UN wars, US war powers

Pressure on traditional notions of US sovereignty are nowhere clearer than in the area of national security. In a number of areas, such as arms control, the Clinton administration has sought to achieve US foreign policy goals through multilateral international institutions. Pursuing national security

through international organizations confers certain advantages for US policymakers, such as allowing the United States to act under the aegis of multilateralism, which submerges the prominence of US national interests and allows for the use of collective military resources. Acting through such alliances, however, raises policy and constitutional difficulties that pose problems for US notions of democratic accountability and the separation of powers. This paper will address these issues by describing the impact of multilateral interventions, such as those in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Haiti, upon the US system of war powers.

In none of these cases did the Clinton administration receive congressional authorization for the use of force abroad. While the administration has failed to issue a defense of the legality of the Kosovo intervention, President Clinton has claimed that he enjoys the constitutional authority under the commander-in-chief clause to use force without congressional consent Further, the President has justified these military interventions more often on the need to uphold our obligations to the United Nations ("UN") or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ("NATO"), than upon congressional approval. While he has often signaled that he would welcome congressional support, he also has made clear that he would implement his military plans without it. President Clinton has refused to acknowledge that the War Powers Resolution ("WPR") restricts his discretion. In fact, the Clinton administration's use of the military in these long-term interventions has rendered the WPR a dead letter.