The United Kingdom: Increasingly Fractious Civil–Military Relations

A. Dorman
{"title":"The United Kingdom: Increasingly Fractious Civil–Military Relations","authors":"A. Dorman","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1862","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Civil–military relations in the United Kingdom have traditionally not been a major issue. This is partly a reflection of its history. The U.K. mainland has not been invaded since 1066. Since the civil war in the 17th century and the union of Scotland with England at the beginning of the 18th century, there has not been a need to maintain significant land forces at home. The Royal Navy has provided the first and main line of defense. The civil war in many ways set the tone for subsequent civil–military relations. Most powers related to the armed forces have been retained under the royal prerogative, effectively in the hands of the prime minister, but Parliament has retained a degree of oversight and controls the purse strings.\n However, beneath this veneer there are increasing tensions between the military and political authorities as the former have sought an increasing role in policymaking, particularly in terms of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, the armed forces themselves have struggled to come to terms with adapting to the society from which they are drawn. Since the 1990s they have had to give ground on the issues of gender and sexuality, and they are increasingly criticized for their lack of diversification—an issue that they have sought to mask by recruiting from the Commonwealth.","PeriodicalId":203278,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1862","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Civil–military relations in the United Kingdom have traditionally not been a major issue. This is partly a reflection of its history. The U.K. mainland has not been invaded since 1066. Since the civil war in the 17th century and the union of Scotland with England at the beginning of the 18th century, there has not been a need to maintain significant land forces at home. The Royal Navy has provided the first and main line of defense. The civil war in many ways set the tone for subsequent civil–military relations. Most powers related to the armed forces have been retained under the royal prerogative, effectively in the hands of the prime minister, but Parliament has retained a degree of oversight and controls the purse strings. However, beneath this veneer there are increasing tensions between the military and political authorities as the former have sought an increasing role in policymaking, particularly in terms of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, the armed forces themselves have struggled to come to terms with adapting to the society from which they are drawn. Since the 1990s they have had to give ground on the issues of gender and sexuality, and they are increasingly criticized for their lack of diversification—an issue that they have sought to mask by recruiting from the Commonwealth.
联合王国:日益难以驾驭的军民关系
联合王国的军民关系历来不是一个主要问题。这在一定程度上反映了它的历史。自1066年以来,英国大陆就没有被入侵过。自从17世纪的内战和18世纪初苏格兰与英格兰的联合以来,就没有必要在国内维持大量的地面部队。皇家海军提供了第一道防线和主要防线。内战在很多方面为后来的军民关系奠定了基调。与武装部队有关的大多数权力都保留在王室特权之下,实际上掌握在首相手中,但议会保留了一定程度的监督和控制财政。然而,在这种表象之下,军事当局和政治当局之间的紧张关系日益加剧,因为前者寻求在政策制定中发挥越来越大的作用,特别是在伊拉克和阿富汗战争方面。此外,武装部队本身也在努力适应他们所来自的社会。自20世纪90年代以来,他们不得不在性别和性取向问题上做出让步,他们因缺乏多样性而受到越来越多的批评——他们试图通过从英联邦招募人才来掩盖这一问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信