Skip to main content
Legal Advice Centre

Breadcrumb

  1. Queen Mary Legal Advice Centre
  2. Our legal blog
  3. 2026 Blogs
  4. items

Armed Forces (Deployment Outside the UK) Bill, a potential path to better democratic accountability

Could you imagine voting for figures to sit in Parliament and make decisions for the nation, who are powerless when it comes to sending forces abroad in violent conflicts? This is the case, however, when prerogative powers are exercised; they allow the making of such decisions within a limited scope, without prior parliamentary approval.

Published:

The Armed Forces (Deployment outside the UK) Bill (“the Bill”) introduces a constitutional transition, emphasising Parliament’s democratic role and questioning the monarch’s general legitimacy as an executive power.

Before exploring this reform, we define prerogative powers as powers belonging to the Crown that may be exercised: by the King alone or on the advice of ministers, or by the ministers themselves, or even by the King in Council. Issuing passports and approving treaties are notable examples of prerogative powers, but here we will be focusing on the power to deploy armed forces abroad.

Although the Prime Minister is entitled to use prerogative powers, they should conventionally exercise them on the advice of ministers and in accordance with constitutional principles. It is arguable that there is a developing inconsistency in respecting this convention, which causes tension and underlines the fact that if Parliament is unhappy with decisions, their Acts of Parliament prevail over prerogative powers.

Who holds the power?

When we talk about democratic accountability, we are referring to the fact that we, as a nation, consider our government responsible for its decisions. Although the Prime Minister is an elected MP and leader of the majority, they aren’t directly elected to that role since they are conventionally and formally appointed by the monarch; this is why exercising their prerogative powers without parliamentary approval can cause tension.  

In this blog, we will focus on the prerogative power to deploy armed forces abroad, a decision the Prime Minister can currently legally enact without Parliament’s approval. However, some argue that it gives the Prime Minister excessive power, as they, along with the executive, can take decisions without formal parliamentary approval. The separation of powers consists of the legislature (Parliament) making laws, the executive (government) administering them, and the judiciary (courts) interpreting and applying them. Relying on this definition, the described prerogative clearly undermines the UK separation of powers. It begs the question; how can we tolerate violent decisions being enforced by one single, non-elected figure?

The current constitutional situation is the Prime Minister may deploy armed forces without concrete approval by Parliament (such as a vote); however, they should seek informal validation from them to uphold democratic accountability. This simply means that they’re ensuring that Parliament, who should represent the best interests of the nation, agree with their decision. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister has not always consulted Parliament, and has enforced deployment unconventionally, undermining democratically elected voices which we will discuss below.

Prerogative power in action

Although there aren’t clear statistics of the frequency of use of this power, there are clear patterns. Before 2003, the power was used without seeking parliamentary approval, although parliamentary debates were often held when such action was taken.  

Between 2003 and 2015, there was some effort to include a parliamentary vote before taking the decision to deploy the armed forces. For instance, in 2011, the House of Commons voted in favour of a motion that supported allied action in Libya. The Armed Forces Act 2006 (as renewed by the Armed Forces Act 2021) departs from the convention of parliamentary approval towards a single system of law: although the PM still exercises the prerogative of deploying troops, the Act is conventionally renewed every five years, and section 382 provides that the Act expires unless annually continued by Parliament. This ensures parliamentary authority and democratic accountability, which encourages scrutiny of conduct and expenditure of the armed forces.

However, since 2016, this effort has been inconsistent and seeking votes of approval have declined: a significant illustration of this was in Syria (2018) in which the former Prime Minister Theresa May agreed on coordinating missile and air strikes against Syrian government targets, without holding a parliamentary vote in advance.

In 2024, the UK and US collaborated in military strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen, in response to their attacks in the Red Sea against commercial shipping and a British navy warship. Again, parliamentary approval was not sought in this instance, which was justified by former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak as being “self-defence” and “limited and necessary action” to stabilise tension and reduce Houthi capability. Although he considered that requiring approval would have delayed their defence and disrupted the global economy, the fact that the decision was taken whilst the Commons weren’t sitting upset Parliament. Parliament argued that the PM should have, as matter of convention, recalled Parliament to seek approval before enforcing military action.

What will the Bill do?  

The new proposed Bill aims to make Parliament’s conventional approval (parliamentary approval) a legally binding step in the process of deploying armed forces. Consequently, the Prime Minister will be obliged to seek approval before taking any action and will have to comply with the outcome of the vote, otherwise risk infringing the law and democratic principles. The outcome would reinforce Parliament’s role in protecting the nation’s interests and restrain the executive’s use of prerogative powers. Although the prerogative power remains, it would be tied with conditions.

