DOCSLIB.ORG

ALRC 33 Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction Terms of Reference

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ALRC 33 Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction Terms of Reference ALRC 33 Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction Terms of Reference I, NEIL ANTHONY BROWN, the Minister of State for Communications, acting for and on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, HAVING REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING: (a) that the Admiralty jurisdiction in Australia is at present still exercised pursuant to the United Kingdom Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890; (b) that the Constitution enables the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws conferring jurisdiction on the High Court and other federal courts in matters of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and to make laws investing any court of a State or Territory with such jurisdiction; and (c) the other countries, including Canada and New Zealand, to which the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 previously applied, have enacted their own Admiralty legislation in a revised and updated form; HEREBY REFER to the Law Reform Commission, for INQUIRY, REVIEW and REPORT thereon to the Attorney-General, all aspects of the Admiralty jurisdiction in Australia, and REQUEST the Law Reform Commission, in considering this reference, (a) to have regard to the Report of the Joint Committee of the Law Council of Australia and the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand dated 22 April 1982 on Admiralty Jurisdiction in Australia, and (b) to take note of the draft Admiralty Jurisdiction Bill set out as Appendix “A” to that Report, and, in particular, to (i) make recommendations on the provisions to be included in an Australian Admiralty Act; (ii) consider whether any, and if so what, consequential amendments should be made to other Commonwealth legislation, including the Navigation Act 1912; (iii) formulate draft Rules of Court for possible application by courts upon which Admiralty jurisdiction may be conferred by the Admiralty Act as recommended by the Commission; (iv) consider whether Australia should enact its own law of Prize and, if so, formulate recommendations for such a law; and (v) to formulate a draft Explanatory Memorandum that could be used as an aid in the interpretation of any Bill for an Act to give effect to recommendations by the Commission pursuant to these Terms of Reference. 23 November 1982 Participants The Commission For the purpose of the Reference, the President in accordance with s 27(1) of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 created a Division comprising the following members of the Commission. President The Hon Justice MD Kirby, BA, LLM, BEc (Syd) (resigned 1984) The Hon Justice MR Wilcox, LLB (Syd) (Acting Chairman, 1984) The Hon Xavier Connor QC, LLB (Melb) 1985 Commissioner in Charge Professor JR Crawford, BA, LLB; (Adel), DPhil (Oxon) Commissioners Sir Maurice Byers, CBE, QC (resigned, December 1985) The Hon Justice FM Neasey, LLB (Tas) (retired, October 1984) Professor MC Pryles, LLB (Melb), LLM, SJD (SMU), LLD (Melb) The Hon Justice DM Ryan, QC, BA, LLB (Hons) (Melb) Mr T Simos, QC, BA, LLB (Syd), LLM (Harv), MLitt (Oxon) Officers of the Commission Secretary and Director of research Mr IG Cunliffe, BA, LLB (ANU) Mr Stephen Mason, BA, LLB, MTCP (Syd) (1986) Legislative Draftsman Mr Stephen Mason, BA, LLB, MTCP (Syd) The legislation set out in Appendix A was settled in collaboration with Mr JQ Ewens, QC, CMG, CBE, LLB (Adel), formerly First Parliamentary Counsel. Research Dr D Cremean, LLB (Melb), D Phil (Monash), Senior Law Reform Officer (to December 1983) S Curran, BA (Macq), LLB (NSW), Dip Int L (ANU), Senior Law Reform Officer (to January 1985) V Thompson, LLB (Adel), Law Reform Officer (from February 1985) Principal Executive Officer Mr Barry Hunt, BA (Syd) Library Ms Virginia Pursell, BA (NSW), Dip Lib (CCAE), Librarian Word Processing Mrs Jennifer Clark Mrs Anna Hayduk Miss Amanda Seeley Consultants to the Commission* Mr MR Blair, President, The Australian Shippers’ Council Captain KT Butterworth, Director of Naval Legal Services, RAN Mr R Cooper QC, Barrister, Brisbane Mr PA Cornford, Crown Law Office, Wellington, New Zealand Hon Justice KJ Carruthers, Supreme Court of NSW Dr DJ Cremean, Barrister, Victoria Ms M Calder, Solicitor, Sydney Mr RD Desmond, Solicitor, Middletons, Oswald, Burt & Co, Vic Mr PG Foss, Lawyer, Stone James Stephen Jaques, WA Mr MA Hill, General Manager, Associated Marine Insurers Aust Pty Ltd Mr P Holmes, Department of Transport, Canberra Professor DHN Johnson, Professor of Law, University of Sydney Captain P Klausen, Company of Master Mariners of Aust, Sydney Mr GJ Lindell, Senior Lecturer in Law, Australian National University (resigned December 1984) Mr B Makins, Nominee of the Australian Chamber of Shipping Mr R Muecke, Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra Mr CW O’Hare, General