The Rights of Cypriot Nationals in the Uk After
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Empire and English Nationalismn
Nations and Nationalism 12 (1), 2006, 1–13. r ASEN 2006 Empire and English nationalismn KRISHAN KUMAR Department of Sociology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA Empire and nation: foes or friends? It is more than pious tribute to the great scholar whom we commemorate today that makes me begin with Ernest Gellner. For Gellner’s influential thinking on nationalism, and specifically of its modernity, is central to the question I wish to consider, the relation between nation and empire, and between imperial and national identity. For Gellner, as for many other commentators, nation and empire were and are antithetical. The great empires of the past belonged to the species of the ‘agro-literate’ society, whose central fact is that ‘almost everything in it militates against the definition of political units in terms of cultural bound- aries’ (Gellner 1983: 11; see also Gellner 1998: 14–24). Power and culture go their separate ways. The political form of empire encloses a vastly differ- entiated and internally hierarchical society in which the cosmopolitan culture of the rulers differs sharply from the myriad local cultures of the subordinate strata. Modern empires, such as the Soviet empire, continue this pattern of disjuncture between the dominant culture of the elites and the national or ethnic cultures of the constituent parts. Nationalism, argues Gellner, closes the gap. It insists that the only legitimate political unit is one in which rulers and ruled share the same culture. Its ideal is one state, one culture. Or, to put it another way, its ideal is the national or the ‘nation-state’, since it conceives of the nation essentially in terms of a shared culture linking all members. -
British Overseas Territories Law
British Overseas Territories Law Second Edition Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson HART PUBLISHING Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Kemp House , Chawley Park, Cumnor Hill, Oxford , OX2 9PH , UK HART PUBLISHING, the Hart/Stag logo, BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2018 First edition published in 2011 Copyright © Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson , 2018 Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identifi ed as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this work, no responsibility for loss or damage occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any statement in it can be accepted by the authors, editors or publishers. All UK Government legislation and other public sector information used in the work is Crown Copyright © . All House of Lords and House of Commons information used in the work is Parliamentary Copyright © . This information is reused under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 ( http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3 ) except where otherwise stated. All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ , 1998–2018. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. -
A Global Comparison of Non-Sovereign Island Territories: the Search for ‘True Equality’
Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 43-66 A global comparison of non-sovereign island territories: the search for ‘true equality’ Malcom Ferdinand CNRS, Paris, France [email protected] Gert Oostindie KITLV, the Netherlands Leiden University, the Netherlands [email protected] (corresponding author) Wouter Veenendaal KITLV, the Netherlands Leiden University, the Netherlands [email protected] Abstract: For a great majority of former colonies, the outcome of decolonization was independence. Yet scattered across the globe, remnants of former colonial empires are still non-sovereign as part of larger metropolitan states. There is little drive for independence in these territories, virtually all of which are small island nations, also known as sub-national island jurisdictions (SNIJs). Why do so many former colonial territories choose to remain non-sovereign? In this paper we attempt to answer this question by conducting a global comparative study of non-sovereign jurisdictions. We start off by analyzing their present economic, social and political conditions, after which we assess local levels of (dis)content with the contemporary political status, and their articulation in postcolonial politics. We find that levels of discontent and frustration covary with the particular demographic, socio- economic and historical-cultural conditions of individual territories. While significant independence movements can be observed in only two or three jurisdictions, in virtually all cases there is profound dissatisfaction and frustration with the contemporary non-sovereign arrangement and its outcomes. Instead of achieving independence, the territories’ real struggle nowadays is for obtaining ‘true equality’ with the metropolis, as well as recognition of their distinct cultural identities. -
CODEBOOK for FOREIGN TV NEWS STUDY APPENDIX B – COUNTRY LIST Abkhazia – Republic of Abkhazia Afghanistan – Islamic Republi
