Nationality and the Unrecognised State

2001 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 849-876 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Grossman

Section 4 of the [Immigration Ordinance 1971] effectively exiles the Ilois from the territory where they are belongers and forbids their return. But the ‘peace, order, and good government’ of any territory means nothing, surely, save by reference to the territory's population. They are to be governed, not removed. … These people are subjects of the Crown, in right of their British nationality as belongers in the Chagos Archipelago. As Chitty said in 1820, the Queen has an interest in all her subjects, who rightly look to the Crown—today, to the rule of law which is given in the Queen's name—for the security of their homeland within the Queen's dominions. But in this case they have been excluded from it. It has been done for high political reasons: good reasons, certainly, dictated by pressing considerations of military security. But they are not reasons which may reasonably be said to touch the peace, order and good government of [the British Indian Ocean Territory].1

2011 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 189-209
Author(s):  
Morris J. Fish

Alcohol has exerted a staggering influence on the Canadian constitution. It was a prominent feature of daily life in the young Dominion, much to both the delight and chagrin of many. The temperance movement exerted its own influence on both the federal and provincial legislatures. Without “alcohol” as a head of power, the legislatures claimed control over this seeming, social evil sometimes under “Peace, Order and Good Government”, “criminal law”, or “Trade and Commerce”; at other times under “Property and Civil Rights”, “Local Matters”, and so forth. Court challenges abounded; the result was, in part, the judiciary’s failure to walk a straight line toward a clear division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. But the result was also many of the doctrines of division of powers that still form part of Canadian constitutional law. Beyond its impact on the division of powers, alcohol was also at the root of Canada’s most important decision on the rule of law: Roncarelli—a decision argued and won by the late F. R. Scott.


1990 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. A. Ikhariale

One of the fundamental principles underlying the Nigerian constitutional process is that of the independence of the judiciary. The concept, in its basic form, embodies the entire philosophy of constitutional democracy especially as emphasised by the preamble to the Constitution which is for “promoting the good government and welfare of all persons … on the principles of Equality, Freedom and Justice”. In a country such as Nigeria which is presently characterised by political and economic underdevelopment, it is generally considered constitutionally desirable that a viable contrivance such as the institutional separation of the judiciary from the other arms of the government is a necessary bulwark against all forms of political and social tyranny, administrative victimisation and oppression. In other words, the freedom of the judicature from any influence, whether exerted by the legislature or the executive, or even from the judiciary itself, which is capable of leading to any form of injustice, abuse, miscarriage of justice, judicial insensitivity or other court-related vices is a condition sine qua non for the establishment of a durable political order based on the rule of law and constitutionalism.The notion of the independence of the judiciary has its philosophical ancestry in the time-honoured theory of the separation of powers, a doctrine which incidentally features prominently in the allocation of state powers under the Nigerian constitutional scheme.


2011 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 689-720
Author(s):  
Mary Liston

In Canadian public law, Roncarelli v. Duplessis stands for the proposition that arbitrariness and the rule of law are conceptually antithetical values. This article examines multiple forms of arbitrariness in Roncarelli, going beyond the usual focus on discretionary power arbitrarily exercised by the executive branch of government. A close reading of the case brings to the surface other forms of arbitrariness, notably under-acknowledged forms of judicial arbitrariness. Repositioning the case in its social and political context provides an alternative vantage point from which the core conceptual content can be enlarged and the case’s normative import better gleaned. The article argues that such a repositioning illuminates how legal actors attempt to constrain arbitrariness within the activity of judging. Reason-giving appears as one significant rule of law practice that can counter institutionalized arbitrariness by seeking to ensure that decision makers throughout the state are attuned to the demands of legality, can be held to account, and are committed to upholding good government.


IEE Review ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 218
Author(s):  
Clifford Gray
Keyword(s):  

IEE Review ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 24
Author(s):  
H. Aspden
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document