Counsel, Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Assoc Prof D Roebuck, Law School, University of Papua New Guinea Mr AT Scotford, Solicitor, Ebsworth and Ebsworth, Sydney Mr P Shannon, Department of Foreign Affairs, Canberra Professor IA Shearer, Professor of Law, University of NSW Hon Justice IF Sheppard, Federal Court of Australia Persons Nominated by State/Territory Governments * Mr BM Selway, Crown Solicitor, South Australia Mr KC O’Connor, Department of Attorney-General for Victoria Mr KJ Martin, Department for Justice and Attorney-General, Queensland Dr JA Thomson, Western Australian Crown Law Department Mr Dallas Booth, Department of the Attorney-General for New South Wales Mr I Hemming, Tasmanian Law Department * The recommendations in the report and statements of opinion and conclusion are necessarily those of the Members of the Law Reform Commission alone. They may not be shared by the consultants or nominees nor by the departments or organisations with which they are associated. Summary The Development of Admiralty Admiralty jurisdiction has a long history, dating back to 14th century England. In its modern form it is a distinctive jurisdiction with respect to a wide range of shipping and maritime disputes. The key feature of admiralty is the action in rem, which allows civil jurisdiction to be asserted over disputes, wherever arising, involving a ship. This jurisdiction is predicated mainly upon service of process on the ship, and can be backed up by arrest of the ship by the court, with the subsequent sale of the ship providing a fund from which claims can be met. As a result of developments in England from the 17th to the 19th century, two classes of in rem action came to be recognised: those based on a limited number of maritime liens (eg salvage, wages, collision damage) and those based on a much wider category of claims in contract or tort involving the operation of ships (eg goods supplied to a ship, cargo claims). The expansion of admiralty jurisdiction over the latter class of claims was brought about by legislation in the 19th and 20th century, and this process has been expanded through international developments (especially the 1952 Brussels Convention on the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships, a Convention that is itself now undergoing revision) and through further legislative expansion and development in countries such as the United Kingdom (1956, 1981), Canada (1970), New Zealand (1973) and South Africa (1983). The Need for Reform Further development of admiralty jurisdiction along these lines in Australia was pre*vented by the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 (UK), a paramount force statute applying to Australia and limiting admiralty jurisdiction to matters within the admiralty jurisdiction in England in 1890. As a result there are many obscurities and uncertainties about the scope of the jurisdiction in Australia, even about its distribution among the various courts, and there are many unjustified limitations as to the subject matter of the jurisdiction. All are agreed on the need for reform. The Commonwealth Parliament has sufficient power, under s 76(iii) of the Constitution (which deals with matters ‘of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction’) and otherwise, to carry out such reform: it can confer ‘Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction’ on appropriate Australian courts and regulate the exercise of that jurisdiction in appropriate ways. It can also repeal Imperial Acts dealing with admiralty jurisdiction so far as they apply in Australia. Basic Principles There are good reasons for retaining admiralty as a distinct jurisdiction. The long history of admiralty as a distinct jurisdiction has created international business expectations, arrangements and practices that rely on the fact that jurisdiction will be asserted over ships and shipowners in special ways. For these reasons it is desirable to accept the broad contours of what is traditionally and internationally accepted as falling within admiralty jurisdiction. The prime need is for clarification within the broad framework of admiralty jurisdiction, rather than a root and branch reform involving the abolition of admiralty jurisdiction and a restructuring of the general remedial powers of courts. Furthermore, Australia has distinct interests in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, in view of its position as a country of shippers rather than shipowners, and as a country dependent on foreign shipping for much of its import and export trade. Thus Australia’s interests support a policy of maintaining and broadening admiralty jurisdiction in rem (a universal jurisdiction based on local service on the res) as an exception to a general principle of territorial jurisdiction. But any expansion must take account of international trends in admiralty jurisdiction. Australian admiralty jurisdiction needs to remain within generally acceptable limits, to ensure recognition of judgments and judicial sales in admiralty and to maintain the position of admiralty as an exceptional and special jurisdiction. A balance thus has to be struck between the interests of ship operators and those dealing with ships. But this balance can be struck in various ways and at various levels. On balance, a broad admiralty jurisdiction is desirable, with the interests of ship owners and financiers catered for through procedural means (including guarantees against vexatious arrest, and machinery for providing alternative forms of security). And it is in the interests of all that admiralty jurisdiction be stated in clear, precise and accessible form.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Universal Jurisdiction
    UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION A PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF LEGISLATION AROUND THE WORLD – 2012 UPDATE Amnesty International Publications First published in October 2012 by Amnesty International Publications International Secretariat Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom www.amnesty.org Copyright Amnesty International Publications 2012 Index: IOR 53/019/2012 Original Language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses of human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 A. The two annexes...........................................................................................................6 B. Definitions...................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Ship Arrests in Practice 1 FOREWORD
    SHIP ARRESTS IN PRACTICE ELEVENTH EDITION 2018 A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE TO SHIP ARREST & RELEASE PROCEDURES IN 93 JURISDICTIONS WRITTEN BY MEMBERS OF THE SHIPARRESTED.COM NETWORK Ship Arrests in Practice 1 FOREWORD Welcome to the eleventh edition of Ship Arrests in Practice. When first designing this publication, I never imagined it would come this far. It is a pleasure to announce that we now have 93 jurisdictions (six more than in the previous edition) examined under the questionnaire I drafted years ago. For more than a decade now, this publication has been circulated to many industry players. It is a very welcome guide for parties willing to arrest or release a ship worldwide: suppliers, owners, insurers, P&I Clubs, law firms, and banks are some of our day to day readers. Thanks are due to all of the members contributing to this year’s publication and my special thanks goes to the members of the Editorial Committee who, as busy as we all are, have taken the time to review the publication to make it the first-rate source that it is. The law is stated as of 15th of January 2018. Felipe Arizon Editorial Committee of the Shiparrested.com network: Richard Faint, Kelly Yap, Francisco Venetucci, George Chalos, Marc de Man, Abraham Stern, and Dr. Felipe Arizon N.B.: The information contained in this book is for general purposes, providing a brief overview of the requirements to arrest or release ships in the said jurisdictions. It does not contain any legal or professional advice. For a detailed synopsis, please contact the members’ law firm.
    [Show full text]
  • 1Judge John Holland and the Vice- Admiralty Court of the Cape of Good Hope, 1797-1803: Some Introductory and Biographical Notes (Part 1)
    1JUDGE JOHN HOLLAND AND THE VICE- ADMIRALTY COURT OF THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE, 1797-1803: SOME INTRODUCTORY AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES (PART 1) JP van Niekerk* ABSTRACT A British Vice-Admiralty Court operated at the Cape of Good Hope from 1797 until 1803. It determined both Prize causes and (a few) Instance causes. This Court, headed by a single judge, should be distinguished from the ad hoc Piracy Court, comprised of seven members of which the Admiralty judge was one, which sat twice during this period, and also from the occasional naval courts martial which were called at the Cape. The Vice-Admiralty Court’s judge, John Holland, and its main officials and practitioners were sent out from Britain. Key words: Vice-Admiralty Court; Cape of Good Hope; First British Occupation of the Cape; jurisdiction; Piracy Court; naval courts martial; Judge John Holland; other officials, practitioners and support staff of the Vice-Admiralty Court * Professor, Department of Mercantile Law, School of Law, University of South Africa. Fundamina DOI: 10.17159/2411-7870/2017/v23n2a8 Volume 23 | Number 2 | 2017 Print ISSN 1021-545X/ Online ISSN 2411-7870 pp 176-210 176 JUDGE JOHN HOLLAND AND THE VICE-ADMIRALTY COURT OF THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE 1 Introduction When the 988 ton, triple-decker HCS Belvedere, under the command of Captain Charles Christie,1 arrived at the Cape on Saturday 3 February 1798 on her fifth voyage to the East, she had on board a man whose arrival was eagerly anticipated locally in both naval and legal circles. He was the first British judicial appointment to the recently acquired settlement and was to serve as judge of the newly created Vice-Admiralty Court of the Cape of Good Hope.
