Comments on the Eu and Th geochemistry of the archaean continental crust of the Kaapvaal Craton, South Africa

Brexit is likely to lead to the largest shift in Britain’s economic orientation in living memory. Some have argued that leaving the EU will enable Britain to revive markets in Commonwealth countries with which it has long-standing historical ties. Their opponents argue that such claims are based on forms of imperial nostalgia which ignore the often uncomfortable historical trade relations between Britain and these countries, as well as the UK’s historical role as a global, rather than chiefly imperial, economy. This book explores how efforts to promote a ‘British World’ system, centred on promoting trade between Britain and the Dominions, grew and declined in influence between the 1880s and 1970s. At the beginning of the twentieth century many people from London, to Sydney, Auckland, and Toronto considered themselves to belong to culturally British nations. British politicians and business leaders invested significant resources in promoting trade with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa out of a perception that these were great markets of the future. However, ideas about promoting trade between ‘British’ peoples were racially exclusive. From the 1920s onwards colonized and decolonizing populations questioned and challenged the bases of British World networks, making use of alternative forms of international collaboration promoted firstly by the League of Nations and then by the United Nations. Schemes for imperial collaboration amongst ethnically ‘British’ peoples were hollowed out by the actions of a variety of political and business leaders across Asia and Africa who reshaped the functions and identity of the Commonwealth.

Download Full-text

Intersectional Discrimination

10.1093/oso/9780198848950.001.0001 ◽

2019 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Shreya Atrey

Keyword(s):

South Africa ◽

Burden Of Proof ◽

Intersectionality Theory ◽

Indirect Discrimination ◽

The Us ◽

Treaty Body ◽

The Eu

Why has intersectionality fallen by the wayside of discrimination law? Thirty years after Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term ‘intersectionality’, discrimination lawyers continue to be plagued by this question across a range of jurisdictions, including the US, UK, South Africa, India, Canada, as well as the UN treaty body jurisprudence and the jurisprudence of the EU and the ECHR. Claimants continue to struggle to establish intersectional claims based on more than one ground of discrimination. This book renews the bid for realizing intersectionality in comparative discrimination law. It presents a juridical account of intersectional discrimination as a category of discrimination inspired by intersectionality theory, and distinct from other categories of thinking about discrimination including strict, substantial, capacious, and contextual forms of single-axis discrimination, multiple discrimination, additive discrimination as in combination or compound discrimination, and embedded discrimination. Intersectional discrimination, defined in these theoretical and categorial terms, then needs to be translated into doctrine, recalibrating each of the central concepts and tools of discrimination law to respond to it—including the text of non-discrimination guarantees, the idea of grounds, the test for analogous grounds, the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination, the substantive meaning of discrimination, the use of comparators, the justification analysis and standard of review, the burden of proof between parties, and the range of remedies available. With this, the book presents a granular account of intersectional discrimination in theoretical, conceptual, and doctrinal terms, and aims to transform discrimination law in the process of realizing intersectionality within its discourse.

Download Full-text