Law of war
The law of war refers to the component of international law that regulates the conditions for war and the conduct of warring parties. Laws of war define sovereignty and nationhood and territories, other critical terms of international law. Among other issues, modern laws of war address declarations of war, acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war; the law of war is considered distinct from other bodies of law—such as the domestic law of a particular belligerent to a conflict—which may provide additional legal limits to the conduct or justification of war. Attempts to define and regulate the conduct of individuals and other agents in war and to mitigate the worst effects of war have a long history; the earliest known instances are found in the Old Testament. In the Indian subcontinent, the Mahabharata describes a discussion between ruling brothers concerning what constitutes acceptable behavior on a battlefield, an early example of the rule of proportionality: One should not attack chariots with cavalry.
One should not assail someone in distress, neither to scare him nor to defeat him... War should be waged for the sake of conquest. An example from the Deuteronomy 20:19–20 limits the amount of acceptable collateral and environmental damage: 19When you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them. You may eat from them. Are the trees in the field human, that they should be besieged by you? 20Only the trees that you know are not trees for food you may destroy and cut down, that you may build siegeworks against the city that makes war with you, until it falls. Deuteronomy 20:10–12, requires the Israelites to make an offer of peace to the opposing party before laying siege to their city. 10 When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. 11And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you all the people who are found in it shall do forced labour for you and shall serve you.
12 But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you you shall besiege it. Deuteronomy 21:10–14 requires that female captives who were forced to marry the victors of a war could not be sold as slaves. In the early 7th century, the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, whilst instructing his Muslim army, laid down the following rules concerning warfare: Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services. Furthermore, Sura Al-Baqara 2:190–193 of the Quran requires that in combat Muslims are only allowed to strike back in self-defense against those who strike against them, but, on the other hand, once the enemies cease to attack, Muslims are commanded to stop attacking.
In the history of the early Christian church, many Christian writers considered that Christians could not be soldiers or fight wars. Augustine of Hippo contradicted this and wrote about'just war' doctrine, in which he explained the circumstances when war could or could not be morally justified. In 697, Adomnan of Iona gathered Kings and church leaders from around Ireland and Scotland to Birr, where he gave them the'Law of the Innocents', which banned killing women and children in war, the destruction of churches. In medieval Europe, the Roman Catholic Church began promulgating teachings on just war, reflected to some extent in movements such as the Peace and Truce of God; the impulse to restrict the extent of warfare, protect the lives and property of non-combatants continued with Hugo Grotius and his attempts to write laws of war. One of the grievances enumerated in the American Declaration of Independence was that King George III "has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages and conditions".
The modern law of war is made up from three principal sources: Lawmaking treaties — see § International treaties on the laws of war below. Custom. Not all the law of war derives from or has been incorporated in such treaties, which can refer to the continuing importance of customary law as articulated by the Martens Clause; such customary international law is established by the general practice of nations together with their acceptance that such practice is required by law. General Principles. "Certain fundamental principles provide basic guidance. For instance, the principles of distinction and necessity, all of which are part of customary international law, always apply to the use of armed force". Positive international humanitarian law consists of treaties that directly affect the laws of war by binding consenting nations and achieving widespread consent; the opposite of positive laws of war is customary laws of war, many of which were explored at the Nuremberg War Trials. These laws define both the permissive rights of states as well as prohibitions on their conduct when dealing with irregular forces and non-signatories.
The Treaty of Armistice and Regularization of War signed in the Venez
Command responsibility, sometimes referred to as the Yamashita standard or the Medina standard, known as superior responsibility, is the legal doctrine of hierarchical accountability for war crimes. The term may be used more broadly to refer to the duty to supervise subordinates, liability for the failure to do so, both in government, military law, with regard to corporations and trusts; the doctrine of "command responsibility" was established by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 based on the American Lieber code, a war manual for the Union forces signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, was applied for the first time by the German Supreme Court at the Leipzig War Crimes Trials after World War I, in the 1921 trial of Emil Müller. The United States of America confirmed and incorporated the mentioned 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions on "command responsibility" into United States federal law through the precedent set by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita.
