Foreign Policy: Parliamentary Diplomacy

Foreign policy: parliamentary diplomacy

Introduction

By tradition, diplomacy has been an exclusive space reserved for the government executive branch. However, the growing blurred of the borders between what is considered national and what is foreign in international relations has changed the need for parliamentarians to consider a global mentality of the problems they have to face. With this in mind, there is a broader immersion in international affairs by parliaments that is partly a result of ‘globalization’. Traditional diplomacy is in charge of the federal powers of a State; that is, the Executive Branch, the Legislative and the Judicial. However, in practice, heads of state have had greater preponderance in international politics, especially when it comes to presidential political systems.

The objective of this chapter is to bring scholars and interested in international relations at the end of "parliamentary diplomacy". The text addresses its origins of parliamentary diplomacy; the definition of the concept; examines the relationship between the Executive and the Legislative in the field of foreign policy and establishes the different types of parliamentary diplomacy that exist. The chapter proposes to divide this activity into constitutional, independent and control and presents examples of each using mainly the case of Mexico.

Origins of parliamentary diplomacy

Parliamentarism appears in the classic era as a need to grant a representation to the people within the government and serve as a counterweight, the head of state.

In 1640 the first parliamentary system in which representatives of the people shared the work of governing appears in England. After the independence of the United States, the French Revolution and the independence of the Spanish colonies, democratic systems that included legislative chambers begin to emerge. In 1889, the World Interparliamentary Union (UIP) was born, an organism that seeks to promote peace and democracy through political dialogue in order to contribute to world governance. From then on, congressmen begin to have an important job not only in internal policy, but also in external. This is how parliamentary diplomacy begins. It should be noted that today the UIP seeks to be recognized as the UN parliamentary representation.

In general, parliaments have constitutional powers and goals that grant specific powers in the international arena. Even congresses share faculties in foreign relations with the Executive Power. With the process of globalization and democratic changes in the world, parliaments have sought a greater presence and participation in the decision -making process of the foreign policy of the states. It is noteworthy that there was usually the supremacy of the Executive Power on the Legislative in a matter of foreign policy and, therefore, in diplomacy. However, the changes experienced in the scenario of international society have caused in response to new forms of diplomatic relationship or the proliferation of existing forms in practice in a rare and non -existent way in the legal framework.

Definition of the concept

Parliamentary diplomacy is established in international relations and international law as a mediation method that points to multilateral negotiations characterized by institutionalization, the rules of procedure, the public debate and the vote of the resolution projects. The most essential from a practical point of view, group formation and block vote in such negotiation. That is, parliamentary diplomacy contemplates the activities that congresses and legislators carry out at the international level. The inclusion of legislative power in this practice is explained because diplomacy suffered a crisis, which made it necessary for legislators, as popular representatives, should contribute to foreign policy, and cooperate with the Executive in their international effort. Parliamentary diplomacy has been a very important activity, although little studied. Its analysis requires multiple approaches, from the political, legal, sociological sphere and from the discipline of international relations.

This work takes place between powers or legislative bodies, parliaments, cameras, legislative assemblies or their members and any other foreign entity. Due to the ambiguity that remains due to the suggestive nature of the parliamentary term, a certain concern in the application of this expression to international assemblies is often discernible. In current debates, the term parliamentary diplomacy has been increasingly applied to designate the institutional background of people or organisms participating in diplomatic activities. Parliamentary diplomacy was conceived as an interparliamentary activity and the term was introduced as a multilateral negotiation method carried out mainly by professional diplomats. Its distinction in recent parliamentary thought has been seen in connection with globalization and the growing need for cameras to address transnational issues.

Synergy between the Executive and Congress in foreign policy

As mentioned above, parliamentary diplomacy is closely linked to the type of relationship that executive and legislative powers on foreign policy decisions keep. Having reached higher levels of knowledge, access to information and participation, modern democracies have the means to exercise democratic accountability, mainly from Congress, in most public policy spheres. In this case, the parliamentary contribution is diverse and varied; It can be referred only to legislative control mechanisms, generally budget control, or can be extended to influence long -term foreign policy trends. The fact that some political areas require more secrecy does not mean that there can be no accountability mechanisms or an open debate at all. It simply means that there is less opening. Democratic doctrine requires the participation of congresses in foreign affairs. In general, there has been little interest in the question of how democratic is the decision -making process of states with democratic political systems. There are few references regarding the role of parliaments in literature. For example, the analysis of foreign policy is an exception to this rule, but tends to neglect the issue of democratic contribution, and treats parliaments as an internal source of foreign policy.

