海外领地和英国法庭

Q3 Social Sciences
W. Fotherby
{"title":"海外领地和英国法庭","authors":"W. Fotherby","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2016.1274034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article defends the British courts against charges of colonialism in determining challenges brought to the British Government’s direct intervention in the administration of its overseas territories. Primarily from the analysis of three sets of cases (Christian v R [2007] 2 AC 400 (PC), R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2009] 1 AC 453 (HL), and R (Misick) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2009] EWHC 1039 (Admin), [2009] EWCA Civ 1549), I argue that the courts have adopted a sensitive approach to questions of how these territories are governed—little different to the one employed in the domestic context—that appropriately safeguards the rights of territory citizens from British Government overreach.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":"16 1","pages":"292 - 322"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2016.1274034","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The overseas territories and the British courts\",\"authors\":\"W. Fotherby\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14729342.2016.1274034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article defends the British courts against charges of colonialism in determining challenges brought to the British Government’s direct intervention in the administration of its overseas territories. Primarily from the analysis of three sets of cases (Christian v R [2007] 2 AC 400 (PC), R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2009] 1 AC 453 (HL), and R (Misick) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2009] EWHC 1039 (Admin), [2009] EWCA Civ 1549), I argue that the courts have adopted a sensitive approach to questions of how these territories are governed—little different to the one employed in the domestic context—that appropriately safeguards the rights of territory citizens from British Government overreach.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"292 - 322\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2016.1274034\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2016.1274034\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2016.1274034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文为英国法院在裁决英国政府直接干预其海外领土管理的挑战时反对殖民主义指控辩护。主要通过对三组案例的分析(Christian v R [2007] 2 AC 400 (PC), R (Bancoult)诉外交和联邦事务大臣(No . 2) [2009] 1 AC 453 (HL), R (Misick)诉外交和联邦事务大臣[2009]EWHC 1039 (Admin), [2009] EWCA Civ 1549),我认为,法院对如何治理这些领土的问题采取了一种敏感的做法——与在国内情况下采用的做法几乎没有什么不同——适当地保护领土公民的权利,使其免受英国政府越权的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The overseas territories and the British courts
ABSTRACT This article defends the British courts against charges of colonialism in determining challenges brought to the British Government’s direct intervention in the administration of its overseas territories. Primarily from the analysis of three sets of cases (Christian v R [2007] 2 AC 400 (PC), R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2009] 1 AC 453 (HL), and R (Misick) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2009] EWHC 1039 (Admin), [2009] EWCA Civ 1549), I argue that the courts have adopted a sensitive approach to questions of how these territories are governed—little different to the one employed in the domestic context—that appropriately safeguards the rights of territory citizens from British Government overreach.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信