He was prosecuted in 1945 for atrocities committed by troops under his command in the Philippines, in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Yamashita was charged with "unlawfully disregarding and failing to discharge his duty as a commander to control the acts of members of his command by permitting them to commit war crimes."Furthermore, the so-called "Medina standard" clarified the U. S. law to also encompass U. S officers, so that those as well as foreign officers such as General Yamashita can be prosecuted in the United States; the "Medina standard" is based upon the 1971 prosecution of U. S. Army Captain Ernest Medina in connection with the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War, it holds that a U. S. commanding officer, being aware of a human rights violation or a war crime, will be held criminally liable if he does not take action. However, Medina was acquitted of all charges. In The Art of War, written during the 6th century BC, Sun Tzu argued that it was a commander's duty to ensure that his subordinates conducted themselves in a civilised manner during an armed conflict.
In the Bible, within the story of Ahab and the killing of Naboth, King Ahab was blamed for the killing of Naboth on orders from Queen Jezebel, because Ahab is responsible for everyone in his kingdom. The trial of Peter von Hagenbach by an ad hoc tribunal of the Holy Roman Empire in 1474, was the first "international" recognition of commanders' obligations to act lawfully. Hagenbach was put on trial for atrocities committed during the occupation of Breisach, found guilty of war crimes and beheaded. Since he was convicted for crimes "he as a knight was deemed to have a duty to prevent" Hagenbach defended himself by arguing that he was only following orders from the Duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold, to whom the Holy Roman Empire had given Breisach. Despite the fact there was no explicit use of a doctrine of "command responsibility" it is seen as the first trial based on this principle. During the American Civil War, the concept developed further, as is seen in the "Lieber Code"; this regulated accountability by imposing criminal responsibility on commanders for ordering or encouraging soldiers to wound or kill disabled enemies.
Article 71 of the Lieber Code provided that: Whoever intentionally inflicts additional wounds on an enemy wholly disabled, or kills such an enemy, or who orders or encourages soldiers to do so, shall suffer death, if duly convicted, whether he belongs to the Army of the United States, or is an enemy captured after having committed his misdeed. The Hague Convention of 1899 was the first attempt at codifying the principle of command responsibility on a multinational level and was reaffirmed and updated by the Hague Convention of 1907; the doctrine was found within "Laws and Customs of War on Land". Article 1 of Section I of the 1907 Hague IV stated that: The laws and duties of war apply not only to armies, but to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions: To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates. Another example of command responsibility is shown in Article 43 of Section III of the same convention which stipulated that: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless prevented, the laws in force in the country.
In "Adaptation to Maritime War of the Principles of the Geneva Convention", Article 19 stated that: The commanders in chief of the belligerent fleets must arrange for the details of carrying out the preceding articles, as well as for cases not covered thereby, in accordance with the instructions of their respective Governments and in conformity with the general principles of the present Convention. While the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 does not explicitly create a doctrine of command responsibility, it does uphold a notion that a superior must account for their actions of his subordinates, it suggests that military superiors have a duty to ensure that their troops act in accordance with international law and if they fail to command them lawfully, their respective states may be held criminally liable. In turn, thos
A Cabinet is a body of high-ranking state officials consisting of the top leaders of the executive branch. Members of a cabinet are called Cabinet ministers or secretaries; the function of a Cabinet varies: in some countries it is a collegiate decision-making body with collective responsibility, while in others it may function either as a purely advisory body or an assisting institution to a decision making head of state or head of government. Cabinets are the body responsible for the day-to-day management of the government and response to sudden events, whereas the legislative and judicial branches work in a measured pace, in sessions according to lengthy procedures. In some countries those that use a parliamentary system, the Cabinet collectively decides the government's direction in regard to legislation passed by the parliament. In countries with a presidential system, such as the United States, the Cabinet does not function as a collective legislative influence. In this way, the President obtains opinions and advice relating to forthcoming decisions.
Under both types of system, the Westminster variant of a parliamentary system and the presidential system, the Cabinet "advises" the Head of State: the difference is that, in a parliamentary system, the monarch, viceroy or ceremonial president will always follow this advice, whereas in a presidential system, a president, head of government and political leader may depart from the Cabinet's advice if they do not agree with it. In practice, in nearly all parliamentary democracies that do not follow the Westminster system, in three countries that do often the Cabinet does not "advise" the Head of State as they play only a ceremonial role. Instead, it is the head of government who holds all means of power in their hands and to whom the Cabinet reports; the second role of cabinet officials is to administer executive branches, government agencies, or departments. In the United States federal government, these are the federal executive departments. Cabinets are important originators for legislation.
