Acta Politica

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 448–468 | Cite as

Parliament in gross human rights violations: the case of Darfur

  • Andreja PeganEmail author
  • Wessel N. Vermeulen
Original Article


Based on a study of three European parliaments, the article analyses parliamentary oversight on government policy towards gross human rights violations in third countries using the case of Darfur in Sudan (2003–2005). We find that parliaments with greater constitutional rights in foreign policy are more active in the scrutiny of executive action. Scrutiny is stronger in parliaments with developed and strong foreign affairs committees. Media and public awareness correlate with greater oversight activities in all the three chambers considered. In their oversight, MPs do not deter governments to consider the use of armed forces. Rather than revealing party differences, conflicts involving gross human rights violations such as Darfur are venues for the manifestation of division between the executive and legislature.


Parliament Oversight Foreign affairs Darfur Human rights 


  1. Andeweg, R.B., and G.A. Irwin. 2014. Governance and politics of The Netherlands. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assemblée nationale. 2015. Règlement de l’Assemblée nationale. Accessed 23 Sept 2016.
  3. Auerswald, D.P. 1999. Inward bound: Domestic institutions and military conflicts. International Organization 53 (3): 469–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, D.R., and P.D. Williams (eds.). 2010. The international politics of mass atrocities: The case of Darfur. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Broz, J.L. 2008. Congressional voting on funding in the international financial institutions. Review of International Organizations 3 (4): 351–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, D. 2007. Geopolitics and visuality: Sighting the Darfur conflict. Political Geography 26: 357–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter, R.G., and J.M. Scott. 2010. Understanding congressional foreign policy innovators: Mapping entrepreneurs and their strategies. The Social Science Journal 47 (2): 418–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choi, S.-W. 2010. Legislative constraints: A path to peace? Journal of Conflict Resolution 54 (3): 438–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Degomme, O., and D. Guha-Sapir. 2010. Patterns of mortality rates in Darfur conflict. The Lancet 375 (9711): 294–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elman, M.F. 2000. Unpacking democracy: Presidentialism, parliamentarism, and theories of democratic peace. Security Studies 9 (4): 91–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Everts, PhP, and P. Isernia. 2015. Public opinion, transatlantic relations and the use of force. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feliu, L., and F. Serra. 2015. The European Union as a normative power and the normative voice of the European parliament. In The European parliament and its international relations, ed. S. Stavridis, and D. Irrera, 17–34. Oxford: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  13. Fleck, R.K., and C. Kilby. 2006. How do political changes influence U.S. bilateral aid allocations? Evidence from panel data. Review of Development Economics 10 (2): 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Green-Pedersen, C. 2010. Bringing parties into parliament. The development of parliamentary activities in Western Europe. Party Politics 16 (3): 347–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grünfeld, F., and W.N. Vermeulen. 2014a. Failure to prevent gross human rights violations in Darfur. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  16. Grünfeld, F., and W.N. Vermeulen. 2014b. The role of the Netherlands in the European framework for an international response on Darfur during its presidency in 2004–2005. Genocide Studies International 8 (2): 176–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grzyb, A.F. 2010. Media coverage, activism, and creating will for intervention in Rwanda and Darfur. In The world and Darfur, ed. A.F. Grzyb, 61–91. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hamilton, R. 2011a. Fighting for Darfur: Public action and the struggle to stop genocide. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Hamilton, R. 2011b. Inside Colin Powell’s decision to declare genocide in Darfur. Atlantic: 17–10.Google Scholar
  20. Hildebrandt, T., C. Hillebrecht, P.M. Holm, and J. Pevehouse. 2013. The domestic politics of humanitarian intervention: Public opinion, partisanship, and ideology. Foreign Policy Analysis 9 (3): 243–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. House of Commons. 2005. Darfur, Sudan: The responsibility to protect. In Fifth Report of Session 2004–05. Volumes I and II. Published 30 March 2005. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
  22. House of Commons. 2010. Treaties. Factsheet P14 Procedure Series. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
  23. Kaarbo, J. 2012. Coalition politics and cabinet decision making: A comparative analysis of foreign policy choices. Ann Arbor: University Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaarbo, J., and J.L. Lantis. 2003. Greening of German foreign policy in the Iraq case: Conditions of junior party influence in governing coalitions. Acta Politica 38 (3): 201–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kesgin, B., and J. Kaarbo. 2010. When and how parliaments influence foreign policy: The case of Turkey’s Iraq decision. International Studies Perspectives 11 (1): 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koivula, T., and J. Sipilä. 2011. Missing in action? EU crisis management and the link to the domestic political debate. Cooperation and Conflict 46 (4): 521–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krehbiel, K. 1992. Information and legislative organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lagassé, P., and S. M. Saideman. 2017. Public critic or secretive monitor: Party objectives and legislative oversight of the military in Canada. West European Politics 40 (1): 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maffio, R. 2002. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Il controllo parlamentare dell’attività di governo in prospettiva comparata. Quaderni di Scienza Politica 9 (2): 333–383.Google Scholar
  30. Mayhew, D.R. 2004. Congress: The electoral connection. New Heaven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mello, P. 2014. Democratic participation in armed conflict: Military involvement in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Milner, H.V. 1997. Interests, institutions, and information. Domestic politics and international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Norton, P. 2010. House of commons. In Politics UK, eds. B. Jones and P. Norton, 303–348.Google Scholar
  34. Ostermann, F. 2017. France’s reluctant parliamentarisation of military deployments: The 2008 constitutional reform in practice. West European Politics 40 (1): 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Palmer, G.H., T.R. London, and P.M. Regan. 2004. What’s stopping you? The source of political constraints on international conflict behavior in parliamentary democracies. International Interactions 30 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peters, D., and W. Wagner. 2014. Executive privilege or parliamentary provision? Exploring the sources of parliamentary war powers. Armed Forces & Society 40 (2): 310–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peterson, S. 1999. Crisis bargaining and the state: The domestic politics of international conflict. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  38. Pitkin, H.F. 1967. The concept of political representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  39. Pohl, B. 2014. To what ends? Governmental interests and European Union (non-)intervention in Chad and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Cooperation and Conflict 49 (2): 191–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Potrafke, N. 2009. Does government ideology influence political alignment with the U.S.? An empirical analysis of voting in the UN general assembly. Review of International Organizations 4 (3): 245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Prunier, G. 2005. Darfur. The ambiguous genocide. London: Hurst.Google Scholar
  42. Rathbun, B.C. 2004. Partisan interventions: European party politics and peace enforcement in the Balkans. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Raunio, T. 2014. Legislatures and foreign policy. In The Oxford handbook of legislative studies, ed. S. Martin, T. Saalfeld, and K. Strøm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Raunio, T., and W. Wagner. 2017. Towards parliamentarisation of foreign and security policy? West European Politics 40 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reiter, D., and E. Tillman. 2002. Public, legislative, and executive constraints on the democratic initiation of conflict. Journal of Politics 64 (3): 810–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ripley, R.B., and J.M. Lindsay. 1992. Foreign and defense policy in congress: A research agenda for the 1990s. Legislative Studies Quarterly 17 (3): 417–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rogers, R., and R. Walters. 2015. How parliament works?. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Russo, F., and M. Wiberg. 2010. Parliamentary questioning in 17 European parliaments: Some steps towards comparison. The Journal of Legislative Studies 16 (2): 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Russo, F., and M. Wiberg. 2011. Parliamentary questioning in 17 European parliaments: Some steps towards comparison. The Journal of Legislative Studies 16 (2): 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Saalfeld, T. 1995. Rational-choice theory in legislative studies: Models of politics without Romanticism. The Journal of Legislative Studies 1 (1): 32–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saalfeld, T. 2000. Members of parliament and governments in Western Europe: Agency relations and problems of oversight. European Journal of Political Research 37 (3): 353–376.Google Scholar
  52. Salehyan, I. 2008. The externalities of civil strife: Refugees as a source of international conflict. American Journal of Political Science 52 (4): 787–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sakaki, A., and K. Lukner. 2017. Japan’s uncertain security environment and changes in its legislative-executive relations. West European Politics 40 (1): 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schneider, C.J., and J. Urpelainen. 2014. Partisan heterogeneity and international cooperation: The case of the European development fund. Journal of Conflict Resolution 58 (1): 120–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Seymour, L.J.M. 2014. Let’s bullshit! Arguing, bargaining and dissembling over Darfur. European Journal of International Relations 20 (3): 571–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simmons, B.A. 2009. Mobilizing for human rights: International law in domestic politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Strøm, K. 2000. Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research 37: 261–298.Google Scholar
  58. Thérien, J.-P., and A. Noel. 2000. Political parties and foreign aid. The American Political Science Review 94 (1): 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tsebelis, G. 1995. Decision making in political systems. British Journal of Political Science 25 (3): 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Uscinski, J., M.S. Rocca, G.R. Sanchez, and M. Brenden. 2009. Congress and foreign policy: Congressional action on the Darfur genocide. Political Science & Politics 42 (3): 489–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vos, D. 2006. Een onderzoek naar internationale nieuwsstromen en de Nederlandse nieuws berichtgeving over de crisis in Darfur in de periode van februari 2003-2006. PhD Dissertation, Utrecht University, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  62. Wagner, W., A. Herranz-Surralles, J. Kaarbo, and F. Ostermann. 2017. The party politics of legislative-executive relations in security and defence policy. West European Politics 40 (1): 20–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Walling, C.B. 2013. All necessary measures. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wiberg, M. 1995. Parliamentary questioning: control by communication? In Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe, ed. H. Döring, 179–222. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trinity College, DublinDublin 2Ireland
  2. 2.University of NewcastleLondonUK

Personalised recommendations