Are there any other countries where army officer appointments have to be confirmed by parliament/congress?

  • I believe that this question may require some re-wording? Are you talking about appointments made by the POTUS to executive branch positions? Because the US military doesn't require legislative approval to promote or appoint officers. – Aporter Dec 29 '18 at 9:21

The US military has an unusual structure for 3- and 4-star ranks (Lieutenant Generals, Vice Admirals, and full Generals and Admirals). They are appointments, rather than permanently held ranks. Appointing officers to those positions requires "the advice and consent of the Senate." 10 USC 601. It is also possible for officers to be promoted via legislation, but this is extremely rare.

I can't find any other countries where such rules apply, but that doesn't prove that there are none.

| improve this answer | |

This is difficult to answer because in parliamentary systems the executive branch and legislative branch are typically fused, with senior members of the party with the legislative majority simultaneously serving as senior executive branch officials in departments including the military. So, the line between what constitutes a unilateral executive branch appointment v. what constitutes a legislatively confirmed appointment is often opaque.

For example, it wouldn't be that uncommon or unprecedented in a parliamentary system to have the legislature passing a resolution ratifying all actions taking by the majority party's ministers over the last year, which would include all personnel decisions.

As a practical matter it is actually much easier to have legislative approval in most countries other than the U.S. because many other countries have one or two orders of magnitude smaller numbers of military officers than the U.S. does. But, it isn't easy to do a detailed country by country search related to these practices. If it is done, it is mostly likely to be done in the Americas and Liberia because most of those countries used the United States Constitution as a starting point in drafting their own constitutions and then modified them to reflect their needs, and the detail of military officer appointments is one that hasn't been the subject of much controversy.

| improve this answer | |

In other countries military officer appointments do not require confirmation by a legislative body (for proof see appointers here where appointment is by the executive and here where the appointment is made by the head of state on the advice of the head of government [no legislature involved])

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    This answer misunderstands the question, which does not ask about legislatures appointing military officers directly, but about legislatures confirming appointments made by the executive. – phoog Nov 25 '18 at 7:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .