DOCSLIB.ORG

British Overseas Territories Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data Names: Hendry, I. D., author. | Dickson, Susan, author. Title: British overseas territories law / Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson. Description: Second edition. | Oxford, UK ; Portland, Oregon : Hart Publishing, an imprint of Bloomsbury, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifi ers: LCCN 2018011241 (print) | LCCN 2018013645 (ebook) | ISBN 9781509918720 (Epub) | ISBN 9781509918706 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781509918713 (ePDF) Subjects: LCSH: Law—Great Britain—Colonies. | Constitutional law— Great Britain—Colonies. | Great Britain—Colonies—Administration. Classifi cation: LCC KD5020 (ebook) | LCC KD5020 .H46 2018 (print) | DDC 349/.11241—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018011241 ISBN: HB: 978-1-50991-870-6 ePDF: 978-1-50991-871-3 ePub: 978-1-50991-872-0 Typeset by Compuscript Ltd, Shannon Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY To fi nd out more about our authors and books visit www.hartpublishing.co.uk . Here you will fi nd extracts, author information, details of forthcoming events and the option to sign up for our newsletters. 2 Constitutional Arrangements ACH BRITISH OVERSEAS territory is a separate constitutional unit, and accordingly is a distinct legal jurisdiction. None is constitutionally a part of Ethe United Kingdom. Each territory has its own constitution and is adminis- tered separately from the others. But at the same time each territory has a constitu- tional relationship with the United Kingdom, the sovereign power. Later chapters examine some of the key features of the territories ’ constitutions. This chapter considers the legal basis for their constitutions, and the constitutional relationship between the territories and the United Kingdom. Important elements of both of these matters are the power of the UK Parliament and the position of the Crown. This chapter also discusses the powers and procedure for constitutional amend- ment and review, describes the substance of recent constitutional reforms, and considers future developments. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE TERRITORIES ’ CONSTITUTIONS Each British overseas territory has a distinct written Constitution, designed to suit its circumstances. In this important respect each territory differs from the United Kingdom, which has no single constitutional instrument. The Constitutions of the overseas territories differ from each other, although they have several features in common; some provisions are even worded identically. The Constitution of each territory is contained in an Order in Council. It is legally enacted by Her Majesty the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, acting on the recommendation of UK Ministers. But the legal basis for such Orders in Council differs as between the various territories. At common law, the sovereign has prerogative power to establish a constitution for any of the territories. 1 The prerogative remains the sole constituent power for Gibraltar and the British Indian Ocean Territory. For all the other territories there is a statutory constituent power, but in most cases that does not appear to have been treated as exclusive. The Orders in Council providing constitutions for all except Anguilla and Bermuda recite not only the relevant statutory power but add words such as ‘ or otherwise in Her Majesty vested ’ 2 or ‘ and of all other powers enabling 1 Phillips v Eyre ( 1870 ) LR 6 QB 1 . 2 Eg British Antarctic Territory Order 1989 (SI 1989/842). Legal Basis for the Territories’ Constitutions 15 Her to do so ’ . 3 This suggests that the relevant statutes were not considered to have displaced the prerogative power entirely, or that some matters in the Orders required citation of prerogative powers. In any case the practice has been generally consist- ent. Even in the cases of Anguilla and Bermuda, where the main constitution Orders recite only the relevant statutory powers, Orders amending them also recite other (unspecifi ed) powers of Her Majesty. 4 A. Constitutions Made under Statutory Powers The Constitutions of 12 British overseas territories are made under powers granted by Acts of the UK Parliament. The Acts in question are the following. 1. British Settlements Acts 1887 and 1945 These Acts 5 are the statutory legal basis for the constitutions of the following territories: Ascension, the British Antarctic Territory, the Falkland Islands, Pitcairn, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and Tristan da Cunha. Ascension and Tristan da Cunha are administered as a single territorial grouping with St Helena, so a single constitution governs all three, on the basis also of the power provided by the Saint Helena Act 1833. 6 The 1887 Act contains a special defi nition of ‘ British settlement ’ . Section 6 provides: For the purposes of this Act, the expression ‘ British possession ’ means any part of Her Majesty ’ s possessions out of the United Kingdom, and the expression ‘ British settlement ’ means any British possession which has not been acquired by cession or conquest, and is not for the time being within the jurisdiction of the Legislature, constituted otherwise than by virtue of this Act or of any Act repealed by this Act, of any British possession. Although the territories now forming the British Antarctic Territory were acquired by annexation, as were (at least partially) South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, 7 they were acquired otherwise than by cession or conquest. Neither is within the jurisdiction of a territory legislature constituted otherwise than by virtue of the Act. They therefore fall within the defi nition and are treated as ‘ British settlements’ for the purposes of the Acts. Most of the territories acquired by settlement fall outside the defi nition, because they have their own legislatures constituted otherwise than by virtue of the Act. These territories are the subject of the other statutes referred to below. 3 Eg Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008 (SI 2008/2846). 4 Eg Anguilla Constitution (Amendment) Order 1990 (SI 1990/587); Bermuda Constitution (Amendment) Order 2003 (SI 2003/456). 5 1887 c 54 and 1945 c 7. 6 1833 c 85; see further below. 7 See Chapter 1, p 7. 16 Constitutional Arrangements The main constituent powers in the British Settlements Acts for the territories listed above are set out in sections 2 and 5 of the 1887 Act, as follows: 2. It shall be lawful for Her Majesty The Queen in Council from time to time to establish any such laws and institutions, and constitute such courts and offi cers, and make such pro- visions and regulations for the proceedings in the said courts and for the administration of justice, as shall appear to Her Majesty in Council to be necessary for the peace, order and good government of Her Majesty ’ s subjects and others within any British settlement. … 5. It shall be lawful for Her Majesty The Queen in Council from time to time to make, and when made to alter and revoke, Orders for the purposes of this Act. In addition, as amended by the 1945 Act, section 3 of the 1887 Act provides: 3. It shall be lawful for Her Majesty The Queen from time to time, by any instrument passed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom including any Order of Her Majesty in Council, or by any instructions under Her Majesty ’ s Royal Sign Manual referred to in such instrument as made or to be made, as respects any British settlement, to delegate to any specifi ed person or persons or authority within the settlement all or any of the powers conferred by this Act on Her Majesty in Council, either absolutely or subject to such condi- tions, provisions, and limitations as may be specifi ed in such instrument or instructions: Provided that, notwithstanding any such delegation, the Queen in Council may exercise all or any of the powers under this Act; provided always, that every such instrument or instruc- tion as aforesaid shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as conveniently may be after the making and enactment thereof respectively. The powers conferred by the British Settlements Acts have been held by the Court of Appeal to be plenary powers. 8 The current Constitutions of the territories covered by the British Settlements Acts are set out in the St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Constitution Order 2009 9 (for Ascension and Tristan da Cunha); the British Antarctic Territory Order 1989; 10 the Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008, as amended; 11 the Pitcairn Constitution Order 2010; 12 and the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands Order 1985, as amended.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Narratives of Oppression Michael Tigar American University Washington College of Law
    Human Rights Brief Volume 17 | Issue 1 Article 6 2009 Narratives of Oppression Michael Tigar American University Washington College of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Human Rights Law Commons Recommended Citation Tigar, Michael. "Narratives of Oppression." Human Rights Brief 17, no. 1 (2009): 34-38. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Human Rights Brief by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tigar: Narratives of Oppression Narratives of Oppression by Michael Tigar The following piece is based on Professor Michael Tigar’s keynote address delivered at the “Strategic Litigation in International and Domestic Fora” event on October 12, 2009, at the American University Washington College of Law (WCL). Professor Tigar is a Professor Emeritus at WCL and a Professor of the Practice of Law at Duke Law School. Ten years ago, he founded the UNROW Human Rights Impact Litigation Clinic, which has represented, among others, the indigenous people from the Chagos Archipelago in their lawsuit in United States federal court. The Chagossians were forcibly uprooted from their homeland in the Indian Ocean in the 1960s and 1970s by the United States and the United Kingdom to make way for the U.S. military base on Diego Garcia. lthough I hope there are some general lessons to be drawn from my remarks, I am going to focus today Tigar.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit Era
    Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 151-168 The sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit era Maria Mut Bosque School of Law, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain MINECO DER 2017-86138, Ministry of Economic Affairs & Digital Transformation, Spain Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, UK [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract: This paper focuses on an analysis of the sovereignty of two territorial entities that have unique relations with the United Kingdom: the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (BOTs). Each of these entities includes very different territories, with different legal statuses and varying forms of self-administration and constitutional linkages with the UK. However, they also share similarities and challenges that enable an analysis of these territories as a complete set. The incomplete sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and BOTs has entailed that all these territories (except Gibraltar) have not been allowed to participate in the 2016 Brexit referendum or in the withdrawal negotiations with the EU. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that Brexit is not an exceptional situation. In the future there will be more and more relevant international issues for these territories which will remain outside of their direct control, but will have a direct impact on them. Thus, if no adjustments are made to their statuses, these territories will have to keep trusting that the UK will be able to represent their interests at the same level as its own interests. Keywords: Brexit, British Overseas Territories (BOTs), constitutional status, Crown Dependencies, sovereignty https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.114 • Received June 2019, accepted March 2020 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bank Restriction Act and the Regime Shift to Paper Money, 1797-1821
    European Historical Economics Society EHES WORKING PAPERS IN ECONOMIC HISTORY | NO. 100 Danger to the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street? The Bank Restriction Act and the regime shift to paper money, 1797-1821 Patrick K. O’Brien Department of Economic History, London School of Economics Nuno Palma Department of History and Civilization, European University Institute Department of Economics, Econometrics, and Finance, University of Groningen JULY 2016 EHES Working Paper | No. 100 | July 2016 Danger to the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street? The Bank Restriction Act and the regime shift to paper money, 1797-1821* Patrick K. O’Brien Department of Economic History, London School of Economics Nuno Palma Department of History and Civilization, European University Institute Department of Economics, Econometrics, and Finance, University of Groningen Abstract The Bank Restriction Act of 1797 suspended the convertibility of the Bank of England's notes into gold. The current historical consensus is that the suspension was a result of the state's need to finance the war, France’s remonetization, a loss of confidence in the English country banks, and a run on the Bank of England’s reserves following a landing of French troops in Wales. We argue that while these factors help us understand the timing of the Restriction period, they cannot explain its success. We deploy new long-term data which leads us to a complementary explanation: the policy succeeded thanks to the reputation of the Bank of England, achieved through a century of prudential collaboration between the Bank and the Treasury. JEL classification: N13, N23, N43 Keywords: Bank of England, financial revolution, fiat money, money supply, monetary policy commitment, reputation, and time-consistency, regime shift, financial sector growth * We are grateful to Mark Dincecco, Rui Esteves, Alex Green, Marjolein 't Hart, Phillip Hoffman, Alejandra Irigoin, Richard Kleer, Kevin O’Rourke, Jaime Reis, Rebecca Simson, Albrecht Ritschl, Joan R.
    [Show full text]
  • British Columbia 1858
    Legislative Library of British Columbia Background Paper 2007: 02 / May 2007 British Columbia 1858 Nearly 150 years ago, the land that would become the province of British Columbia was transformed. The year – 1858 – saw the creation of a new colony and the sparking of a gold rush that dramatically increased the local population. Some of the future province’s most famous and notorious early citizens arrived during that year. As historian Jean Barman wrote: in 1858, “the status quo was irrevocably shattered.” Prepared by Emily Yearwood-Lee Reference Librarian Legislative Library of British Columbia LEGISLATIVE LIBRARY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BACKGROUND PAPERS AND BRIEFS ABOUT THE PAPERS Staff of the Legislative Library prepare background papers and briefs on aspects of provincial history and public policy. All papers can be viewed on the library’s website at http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/ SOURCES All sources cited in the papers are part of the library collection or available on the Internet. The Legislative Library’s collection includes an estimated 300,000 print items, including a large number of BC government documents dating from colonial times to the present. The library also downloads current online BC government documents to its catalogue. DISCLAIMER The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent the views of the Legislative Library or the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. While great care is taken to ensure these papers are accurate and balanced, the Legislative Library is not responsible for errors or omissions. Papers are written using information publicly available at the time of production and the Library cannot take responsibility for the absolute accuracy of those sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Archeacon of Gibraltar and Archdeacon of Italy and Malta
    The Bishop in Europe: The Right Reverend Dr. Robert Innes The Suffragan Bishop in Europe: The Right Reverend David Hamid ARCHEACON OF GIBRALTAR AND ARCHDEACON OF ITALY AND MALTA Statement from the Bishops The Diocese in Europe is the 42nd Diocese of the Church of England. We are by far the biggest in terms of land area, as we range across over 42 countries in a territory approximately matching that covered by the Council of Europe, as well as Morocco. We currently attract unprecedented interest within the Church of England, as we are that part of the Church that specifically maintains links with continental Europe at a time of political uncertainty between the UK and the rest of Europe. Along with that, we have been in the fortunate position of being able to recruit some very high calibre lay and ordained staff. To help oversee our vast territory we have two bishops, the Diocesan Bishop Robert Innes who is based in Brussels, and the Suffragan Bishop David Hamid who is based in London. We have a diocesan office within Church House Westminster. We maintain strong connections with staff in the National Church Institutions. Importantly, and unlike English dioceses, our chaplaincies pay for their own clergy, and the diocese has relatively few support staff. Each appointment matters greatly to us. The diocesan strategy was formulated and approved over the course of 2015. We are emphasising our commitment to building up congregational life, our part in the re- evangelisation of the continent; our commitment to reconciliation at every level; and our particular role in serving the poor, the marginalised and the migrant.