Cabinets and ministers are in charge of the preparation of proposed legislation in the ministries before it is passed to the parliament. Thus the majority of new legislation originates from the cabinet and its ministries. In most governments, members of the Cabinet are given the title of Minister, each holds a different portfolio of government duties. In a few governments, as in the case of Mexico, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, United States, the title of Secretary is used for some Cabinet members. In many countries, a Secretary is a cabinet member with an inferior rank to a Minister. In Finland, a Secretary of State is a career official. In some countries, the Cabinet is known by names such as "Council of Ministers", "Government Council" or "Council of State", or by lesser known names such as "Federal Council", "Inner Council" or "High Council"; these countries may differ in the way that the cabinet is established. The supranational European Union uses a different convention: the European Commission refers to its executive cabinet as a "college", with its top public officials referred to as "commissioners", whereas a "European Commission cabinet" is the personal office of a European Commissioner.
In presidential systems such as the United States, members of the Cabinet are chosen by the president, may have to be confirmed by one or both of the houses of the legislature. In most presidential systems, cabinet members cannot be sitting legislators, legislators who are offered appointments must resign if they wish to accept. In parliamentary systems, several different policies exist with regard to whether legislators can be Cabinet ministers: cabinet members must, must not, or may be members of parliament, depending on the country. In the United Kingdom, cabinet ministers are mandatorily appointed from among sitting members of the parliament. In countries with a strict separation between the executive and legislative branches of government, e.g. Luxembourg and Belgium, cabinet members have to give up their seat in parliament; the intermediate case is when ministers are members of parliament, but are not required to be, as in Finland. The candidate prime minister and/or the president selects the individual ministers to be proposed to the parliament, which may accept or reject the proposed cabinet composition.
Unlike in a presidential system, the cabinet in a parliamentary system must not only be confirmed, but enjoy the continuing confidence of the parliament: a parliament can pass a motion of no confidence to remove a government or individual ministers. But not these votes are taken across party lines. In some countries attorneys general sit in the cabinet, while in many others this is prohibited as the attorneys general are considered to be part of the judicial branch of government. Instead, there is a minister of justice, separate from the attorney general. Furthermore, in Sweden and Estonia, the cabinet includes a Chancellor of Justice, a civil servant that acts as the legal counsel to the cabinet. In multi-party systems, the formation of a government may require the support of multiple parties. Thus, a coalition government is formed. Continued cooperation between the participating political parties is nece
A commander-in-chief, sometimes called supreme commander, is the person that exercises supreme command and control over an armed forces or a military branch. As a technical term, it refers to military competencies that reside in a country's executive leadership – a head of state or a head of government. A commander-in-chief role if held by an official, need not be or have been a commissioned officer or a veteran; such countries follow the principle of civilian control of the military. The formal role and title of a ruler commanding the armed forces derives from Imperator of the Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic and Roman Empire, who possessed imperium powers. In English use, the term first applied to King Charles I of England in 1639, it continued to be used during the English Civil War. A nation's head of state holds the nominal position of commander-in-chief if effective executive power is held by a separate head of government. In a parliamentary system, the executive branch is dependent upon the will of the legislature.
Governors-general and colonial governors are often appointed commander-in-chief of the military forces within their territory. A commander-in-chief is sometimes referred to as supreme commander, sometimes used as a specific term; the term is used for military officers who hold such power and authority, not always through dictatorship, as a subordinate to a head of state. The term is used for officers who hold authority over an individual military branch, special branch or within a theatre of operations; this includes heads of states who: Are chief executives with the political mandate to undertake discretionary decision-making, including command of the armed forces. Ceremonial heads of state with residual substantive reserve powers over the armed forces, acting under normal circumstances on the constitutional advice of chief executives with the political mandate to undertake discretionary decision-making. According to the Constitution of Afghanistan, The President of Afghanistan is the Commander-in-chief of Afghan Armed Forces.