Usually the Executive Power is in charge of directing the international action of a country while Congress. In other words, the executive branch enjoys a preeminence in the diplomatic decision -making process because it has formal and informal powers that places it above the Congress in this area. The formal powers are what the Constitution grants it and the informal ones derive from the custom and functioning of the political system. In most cases, the main functions of the Executive in Foreign Policy are: to design in general the country’s behavior at the international level, as well as sign treaties, appoint diplomats, be a commander in chief of the military forces. On the other hand, the congresses are in charge of approveing ​​the treaties, ratifying the diplomatic appointments, authorizing the declaration of war or movement of troops, as well as assigning budget items.

Parliaments can try to influence executive agendas issuing reports and through other mechanisms. Parliamentarians do not need to challenge executives; In fact, they often strengthen them. In other words, parliaments seek to supervise the president’s external behavior and have a certain presence in decisions. The objective is, then, to serve as a balance so that the Executive does not exceed their functions. There are several strategies used by legislators to control it, such as the reduction or non -authorization of financial resources for presidential initiatives, the denial of a diplomatic appointment, exhortations through points of agreement, among others. On the other hand, the Executive often seeks mechanisms to prevent Congress from hindering its initiatives. Their strategies range from executive agreements, which do not need the approval of legislators, application for special powers, lobbying among legislators, to legislation reforms to have a broader maneuver margin.

Types of parliamentary diplomacy

There are various types of parliamentary diplomacy, as well as criteria to classify it. For example, Miguel Ángel Orozco the catalog from its nature, since it is transient, emerging and adjuvant of the Executive; Its objective, which is the creation of international links, as well as the defense of national interests and democratic values; and its regulations, as a source of law that arises mainly from the internal regulations of the congresses. His powers, because he seeks to promote the approval of national laws.

Under this vision, the range of parliamentary action possibilities is extended. Not only is it limited to the theme of peace, but it identifies with the different roles that it can perform in the international scene and that is not only the exclusive responsibility of the Executive, as in several cases. He even opens the door for local congresses to also interfere on global issues.

As can be seen, parliamentary diplomacy has an infinity of options and tasks to perform. The scope and variety depend on each political system. In presidentialist systems, the presence of legislative power is more limited. But in parliamentary systems the weight of congressmen is much greater in this area. A series of factors contribute to the effectiveness of parliamentary diplomacy. For example, the size of a parliamentary body is important since the more individual parliamentarians there are, greater probabilities that they contribute their skills and experience in conflict prevention, mediation and dialogue. Malamud and Stavridis (2011) expose that great experience legislators can still be found in smaller parliaments, and this can have an added value by getting involved in a situation of greater concern and proximity. If the geographical, historical and cultural aspects of diplomacy are considered, then a smaller parliament can be privileged if there is a common language or a historical and cultural kinship.

Constitutional parliamentary diplomacy

In the case of Mexico, the Constitution establishes the legal framework that regulates the powers of both the Executive and the Congress in foreign policy. The main feature is that each branch has specific functions regarding the decision -making process. In addition, there is a separation of powers in which the Mexican Congress must serve as the supervisor and exercise some control over the Executive in matters related to foreign policy, under constitutional precepts. Article 89 of the Constitution establishes that the person responsible for foreign policy is the Executive Power. In article 76, it is specified that the Senate has the functions of analyzing and approveing ​​foreign policy, in reality it does not grant special powers to sanction, modify, formulate or in its case do not authorize, the Executive’s foreign policy actions.

Previously, article 88 granted a special power to the Congress of the Union: authorizing the departures of the President of the Republic abroad. This prerogative limited the president’s margin and did not correspond to the new international dynamics characterized mainly by economic globalization. In recent years, the Executive Branch has used article 89 to argue that its exclusive responsibility is the design and execution of foreign policy, without the direct intervention of Congress. Their point of view is that legislators only have the power to approve or not the treaties signed by the Executive and ratify the diplomatic appointments.

On many occasions, parliaments seek to exercise greater control and supervision of the Executive in the field of foreign policy because they believe that the counterweight offered by the Constitution is insufficient. For example, in case of war, representatives want to have the last word. Obviously the Executive can propose the declaration of war in a situation of threat or of a perpetrated attack, but it is ultimately the Congress who has to do the formal act.

Another legislative control mechanism is the issue of the budget. In Mexico, the Chamber of Deputies is in charge of assigning the items that will be used for foreign policy. However, the government’s fiscal and financial system allows broad flexibility after the budget was approved. On the other hand, Mexican congressmen can also exercise a counterweight from legal reforms to the same Constitution or secondary laws. However, in the case of foreign policy, it has not been the case because the changes have been minimal. Likewise, legislators also resort to the "points of agreement" as an instrument to be able to influence the design of foreign policy.

