DCAF and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly have collaborated to publish a report that focuses on the democratic governance and oversight of intelligence agencies, mainly those with law enforcement powers. 

It emphasizes that the supervision of intelligence in a democracy relies not only on suitable institutional designs but also on legitimacy, transparency, and multi-layered accountability.

Put simply, the core purpose of national security intelligence is to ensure that decision-makers have the best information possible to help illuminate their decision options.

The report gives a detailed analytical framework and also throws light on the comparative states in relation to the separation of intelligence and law enforcement powers in the Euro-Atlantic area, as well as on the mechanisms that ensure accountability and respect for the rule of law.  

The first section of the paper, Conceptual Foundations, explains and follows the development of intelligence services with law enforcement capabilities, investigating to what extent their blurred boundaries with law enforcement institutions have influenced democratic control. The study delves into the historical and legal contexts of these overlaps. Therefore, this part lays down the conceptual and normative foundation for comprehending the intricate relationship of intelligence operations, state security, and individuals’ rights.  

The second part, Oversight and Accountability Mechanisms, examines the institutional structure that enables parliaments, governments, courts, and civil society to oversee the activities of the intelligence sector. 

The third part, Regional Case Studies, examines practical experiences from France, Lithuania, Norway, UK, Poland, Finland, Croatia, and Ukraine.  These examples illustrate different institutional arrangements ranging from parliamentary commissions and inspector-general offices to judicial review and ombudsperson mechanisms and how they contribute to accountability and public trust. The case studies reveal that while legal frameworks differ, shared principles of transparency, professionalism, and respect for rights underpin successful oversight models. 

The study concludes that effective oversight depends more on the presence of political will, expertise, and persistence than it does on resources. Using comparisons, it demonstrates the importance of cooperation between oversight actors, the sharing of information, and the establishment of joint inquiry mechanisms across parliaments.