# State emergencies after dissolution of parliament **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 19, 2006, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-emergencies-after-dissolution-of-parliament/345203 "2006-02-19T15:28:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-emergencies-after-dissolution-of-parliament/345203/1 "2006-02-19T15:28:08Z")
In the parliamentary systems of many countries, including most Commonwealth countries, [parliament must be dissolved](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_Parliament) when an election is called. With the legislature no longer sitting, what happens if there is some sort of unexpected state emergency, such as a foreign power invading or declaring war? Who is then empowered to declare war, authorize the mobilization of the military, and sign treaties? Surely the country doesn’t have to wait for a month (or however long the campaign period is) before taking action, does it? Does the upper house (the Senate in Canada, or the House of Lords in the UK) take over the function of government until after the election? Or perhaps does the head of state (the Governor-General or the Monach) govern directly? On a related note, has any country been attacked by a foreign power after dissolution of its parliament, in the hope that this would give them a strategic advantage? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-emergencies-after-dissolution-of-parliament/345203/2 "2006-02-19T15:41:41Z")
This is where the separation of powers kicks in. (Contrary to some comments I’ve seen occasionally, it does in fact exist in parliamentary systems, just in a different form than in the Congressional system.) The Prime Minister and the Cabinet continue to hold office pending the elections, since it is not a legal requirment that they be members of Parliament. Normally during an election their function is purely “housekeeping” - they only do what is absolutely necessary to keep the machinery of government turning over, but no major decisions, appointments, etc. They delegate most of the day-to-day functioning to the senior civil service. By convention, the Queen/Governor-General will not carry out any recommended action that goes beyond the housekeeping function. However, in an emergency, the PM and Cabinet could act. They continue to have all the legal powers vested in them by law and could exercise those powers if needed. The Queen or the GovGen would likely examine any such exercise of powers very carefully, to be sure that there truly is an emergency warranting the action. As well, the PM may well consult with the opposition leaders to get them on-side. > [@psychonaut](#): > > Who is then empowered to declare war, authorize the mobilization of the military, and sign treaties? In parliamentary systems modelled on the British government, all of these are executive functions and do not need approval from Parliament, as a legal pre-condition of their use. By convention, the PM and Cabinet always report to Parliament on these issues, but that’s not legally required. So, bottom line - if Denmark had invaded Hans Island during the recent Canadian election, the government of Paul Martin would have had the legal and constitutional authority to take whatever action was necessary to defend our sovereignty. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-emergencies-after-dissolution-of-parliament/345203/3 "2006-02-19T16:56:28Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > This is where the separation of powers kicks in. (Contrary to some comments I’ve seen occasionally, it does in fact exist in parliamentary systems, just in a different form than in the Congressional system.) > > The Prime Minister and the Cabinet continue to hold office pending the elections, since it is not a legal requirment that they be members of Parliament. Normally during an election their function is purely “housekeeping” - they only do what is absolutely necessary to keep the machinery of government turning over, but no major decisions, appointments, etc. They delegate most of the day-to-day functioning to the senior civil service. By convention, the Queen/Governor-General will not carry out any recommended action that goes beyond the housekeeping function. > > However, in an emergency, the PM and Cabinet could act. They continue to have all the legal powers vested in them by law and could exercise those powers if needed. The Queen or the GovGen would likely examine any such exercise of powers very carefully, to be sure that there truly is an emergency warranting the action. As well, the PM may well consult with the opposition leaders to get them on-side. > > In parliamentary systems modelled on the British government, all of these are executive functions and do not need approval from Parliament, as a legal pre-condition of their use. By convention, the PM and Cabinet always report to Parliament on these issues, but that’s not legally required. > > So, bottom line - if Denmark had invaded Hans Island during the recent Canadian election, the government of Paul Martin would have had the legal and constitutional authority to take whatever action was necessary to defend our sovereignty. In his History of World War II, Churchill mentions honoring the U.K.'s promise to the U.S. to declare war on Japan if the latter attacked the U.S., and beating the U.S. to the punch, so to speak, since it is the Royal Prerogative, exercised through his/her ministers, to declare war in Britain and the Commonwealth, as opposed to the declaration of war from Congress required by the U.S. Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-emergencies-after-dissolution-of-parliament/345203/4 "2006-02-19T16:59:51Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > In the parliamentary systems of many countries, including most Commonwealth countries, [parliament must be dissolved](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_Parliament) when an election is called… Who is then empowered to declare war, authorize the mobilization of the military, and sign treaties? …Or perhaps does the head of state (the Governor-General or the Monach) govern directly? All these powers – declaring war, mobilizing troops, and making treaties – are powers that the head of state exercises even when the parliament is in session. (At least in theory, that is. In practice, the government exercises these powers in the name of the head of state.) In the British system, for example, only the Crown can declare and make war, the Sovereign is the commander in chief of the armed forces, and the Sovereign treats with foreign powers. (Take a look, for example, at the enacting clause of any of the [treaties establishing the European Union](http://europa.eu.int/abc/treaties/index_en.htm) – the treaties aren’t made in the name of the nation or its people, but rather in the name of the Sovereign. Even the republics, where the sovereign is the people, are listed only by the title of the head of state.) The notion of the legislature’s involvement in declaring war or in treaty-making was an innovation when it was incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-emergencies-after-dissolution-of-parliament/345203/5 "2006-02-20T05:40:47Z")
Here’s the passage from Churchill that **Polycarp** referred to: > [@](#): > > As soon as I woke [on the morning of December 8, 1941] I decided to go over [to the U.S.] at once to see Roosevelt. I put the matter to the Cabinet when we met at noon. On obtaining their approval I wrote to the King and his Majesty gave his Assent. > > The War Cabinet authorised the immediate declaration of war upon Japan, for which all formal arrangments had been made. As [Foreign Secretary] Eden had already started on a journey to Moscow and I was in charge of the Foreign Office I sent the following letter to the Japanese Ambassador: > > > [@Winston S. Churchill](#): > > > > Foreign Office, December 8th > > > > Sir, > > > > On the evening of December 7th His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom learned that Japaneses forces without previous warning either in the form of a declaration of war or of an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war had attempted a landing on the coast of Malaya and bombed Singapore and Hong Kong. > > > > In view of these wanton acts of unprovoked aggression committed in flagrant violation of International Law and particularly of Article I of the Third Hague Convention relative to the opening of hostiliites, to which both Japan and the United Kingdom are parties, His Majesty’s Ambassador at Tokyo has been instructed to inform the Imperial Japanese Government in the name of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom that a state of war exists between our two countries. > > > > I have the honour to be, with high consideration, > > Sir, > > > > Your obedient servant, > > Winston S. Churchill > > Some people did not like this ceremonial style. But after all when you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite. > > Parliament met at 3 P.M., and in spite of the shortness of notice the House was full. Under the British Constitution the Crown declares war on the advice of Ministers, and Parliament is confronted with the fact. We were therefore able to be better than our word to the United States, and actually declared war upon Japan before Congress could act. The Royal Netherlands Government [in exile] had also made their declaration. Both Houses voted unanimously in favour of the decision. Although the consent of Parliament is not necessary for a declaration of war, if the House of Commons had not voted in favour, that would likely have been considered a confidence matter, leading to a change of government. The Canadian government followed a similar pattern with the original declaration of war on Germany in 1939: a decision by the Canadian Cabinet to issue a declaration of war, followed by a debate in the House of Commons, which approved the measure. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-emergencies-after-dissolution-of-parliament/345203/6 "2006-02-20T06:17:02Z")
> [@Sir Winston Churchill](#): > > But after all when you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite. I love this. I absolutely love it. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-emergencies-after-dissolution-of-parliament/345203/7 "2006-02-20T10:22:22Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > > [@Sir Winston Churchill](#): > > > > But after all when you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite. > > I love this. I absolutely love it. It’s my favourite Churchillian quotation, and provides a valuable insight into the mind-set and values of some English of that period. I meant to post it to that thread a few weeks ago about Canadians and politeness - several posters commented that it’s a mistake to confuse politeness with kindness - this is the ultimate comment supporting that distinction.