CODEBOOK FOR FOREIGN TV NEWS STUDY APPENDIX B – COUNTRY LIST 001 Abkhazia – Republic of Abkhazia 002 Afghanistan – Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 003 Akrotiri and Dhekelia – Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (UK) 004 Åland – Åland Islands (Autonomous province of Finland) 005 Albania – Republic of Albania 006 Algeria – People's Democratic Republic of Algeria 007 American Samoa – Territory of American Samoa (US territory) 008 Andorra – Principality of Andorra 009 Angola – Republic of Angola 010 Anguilla (UK overseas territory) 011 Antigua and Barbuda 012 Argentina – Argentine Republic 013 Armenia – Republic of Armenia 014 Aruba (Self-governing country in the Kingdom of the Netherlands) 015 Ascension Island (Dependency of the UK overseas territory of Saint Helena) 016 Australia – Commonwealth of Australia 017 Austria – Republic of Austria 018 Azerbaijan – Republic of Azerbaijan 019 Bahamas, The – Commonwealth of The Bahamas 020 Bahrain – Kingdom of Bahrain 021 Bangladesh – People's Republic of Bangladesh 022 Barbados 023 Belarus – Republic of Belarus 024 Belgium – Kingdom of Belgium 025 Belize 026 Benin – Republic of Benin 027 Bermuda (UK overseas territory) 028 Bhutan – Kingdom of Bhutan 029 Bolivia – Republic of Bolivia 030 Bosnia and Herzegovina 031 Botswana – Republic of Botswana 032 Brazil – Federative Republic of Brazil 033 Brunei – Negara Brunei Darussalam 034 Bulgaria – Republic of Bulgaria 035 Burkina Faso 036 Burundi – Republic of Burundi 037 Cambodia – Kingdom of Cambodia 038 -
Brexit: Gibraltar
HOUSE OF LORDS European Union Committee 13th Report of Session 2016–17 Brexit: Gibraltar Ordered to be printed 21 February 2017 and published 1 March 2017 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords HL Paper 116 The European Union Committee The European Union Committee is appointed each session “to scrutinise documents deposited in the House by a Minister, and other matters relating to the European Union”. In practice this means that the Select Committee, along with its Sub-Committees, scrutinises the UK Government’s policies and actions in respect of the EU; considers and seeks to influence the development of policies and draft laws proposed by the EU institutions; and more generally represents the House of Lords in its dealings with the EU institutions and other Member States. The six Sub-Committees are as follows: Energy and Environment Sub-Committee External Affairs Sub-Committee Financial Affairs Sub-Committee Home Affairs Sub-Committee Internal Market Sub-Committee Justice Sub-Committee Membership The Members of the European Union Select Committee are: Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws Lord Trees Lord Boswell of Aynho (Chairman) Earl of Kinnoull Baroness Verma Baroness Brown of Cambridge Lord Liddle Lord Whitty Baroness Browning Baroness Prashar Baroness Wilcox Baroness Falkner of Margravine Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Woolmer of Leeds Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint Baroness Suttie Lord Jay of Ewelme Lord Teverson Further information Publications, press notices, details of membership, forthcoming meetings and other information is available at http://www.parliament.uk/hleu. General information about the House of Lords and its Committees is available at http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords. -
Imperialism Tate Britain: Colonialism Tate Britain Has Over 500 Pieces of Art That Are Related to British Colonialism. There Ar
Imperialism Tate Britain: Colonialism Tate Britain has over 500 pieces of art that are related to British Colonialism. There are portraits, propaganda and photographs. Mutiny at the Margin: The Indian Uprising of 1857 2007 saw the 150th Anniversary of the Indian Uprising (also known as the ‘Mutiny') of 1857-58. One of the best-known episodes of both British imperial and South Asian history and a seminal event for Anglo-Indian relations, 1857 has yet to be the subject of a substantial revisionist history British Postal Museum and Archive: British Empire Exhibition Great Britain’s first commemorative stamps were issued on 23 April 1924 – this marked the first day of the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley. British Cartoon Archive: British Empire The British Cartoon Archive has a collection of 280 contemporary cartoons that are related to the British Empire. The Word on the Street: Emigration This contains a collection of 44 ballads that are related to British emigration during the 1800/1900’s. British Pathe: Empire British Pathe has a collection of contemporary newsreels that are related to the empire. Included, for example, is footage from Empire Day celebration in 1933. The British Library: Asians in Britain These webpages trace the long history of Asians in Britain, focusing on the period 1858-1950. They explore the subject through contemporary accounts, posters, pamphlets, diaries, newspapers, political reports and illustrations, all evidence of the diverse and rich contributions Asians have made to British life. The National Archives: British Empire The National Archives has an exhibition that analyses the growth of the British Empire. -
List of Commonwealth Countries, British Overseas Territories, British Crown Dependencies and EU Member States