In general, these are legislative mechanisms that seek to influence the decision -making process of the Executive and other political actors. As they do not have a binding character, these instruments are mere exhortations that Congress does so that the Executive adopts a measure according to the vision of legislators. That is, there is no law that forces the Executive to comply with these proposals. In addition, agreement points normally cannot be converted into current laws.

Before a more democratic and plural political system, it is predictable that the interest of popular representatives in participating in parliamentary diplomacy activities increases in the short term. The need to use the Executive and to represent the population in decisions abroad is a supporting for a greater presence of Mexican parliamentarians in global affairs.

Conclusions

Parliamentary diplomacy builds state actors, on the grouping of power and on common ideals. It is increasingly common to send law proposals to congresses with origins in international developments or structures. The recognition of the state of the growing government activity in international organizations and a greater need for control grew together with this need and has given rise to a series of interparliamentary structures that facilitate the revision process. Parliaments have realized that they can no longer hold governments and assume the leadership and responsibility of actions abroad or even within the national territory as a result of foreign policy decisions. Before a world of increasing complex interdependence and greater interconnection, it is necessary that these actors be present to establish the agenda of world politics and be part of the solution to the problems that have a global origin. Parliamentary diplomacy will become a key actor for these purposes. Therefore, an increase in legislative activities in global affairs is predictable.

In the case of Mexico, democratic opening and greater exposure to the external ones have become a conducive environment for popular representatives to have a greater incidence in the diplomacy of the country. In fact, the force of parliamentary diplomacy is its independence from governments and other establishments. In the Mexican case, Congress is considered to have a certain degree of control over the budgetary issue in relation to the government and the public. It would be reckless to suggest that the legislative branch is equal to the government, but when parliamentarians act as truly independent actors not succumbing to the discipline of political parties, they can play an innovative role. It is necessary to strengthen constitutional work in this matter with an extension of their powers. It is also clear that independent activities will increase because the world is intimately interconnected and its contribution to the solution of legal problems is necessary. Finally, legislators will seek to consolidate their role as an actor who exercises greater control and counterweight against Mexican president in matters related to parliamentary diplomacy.

Bibliography

1. Arámbula, Alma Rosa and Gabriel M. Santos, H. Chamber of Deputies and Parliamentary Diplomacy, Chamber of Deputies, Documentation Center Information and Analysis, Research and External Political Analysis, 2007, 40 pp. Available at: http: // www.Deputies.Gob.MX/SEDIA/SIA/SPE/SPE-ISS-17-07.PDF
2. Götz, Norbert, ‘On The Origins of‘ Parliamentary Diplomacy ’’ in Cooperation and Conflict Vol. 40, no. 3, 2005, pp. 263-79, doi: 10.1177/0010836705055066.
3. Malamud, Andrés and Stelios Stavridis, “Parliaments and Parliamentarians as International Actors” in The Ashgate Research Companion to Non-State Actors, Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate Pub., 2011, pp.102-117.
4. Orozco, Miguel Ángel, "Parliamentary Diplomacy", in Mexican Foreign Policy, us. 62-63, November-June 2001, pp. 91-109.
5. Richard, María Paz and Jorge González, parliamentary diplomacy: conceptual approaches and expressions in the Regulations of the Chamber of Deputies, Chamber of Deputies, General Directorate of Documentation, Information and Analysis Services, 47 pp. Available at: http: // www.Deputies.Gob.MX/SEDIA/SIA/SPE/SPE-ISS-04-11.PDF 2011
6. Senate of the Republic, Mexico and parliamentary diplomacy: areas of action, current relevance and global tendencies, March 2015, series 5, analysis documents, Senate of the Republic, available at: http: // centrogilbertobosques.senate.Gob.mx/docs/diplomacia_mzo15.PDF
7. Solana, Fernando, six years of parliamentary diplomacy 1994-2000, Mexico, Limusa, 2000.
8. Velázquez, Rafael, “The relationship between the Executive and the Congress in the field of foreign policy during the sexennium of Vicente Fox: cooperation or conflict?”, In politics and government, vol. XV, no. 1, 2008, pp. 113-158.
9. Weiglas, Frans and Gonnie de Boer, "Parliamentary Diplomacy" in The Hague Journal of Diplomy, No. 2, 2007, pp. 93-99, available at: https: // brill.com/view/journals/hjd/hjd-overview.XML.