    [Show full text]
  • Statute Law Revision Bill 2007 ————————
    ———————— AN BILLE UM ATHCHO´ IRIU´ AN DLI´ REACHTU´ IL 2007 STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL 2007 ———————— Mar a tionscnaı´odh As initiated ———————— ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Definitions. 2. General statute law revision repeal and saver. 3. Specific repeals. 4. Assignment of short titles. 5. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1896. 6. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1962. 7. Miscellaneous amendments to post-1800 short titles. 8. Evidence of certain early statutes, etc. 9. Savings. 10. Short title and collective citation. SCHEDULE 1 Statutes retained PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 [No. 5 of 2007] SCHEDULE 2 Statutes Specifically Repealed PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 ———————— 2 Acts Referred to Bill of Rights 1688 1 Will. & Mary, Sess. 2. c. 2 Documentary Evidence Act 1868 31 & 32 Vict., c. 37 Documentary Evidence Act 1882 45 & 46 Vict., c. 9 Dower Act, 1297 25 Edw. 1, Magna Carta, c. 7 Drainage and Improvement of Lands Supplemental Act (Ireland) (No. 2) 1867 31 & 32 Vict., c. 3 Dublin Hospitals Regulation Act 1856 19 & 20 Vict., c. 110 Evidence Act 1845 8 & 9 Vict., c. 113 Forfeiture Act 1639 15 Chas., 1. c. 3 General Pier and Harbour Act 1861 Amendment Act 1862 25 & 26 Vict., c.
    [Show full text]
  • Pleasure Boating and Admiralty: Erie at Sea' Preble Stolz*
    California Law Review VoL. 51 OCTOBER 1963 No. 4 Pleasure Boating and Admiralty: Erie at Sea' Preble Stolz* P LEASURE BOATING is basically a new phenomenon, the product of a technology that can produce small boats at modest cost and of an economy that puts such craft within the means of almost everyone.' The risks generated by this development create new legal problems. New legal problems are typically solved first, and often finally, by extension of com- mon law doctrines in the state courts. Legislative regulation and any solu- tion at the federal level are exceptional and usually come into play only as a later stage of public response.2 There is no obvious reason why our legal system should react differ- ently to the new problems presented by pleasure boating. Small boats fall easily into the class of personal property. The normal rules of sales and security interests would seem capable of extension to small boats without difficulty. The same should be true of the rules relating to the operation of pleasure boats and particularly to the liability for breach of the duty to take reasonable care for the safety of others. One would expect, therefore, that the legal problems of pleasure boating would be met with the typical response: adaptation of the common law at the state level. Unhappily this is not likely to happen. Pleasure boating has the mis- fortune of presenting basic issues in an already complex problem of fed- t I am grateful to Professor Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. for reading the manuscript in nearly final form, and to Professor Ronan E.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Capital Territory
    AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Imperial Acts Application Ordinance 1986 No. 93 of 1986 I, THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL of the Commonwealth of Australia, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, hereby make the following Ordinance under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. Dated 18 December 1986. N. M. STEPHEN Governor-General By His Excellency’s Command, LIONEL BOWEN Attorney-General An Ordinance relating to the application in the Territory of certain Acts of the United Kingdom Short title 1. This Ordinance may be cited as the Imperial Acts Application Ordinance 1986.1 Commencement 2. (1) Subject to this section, this Ordinance shall come into operation on the date on which notice of this Ordinance having been made is published in the Gazette. (2) Sub-section 4 (2) shall come into operation on such date as is fixed by the Minister of State for Territories by notice in Gazette. (3) Sub-section 4 (3) shall come into operation on such date as is fixed by the Minister of State for Territories by notice in the Gazette. Authorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au Imperial Acts Application No. 93 , 1986 2 Interpretation 3. (1) In this Ordinance, unless the contrary intention appears—“applied Imperial Act” means— (a) an Imperial Act that— (i) extended to the Territory as part of the law of the Territory of its own force immediately before 3 September 1939; and (ii) had not ceased so to extend to the Territory before the commencing date; and (b) an Imperial Act, other than an Imperial
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA CIVIL DIVISION CLAIM NO. A 0002/2011 BETWEEN MATCAM MARINE LIMITED CLAIMANT AND MICHAEL MATALON DEFENDANT THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE ORION WARRIOR (FORMERLY MATCAM 1) IN CHAMBERS Denise Kitson, Mark Reynolds and Kashina Moore instructed by Grant Stewart Phillips and Co for the claimant Gordon Robinson and Jerome Spencer instructed by Patterson Mair Hamilton for the defendant ARREST OF VESSEL – ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT– WHETHER ARREST WITHIN JURISDICTION OF COURT – APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF VESSEL - SECURITY FOR COSTS September 22, 23, 30 and October 6, 2011 SYKES J [1] Mr. Michael Matalon, the defendant, has made two applications. The first is to have the vessel Orion Warrior released from arrest. The second is to have security for costs from Matcam Marine Limited, the claimant (‘Matcam’). The first was dismissed; the second was granted. These are the reasons for the decisions. The Background [2] Matcam in a company registered in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Matcam is the combination of the names Matalon and Campbell. Mr. Matalon and Mr. Norman Campbell are shareholders in Matcam. The company was formed as the vehicle by which both men and a third shareholder, Mr. Robert D’ Arceuil, would operate the vessel, Orion Warrior. [3] The vessel was a burnt out wreck that was acquired by Mr. Matalon. He began to refurbish the vessel but the cost of doing so led him to consider getting another investor. The other investor was Mr. Campbell. The plan was that the vessel, a tug, would be operated providing tug boat services in the Caribbean region and beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • Sea Piracy Law a Comparative Study Between India and United Kingdom
    International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, Vol. 1 ISSN 2289-1552 2012 SEA PIRACY LAW A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN INDIA AND UNITED KINGDOM Abishek Murthy School of Law Christ University, Bangalore, India. 1. INTERNATIONAL SEA PIRACY 1.1 Piracy “An act of boarding or attempting to board any ship with the intent to commit theft or any other crime and with the intent or capability to use force in the furtherance of that act”1. Piracy is an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea. The term can include acts committed on land, in the air, or in other major bodies of water or on a shore. It does not normally include crimes committed against persons travelling on the same vessel as the perpetrator (e.g. one passenger stealing from others on the same vessel). The term has been used throughout history to refer to raids across land borders by non-state agents. Piracy is the name of a specific crime under customary international law and also the name of a number of crimes under the municipal law of a number of States. It is distinguished from privateering, which is authorized by national authorities and therefore a legitimate form of war-like activity by non-state actors. Privateering is considered commerce raiding, and was outlawed by the Peace of Westphalia (1648) for signatories to those treaties. Those who engage in acts of piracy are called pirates. Historically, offenders have usually been apprehended by military personnel and tried by military tribunals. In the 21st century, the international community is facing many problems in bringing pirates to justice.2 1.2 Location & Extent of Piracy Piracy is considered a serious problem by governments and the shipping industry alike.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ottoman Merchant in the Gibraltar Vice-Admiralty Court in the 1760S
    WHEN PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH AN OTTOMAN MERCHANT IN THE GIBRALTAR VICE-ADMIRALTY COURT IN THE 1760S This article examines the litigation of an Ottoman merchant based in Algiers in the vice-admiralty court of Algiers in 1760. It examines the impor- tance of legal proofs for merchants traversing the Mediterranean world, and the ability of such merchants to record transactions and interactions along the way, as well as to subsequently call on witnesses from near and far. The case examined here sees documents compiled in Italian, Spanish, Arabic, and English, constructing a solid legal case, which was rejected by the British on the grounds of setting a precedent and privileging a «Moor» over a British subject. This then raises the question of the validity of proofs in different Mediterranean settings, with the Ottoman merchant’s diverse and thorough documentation rejected in Gibraltar when it would have been entirely ad- missible in another legal setting. Keywords: Commercial litigation, Algiers, Gibraltar, legal proofs. xIntroduction The study of merchants often centres on the disputes in which they found themselves; after all, problems generate paperwork. The early modern Mediterranean, a mix of different languages, cultures, polit- ies, and legal systems, generated plenty of legal disagreements between merchants from a variety of backgrounds. This article aims to explore what happened to an Ottoman subject based in Algiers when things went wrong for him in the Western Mediterranean, and who sought re- dress in the British vice-admiralty court of Gibraltar. It is an exceptional case in many ways, but indicative of a growing number of unsuccess- ful litigations of North African and Ottoman merchants in European courts, particularly in the second half of the eighteenth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Legislative Houses in North Atlantic Small Powers 1800–Present Edited by Nikolaj Bijleveld, Colin Grittner, David E