List of Commonwealth countries, British Overseas Territories, British Crown Dependencies and EU member states Commonwealth countries1 Antigua and Barbuda Kenya St Vincent and the Grenadines Australia Kiribati Samoa The Bahamas Lesotho Seychelles Bangladesh Malawi Sierra Leone Barbados Malaysia Singapore Belize Malta* Solomon Islands Botswana Mauritius South Africa Brunei Mozambique Sri Lanka Cameroon Namibia Swaziland Canada Nauru Tonga Dominica New Zealand Trinidad and Tobago Fiji Nigeria Tuvalu Ghana Pakistan Uganda Grenada Papua New Guinea United Kingdom* Guyana Republic of Cyprus* United Republic of Tanzania India Rwanda Vanuatu Jamaica St Christopher and Nevis Zambia St Lucia Zimbabwe *Although also EU member states, citizens of the UK, Cyprus and Malta are eligible to be registered to vote in respect of all elections held in the UK. 1 Citizens of Commonwealth countries that have been suspended from the Commonwealth retain their voting rights. Their voting rights would only be affected if their country was also deleted from the list of Commonwealth countries in the British Nationality Act 1981 through an Act of the UK Parliament. British Overseas Territories Anguilla Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands Bermuda St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha British Antarctic Territory South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands British Indian Ocean Territory Sovereign Base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus Cayman Islands Falkland Islands Turks and Caicos Islands Gibraltar Virgin Islands Montserrat British Crown Dependencies -
The Columbian Exchange: a History of Disease, Food, and Ideas
Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 24, Number 2—Spring 2010—Pages 163–188 The Columbian Exchange: A History of Disease, Food, and Ideas Nathan Nunn and Nancy Qian hhee CColumbianolumbian ExchangeExchange refersrefers toto thethe exchangeexchange ofof diseases,diseases, ideas,ideas, foodfood ccrops,rops, aandnd populationspopulations betweenbetween thethe NewNew WorldWorld andand thethe OldOld WWorldorld T ffollowingollowing thethe voyagevoyage ttoo tthehe AAmericasmericas bbyy ChristoChristo ppherher CColumbusolumbus inin 1492.1492. TThehe OldOld WWorld—byorld—by wwhichhich wwee mmeanean nnotot jjustust EEurope,urope, bbutut tthehe eentirentire EEasternastern HHemisphere—gainedemisphere—gained fromfrom tthehe CColumbianolumbian EExchangexchange iinn a nnumberumber ooff wways.ays. DDiscov-iscov- eeriesries ooff nnewew ssuppliesupplies ofof metalsmetals areare perhapsperhaps thethe bestbest kknown.nown. BButut thethe OldOld WWorldorld aalsolso ggainedained newnew staplestaple ccrops,rops, ssuchuch asas potatoes,potatoes, sweetsweet potatoes,potatoes, maize,maize, andand cassava.cassava. LessLess ccalorie-intensivealorie-intensive ffoods,oods, suchsuch asas tomatoes,tomatoes, chilichili peppers,peppers, cacao,cacao, peanuts,peanuts, andand pineap-pineap- pplesles wwereere aalsolso iintroduced,ntroduced, andand areare nownow culinaryculinary centerpiecescenterpieces inin manymany OldOld WorldWorld ccountries,ountries, namelynamely IItaly,taly, GGreece,reece, andand otherother MediterraneanMediterranean countriescountries (tomatoes),(tomatoes), -
Bermudian English: History, Features, Social Role Luke Swartz
Bermudian English: History, Features, Social Role Luke Swartz (Final paper for Linguistics 153) Abstract Bermudian English has been long neglected in linguistic literature. After a brief introduction to the linguistic history of the Bermuda Islands, this paper examines several interesting aspects of English dialects spoken in Bermuda. First, we examine the islands’ lack of an English Creole. Next, we examine phonological features of Bermudian English and their possible origins. Finally, we close with a discussion of Bermudian dialects’ place in education and society at large. 1. Introduction Virginia Bernhard (1999: 1) notes that, just as mariners once avoided Bermuda for fear of wrecking their ships on its coral reefs, “historians of European colonization have also bypassed Bermuda.” She quotes W. F. Craven, who wrote that “the Bermudas have been largely overlooked, the significance of their history for the most part lost to sight” (xiii). Likewise, the language of the Bermudian people has been largely ignored by linguists and historians alike. Few scholars have studied Bermudian English; the last citation of any length dates to 1933. 2 Nevertheless, the Bermuda Islands present an interesting case study of English dialects, in many ways unique among such dialects in the world. Bermudian dialects of English lack a dominant creole, have interesting phonetic features, and command an ambiguous social status. 2. Background Contrary to popular belief, Bermuda is not actually part of the Caribbean. As Caribbean/Latin American Profile points out, “Often, Bermuda is placed erroneously in the West Indies, but in fact is more than 1,000 miles to the north of the Caribbean” (Caribbean Publishing Company: 51). -
BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES FALKLAND ISLANDS (The Treaty
BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES FALKLAND ISLANDS (The treaty applicable to the Falkland Islands was signed with the United Kingdom.) United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland Extradition Treaty, protocol of signature and exchange of notes signed at London June 8, 1972; Ratification advised by the Senate of the United States of America June 21, 1976; Ratified by the President of the United States of America September 10, 1976; Ratifications exchanged at Washington October 21, 1976; Proclaimed by the President of the United States of America November 17, 1976; Entered into force January 21, 1977. With exchange of notes Signed at Washington October 21, 1976. BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION CONSIDERING THAT: The Treaty on Extradition between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a Protocol of Signature, and an exchange of notes were signed at London on June 8, 1972, the texts of which Treaty and related documents, are hereto annexed; The Senate of the United States of America by its resolution of June 21, 1976, two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein, gave its advice and consent to ratification of the Treaty and the related documents; The Treaty and the related documents were ratified by the President of the United States of America on September 10, 1976, in pursuance of the advice and consent of the Senate, and were duly ratified on the part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; It is provided in Article XVI of the Treaty that the Treaty shall enter into force three months after the date of the exchange of instruments of ratification; The instruments of ratification of the Treaty were exchanged at Washington on October 21, 1976; and accordingly the Treaty and the related documents enter into force on January 21, 1977; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gerald R. -
Bilateral Extradition Treaties Montserrat
BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES MONTSERRAT (The treaty applicable to the Montserrat was signed with the United Kingdom.) United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland Extradition Treaty, protocol of signature and exchange of notes signed at London June 8, 1972; Ratification advised by the Senate of the United States of America June 21, 1976; Ratified by the President of the United States of America September 10, 1976; Ratifications exchanged at Washington October 21, 1976; Proclaimed by the President of the United States of America November 17, 1976; Entered into force January 21, 1977. With exchange of notes Signed at Washington October 21, 1976. BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION CONSIDERING THAT: The Treaty on Extradition between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a Protocol of Signature, and an exchange of notes were signed at London on June 8, 1972, the texts of which Treaty and related documents, are hereto annexed; The Senate of the United States of America by its resolution of June 21, 1976, two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein, gave its advice and consent to ratification of the Treaty and the related documents; The Treaty and the related documents were ratified by the President of the United States of America on September 10, 1976, in pursuance of the advice and consent of the Senate, and were duly ratified on the part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; It is provided in Article XVI of the Treaty that the Treaty shall enter into force three months after the date of the exchange of instruments of ratification; The instruments of ratification of the Treaty were exchanged at Washington on October 21, 1976; and accordingly the Treaty and the related documents enter into force on January 21, 1977; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gerald R. -
British Dominions and Foreign Relations Herbert A
Cornell Law Review Volume 12 Article 1 Issue 1 December 1926 British Dominions and Foreign Relations Herbert A. Smith Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Herbert A. Smith, British Dominions and Foreign Relations , 12 Cornell L. Rev. 1 (1926) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol12/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Cornell Law Quarterly VOLU1E XII DECEMBER, 1926 NUMBER 1 The British Dominions and Foreign Relations* HERBERT A. SMITHt If there is any truth at all in the common statement that the British Constitution is "unwritten" it is a truth which needs some- what careful explanation. In point of fact, practically the whole operation of government, both in the mother country and abroad, is at the present time carried on under express statutory powers. In a few instances, of which the most important is the conduct of foreign affairs, executive action is based upon the ancient common law pre- rogative of the Crown, but in all cases, whatever is done, is done in virtue of some definite law capable of ascertainment in the courts. To define the exact legal powers of any organ of government is seldom more difficult, and is usually much easier, in the British Empire than under the highly intricate federal system of the United States.