According to the Constitution of Albania, The President of the Republic of Albania is the Commander-in-chief of Albanian Armed Forces. The incumbent Commander-in-chief is President Ilir Meta. Under part II, chapter III, article 99, subsections 12, 13, 14 and 15, the Constitution of Argentina states that the President of the Argentine Nation is the "Commander-in-chief of all the armed forces of the Nation", it states that the President is entitled to provide military posts in the granting of the jobs or grades of senior officers of the armed forces, by itself on the battlefield. The Ministry of Defense is the government department that assists and serves the President in the management of the armed forces. Under chapter II of section 68 titled Command of the naval and military forces, the Constitution of Australia states that: The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor General as the Queen's representative. In practice, the Governor-General does not play an active part in the Australian Defence Force's command structure, the democratically accountable Australian Cabinet de facto controls the ADF.
The Minister for Defence and several subordinate ministers exercise this control through the Australian Defence Organisation. Section 8 of the Defence Act 1903 states:The Minister shall have the general control and administration of the Defence Force, the powers vested in the Chief of the Defence Force, the Chief of Navy, the Chief of Army and the Chief of Air Force by virtue of section 9, the powers vested jointly in the Secretary and the Chief of the Defence Force by virtue of section 9A, shall be exercised subject to and in accordance with any directions of the Minister; the commander-in-chief is the president, although executive power and responsibility for national defense resides with the prime minister. The only exception was the first commander-in-chief, General M. A. G. Osmani, during Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, commander of all Bangladesh Forces, reinstated to active duty by official BD government order, which after independence was gazetted in 1972, he relinquished all authority and duties to the President of Bangladesh.
Article 142 of the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 states that the Brazilian Armed Forces is under the supreme command of the President of the Republic. The President of Belarus is the Commander-in-Chief of the Belarusian Armed Forces; the Sultan of Brunei is the Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Brunei Armed Forces. The powers of command-in-chief over the Canadian Armed Forces are vested in the Canadian monarch, are delegated to the Governor General of Canada, who uses the title Commander-in-Chief. In this capacity, the governor general is entitled to the uniform of a general/flag officer, with the crest of the office and special cuff braid serving as rank insignia. By constitutional convention, the Crown's prerogative powers over the armed forces and constitutional powers as commander-in-chief are exercised on the advice of the prime minister and the rest of Cabinet, the governing ministry that commands the confidence of the House of Commons. According to the National Defence Act, t
A Prime Minister is the head of a cabinet and the leader of the ministers in the executive branch of government in a parliamentary or semi-presidential system. A prime minister is not a head of state or chief executive officer of their respective nation, rather they are a head of government, serving under a monarch in a hybrid of aristocratic and democratic government forms. In parliamentary systems fashioned after the Westminster system, the prime minister is the presiding and actual head of government and head of the executive branch. In such systems, the head of state or the head of state's official representative holds a ceremonial position, although with reserve powers. In many systems, the prime minister selects and may dismiss other members of the cabinet, allocates posts to members within the government. In most systems, the prime minister is chairman of the cabinet. In a minority of systems, notably in semi-presidential systems of government, a prime minister is the official, appointed to manage the civil service and execute the directives of the head of state.
The prime minister is but not always, a member of the Legislature or the Lower House thereof and is expected with other ministers to ensure the passage of bills through the legislature. In some monarchies the monarch may exercise executive powers that are constitutionally vested in the crown and may be exercised without the approval of parliament; as well as being head of government, a prime minister may have other roles or posts—the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, for example, is First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service. Prime ministers may take other ministerial posts. For example, during the Second World War, Winston Churchill was Minister of Defence and in the current cabinet of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu serves as Minister of Communications, Foreign Affairs, Regional Cooperation and Interior; the term prime minister in its French form, premier ministre, is attested in 17th Century sources referring to Cardinal Richelieu after he was named to head the royal council in 1624.