However, the Bill sets out that ‘in cases of emergency or in respect of compliance with treaty obligations’ the prerogative power can still be exercised without prior approval of Parliament. How do we define ‘emergency’? - this term could interpretively designate situations of imminent threats to UK citizens or allies abroad, or where delays threaten lives, although the Bill does not yet define this as it is still in its early second reading stage by the House of Commons.

Despite this exception, urgent situations wouldn’t dismiss Parliament’s opinion entirely, confirmation could still be sought retrospectively after deployment begins. This seems contradictory: why seek approval of an enforced decision? Nevertheless, if Parliament decided (via vote or debate) to reject the action, forces would be rapidly removed. However, this is only a proposed reform, meaning that its future implementation currently remains uncertain.

Advantages of the Bill?

1. Better accountability

This reform would increase Parliament’s involvement in deploying armed forces abroad, which reinforces democratic accountability. Parliament knows that the country holds them responsible for decisions, and that the best interests of the country need to be considered. This should limit any abusive use of prerogative powers.

2. Scrutiny before decision-making

Requiring parliamentary approval would let Parliament scrutinise a decision before enforcing it: this consists of a dedicated time for critical examination and verification of the beneficial and challenging implications of a decision.  This leads to “better decision-making" since decisions are well considered and more accurate.

3. Support

Parliament’s legitimate decision-making would reinforce broader support for deployment decisions. Since the public democratically elect Parliament’s members, we (in effect) contribute to any decisions made by them. The same could not be said of decisions made by the Prime Minister alone.   

Drawbacks of the Bill

1. Reduced efficiency

Greater Parliamentary involvement could weaken operational efficiency; scrutiny and voting are time-consuming processes that cannot be permitted in urgent conflicts that threaten human lives. In contrast, one person in charge to enforce decisions, seems more efficient and maintains the secrecy, security and surprise element of any potential action (which is beneficial in certain conflict situations). This has been considered in the new bill, via the exceptional ‘emergency’ scenarios, that would allow the prerogative power to be enforced without prior approval.

2. Coalition forces

The reform could affect coalition-working, as, allied partners enjoy working with British units that currently have the capacity to act rapidly. Consequently, modifying the procedure and making it potentially less efficient, would make it less appealing to collaborate.

3. Balance of power

The reform could destabilise the current separation of powers, between the legislature (Parliament), the judiciary (courts) and the executive (government). Requiring a Parliamentary vote to approve or oppose the executive’s proposition gives Parliament more power, as they can turn down the decision if the majority vote disagrees. On top of this, since the government would be legally obliged to seek parliamentary approval, this offers the courts power to judge the executive in cases where they disagree. Consequently, the reform is seen as limiting prerogative powers and reasserting Parliament and the courts’ functions.

Other prerogative powers

If deploying armed forces abroad is a power being questioned, what others should we be concerned about? One of the most recent examples of the exercise of prerogative power that caused constitutional problems was the monarch’s power to ‘prorogue’ Parliament, which means suspending Parliament’s ability to lead its functions, such as voting new legislation. Evidently, this power is highly contested and was even held unlawful in the Miller/Cherry case: Parliament can only be prorogued for a reasonable amount of time that doesn’t undermine the pursuit of its constitutional role of holding the government accountable. In this case, prorogation was found to have stymied Parliamentary scrutiny of the executive for improper purposes. However, a prerogative power like the monarch’s ability to appoint the Prime Minister hasn’t been widely criticised, since it is seen as convention.

Concluding comments

Whether we agree with the reform proposed by the Armed Forces (Deployment Outside the UK) Bill, currently in the stage of its second reading by the House of Commons, it demonstrates a certain will to move away from traditional governance in which the monarch still detains political power. This illustrates a cultural and political shift towards an increasing importance dedicated to democratic principles and modernity of sovereignty, inclined in favour of Parliament, elected bodies, and the people.

By Sophia Fievet, Student Blog Writer at QMLAC and LLB Law Student. 

This blog is for information only and does not constitute legal advice on any matter. While we always aim to ensure that information is correct at the date of posting, the legal position can change, and the blogs will not ordinarily be updated to reflect any subsequent relevant changes. Anyone seeking legal advice on the subject matter should contact a specialist legal representative.

Bibliography:

 

 

Back to top