    [Show full text]
  • UK and Colonies
    This document was archived on 27 July 2017 UK and Colonies 1. General 1.1 Before 1 January 1949, the principal form of nationality was British subject status, which was obtained by virtue of a connection with a place within the Crown's dominions. On and after this date, the main form of nationality was citizenship of the UK and Colonies, which was obtained by virtue of a connection with a place within the UK and Colonies. 2. Meaning of the expression 2.1 On 1 January 1949, all the territories within the Crown's dominions came within the UK and Colonies except for the Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan and Ceylon (see "DOMINIONS") and Southern Rhodesia, which were identified by s.1(3) of the BNA 1948 as independent Commonwealth countries. Section 32(1) of the 1948 Act defined "colony" as excluding any such country. Also excluded from the UK and Colonies was Southern Ireland, although it was not an independent Commonwealth country. 2.2 For the purposes of the BNA 1948, the UK included Northern Ireland and, as of 10 February 1972, the Island of Rockall, but excluded the Channel Islands and Isle of Man which, under s.32(1), were colonies. 2.3 The significance of a territory which came within the UK and Colonies was, of course, that by virtue of a connection with such a territory a person could become a CUKC. Persons who, prior to 1 January 1949, had become British subjects by birth, naturalisation, annexation or descent as a result of a connection with a territory which, on that date, came within the UK and Colonies were automatically re- classified as CUKCs (s.12(1)-(2)).
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Reform in the English-Speaking Caribbean: Challenges and Prospects
    Constitutional Reform in the English-Speaking Caribbean: Challenges and Prospects A report prepared for the Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum January 2011 The Constitutional Design Group Principals Zachary Elkins | [email protected] Tom Ginsburg | [email protected] Lead Research Associate Justin Blount | [email protected] The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect those of CPPF or the Social Science Research Council. Constitutional Reform in the ESC p. 2 CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 Historical Perspectives on Constitutional Reform in the ESC ................................................. 4 Decolonization and the Independece Constitutions ............................................................... 4 The Rise and Fall of the West Indies Federation ................................................................... 5 Characteristics of ESC Constitutions ......................................................................................... 6 Some General Notes on the Nature of ESC Constitutional Texts ......................................... 7 Executives, Legislatures, and the Judiciary ........................................................................... 8 Fidelity to the Westminster Parliamentary System ........................................................... 8 The Judiciary .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In the Privy Council on Appeal from the Court of Appeal of Pitcairn Islands
    IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF PITCAIRN ISLANDS No. of 2004 BETWEEN STEVENS RAYMOND CHRISTIAN First Appellant LEN CALVIN DAVIS BROWN Second Appellant LEN CARLISLE BROWN Third Appellant DENNIS RAY CHRISTIAN Fourth Appellant CARLISLE TERRY YOUNG Fifth Appellant RANDALL KAY CHRISTIAN Sixth Appellant A N D THE QUEEN Respondent CASE FOR STEVENS RAYMOND CHRISTIAN AND LEN CARLISLE BROWN PETITIONERS' SOLICITORS: Alan Taylor & Co Solicitors - Privy Council Agents Mynott House, 14 Bowling Green Lane Clerkenwell, LONDON EC1R 0BD ATTENTION: Mr D J Moloney FACSIMILE NO: 020 7251 6222 TELEPHONE NO: 020 7251 3222 6 PART I - INTRODUCTION CHARGES The Appellants have been convicted in the Pitcairn Islands Supreme Court of the following: (a) Stevens Raymond Christian Charges (i) Rape contrary to s7 of the Judicature Ordinance 1961 and s1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (x4); (ii) Rape contrary to s14 of the Judicature Ordinance 1970 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Sentence 4 years imprisonment (b) Len Carlisle Brown Charges Rape contrary to s7 of the Judicature Ordinance 1961, the Judicature Ordinance 1970, and s1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (x2). Sentence 2 years imprisonment with leave to apply for home detention The sentences have been suspended and the Appellants remain on bail pending the determination of this appeal. HUMAN RIGHTS In relation to human rights issues, contrary to an earlier apparent concession by the Public Prosecutor that the Human Rights Act 1978 applied to the Pitcairn Islands, it would appear not to have been extended to them, at least in so far as the necessary protocols to the Convention have not been signed to enable Pitcairners to appear before the European Court: R (Quark Fisheries Ltd) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2005] 3 WLR 7 837 (Tab ).
