Moreover, much of the role of the armed forces in modern societies involves international co-operation, whether in strategic security alliances or in peace-keeping missions. The constitution will usually specify the effect and importance of international treaties and any process for approval at the domestic level. This is of crucial significance in the case of duties of mutual support (e.g., the effect of Art. 5 of the NATO treaty). Finally, constitutions commonly specify the rights and duties of citizens. The constitution will therefore limit the powers of the armed forces over civilians. In addition, individual members of the armed forces will look to the constitution for guarantees of their own position. Although many constitutions do not deal with the human rights of armed forces personnel specifically, they do establish the context for the functioning of the armed forces at home and abroad. Where constitutional provisions do deal with the armed forces, they commonly concern two distinct issues: specifying the role of the armed forces and dealing with the allocation of authority for their control. Some older established democracies (e.g., France and the United Kingdom) have not found it necessary to prescribe the role of the military in detail. Instead, they rely on general principles establishing the competences of the organs of the state, recognized within the constitution (e.g., the presidential prerogative in military matters under the 1958 Constitution in France’s case). However, this is not a pattern that can be generally advocated, especially for states that have undergone profound change. Even some older democracies have found it useful to provide more precise guarantees. For example, the Netherlands’ Constitution (Art. 100) requires Parliament to be informed if the armed forces are employed “for the maintenance or promotion of the international rule of law”, and Art. 19 of the Danish Constitution imposes a duty to inform Parliament of military operations. Keeping in mind that government behaviour is guided not only by constitutions but also by laws, customs, and practices, the remainder of this chapter will discuss the role of the armed forces, as well as control of the armed forces. 2. The Role of the Armed Forces Several broader constitutional features may affect the way a constitution specifies the various roles of the armed forces. One is the extent to which ordinary legislation (as opposed to the constitution) deals with matters of detail concerning state bodies. Another is the status of international agreements, whether, for example, international treaty commitments are treated as part of the constitution. Many constitutions simply specify in broad terms the mission of the armed forces in maintaining security and protecting territory and the constitutional order. In some cases, more specific tasks may be defined in the constitution. The German Constitution, for example (Box 6.1 below), makes particularly detailed reference to the tasks and powers of the armed forces, a feature resulting from German history. For the most part, however, these matters are dealt with at the level of more detailed legislation (discussed in Chapter 7, “Domestic Legislation”). More rarely, as in the case of the UK and France, the tasks of the armed forces are specified at the governmental level.48 The level at which the tasks of the armed forces are specified will affect the ease with which their role can be changed and whether specific deployments of the military can be challenged on constitutional grounds. Constitutional 48  Nolte, op. cit., note 6, pp. 34-39. 43 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel