DOCSLIB.ORG

Cook Islands and Niue's Relationships of Free Association with New Zealand

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ௐ 3 ഇ! ࢱ 89-106! 2020 ѐ/ࡌ؞ཱི !ס έ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώ! ௐ 16 Taiwan International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 89-106 Autumn 2020 庫克群島、紐埃與紐西蘭 的自由聯盟關係 ధޙၷ ර̂ጯέ៉̼͛ጯրࣘЇӄநି଱ڌ ၡ ࢋ ৸Ҙᜋതϔٺതϔ̼߆ඉĂࣧᛳܧĂᓑЪ઼ฟؕଯજޢѐ̝ 1945 ᅳг۞ऱҹཏफ׶৸ऄ֭ϏᏴፄ፾ϲĂ҃ߏᄃ৸ҘᜋԛјҋϤᓑ༖۞ ඕЪĄଂགྷᑻă઼֨ăڼԛёᚶᜈᄃ৸Ҙᜋઇ߆֣ڼᙯܼĂͽҋڼ߆ ୧Іֽ࠻ĂдҋϤᓑ༖ᙯܼ˭Ăᔵ൒ऱҹཏफᄃ৸ऄ֭៍މγϹඈ͹ Ă݋ߏ௑ޘᄃ߆ඉី߿ڼߏԆБ፾ϲҋ͹۞઼छĂҭҋϤᓑ༖۞߆ܧ Ъ˞ऱҹཏफᄃ৸ऄ۞ӀৈĄ ᙯᔣෟĈऱҹཏफă৸ऄă৸ҘᜋăҋϤᓑ༖ ăௐ 3 ഇĞ2020/ࡌ؞ཱིğס Įέ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώįௐ 16 90 壹、前言 ৸ҘᜋĞNew Zealandğٺതϔ̼߆ඉ۞Я৵˭ĂࣧᛳܧдᓑЪ઼ଯજ ѐ׶ 1974 1965 ٺതϔᅳг۞ऱҹཏफĞCook Islandsğ׶৸ऄĞNiueğĂҾ ĄڼᙯܼĂଂ҃၁னҋڼѐᄃ৸Ҙᜋ၁߉ҋϤᓑ༖Ğfree associationğ۞߆ າ᎖۞ᓑЪ઼ଯજΝതϔ̼߆ඉᏴี̝ޢߏ˟ѨጼޘטڱҋϤᓑ༖۞ጳ ႕֖఺׌͉࣎π߶̈फ઼ܲѣϔ୉።Ϋ̼͛ඈপҒ۞ϔ୉ҋޘטĂ఺࣎˘ ΃ܑ፾ϲĂҭ΁ࣇᄃ৸Ҙᜋ۞ҋϤ̙ڼՙ͞ёĄጐგऱҹཏफ׶৸ऄ۞ҋ തϔ̼߆ඉ۞ཌྷચĄऱҹཏܧᓑ༖ᙯܼĂ΃ܑ˞৸Ҙᜋར၁˞ᓑЪ઼ଯજ ĂҋϤඕ༖۞щଵ̙֣ڼតј˞৸ҘᜋҋϤඕ༖۞ҋ˭ޘטफ׶৸ऄдѩ ᅮՐͽ̈́ڼതϔ̼۞ࢋՐĂ˵ͅߍ˞ऱҹཏफ׶৸ऄ۞߆ܧ௑ЪᓑЪ઼่ ҋ۞ޘĂऱҹཏफᄃ৸ऄܲѣ੼˭ט৸Ҙᜋ۞ӀৈĄдҋϤඕ༖۞ጳ߆វ гҜĂ่Ϥ৸Ҙᜋ࢑య઼֨ᄃγϹćТॡĂऱҹཏफᄃ৸ऄ۞ˠϔ˵ጾڼ ˯Ӏّᄃགྷᑻܮ۞˯ڼˠϔЯѩᒔ଀Հк߆۞֣ڼѣ৸Ҙᜋ઼ᚱĂ׌࣎ҋ ᓑЪ઼ᄮؠऱҹཏफᄃ৸ऄ׍౯ᘪཌ୧ࡗ۞፾ϲ઼छٺӀৈĄѩγĂϤ۞ ΐˢк࣎ᓑЪ઼ٙᛳ۞઼ᅫ௡ᖐĂТॡ˵׶̙Т۞઼˵֣ڼ୧ІĂ׌࣎ҋ פϲγϹᙯܼĄ౅࿅ᄃ৸Ҙᜋ۞ҋϤᓑ༖ᙯܼĂऱҹཏफᄃ৸ऄፂѩޙछ ᅫгҜણᄃ઼ᅫ௡ᖐĄώ͛౅࿅።Ϋ۞ਔඛĂ઼פۋ଀౵к۞གྷᑻӀৈă ၹҋϤᓑ༖۞ᙯܼĂͽ̈́ҋϤᓑ༖ጳ߆ޙᕩৼ΍ऱҹཏफă৸ऄᄃ৸Ҙᜋ ۞˯ᅫгҜඈᛉᗟ઼פۋĂऱҹཏफă৸ऄᄃ৸ҘᜋдགྷᑻӀৈᄃ˭ޘט ˬ֎ᙯܼĄ 貳、庫克群島、紐埃與紐西蘭政治整合前的歷史背景 ˘ăऱҹཏफᖎ̬ ऱҹཏफߏϤ 15 ࣎फᑎ௡ј۞ཏफĂ2016 ѐˠ˾ࠎ 17,459 ˠ ĞMcDonald, 2018: 142-43ğĂ͹ࢋˠ˾ࠎͨӀˠĂౙгࢬ᎕ࡗࠎ 240 π̳͞ ऱҹཏफă৸ऄᄃ৸Ҙᜋ۞ҋϤᓑ༖ᙯܼ 91 ᛳ֧ࠟκҘֲĞFrench PolynesiağڱΔ͞Ăڌ1ĄгநҜཉдݑ͉π߶৸Ҙᜋ֧ ࡔͷ൴னధкफᑎ۞ࡻ͵ 18 ٺᄃ೺ᑻĞFijiğ̝มĂ׎׻Щ੓໚ߏϤ߿᜙ ѐ൳ౙऱ 1773 ٺĞCaptain James Cookğ2Ąྜؒ೻ऱҹܜ௺೻ऱҹؒྜ઼ ҹཏफĂ1777 ѐГѨౄణྍफĄऱҹཏफϫ݈ߏ৸Ҙᜋ۞ҋϤᓑ༖֣ јࣶ۞৸ҘᜋၹјొЊĄםĞassociated stateğјࣶĂ˵ߏ̂ࡻ઼ Ξਕညҫᅳ̂໨г˘ᇹҫᅳऱҹཏ઼ڱѐĂऱҹཏफˠϔፉ͕ 1888 ߏјࠎ˞ࡻ઼۞᜕ܲгĄ1900 ѐ 9 ͡Ăफϔᅳఞ೩΍ኛᙸ३ĂࢋՐٺफĂ ࠎࡻ઼ᅳ˿Ą1900 ѐ 10 ͡Ăऱҹཏफˠϔ드ఞᘪཌТຍ׀૟఺ֱཏफЪ οॲፂࡻ઼ 1895 ѐĺതϔгᙝކ३Ăјࠎࡻ઼̃ͳ۞ᅳгĄ1901 ѐĂࡻ઼ ৸Ҙᜋ۞തϔгٺĻĞColonial Boundaries Act 1985ğĂऱҹཏफజᕩᛳڱࠧ ,ቑಛ̰Ăઇࠎࡻ઼۞͉π߶ᅳ˿ؼҩгĞRoberts-Wray, 1966: 891, Gilson ᙯڼ96-109ğćϺӈ 1901 ѐ੓Ăऱҹཏफಶᄃ৸Ҙᜋಶѣ˞ϒё۞߆ :1980 ፟ڱᅮՐĂٙͽऱҹཏफд 1947 ѐјϲ˞ϲ۞عऱҹཏफг͞߆ٺĄϤܼ ĻĞBritish Nationality and NewڱၹĄ༊ 1948 ѐĺ̂ࡻ઼ᚱ̈́৸Ҙᜋ઼ᚱ ѐ 1 ͡ 1 ͟Ϡड़ॡĂүࠎࡻ઼Ҋϔ۞ 1949 ٺZealand