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity: the UK Overseas Territories. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee
    Biodiversity: the UK Overseas Territories Compiled by S. Oldfield Edited by D. Procter and L.V. Fleming ISBN: 1 86107 502 2 © Copyright Joint Nature Conservation Committee 1999 Illustrations and layout by Barry Larking Cover design Tracey Weeks Printed by CLE Citation. Procter, D., & Fleming, L.V., eds. 1999. Biodiversity: the UK Overseas Territories. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Disclaimer: reference to legislation and convention texts in this document are correct to the best of our knowledge but must not be taken to infer definitive legal obligation. Cover photographs Front cover: Top right: Southern rockhopper penguin Eudyptes chrysocome chrysocome (Richard White/JNCC). The world’s largest concentrations of southern rockhopper penguin are found on the Falkland Islands. Centre left: Down Rope, Pitcairn Island, South Pacific (Deborah Procter/JNCC). The introduced rat population of Pitcairn Island has successfully been eradicated in a programme funded by the UK Government. Centre right: Male Anegada rock iguana Cyclura pinguis (Glen Gerber/FFI). The Anegada rock iguana has been the subject of a successful breeding and re-introduction programme funded by FCO and FFI in collaboration with the National Parks Trust of the British Virgin Islands. Back cover: Black-browed albatross Diomedea melanophris (Richard White/JNCC). Of the global breeding population of black-browed albatross, 80 % is found on the Falkland Islands and 10% on South Georgia. Background image on front and back cover: Shoal of fish (Charles Sheppard/Warwick
    [Show full text]
  • MRG Is an International Non-Governmental Organisation
    UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR) MID-TERM REPORT United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Views of Minority Rights Group (MRG) on the Recommendations of the Working Group of the UPR Twenty-First Session (20 September 2012) MRG is an international non-governmental organisation working to secure the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples worldwide, and to promote cooperation and understanding between communities. MRG works with over 150 organisations in nearly 50 countries. MRG has consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, observer status with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and is a civil society organisation registered with the Organization of American States. Lucy Claridge: [email protected] 54 Commercial Street London E1 6LT United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7422 4200 Fax: +44 (0)20 7422 4201 Web: www.minorityrights.org 1 October 2013 1 1. Introduction 1.1 These Comments have been written for the Ministry of Justice to assist it in its preparation of the UK’s Mid-Term Report to the UPR (the “Mid-Term Report”) on the recommendations of the Working Group of the UPR adopted by the Human Rights Council on 20 September 2012 (the “Recommendations”). 1.2 These Comments have been prepared by Minority Rights Group International (MRG). MRG is an international non-governmental organization working to secure the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples worldwide, and to promote cooperation and understanding between communities. MRG works with over 150 organisations in nearly 50 countries. MRG has consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, observer status with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and is a civil society organisation registered with the Organization of American States.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • UK Overseas Territories
    INFORMATION PAPER United Kingdom Overseas Territories - Toponymic Information United Kingdom Overseas Territories (UKOTs), also known as British Overseas Territories (BOTs), have constitutional and historical links with the United Kingdom, but do not form part of the United Kingdom itself. The Queen is the Head of State of all the UKOTs, and she is represented by a Governor or Commissioner (apart from the UK Sovereign Base Areas that are administered by MOD). Each Territory has its own Constitution, its own Government and its own local laws. The 14 territories are: Anguilla; Bermuda; British Antarctic Territory (BAT); British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT); British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands; Falkland Islands; Gibraltar; Montserrat; Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands; Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; Turks and Caicos Islands; UK Sovereign Base Areas. PCGN recommend the term ‘British Overseas Territory Capital’ for the administrative centres of UKOTs. Production of mapping over the UKOTs does not take place systematically in the UK. Maps produced by the relevant territory, preferably by official bodies such as the local government or tourism authority, should be used for current geographical names. National government websites could also be used as an additional reference. Additionally, FCDO and MOD briefing maps may be used as a source for names in UKOTs. See the FCDO White Paper for more information about the UKOTs. ANGUILLA The territory, situated in the Caribbean, consists of the main island of Anguilla plus some smaller, mostly uninhabited islands. It is separated from the island of Saint Martin (split between Saint-Martin (France) and Sint Maarten (Netherlands)), 17km to the south, by the Anguilla Channel.
    [Show full text]