Title: Supreme-ly Ironic: How the Judicial Branch Affects Foreign Policy | Policy Interns
Headings: Supreme-ly Ironic: How the Judicial Branch Affects Foreign Policy
Supreme-ly Ironic: How the Judicial Branch Affects Foreign Policy
Like
Cancel reply

Content: Suddenly, the executive branch had a legal precedent with which to become the leading force in foreign policy and upon which it could fall back on if actions are legally challenged. The judicial branch’s role is often underappreciated in foreign policy, primarily because its forays into the field of international relations are relatively uncommon. That does not mean, however, the judicial branch does not serve a crucial role in foreign policy. In fact, it is the judicial branch that serves as the one true restraint upon the executive branch. While Congress can attempt to restrain the executive branch through laws or procedural technicalities, it is often unsuccessful. For instance, Congress had a revival of sorts following the disastrous Vietnam War and the embarrassing Watergate scandal. Both events, displaying the centralized power the executive branch had attained since the World War II, spurred Congress to take action to restrain the branch and to insert Congress into a more prominent role in foreign policy. The primary example of this is the War Powers Resolution, which requires presidents to inform Congress of the use of the military in any conflict around the world. Its intent was to prevent a president from heavily investing the U.S. military in another conflict like Korea or the Vietnam War. Despite not having a declaration of war from Congress, the U.S. military was fully engaged in those two conflicts.