Citizenship Act 1948ğ ଀৸Ҙᜋ઼ᚱĞGreen, 2005; Firth, 2013: 3ğĄ1957 ѐĂऱפϔҋજاऱҹफ ፟ၹԼࠎ͹ࢋϤϔᏴயϠĞFirth, 2013: 3ğĄ̙࿅Ăд৸Ҙᜋڱҹཏफ۞ϲ ᛳᅳ˿Ąܢ፾ϲ̝݈Ăऱҹཏफ̪൒ߏ৸Ҙᜋ۞ٕڼՙؠග̟ιࣇҋع߆ ˟ă৸ऄᖎ̬ ݑ͉π߶Ă2015 ѐˠ˾ࠎ 1,758 ˠĞMcDonald, 2018: 145ğĂٺ৸ऄҜ ৸ऄ۞୉ཏၹј˯ᄃऱҹཏफ̙ТĂ৸ऄ͹ࢋ୉ཏߏ֧ࠟκҘֲˠ ΔڌĞPolynesiansğćѩγĂౙгࢬ᎕ࡗ 260 π̳֧͞3ĄгநҜཉд৸Ҙᜋ 220 ٺॲፂέ៉γϹొ۞ྤफ़Ăऱҹཏफౙгࢬ᎕ࡗ 240 π̳֧͞Ă15 ࣎͹ࢋफᑎ೸Ҷ 1 ༱π̳͎͞۞ঔા̰Ą2016 ѐ۞௚ࢍྤफ़Ăऱҹཏफࡗѣ 78.2%ߏͨӀˠĄ ĞCaptain CookğĂܜ௺೻ऱҹĞ1728 ѐ 11 ͡ 7 ͟ů1779 ѐ 2 ͡ 14 ͟ğĂ˫Щऱҹؒྜ 2 ˵лཏफ۞ለ߷ˠĂރ׶आثڌπ߶Ă૲ᅳᚻฤ௺ࣶјࠎࢵԲ൳ౙ፫߷͉ـ؇׻݈ޘˬ ߏ૲ᅳለ߷௺੸ࢵѨᒖᖒ৸ҘᜋਝҖ۞ˠĄ ॲፂέ៉γϹొྤफ़Ă৸ऄ۞ౙгࢬ᎕ 260 π̳֧͞Ąࡗ 66.5%ˠ˾ߏ৸ऄ֧ࠟκҘֲ 3 ˠĄ ăௐ 3 ഇĞ2020/ࡌ؞ཱིğס Įέ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώįௐ 16 92 ᙝ݋ߏऱҹཏफĄ1774 ѐĂڌΐĂΔᙝߏᖠᇝֲĞSamoağĂڌĂҘᙝߏ͞ ৸ऄ۞ለ߷ˠĄॲፂĺ1886 ѐࡻᇇ̳ࡗĻזऱҹதᅳ۞௺ᚻјࣶߏࢵԲ࠻ ĞAnglo-German Convention of 1886ğĂ৸ऄజထᕩࠎᇇ઼ᛳгĞParsons, ჯкӀֲ̃ͳĂԓ୕ࡻ઼᜕ܲܫ۰д࡭ڼ262ğĄ1889 ѐĂ৸ऄफ۞௚ :1968 ᖠᇝֲٺഇ၆ܜ৸ऄ۞щБĂҭϏਕтᙸĄ19 ͵ࡔϐĂࡻ઼ă઼࡚ăᇇ઼ ୢᖠᇝֲĂ઼࡚ᄃᇇ̶઼౷ᖠᇝֲĄٸᛉд 1899 ѐӘ˘࣎߱རĂࡻ઼ۋ˿ᅳ οॲፂࡻކኛᙸ३ć1901 ѐĂࡻ઼۞׀ѐĂ৸ऄफϔ೩΍Тຍࡻ઼Ъ 1900 ˢऱҹཏफĂ֭д 1901 ѐјࠎ৸Ҙ׀ĻĂ૟৸ऄڱѐĺതϔгᙝࠧ 1895 ઼ ᜋ۞തϔгᅳ˿ĞRoberts-Wray, 1966: 897; Parsons, 1968: 242-43ğĄ 參、聯合國非殖民化政策的影響 ˘ăᓑЪ઼ܧതϔ̼߆ඉ ன၁˯Ăଂ˿гࢬ᎕ăˠ˾ᇴඈඈֽ࠻Ă৸Ҙᜋдᇴፂ˯ᅈᅈ෹࿅ऱ ҹཏफͽ̈́৸ऄĄ৸Ҙᜋ۞ˠ˾ᇴд 2020 ѐ 7 ͡ࠎ 4,925,477 ˠĂౙгࢬ ऱٺ᎕ 264,537 π̳֧͞ĞCentral Intelligence Agency, 2020ğĄ৸Ҙᜋ࠹ྵ ҹཏफă৸ऄ۞ˠ˾ᄃ˿гࢬ᎕Ăΐ˯৸Ҙᜋ۞གྷᑻ၁˧Ă৸Ҙᜋೀͼߏ ߏ 1945 ѐ̝ܮ୧Іֽ࠻Ăӈ៍މऱҹཏफᄃ৸ऄυืࣅᏥ۞၆෪Ąଂ఺ֱ ޢĂᓑЪ઼ଯજܧതϔ̼߆ඉĂऱҹཏफᄃ৸ऄ˵ᙱͽԆБ௲ᗓ৸Ҙᜋ҃ Ԇፋ፾ϲҋ͹Ą തϔ̼።Ϋ۞ВТ੓ᕇߏ 1945 ѐĂ৸Ҙᜋણΐܧ৸Ҙᜋᄃ׎΁઼छ۞ ᛉ˯੓ਨ۞ĺᓑЪ઼ጳౢĻĞUnited Nations CharterğĂ൒҃৸Ҙົ̋ܛдᖞ ᅫᓑ༖ĞLeague of઼۞ޢѨ͵ࠧ̂ጼ˘זതϔ̼གྷ።Ξ੠໖ܧᜋҋ̎۞ ؠĻĞ Australia-New ZealandםNationsğٕ 1944 ѐ۞ĺ፫߷ᄃ৸Ҙᜋ Agreement of 1944ĂٕჍĺӯૈ̳ٛࡗĻCanberra PactğĂҭߏ 1945 ѐĺᓑ Ъ઼ጳౢĻߏ఼૱జෛࠎБ஧Νതϔ̼۞ฟბĞMcDonald, 2018: 38ğĄ1945 ҋܧο׎ކኛᓑЪ઼Чົ઼ࣶܜĂᓑЪ઼৪३ޢѐĺᓑЪ઼ጳౢĻ੓ਨ̝ Ă৸Ҙᜋ࠱ޢࢋՐ۞ܜᓑЪ઼৪३זᅳ˿Ă֭ШᓑЪ઼ಡӘĄ৸Ҙᜋќڼ ऱҹཏफă৸ऄᄃ৸Ҙᜋ۞ҋϤᓑ༖ᙯܼ 93 ؠڼચ૟ҋڱᅳ˿۞ؠཌྷĄ࠱छڼҋܧચᄮࠎĂऱҹཏफ׶৸ऄ௑Ъڱछ ڼдऱҹཏफᄃ৸ऄफߏӎ௑ЪҋٺཌྷࠎˠࣇᏴᓝҋ̎۞΃ܑ̝ਕ˧Ą၆ Ăҭ΁ࣇдጳౢ̰̙֭ޘטڱચᄮࠎጐგ΁ࣇѣफᛉົ۞ϲڱᅳ˿Ă࠱छ ˭ĞMcDonald, 2018: 41ğĄ༊ॡдᓁந Peter Fraser ᅳጱڼߏĶ·̶ķ۞ҋ Ăᄮࠎऱҹཏफߏ৸Ҙᜋ̙Ξٕ৿۞˘ొЊĂᄮؠ৸Ҙᜋᄃع৸Ҙᜋ߆۞ ऱҹཏफ۞ᙯܼ̙ߏതϔᙯܼĂᓑЪ઼̙ᑕྍ̬ˢ৸Ҙᜋᄃཏफ۞ᙯܼ ĞMcDonald, 2018: 42ğĄ തϔ̼᜜ኢĂኡѣᝋՙؠ˘࣎ᅳ˿ߏܧѐҌ 1960 ѐĂᓑЪ઼ซҖ 1946 തܧĞMcDonald, 2018: 45ğĄາᎸ፾ϲ઼छ۞૦੓ΐిᓑЪ઼ଯજڼӎҋ ֏ĻĞ Declaration onކϔ̼͞ࢬ۞߆ඉĂ1960 ѐᓑЪ઼ĺΝതϔ̼ Decolonisation, 1960ğ݋ͅߍ˞఺࣎ᔌ๕ĄĺΝതϔ̼ކ֏ć఼࿅ޢѨ͟Ă