    Reforming Senates This new study of senates in small powers across the North Atlantic shows that the establishment and the reform of these upper legislative houses have followed remarkably parallel trajectories. Senate reforms emerged in the wake of deep political crises within the North Atlantic world and were influenced by the comparatively weak positions of small powers. Reformers responded to crises and constantly looked beyond borders and oceans for inspiration to keep their senates relevant. Nikolaj Bijleveld, historian, is a staff member at the University of Groningen. Colin Grittner teaches Canadian history in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and has held postdoctoral fellowships at the University of British Columbia and the University of New Brunswick. David E. Smith is a former president of the Canadian Political Science Association and the author of a number of books on the Canadian Parliament and Canadian federalism. Wybren Verstegen is Associate Professor in Economic and Social History at Vrije University, Amsterdam. Routledge Studies in Modern History Castro and Franco The Backstage of Cold War Diplomacy Haruko Hosoda Model Workers in China, 1949–1965 Constructing A New Citizen James Farley Making Sense of Mining History Themes and Agendas Edited by Stefan Berger and Peter Alexander Transatlantic Trade and Global Cultural Transfers Since 1492 More Than Commodities Edited by Martina Kaller and Frank Jacob Contesting the Origins of the First World War An Historiographical Argument Troy R E Paddock India at 70 Multidisciplinary Approaches Edited by Ruth Maxey and Paul McGarr 1917 and the Consequences Edited by Gerhard Besier and Katarzyna Stoklosa Reforming Senates Upper Legislative Houses in North Atlantic Small Powers 1800–present Edited by Nikolaj Bijleveld, Colin Grittner, David E.
    [Show full text]
  • Slavery Abolition Act 1833 - Wikipedia
    7/6/2021 Slavery Abolition Act 1833 - Wikipedia [ Slavery Abolition Act 1833. (Accessed Jul. 06, 2021). Overview. Wikipedia ]. Slavery Abolition Act 1833 The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (3 & 4 Will. IV c. 73) abolished slavery in most parts of the British Empire. This Act of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 Parliament of the United Kingdom expanded the jurisdiction of the Slave Trade Act 1807 and made the purchase or ownership of slaves illegal within the British Empire, with the exception of "the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company", Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and Saint Helena. The Act was repealed in 1997 as a part of wider rationalisation of English statute law; however, later anti-slavery legislation remains in force. Parliament of the United Kingdom Long title An Act for the Abolition of Contents Slavery throughout the Background British Colonies; Campaign to abolish the slave trade for promoting the Campaign to abolish slavery Industry of the Act manumitted Slaves; and for Payments to slave owners compensating Protests against apprenticeships the Persons Exceptions and continuations hitherto entitled Repeal to the Services of such Slaves. Appearance in popular culture Citation 3 & 4 Will.4 c.73 See also Dates References Royal assent 28 August 1833 Further reading Commencement External links 1 August 1834 1 December 1834 (Cape of Background Good Hope) 1 February 1835 In May 1772, Lord Mansfield's judgment in the Somerset case (Mauritius) emancipated a slave in England and thus helped launch the movement to abolish slavery.[1] The case ruled that slaves could not Repealed 19 November be transported out of England against their will, but did not actually 1998 abolish slavery in England.
    [Show full text]
  • Act 1986 CHAPTER 12 ARRANGEMENT of SECTIONS
    Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1986 CHAPTER 12 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section Repeals and associated amendments. 2. Extent. 3. Short title. SCHEDULE 1—Repeals. Part I — Administration of Justice. Part II — Agriculture. Part III — Finance. Part IV — Imports and Exports. Part V — Industrial Relations. Part VI — Intellectual Property. Part VII — Local Government. Part VIII — Medicine and Health Services. Part IX — Overseas Jurisdiction. Part X — Parliamentary and Constitutional Pro- visions. Part XI — Shipping, Harbours and Fisheries. Part XII — Subordinate Legislation Procedure. Part XIII — Miscellaneous. SCHEDULE 2 —Consequential Provisions. A c.12 ELIZABETH II Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1986 1986 CHAPTER 12 An Act to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, and to make other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments. [2nd May 1986] E IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and B Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— L—(1) The enactments mentioned in Schedule 1 to this Act Repeals and are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of associated that Schedule. amendments. (2) Schedule 2 to this Act shall have effect. 2.—(l) This Act extends to Northern Ireland. Extent. (2) Any amendment or repeal by this Act of an enactment which extends to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man shall also extend there.
    [Show full text]