Houthi Attacks

• On the 11th & 23rd January 2024, the US and UK launched air and naval strikes on a number of Houthi sites in Yemen, in response to attacks the group had made on a number of ships in the Red Sea
• While the Cabinet was consulted prior to the action, as was the leader of the opposition, Parliament was not recalled to debate the matter
• Opposition MPs accused the Government of further undermining the convention that military deployments should be put to a vote in Parliament before they begin
• On 7th October 2023, the Palestinian Islamist militant group Hamas launched an attack on Israel from the Gaza Strip
• After Israel responded with air strikes and a large-scale ground invasion, the Houthi movement declared its support for Hamas and launched missile and drone attacks against Israel
• The Houthis also began to attack commercial ships that they said were bound for Israeli ports, or which had ties to Israel, as they sailed past Yemen on the Red Sea
• The Houthis soon began to target ships indiscriminately, firing missiles at vessels that had no ties to Israel
• Nearly 15% of global seaborne trade passes through the Red Sea, and large shipping companies soon said that they would have to take a slower but safer route around southern Africa
• The Kiel Institute for the World Economy estimates that the number of containers shipped through the Red Sea fell from 500,000 per day in November 2023 to 200,000 in December
• On 3rd January, the UK, US and ten other states issued a statement calling for an immediate end to the "illegal, unacceptable, and profoundly destabilising" attacks
• Nonetheless, the Houthis continued their attacks, and on 9th January, US and UK warships intercepted a number of drones and missiles that had been sighted by shipping vessels
• In response, the US and UK launched a wave of air and naval strikes on the 11th January, hitting over 60 targets at 16 locations used by the Houthis in Yemen
• On 15th January, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak told the Commons that "the need to maximise the security and effectiveness of the operation meant that it was not possible to bring this matter to the House in advance"
• The former Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, argued on X (formerly Twitter), "There should be no military action without Parliamentary approval. If we have learnt anything in recent years it's that military intervention in the Middle East always has dangerous & often unforeseen consequences. There is a risk of setting the region alight."
• The First Minister of Scotland and leader of the SNP, Humza Yousaf, similarly said that "the correct and appropriate thing to have done would have been to have recalled Parliament"
• Royal Prerogative


  Powers that the common law recognises as belonging to the British monarch, which can be used without authorisation from Parliament
• Formally, the King remains the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, however it is the Prime Minister that makes the crucial decision of whether or not to deploy them
• After World War II, it became increasingly common for the Commons to be given the opportunity to debate decisions to deploy the military
• In 2003, Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision to ask the Commons to vote in favour of a motion supporting military intervention in Iraq was significant as he had asked the Commons to approve the plan before he committed the armed forces to the conflict
• The Commons Public Administration Select Committee argued, in a 2003 report entitled Taming the Prerogative: Strengthening Ministerial Accountability, that it should be enshrined in legislation that "any decision to engage in armed conflict should be approved by Parliament, if not before military action then as soon as possible afterwards"
• In 2011, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government published the Cabinet Manual - a guide to laws, conventions and rules on the operation of government. It stated that the Coalition "acknowledged" that a convention had developed in Parliament that before troops were committed, the Commons should have an opportunity to debate the matter, "except when there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate"
• On 29th August 2013, following reports that the Syrian Government had used chemical weapons against civilians, Prime Minister David Cameron asked MPs to pass a motion stating "That this House… Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action". After the motion was defeated 272 to 285, the PM abandoned his plans to intervene
• On 26th September 2014, Cameron asked the Commons to approve air strikes against ISIS in Iraq. The motion explicitly ruled out the deployment of ground troops and air strikes in Syria, and passed 542 - 43
• On 21st August 2015, the UK Government announced that it had carried out drone strikes in Syria, despite this being excluded from the 2014 motion approving air strikes in Iraq. It was not until the 3rd December that MPs passed a motion (397 to 223) approving air strikes against Islamic State militants in Syria
• On 14th April 2018, after reports that the Syrian Government had again used chemical weapons, Prime Minister Theresa May ordered air strikes on Syria's chemical weapons facilities, without obtaining prior authorisation from Parliament
• Following criticism that she had undermined the convention, May argued that there was no time to recall Parliament, which at the time was in recess, as it was essential to act quickly "to alleviate further humanitarian suffering and to maintain the vital security of our operations"
• Supporters of constitutional reform

  Argue that broad Royal Prerogative powers need to be more clearly defined, and that their use should be subject to stronger Parliamentary checks
• Critics of the current system

  Argue that prerogative powers, which can be used by ministers without any authorisation from Parliament, have no place in a modern democracy
• Critics of the current system

  Argue that hugely important decisions about the use of the UK armed forces should be at least subject to a prior public debate
• Critics of the current system

  Argue that the 'war powers convention' has proven to be an insufficient check, as acknowledging that a convention exists does not make it legally binding
• Supporters of the current system

  Argue that the benefit of non-legal conventions is that they can evolve over time, in line with public opinion, and, in this case, alongside changes in modern warfare
• Supporters of the current system

  Argue that it would be extremely difficult to precisely define in an Act of Parliament when exactly it is 'appropriate' to obtain prior authorisation
• Supporters of the current system

  Argue that a War Powers Act would politicise the judiciary, turning the political question of whether the Prime Minister had respected a convention into the legal question of whether the deployment was lawful
• Supporters of the current system

  Argue that a majority government, elected by the people, should be able to take action