, and with their case studies sufferingfrom personal stands. Approaching the subject from the perspective of decision-making andsetting it within the context of both international and domestic circumstances, thisdissertation focuses on the war power practices of the United States and the evolution of itsdecision-making patterns. And it is free from the adverse effects of personal stands. Second,due to the above reasons, most present historical studies are highly generalized descriptionslacking in comprehensive study and in the processes of interplay between the President andCongress. Also, most case studies are conducted for the purpose of supporting personalopinions on the War Powers Resolution. Employing the inter-branch politics model as theprimary analytical tool, this dissertation makes up for these deficiencies by supportingcomprehensive historical study with detailed analysis of the processes of interplay in eachspecific case. Third, most present works focus only on war power struggle and ignore theside of cooperation in war power practice. This dissertation presents a better and full pictureof the relationship between the President and Congress with its summary of their interplaypatterns into consensus and cooperation, deference and acquiescence, conflict andcompromise.