The title was however informal and used alongside the informal principal ministre d'État more as a job description. After 1661, Louis XIV and his descendants refused to allow one of their ministers to be more important than the others, so the term was not in use; the term prime minister in the sense that we know it originated in the 18th century in the United Kingdom when members of parliament disparagingly used the title in reference to Sir Robert Walpole. During the whole of the 18th Century, Britain was involved in a prolonged conflict with France, periodically bursting into all-out war, Britons took outspoken pride in their "Liberty" as contrasted to the "Tyranny" of French Absolute Monarchy. Over time, the title became honorific and remains so in the 21st century; the monarchs of England and the United Kingdom had ministers in whom they placed special trust and who were regarded as the head of the government. Examples were Thomas Cromwell under Henry VIII; these ministers held a variety of formal posts, but were known as "the minister", the "chief minister", the "first minister" and the "prime minister".
The power of these ministers depended on the personal favour of the monarch. Although managing the parliament was among the necessary skills of holding high office, they did not depend on a parliamentary majority for their power. Although there was a cabinet, it was appointed by the monarch, the monarch presided over its meetings; when the monarch grew tired of a first minister, he or she could be dismissed, or worse: Cromwell was executed and Clarendon driven into exile when they lost favour. Kings sometimes divided power between two or more ministers to prevent one minister from becoming too powerful. Late in Anne's reign, for example, the Tory ministers Harley and Viscount Bolingbroke shared power. In the mid 17th century, after the English Civil War, Parliament strengthened its position relative to the monarch gained more power through the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and passage of the Bill of Rights in 1689; the monarch could no longer establish any law or impose any tax without its permission and thus the House of Commons became a part of the government.
It is at this point. A tipping point in the evolution of the prime ministership came with the death of Anne in 1714 and the accession of George I to the throne. George spoke no English, spent much of his time at his home in Hanover, had neither knowledge of, nor interest in, the details of English government. In these circumstances it was inevitable that the king's first minister would become the de facto head of the government. From 1721 this was the Whig politician Robert Walpole. Walpole chaired cabinet meetings, appointed all the other ministers, dispensed the royal patronage and packed the House of Commons with his supporters. Under Walpole, the doctrine of cabinet solidarity developed. Walpole required that no minister other than himself have private dealings with the king, that when the cabinet had agreed on a policy, all ministers must defend it in public, or resign; as a prime minister, Lord Melbourne, said, "It matters not what we say, gentlemen, so long as we all say the same thing."
Civilian control of the military
Civilian control of the military is a doctrine in military and political science that places ultimate responsibility for a country's strategic decision-making in the hands of the civilian political leadership, rather than professional military officers. The reverse situation, where professional military officers control national politics, is called a military dictatorship. A lack of control over the military may result in a state within a state. One author, paraphrasing Samuel P. Huntington's writings in The Soldier and the State, has summarized the civilian control ideal as "the proper subordination of a competent, professional military to the ends of policy as determined by civilian authority". Civilian control is seen as a prerequisite feature of a stable liberal democracy. Use of the term in scholarly analyses tends to take place in the context of a democracy governed by elected officials, though the subordination of the military to political control is not unique to these societies. One example is the People's Republic of China.
Mao Zedong stated that "Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, the gun must never be allowed to command the Party," reflecting the primacy of the Communist Party of China as decision-makers in Marxist–Leninist and Maoist theories of democratic centralism. As noted by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill professor Richard H. Kohn, "civilian control is not a fact but a process". Affirmations of respect for the values of civilian control notwithstanding, the actual level of control sought or achieved by the civilian leadership may vary in practice, from a statement of broad policy goals that military commanders are expected to translate into operational plans, to the direct selection of specific targets for attack on the part of governing politicians. National Leaders with limited experience in military matters have little choice but to rely on the advice of professional military commanders trained in the art and science of warfare to inform the limits of policy. Advocates of civilian control take a Clausewitzian view of war, emphasizing its political character.
The words of Georges Clemenceau, "War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men", wryly reflect this view. Given that broad strategic decisions, such as the decision to declare a war, start an invasion, or end a conflict, have a major impact on the citizens of the country, they are seen by civilian control advocates as best guided by the will of the people, rather than left to an elite group of tactical experts; the military serves as a special government agency, supposed to implement, rather than formulate, policies that require the use of certain types of physical force. Kohn succinctly summarizes this view when he writes that: The point of civilian control is to make security subordinate to the larger purposes of a nation, rather than the other way around; the purpose of the military is to defend society. A state's effective use of force is an issue of great concern for all national leaders, who must rely on the military to supply this aspect of their authority; the danger of granting military leaders full autonomy or sovereignty is that they may ignore or supplant the democratic decision-making process, use physical force, or the threat of physical force, to achieve their preferred outcomes.
A related danger is the use of the military to crush domestic political opposition through intimidation or sheer physical force, interfering with the ability to have free and fair elections, a key part of the democratic process. This poses the paradox that "because we fear others we create an institution of violence to protect us, but we fear the institution we created for protection". Military personnel, because of the nature of their job, are much more willing to use force to settle disputes than civilians because they are trained military personnel that specialize in warfare; the military is authoritative and hierarchical allowing discussion and prohibiting dissention. For instance, in the Empire of Japan, prime ministers and everyone in high positions were military people like Hideki Tojo, advocated and pressured the leaders to start military conflicts against China and others because they believed that they would be victorious. Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States were suspicious of standing militaries.
As Samuel Adams wrote in 1768, "Even when there is a necessity of the military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it". More forceful are the words of Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the American Constitutional Convention, who wrote that "tanding armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism."In Federalist No. 8, one of The Federalist papers documenting the ideas of some of the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton expressed concern that maintaining a large standing army would be a dangerous and expensive undertaking. In his principal argument for the ratification of the proposed constitution, he argued that only by maintaining a strong union could the new country avoid such a pitfall. Using the European experience as a negative example and the British experien
Head of government
Head of government is a generic term used for either the highest or second highest official in the executive branch of a sovereign state, a federated state, or a self-governing colony, who presides over a cabinet, a group of ministers or secretaries who lead executive departments. The term "head of government" is differentiated from the term "head of state", as they may be separate positions, individuals, or roles depending on the country; the authority of a head of government, such as a president, chancellor, or prime minister and the relationship between that position and other state institutions, such as the relation between the head of state and of the legislature, varies among sovereign states, depending on the particular system of the government, chosen, won, or evolved over time. In parliamentary systems, including constitutional monarchies, the head of government is the de facto political leader of the government, is answerable to one chamber or the entire legislature. Although there is a formal reporting relationship to a head of state, the latter acts as a figurehead who may take the role of chief executive on limited occasions, either when receiving constitutional advice from the head of government or under specific provisions in a constitution.
In presidential republics or in absolute monarchies, the head of state is usually the head of government. The relationship between that leader and the government, can vary ranging from separation of powers to autocracy, according to the constitution of the particular state. In semi-presidential systems, the head of government may answer to both the head of state and the legislature, with the specifics provided by each country's constitution. A modern example is the present French government, which originated as the French Fifth Republic in 1958. In France, the president, the head of state, appoints the prime minister, the head of government. However, the president must choose someone who can act as an executive, but who enjoys the support of the France's legislature, the National Assembly, in order to be able to pass legislation. In some cases, the head of state may represent one political party but the majority in the National Assembly is of a different party. Given that the majority party has greater control over state funding and primary legislation, the president is in effect forced to choose a prime minister from the opposition party in order to ensure an effective, functioning legislature.
In this case, known as cohabitation, the prime minister, along with the cabinet, controls domestic policy, with the president's influence restricted to foreign affairs. In directorial systems, the executive responsibilities of the head of government are spread among a group of people. A prominent example is the Swiss Federal Council, where each member of the council heads a department and votes on proposals relating to all departments. A common title for many heads of government is prime minister; this is used as a formal title in many states, but informally a generic term to describe whichever office is considered the principal minister under an otherwise styled head of state, as minister — Latin for servants or subordinates — is a common title for members of a government. Formally the head of state can be the head of government as well but otherwise has formal precedence over the Head of Government and other ministers, whether he is their actual political superior or rather theoretical or ceremonial in character.
Various constitutions use different titles, the same title can have various multiple meanings, depending on the constitutional order and political system of the state in question. In addition to prime minister, titles used for the democratic model, where there is an elected legislative body checking the Head of government, include the following; some of these titles relate to governments below the national level. Chancellor Chairman of the Executive Council Chief Minister Chief Executive First Minister Minister-President Premier President of the Council of Ministers President of the Council of State President of the Executive Council President of the Government Prime Minister State Counsellor State President Albanian: Kryeministër Bengali: For the Prime Minister of Bangladesh Pradan Mantri.