Ali Mahmoud Hassan Mohammed (Dr Mahmoud) v. Abdulmagid Breish (Mr Breish), Hussein Mohamed Hussein Abdlmora (Dr Hussein), Mark James Shaw and Shane Michael Crooks (Receiver), the Libyan Investment Authority, Mohsen Derregia (Dr Derregia)

2021 ◽  
Vol 191 ◽  
pp. 637-670

Governments — Status of government — Recognition — Whether particular entity to be treated as the government of a State — Role of national courts — Recognition a matter for the executive — Whether national court entitled to entertain challenge to the constitutional validity of foreign government’s acts — Nature of challenge — Whether upholding challenge would require court to inquire into status of foreign government — Libya — Revolution in 2011 — Existence of competing regimes — Whether United Kingdom Government had recognized one entity as the Government of Libya Recognition — Governments — United Kingdom policy — April 1980 Statement that United Kingdom Government would no longer make formal statements regarding recognition of foreign governments — Whether precluding statement of recognition in all circumstances — Evidence of recognition — Letters from Foreign and Commonwealth Office — Whether indicating unequivocal recognition — Libya — Competing regimes Relationship of international law and municipal law — Whether entity the government of a foreign State — Whether determination of that issue a matter for courts or government — Effect of unequivocal recognition by government of forum State — Whether courts entitled to call such recognition into question — Separation of powers — Difference from doctrines of act of State, sovereign immunity and non-justiciability — The law of England

2021 ◽  
Vol 191 ◽  
pp. 609-636

Recognition — States — Acts of an unrecognized State — Somaliland — Whether capable of recognition — Everyday acts of administration — Marriage — Namibia doctrine — Whether court in England entitled to grant declaration of marital status to couple married in Somaliland Relationship of international law and municipal law — Matters reserved to executive — Recognition — Principle that executive and courts should speak with one voice — Whether English courts entitled to recognize acts of a State not recognized by the Government of the United Kingdom — Marriage in unrecognized State States — Somaliland — Whether recognized — Consequences of non-recognition — The law of England and Wales


1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 399-400

The ANZUS Council held its second meeting in Washington, D.C., on September 9 and 10, 1953. While the first meeting of the Council had been devoted largely to organizational matters, the second meeting provided an opportunity for the foreign ministers of Australia, New Zealand and the United States to review the developments of the past year and to discuss common problems in the Pacific area. Prior to the opening of the meeting, there had been speculation in the press about the possibility of providing some form of associate membership in ANZUS for other countries — particularly the United Kingdom – and other international organizations. The United Kingdom was reportedly dissatisfied with its exclusion from the organization; Prime Minister Churchill had been quoted as telling the House of Commons on June 17 that he “did not like the Anzus Pact at all” and that he hoped that “perhaps larger and wider arrangements could be made which would be more satisfactory than those now in force”. According to the communique issued at the close of the meeting, however, the ministers “unanimously concluded … that to attempt to enlarge its membership would not contribute directly and materially” to the strengthening and defense of the ANZUS area. The communique pointed out that ANZUS was one of a number of arrangements for the furtherance of the security of the nations of the area; specifically the communique mentioned the mutual security pacts between the United States and the Philippines and Japan, United States defense understandings with the government of China on Formosa and the relationship of Australia and New Zealand with the other Commonwealth nations. Together, the communique noted, these arrangements ‘constitute … a solemn warning to any potential aggressor and represent the growing foundation for lasting peace in the Pacific”.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 244-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Berdimuratova

This work is devoted to the consideration of the constitutional directions of interaction and interdependence of the judiciary of the Republic of Uzbekistan and the Republic of Karakalpakstan. As a result of studying the issues under consideration, the author concludes that the importance and significance of the role and place of the judicial branch of the government in the mechanism of separation of powers is precisely in ensuring the rule of law, avoiding violations of the principle of legality and the rule of law based on it.


Author(s):  
Anika Kovačević ◽  

The author analyzes the composition, affairs and tasks of the Government, as well as the Government's attitude towards the National Assembly, the President of the Republic and the state administration, in order to more precisely normative position the Government as the bearer of executive power in the constitutional system of Serbia. The Government of the Republic of Serbia, together with the state administration, represents an extremely complex, fundamentally important system for the functioning of the institutional, legal and political order of our country. Building a legitimate and efficient relationship of cooperation with these bodies, while respecting the competencies and control mechanisms of the Government provided by the Constitution and laws, is a necessary factor in further upgrading Serbia as a state governed by the rule of law, achieving the principle of separation of powers in Serbia.


Author(s):  
Noel Maurer

This chapter recounts how over the course of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s a series of small legal and political innovations began to allow private investors to use international tribunals to sue foreign governments and then use American and European courts to enforce the decisions. Before 1945, the doctrine of absolute sovereign immunity held that no state could be held accountable for its actions in the courts of another state. After 1945, reforms began to chip away at sovereign immunity. Reforms arose from efforts to depoliticize investment disputes: first by giving private investors the right to take foreign governments to arbitration without the need to have their home government “espouse” the claim; then by giving national courts the right to enforce arbitration judgments against foreign governments.


2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 944-953 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick

The process of constitutional reform in the United Kingdom instituted by the present Labour government has been considerable but it has proceeded on a piecemeal basis. Its aim is to reinforce accountability for the exercise of public power but, in the absence of a comprehensive scheme of reform, the achievement of this ambition has the same lack of coherence as the reform programme itself. Some matters remain untouched by the process, centrally and crucially the domination of the House of Commons and therefore effectively the legislature, by the Executive, a condition exaggerated by the massive majority enjoyed by the government.1 The justification for this arrangement, which so infringes the separation of powers, lies in the claim that it produces effective, stable and accountable government. This is not the place to assess the accuracy of these claims but to note the importance of recognising the particular relationship between executive and legislature which characterises the British Constitution when considering the likely impact of proposals for its reform.


1963 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 254-260 ◽  

Case concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroun v. United Kingdom): By an order of November 27, 1962, the International Court of Justice extended to March 1, 1963, the time limit for the filing of the observations and submissions of Cameroun on the preliminary objection raised by the United Kingdom in the Northern Cameroons case. By an order of January 11, 1963, the President of the Court extended to July 1, 1963, the time limit for the filing by the government of Cameroun of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objection raised by the United Kingdom in the Northern Cameroons case. The extensions were at the request of the government of Cameroun with the agreement of the United Kingdom government.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document