The President as Commander in Chief in a comparative constitutional perspective under French and US law

The aim of this article is to conduct a comparative doctrinal analysis of the constitutional power of the President as Commander in Chief with reference to US law and French law. The comparative analysis will focus on the descriptive question of the scope of presidential war powers by exploring their normative implications in terms of the challenges they pose for democratic governance. It will be argued that while both constitutional systems have favoured the President as the pre-eminent decision-maker in military matters thereby reflecting an assumed normative choice of efficiency over accountability, the reality is more nuanced. The article proceeds in two stages. The first part critically analyses the constitutional foundations of the Commander in Chief Clause in both jurisdictions in light of doctrinal interpretations. The second part explains how institutional practice has shaped the exercise of the Commander in Chief power towards an undeniable, albeit problematic, presidential pre-eminence. The article concludes with comparative observations about the need to normalize certain aspects of the role, notably in keeping it under democratic checks.