ቁ޽΍׎ዋϡቑಛᄃˬ࣎ዋϡҋՙ͞९ĈĞ1ğјࠎ͹ᝋ፾ϲ઼छځՙᛉ Ğemergence as a sovereign independent stateğćĞ2ğᄃ˘࣎፾ϲ઼छ۞ҋϤ ׀ᓑ༖Ğfree association with an independent stateğćٕĞ3ğᄃ፾ϲ઼छЪ Ğintegration with an independent stateğĞMcDonald, 2018: 48ğĄௐ˟࣎Ᏼี ଀·̶ྤੈૄᖂ˭Ă౅࿅ϔ͹פٙᏜ۞ҋϤᓑ༖Ăߏপؠᅳ˿۞ˠϔĂд ඀Ԕܑ҃྿΍ֽ۞ҋϤᄃҋᙸᏴፄĄҋϤᓑ༖ᑕྍ಴ࢦྍᅳ˿̈́׎ˠϔ۞ পّ׶̼͛পኳĂྍᅳ˿̰۞ˠϔѣԼត׎гҜ۞ҋϤĂ˵ѣᝋՙؠ׎̰ జതϔ۞फᑎдٺγࠧ̒ᕘĞMcDonald, 2018: 48-49ğĄᙯצĂ̙ڱጳ۞ొ ந˯۞гҜĂ඗̂кᇴफᑎౌ̙дವՐ͹ᝋгҜĂҭ˵̙ԓ୕εΝҋ͹ڱ ᛉםڼᙸຍΐˢ΁ࣇ۞߆ޝ˵૱ᝋĂ͹ጱ఺ֱజതϔफᑎ۞઼छ๕˧఼ ˘Ą၆జതϔ۞फᑎ҃֏ĂҋϤᓑ༖఺჌ඉரߏࣘ׍நّᄃጼரّኳĂ̚ ˘ࠎ֗ڍόफᑎ೩੼͹ᝋҭεΝщБᄃགྷᑻĂ఺̙֭Ъͼ౵੼۞ӀৈĄт ࣎г͞৺۞फ઼Ăਕᒔ଀઼͚̂޺۞щБშĂТॡΞჯ޺ϔ୉̶֗ă̼͛ ͹ཌྷĂ֭ၘೖග઼̟̈ޓᛳ۞઼̂˵ਕҖֹహّ۞ܢҖֹг͞۞ᝋӀĂ֭ ֽڶېफ઼ӀৈĞBaldacchino, 2010: 19-20ğĄଂҋϤᓑ༖࠹ᙯౘࢗᄃ၁ᅫ छԆБ፾ϲᄃࣧതϔᕩᛳᅳ˿̝มĂҋϤᓑ༖઼ٺ࠻ĂҋϤᓑ༖۞Ҝล̬ ҋϤĞfreeğຍཌྷஉᄏྤੈ·֖ăԆБϔ͹Ă֭ѣᖎಏΞҖ̝඀Ԕ௲ᗓҋ۞ Ϥᓑ༖҃Ԇј፾ϲ̝୧ІĄҋϤᓑ༖͹ࢋ۞পᇈѣˬĂௐ˘ĂҋϤᓑ༖ј ăௐ 3 ഇĞ2020/ࡌ؞ཱིğס Įέ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώįௐ 16 94 ͹ཌྷ۞ؼҩĂ઼ޓహّٺᛳ˯ޘࣶܲѣҋϤซ΍ᓑ༖۞ᝋӀćௐ˟Ăߙ඀ ࣧതϔϓ઼࢑య׎઼֨γϹĂҭυืܲᅪ׎གྷᑻщБćௐˬĂΐ༖ҋϤ֣ Ш̚Ăऱҹཏफᄃ৸ऄౌᏴፄௐפ፾ϲវĄдӀৈ౵̼̂۞۞ڼҋޘߏ੼ Ăᄃ˘࣎፾ϲ۞઼छҋϤᓑ༖Ă҃ҋϤᓑ༖၆෪ಶߏ৸ҘᜋĄี˟ ăऱҹཏफᄃ৸Ҙᜋ۞ҋϤᓑ༖።඀˟ തϔ̼߆ඉ۞͉π߶फᑎĂּтࡻᛳٙᘲܧѐĂᓑЪ઼Е΍ଯજ 1960 ཏफĞSolomon Islandsğă೺ᑻඈć፫߷۞າೀֲ̰ĞNew Guineağ׶Ꮪܝ ੉ᅳ˿ăऱܫጆĞNauruğ੉გડඈć৸Ҙᜋ۞ҘᖠᇝֲĞWestern Samoağ ڼҋܧᅳ˿ć઼࡚ጼரّ͉π߶फᑎ੉გડĂͽ̈́ڼҋܧҹཏफă৸ऄඈ ᙯफĞGuamğă࡚ᛳᖠᇝֲඈඈĞMcDonald, 2018: 49ğĄҘᖠᇝֲߏௐ˘࣎ ѐјࠎ፾ϲ઼छĄனдĂҘ 1962 ٺफᑎᅳ˿ĂҘᖠᇝֲ۞ט௲ᗓ৸Ҙᜋଠ ᖠᇝֲॲፂĺ̓р୧ࡗĻĞTreaty of Friendshipğᄃ৸Ҙᜋܲ޺඾૜̷ᓑᘭ4Ą Ă೩ֻҖ߆ăԫఙͽ̈́ڶې۞ع҂ณҘᖠᇝֲ߆عྍ୧ࡗఢؠĂ৸Ҙᜋ߆ ׎΁೯ӄኛՐĞTownend, 2003: 579ğĄᐌ඾ᓑЪ઼၆͉π߶ЧफᑎΝതϔ̼ ҂ऱҹཏफ׶৸ऄफϏֽҋՙ۞ᛉޥͽ̈́ҘᖠᇝֲĂ৸Ҙᜋฟؕڦᙯ۞ ᗟĂֹ֭ܳ৸Ҙᜋд 1962 ѐವՐᄃऱҹཏफ׶৸ऄВТົથѩયᗟ ĞMcDonald, 2018: 46, 49ğĄ ऱҹཏफᄃҘᖠᇝֲ̙ТĂऱҹཏफ֭ϏᏴፄԆБ፾ϲĂ҃ߏд 1965 Ăٚᄮ৸Ҙᜋ۞̃ͳع߆֣ڼѐᏴፄᄃ৸ҘᜋјࠎҋϤᓑ༖઼छĂјࠎҋ ੳ˭˵ߏऱҹཏफ۞઼छ̮ࢵĞTownend, 2003: 579ğĄ1962 ѐĂऱҹཏफ ᛉ͞९۞ҋϤᓑ༖ᙯޙĄдᓑЪ઼טᛉົ׶৸ऄᛉົ̪Ϥ৸Ҙᜋٙଠڱϲ ķĂߏҋϤᓑ༖ᙯܼࢍထซ඀۞௣ᕇĂ׎၁Ăѩซ඀ѝд 1946ڼĶҋ̝ܼ ᓑٺಶฟؕ˞ĞMcDonald, 2018: 52-53ğĄ၆ܐᛉົ̝ڱѐऱҹཏफјϲϲ ᛉڱЪ઼۞͞९Ăऱҹཏफ֭Ϗࢬᓜതϔᄃ፾ϲ̝ม۞ԭፄĂऱҹཏफϲ ᛉڱᛉົ١඗Ąϲזķ۞೩ᛉĂ፾ϲᏴีዎڼĶႽΞਕԆፋ̰ొҋצତົ 4 ѐ 8 ͡Ă৸ҘᜋᄃҘᖠᇝֲᘪࢎĺ̓р୧ࡗĻĞTreaty of FriendshipğĂ1997 ѐĂҘᖠ 1962 ᇝֲՀԼ઼ЩࠎᖠᇝֲĞSamoağĄ ऱҹཏफă৸ऄᄃ৸Ҙᜋ۞ҋϤᓑ༖ᙯܼ 95 Ą׀ᔵ൒՟ѣ೩̷ֻ၁ΞҖ۞೩ᛉĂ˵֭ϏЯੑ߆ӀৈᏴፄᄃ৸ҘᜋЪົ ऱҹཏफᏴፄܲхҋ̎᝭ๆ۞ϔ୉֗ЊĞMcDonald, 2018: 64-65ğĄЯࠎĂ ऱҹཏफຐგநҋ̎۞ְચĂலౣऱҹཏफдгநă።Ϋăགྷᑻ׶ۤົඈ ᆸࢬౌᄃ৸Ҙᜋၟ൒̙ТĞAikman, et al., 1999: 521ğĄ1963 ѐ 6 ͡Ă৸Ҙ ࢍ൪ĞAikman, et۞ڼѐᔙШ̰ొҋ 1965 ٺᛉົᅍ΍ڱШऱҹཏफϲعᜋ߆ ᛉົ̚ၣ΍৸Ҙᜋڱal., 1999: 557-61ğĄ৸Ҙᜋ۞ࢍထߏుՎଂऱҹཏफϲ ΃ેҖ؎ࣶפ৪३Ăјϲ˘࣎ऱҹཏफ̰ᅦعᛉ঻Ї߆ޙዸ૞ࣶĂ่૱۞ ົඈඈĞMcDonald, 2018: 65ğĄ ᏴፄҋϤᓑ༖۞ᙯܼĂઇࠎΝതϔ̼۞͞९Ąޢ৸Ҙᜋᄃऱҹཏफ౵ ҋϤᓑ༖ᙯܼߏдᓑЪ઼ٚᄮ˭௣ඕ̝݈ᄃ৸Ҙᜋ۞തϔᙯܼ ĞQuentin-Baxter, 1999: 590ğĄ ѐ 11 ͡ 17 ͟ĂдᓑЪ઼۞ᅃጱ˭Ă৸Ҙᜋ઼ົ఼࿅ 1964 ѐĺ ऱ 1964 ϔا९ĻĞCook Islands Constitution Act 1964ğĂ֭дऱҹཏफڱڱҹཏफጳ ϔĄاග༊гٸᝋӀᛖڼĂ૟ྍཏफ۞ҋޢᛉ̂Ᏼ̝ົڱѐԆјϲ 1965 ٺ ऱҹཏफᄃ৸ҘᜋҋϤᓑ༖ᙯܼٺ९Ļѣೀ࣎ᙯڱڱĺ1964 ѐऱҹཏफጳ ߏऱҹཏफ۞ڱăĞbğऱҹཏफ۞ጳ۞ڼࢦࢋఢؠĈĞağऱҹཏफߏҋ۞ ЇңఢؠĂӮ̙ᇆᜩ৸Ҙᜋ̃۞̚ڱăĞcğ၆γְચ׶઼֨дώޠڱ౵੼ ͳੳ˭၆ऱҹཏफঘγְચ׶઼֨۞యЇăĞdğॲፂ 1948ĺ̂ࡻ઼ᚱ̈́৸ ĻĞBritish Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act 1948ğĂώڱҘᜋ઼ᚱ ЇңఢؠӮ̙ᇆᜩЇңˠүࠎࡻ઼Ҋϔٕ৸Ҙᜋ̳ϔ۞гҜ۞ڱ ᛉᏴົڱĞMcDonald, 2018: 71-72ğĄ1965 ѐ 4 ͡ 20 ͟ĂऱҹཏफԆјϲ ९ĻĞCook Islandsڱ࣒ϒڱᓝĂТѐ 7 ͡ 26 ͟Ă৸Ҙᜋ఼࿅ĺऱҹཏफጳ ϔ৸Ҙᜋ̳ϔ̶֗ĂΞͽҋاConstitution Amendment ActğĂኬ̟ऱҹཏफ Ϥซ΍৸ҘᜋĂ҃ऱҹཏफᄃ৸Ҙᜋ̝ม݋ͽҋϤᓑЪĞfree associationğ ݭၗЪүĂऱҹཏफ઼छ̮ࢵߏϿఆ௻Ϩ˟͵̃ͳĂ֭ͷ౅࿅Ᏼᓝՙؠ۞ ᝋӀĂҭдγొְચ˯Ă݋ߏڼጾѣԆፋ۞ҋعĄऱҹཏफ߆عҋ̎۞߆ Ϥ৸ҘᜋֽႾ༛׎γϹᄃ઼֨͞ࢬ۞ְચĄ1965 ѐ 8 ͡ 4 ͟Ăऱҹཏफૄ Ąາጳ߆ೱֽԆፋ۞̰ᅦăڼ଀˞̰ొ۞ҋפᄃ৸Ҙᜋ۞ҋϤᓑ༖ᙯܼĂٺ ր௚ඈඈĄ̃ͳߏ઼छ۞̮ࢵĂͽ̈́˘Ҝ৸Ҙᜋ޽ڱᛉົă፾ϲ۞Φڱϲ ăௐ 3 ഇĞ2020/ࡌ؞ཱིğס Įέ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώįௐ 16 96 Ϥᓁ༛޽ࠁğĄऱҹཏफჯ޺ޢࠁ۞੼৺૞ࣶĞ৸ҘᜋᄃऱҹཏफᓁநᏙથ ࠎࡻ઼۞Ҋᛳ઼гҜĂऱҹཏफˠТॡጾѣ৸Ҙᜋ઼ᚱĄдᄃऱҹཏफᓁ ѣᖚయ఍நऱҹཏफ۞၆γְચᄃ઼֨щБعந۞Ꮩથ˭Ă৸Ҙᜋ߆ ĞStone, 1966: 168ğĄᓑЪ઼˵Тॡд 1965 ѐĂԲࣞ৸Ҙᜋᄃऱҹཏफ۞ ҋϤᓑ༖ᙯܼĞFirth, 1989: 79ğĄ ă৸ऄᄃ৸Ҙᜋ۞ҋϤᓑ༖።඀ˬ ৸ऄд఍நͅതϔ̼۞ᛉᗟ˯Ă৸ऄˠࢵАԓ୕ܲ঻৸Ҙᜋ઼ᚱٺᙯ ᖣͽܲᅪ৸ऄˠ۞ซˢ৸Ҙᜋ۞ᝋӀĂЯࠎ΁ࣇ۞ధкᏐˠд৸Ҙᜋ̍ү ׶Ϡ߿Ąௐ˟ߏ৸ҘᜋܲᙋᚶᜈШྍफ೩ֻੑ߆׶Җ߆೯ӄĂܲᅪ৸ऄˠ Ϡ߿ͪ໤Ąௐˬߏჯ޺৸ऄˠҋ̎۞֗ЊĂჯ޺ҋ̎۞Ϡ߿͞ёᄃგந۞ ҋְ̎ચĞQuentin-BaxtTer, 1971: 5ğĄ Ҷࠎࡻ઼ކ৸ऄ׶ऱҹཏफ˘ᇹѣᙷҬ۞።Ϋ྽ྮĄ৸ऄд 1900 ѐజ Ăд 1974 ѐ̝݈Ă৸ऄ˘ۡߏ৸Ҙᜋ׀઼᜕Ă֭д 1901 ѐజ৸Ҙᜋӌܲ തϔᅳгĄ৸ऄˠညऱҹཏफˠ˘ᇹĂܲ঻˞৸Ҙᜋ઼ᚱĄ৸ऄд 1974۞ Ă֣ڼѐड़ϼऱҹཏफĂតј৸Ҙᜋ۞ҋϤᓑ༖˘ࣶĂјࠎ˘࣎፾ϲ۞ҋ ,ᄃऱҹཏफ˘ᇹĂෛ৸Ҙᜋ۞̃ͳੳ˭ࠎ৸ऄ۞઼छ̮ࢵĞTownend˵ ९ĻĞCook Islands Constitution Actڱڱ579ğĄĺ1964 ѐऱҹཏफጳ :2003 ९ĻĞNiue Constitution Act 1974ğௐ 5ڱڱ1964ğௐ 6 ୧׶ĺ1974 ѐ৸ऄጳ ĻĞBritish Nationality andڱѐĺ̂ࡻ઼ᚱ̈́৸Ҙᜋ઼ᚱ 1948 ٺ୧ӮఢؠĈૄ ЇңఢؠӮ̙ᇆᜩЇ۞̚ڱ९ٕጳڱNew Zealand Citizenship Act 1948ğĂྍ ңˠүࠎࡻ઼Ҋϔٕ৸Ҙᜋ̳ϔ۞гҜĞFirth, 2013: 3ğĄॲፂ 1974 ѐ৸ऄ ৸ऄώгٺ߉Җ֭ޠڱࢎטĂ৸Ҙᜋ઼ົ̙ਕع߆ڼ९Ă৸ऄߏҋڱڱጳ ĞQuentin-Baxter, 1999: 588ğĄ ৸ऄᄃ৸Ҙᜋ۞ጳ߆ᙯܼ׶ऱҹཏफᄃ৸Ҙᜋ۞ᙯܼᙷҬĂ఺࣎ጳ߆ ѐ 9 ͡ 3 ͟дᓑЪ઼Ⴞ༛˭۞̳Ը̚ԆјĞClark, 1980: 87ğĄ 1974 ٺᙯܼ मҾćಶऱҹ۞˯ޘᔵ൒ౌߏҋϤ֣Ă၁ᅫ˯Ăऱҹཏफᄃ৸ऄᔘߏѣ඀ ܕ৸ऄĂऱҹཏफͧྵତٺдҋϤᓑ༖ᙯܼ˯Ă࠹ྵع߆ڼཏफ҃֏Ăҋ ፾ϲĞTownend, 2003: 582ğĄଂԛё˯Ăऱҹཏफѣ׌Ҝ̃ͳੳ˭۞΃ܑĂٺ ऱҹཏफă৸ऄᄃ৸Ҙᜋ۞ҋϤᓑ༖ᙯܼ 97 ࣎ߏऱҹཏफ۞̃ͳĞQueen’s Representativeğ΃ܑĂΩ˘Щߏऱҹཏफ˘ ᖎྵͧڶې৸ऄĂٺᓁ༛ĞGovernor-GeneralğĂүࠎ৸Ҙᜋ۞˘ొЊĄҌ ,ಏۡତĂᓁ༛ĞGovernor-Generalğಶߏ৸ऄ۞͹ᝋĞ̃ͳğ΃ܑĞTownend 2003: 583ğ5Ą ৸ऄٺ९ĻĞNiue Constitution Act 1974ğѣೀ࣎ᙯڱڱĺ1974 ѐ৸ऄጳ ߏڱăĞbğ৸ऄጳڼᄃ৸ҘᜋҋϤᓑ༖ᙯܼ۞ࢦࢋఢؠĂּтĞağ৸ऄҋ Їң۞ڱĂώڱăĞcğॲፂ 1948 ѐࡻ઼઼ᚱ׶৸Ҙᜋ઼ᚱޠڱ৸ऄ۞౵੼ ఢؠӮ̙ᇆᜩЇңˠүࠎࡻ઼Ҋϔٕ৸Ҙᜋ̳ϔ۞гҜăĞdğ၆γְચ׶ ЇңఢؠӮ̙ᇆᜩ৸Ҙᜋ̃ͳੳ˭၆৸ऄঘγְચ׶઼֨۞̚ڱдώ઼֨ ᑕྍᚶᜈШ৸ऄ೩ֻυࢋ۞གྷᑻ׶Җ߆೯ӄăĞfğعయЇăĞeğ৸Ҙᜋ߆۞ عĂ޷໰ҋ̎߆ޢથם৸Ҙᜋ׶৸ऄ̝ม۞Ъүд৸Ҙᜋᓁநᄃ৸ऄᓁந ĻĞState Service Actڱચڇ߆ඉଯજຽચăĞgğ৸Ҙᜋॲፂ 1962 ѐĺ઼छ۞ 1962ğЇ׻৸Ҙᜋ৸ऄ΃ܑĂ৸Ҙᜋ΃ܑᑕዸ௛д৸ऄĂ֭ᑕߏ৸Ҙᜋ߆ д৸ऄ۞΃ܑĞMcDonald, 2018: 96-97ğĄ1975 ѐĂᓑЪ઼ϒёԲࣞ৸ऄع ᛉĞFirth, 1989: 79ğĄםᄃ৸Ҙᜋ۞ҋϤᓑ༖ 肆、自由聯盟關係下的自由邦內部關係 ऱҹཏफᄃ৸ऄᔵ൒ౌߏ৸Ҙᜋ۞ҋϤ֣Ăҭ၁ᅫ˯Ăऱҹཏफᄃ৸ ѩ۞჌୉˵̙ТĂऱҹཏफϔߏͨӀˠࠎ͹វĂ৸كऄ۞ᓑᘭ̙֭૜̷Ă ऄफϔ݋ߏ֧ࠟκҘֲˠࠎ͹វĄ΁ࣇ۞ᙯܼాඕ͹ࢋߏᗕ͞࠰ѣࠎᇴி ҝд৸ҘᜋĂٕߏऱҹཏफᄃ৸ऄ۞ᗁᒚྤ໚ăିֈྤ໚ᄃಫاк۞̳ϔ ࠻Ă৸ऄᄃ৸Ҙᜋ۞ጳ߆ᙯܼྵֽڶې৸ҘᜋĄଂ၁ᅫٺચ͹ࢋֽҋڇវ ,࿰ზĞCrocombe & Crocombeعࠎ૜̷Ă৸Ҙᜋ೩ֻ˞৸ऄ̂ࡗ 75%۞߆ ಴ࢦĂЇң۞̶·זצυืڼĂҋϤᓑ༖ᙯܼ˯۞ҋ˯ڼ37ğĄд߆ :1990 થĞQuentin-Baxter, 1999: 594ğĄם̶·߆ඉ͞९ౌυืགྷ࿅ᗕ͞۞ ˢऱҹཏफĂјࠎऱҹཏफ˘ొЊĂГৼˢ৸Ҙᜋͳ઼ડĂѩ׀৸ऄд 1901 ѐజٺϤ 5 ҜลĂऱҹཏफѣ৸Ҙᜋͳ઼ᓁ༛ᄃࡻ઼̃ͳ΃ܑĂטҋϤᓑ༖ᙯܼ۞ጳ߆វז၁ᇆᜩְ ৸ऄ่ѣᓁ༛Ă֭൑ࡻ઼̃ͳ΃ܑĄ҃ ăௐ 3 ഇĞ2020/ࡌ؞ཱིğס Įέ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώįௐ 16 98 טăҋϤᓑ༖ᙯܼ۞ጳ߆វ˘ ᙯܼѣᙷҬ఍Ă˵ֱ຋̙Т۞मטऱҹཏफă৸ऄᄃ৸Ҙᜋ۞ጳ߆វ Ă̶ొ˘۞ڱ९Ļߏ৸Ҙᜋϲڱڱள఍Ąऱҹཏफ۞ 1964 ѐĺऱҹཏफጳ ऱҹٺĂ՟ѣЇңְଐΞͽᇆᜩ৸Ҙᜋ̃ͳĞӈࡻ઼̃ͳğ၆˭ڱдѩጳ Ă૟ᆹҖ఺ֱᖚయޢથםཏफ۞ᖚయĂ৸Ҙᜋᓁநᄃऱҹཏफ۞ᓁநд ĞFirth, 1989: 77ğĄ̙࿅Ăдᄃ৸Ҙᜋ۞ጳ߆ᙯܼ˭Ăऱҹཏफᄃ৸ऄౌΞ ऱҹཏफᄃ৸ऄౌຐ௲ᗓ৸ҘᜋĂҋϤᓑ༖఺ᆸጳ߆ڍͽҋϤгᗓฟĂт ᙯܼග̟ऱҹཏफᄃ৸ऄ˘࣎ᖎಏ۞ՎូಶΞͽјࠎ͹ᝋ፾ϲ۞઼छ ĞFirth, 1989: 78ğĄ γזĂϤफᑎᅳ˿ొ೩̿ܝ৸Ҙᜋ࢑య఍நऱҹཏफᄃ৸ऄְચ۞ొ ˘ࢵѨјࠎޢѐ 8 ͡ 4 ͟ᄃ৸ҘᜋҋϤᓑ༖ 1965 ٺĄऱҹཏफొٽϹ׶෶ ߏफᑎᅳ˿ొĞDepartment ofܝ࢑యऱҹཏफ۞ొعॡĂ৸Ҙᜋ߆֣ڼ࣎ҋ ֣ڼѐ 10 ͡ 19 ͟ᄃ৸ҘᜋҋϤᓑ༖ࠎҋ 1974 ٺIsland TerritoriesğĄ৸ऄ ॡĂफᑎᅳ˿ొ̙̏ೇхдĂι۞ᖚయொϹගͨӀˠ׶फᑎְચొ۞फᑎ ᅳ˿ࡊĞIsland Territories Unit in the Department of Maori and Island ૟࢑య఍நҋϤᓑ༖۞ҋϤ֣ᖚعAffairsğĄ1974 ѐ 11 ͡ 8 ͟Ă৸Ҙᜋ߆ ķొٽԼЩࠎĶγϹ׶෶ֽޢయொϹගγϹొĞMinistry of Foreign AffairsĂ ĞMinistry of Foreign Affairs and TradeğĞQuentin-Baxter, 2008: 612ğĄ ৸Ҙᜋᄃऱҹཏफă৸ऄ۞ҋϤᓑ༖ሀёдЪүူҡ̝มܲ঻˞ࢦࢋ ٚᄮ઼छ̮ࢵ̪൒ߏ৸Ҙᜋ۞̃ͳੳڱጳ۞֣ڼඕĈĞ1ğҋాޘטጳ߆۞ ٚᏚĂعˠϔֶ׎ᝋӀ̪൒ߏ৸Ҙᜋ̳ϔćĞ3ğ৸Ҙᜋ߆֣ڼćĞ2ğҋ˭
Recommended publications
  • Perhaps One Framework That Could Have Been Explored As a Possible Theme of the Book Was the Differences in Strategy Employed by Various National-Based IWW Unions

    Perhaps One Framework That Could Have Been Explored As a Possible Theme of the Book Was the Differences in Strategy Employed by Various National-Based IWW Unions

    REVIEWS (BOOKS) 167 Perhaps one framework that could have been explored as a possible theme of the book was the differences in strategy employed by various national-based IWW unions. For example, a major contrast existed between the US IWW, with its ‘dual unionist’ strategy (meaning it set up a new militant industrial union in opposition to conservative, craft-based unions), and the IWW in Australasia, where, as Verity Burgmann details in her chapter about the Australian IWW, Wobblies aimed to ‘bore from within’ existing unions and union federations, such as the ‘Red Feds’ (the first Federation of Labour in Aotearoa New Zealand), and actually had some success. Further, in seeking to overcome the IWW’s marginalization by historians globally – including in this country – the book sometimes veers towards over-inflating the IWW’s influence. For example, the editors’ claim that ‘the IWW reached almost every corner of the globe’ (p.8) seems exaggerated given the IWW’s negligible presence in Africa and Asia, and its sporadic influence in Europe and South America (apart from perhaps Chile and Argentina, which are not covered in the book). Wobblies of the World is a welcome addition to studies of the IWW and syndicalism globally and in Aotearoa New Zealand. It covers a broad range of countries, uses multi-lingual sources innovatively, and attempts to overcome the academic–activist divide. Yet overall these innovations are unfortunately let down by its narrative- based chapters that overall lack in-depth critical analysis. Very good, and sometimes excellent, chapters about the French influence over the IWW, and the IWW influence in Australasia, Mexico, Sweden and South Africa (among others) sit uneasily alongside chapters which are little more than fragmentary snippets and biographical vignettes.
  • Commonwealth Responsibility and Cold War Solidarity Australia in Asia, 1944–74

    Commonwealth Responsibility and Cold War Solidarity Australia in Asia, 1944–74

    COMMONWEALTH RESPONSIBILITY AND COLD WAR SOLIDARITY AUSTRALIA IN ASIA, 1944–74 COMMONWEALTH RESPONSIBILITY AND COLD WAR SOLIDARITY AUSTRALIA IN ASIA, 1944–74 DAN HALVORSON Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] Available to download for free at press.anu.edu.au ISBN (print): 9781760463236 ISBN (online): 9781760463243 WorldCat (print): 1126581099 WorldCat (online): 1126581312 DOI: 10.22459/CRCWS.2019 This title is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The full licence terms are available at creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode Cover design and layout by ANU Press. Cover image courtesy of the National Archives of Australia. NAA: A1775, RGM107. This edition © 2019 ANU Press Contents Acknowledgements . vii Abbreviations . ix 1 . Introduction . 1 2 . Region and regionalism in the immediate postwar period . 13 3 . Decolonisation and Commonwealth responsibility . 43 4 . The Cold War and non‑communist solidarity in East Asia . 71 5 . The winds of change . 103 6 . Outside the margins . 131 7 . Conclusion . 159 References . 167 Index . 185 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Cathy Moloney, Anja Mustafic, Jennifer Roberts and Lucy West for research assistance on this project. Thanks also to my colleagues Michael Heazle, Andrew O’Neil, Wes Widmaier, Ian Hall, Jason Sharman and Lucy West for reading and commenting on parts of the work. Additionally, I would like to express my gratitude to participants at the 15th International Conference of Australian Studies in China, held at Peking University, Beijing, 8–10 July 2016, and participants at the Seventh Annual Australia–Japan Dialogue, hosted by the Griffith Asia Institute and Japan Institute for International Affairs, held in Brisbane, 9 November 2017, for useful comments on earlier papers contributing to the manuscript.
  • A Governor-General's Perspective

    A Governor-General's Perspective

    THE ARCHITECTURE OF ELECTIONS IN NEW ZEALAND: A GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S PERSPECTIVE BY RT HON SIR ANAND SATYANAND, GNZM, QSO* I. INTRODUCTION I begin by greeting everyone in the languages of the realm of New Zealand, in English, Mäori, Cook Island Mäori, Niuean, Tokelauan and New Zealand Sign Language. Greetings, Kia Ora, Kia Orana, Fakalofa Lahi Atu, Taloha Ni and as it is the morning (Sign). I then specifically greet you: Rt Hon Jim Bolger, Chancellor of the University of Waikato; Professor Roy Crawford, Vice-Chancellor; Professor Bradford Morse, Dean of Te Piringa – Fac- ulty of Law; Distinguished Guests otherwise; Ladies and Gentlemen. Thank you for the invitation to give this public lecture for the Faculty of Law. Before beginning, I want to welcome you, Professor Morse, in your new role as Dean of Uni- versity of Waikato’s Faculty of Law. With your previous experience at the University of Ottawa in Canada and your considerable scholarship in indigenous law in Canada, you bring to New Zea- land a valuable perspective on our country, on particular issues relating to Mäoridom.1 I wish you well in your role. You join the University at a time when it has come of age – and is celebrating the 20th anniver- sary of the establishment of the Faculty. You will find that the University and this Faculty has a strong and rewarding connection with the Waikato-Tainui iwi. I understand the Faculty’s Mäori name, Te Piringa, was provided by the late Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu, the then Mäori Queen. Translated as “the coming together of people”, it links the Faculty to the manawhenua of Waikato-Tainui.
  • Perspectives on a Pacific Partnership

    Perspectives on a Pacific Partnership

    The United States and New Zealand: Perspectives on a Pacific Partnership Prepared by Bruce Robert Vaughn, PhD With funding from the sponsors of the Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellowships in Public Policy August 2012 Established by the Level 8, 120 Featherston Street Telephone +64 4 472 2065 New Zealand government in 1995 PO Box 3465 Facsimile +64 4 499 5364 to facilitate public policy dialogue Wellington 6140 E-mail [email protected] between New Zealand and New Zealand www.fulbright.org.nz the United States of America © Bruce Robert Vaughn 2012 Published by Fulbright New Zealand, August 2012 The opinions and views expressed in this paper are the personal views of the author and do not represent in whole or part the opinions of Fulbright New Zealand or any New Zealand government agency. Nor do they represent the views of the Congressional Research Service or any US government agency. ISBN 978-1-877502-38-5 (print) ISBN 978-1-877502-39-2 (PDF) Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellowships in Public Policy Established by the New Zealand Government in 1995 to reinforce links between New Zealand and the US, Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellowships in Public Policy provide the opportunity for outstanding mid-career professionals from the United States of America to gain firsthand knowledge of public policy in New Zealand, including economic, social and political reforms and management of the government sector. The Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellowships in Public Policy were named in honour of Sir Ian Axford, an eminent New Zealand astrophysicist and space scientist who served as patron of the fellowship programme until his death in March 2010.
  • Fundamental Rights in the Realm of New Zealand: Theory and Practice

    Fundamental Rights in the Realm of New Zealand: Theory and Practice

    85 Fundamental Rights in the Realm of New Zealand: theory and practice Alex Frame* I INTRODUCTION As may be known to the distinguished participants at this Symposium, the "Realm of New Zealand” is a constitutional concept encompassing the three autonomous legal systems of New Zealand, the Cook Islands, and Niue. The Cook Islands and Niue are States associated with New Zealand, sharing the Queen in right of New Zealand as Head of State, but enjoying exclusive and exhaustive legislative competence in matters both internal and external.1 My purpose in this paper will be to consider the treatment of "fundamental rights" in each of the three jurisdictions. By "fundamental rights" I will mean rights which a particular jurisdiction regards as sufficiently important to make their displacement by ordinary legislative processes difficult or impossible. The techniques for achieving this result can range from creating presumptions of statutory interpretation in favour of certain rights, to empowering courts to strike down legislative measures which offend them. In preparation for examining the approaches to the fundamental rights question in each of the three jurisdictions, three preliminary questions will be considered. First, the opposition between the conceptions of law as an instrument of the State on the one hand, and as a check on State power on the other, must be addressed. Secondly, the disconcertingly haphazard manner in which fundamental rights have been strewn about the common law world since World War II calls for attention. Thirdly, and of particular Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand. Alex Frame has been a teacher of, and adviser on, public law for over 20 years.
  • The Anzac Connection: Chris Seed Trans–Tasman Ties in the Century Since Beersheba∗

    The Anzac Connection: Chris Seed Trans–Tasman Ties in the Century Since Beersheba∗

    The Anzac Connection: Chris Seed Trans–Tasman Ties in the Century since Beersheba∗ The Trans–Tasman political ‘family’ It has become a habit for leaders on both sides of the Tasman to refer in their official remarks to our two countries—New Zealand and Australia—as ‘family’. One may well argue that the recent parliamentary dual citizenship revelations simply take that sentiment to its logical—and literal conclusion—because a closer analysis shows the trans–Tasman political family tree to be surprisingly deep-rooted. At a rough count, we have furnished each other (voluntarily) with no less than three prime ministers, possibly four, if John Gorton was indeed born in Wellington as has sometimes been claimed.1 At least two Australian state premiers in recent decades— Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Mike Rann—came to Australia from New Zealand. Remarkably, nearly every current major political party (or its predecessor) on either side of the Tasman has at one time boasted a leader or deputy leader who allegedly or actually hailed from the other side of the ditch.2 Notably, although coincidentally, this includes the first Labo[u]r prime ministers of both countries—Michael Joseph Savage in New Zealand in 1935 and Chris Watson in Australia in 1904. Indeed, in a situation people today might regard as a bit ironic, at the time Watson’s New Zealand heritage and upbringing was reportedly invoked to support his constitutional eligibility for Australian office. This was on the basis that it made him a subject of the Queen, notwithstanding his birth father’s more constitutionally questionable South American and German ancestry.3 ∗ This paper was presented as a lecture in the Senate Occasional Lecture Series at Parliament House, Canberra, on 20 October 2017.
  • The New Zealand Model of Free Association: What Does It Mean for New Zealand?

    The New Zealand Model of Free Association: What Does It Mean for New Zealand?

    607 THE NEW ZEALAND MODEL OF FREE ASSOCIATION: WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR NEW ZEALAND? Alison Quentin-Baxter* Using Professor Angelo's work in Tokelau as a starting point, Alison Quentin-Baxter examines the model of "free association" relationship that New Zealand has with the Cook Islands and with Niue, and was also to be the basis of Tokelauan self-government. She looks at both the legal and practical obligations that such relationships place on both parties, but particularly on New Zealand. The form of the model means the basis for New Zealand's obligations to an associated state are quite different from its provision of aid to other states. I INTRODUCTION It is an honour and a pleasure to contribute to this Special Issue of the VUW Law Review celebrating Professor Tony Angelo's 40 years as a leading member of the teaching staff of the Law Faculty. For the whole of that period he and I have been colleagues and friends. Reflecting our shared interests, my topic is New Zealand's role as a partner in the relationships of free association with the self-governing States of the Cook Islands and of Niue, and potentially a self-governing State of Tokelau, if it, too, should decide to move to a similar status and relationship with New Zealand. The free association with the Cook Islands has been in place since 1965, and that with Niue since 1974. Twice in the last three years, the people of Tokelau have hesitated on the brink of a similar relationship. Now, as they pause to catch their breath, it seems a good time to look at the New Zealand model of free association from the standpoint of this country's own constitutional law, as distinct from international law or the constitutional law of the associated State.
  • Our Responsibility to Protect and Promote Pacific Islands Languages in New Zealand As Part of a National Languages Policy

    Our Responsibility to Protect and Promote Pacific Islands Languages in New Zealand As Part of a National Languages Policy

    ‘Mind your language’ Our responsibility to protect and promote Pacific Islands languages in New Zealand as part of a National Languages Policy A paper prepared by Komiti Pasifika 1 Background This paper has arisen from the issue of the demise of Pacific Islands languages among Pasifika populations in New Zealand, which was raised at the Auckland/ Counties Manukau Pacific Island Teachers Seminar in 2008 and at the PPTA Pasifika ‘Niu Generation’ Conference in 2009. Since then, ongoing discussion on the issue has been forthcoming in the form of a further Pacific Islands Teachers Seminar (December 2009), which created the Pacific Languages Network (PLN). The PLN meets regularly to strategise on ways forward and report on the progress that is being made in this area. 2 Introduction The Treaty of Waitangi commitment to the provision of Te Reo in New Zealand schools has led to te reo Māori being recognised as an official language in New Zealand law. This is respected within this proposal, and nothing in this paper deters from the mana of te reo Māori within Aotearoa. What is being advocated by the Human Rights Commission, and other proponents, is that New Zealand recognise legal and international obligations to the indigenous languages of nations with which it has a constitutional relationship as part of the New Zealand realm: Vagahau Niue, Gagana Tokelau and Cook Islands Maori. These languages would be afforded special protected status by New Zealand. There is also a second tier of languages that have a special relationship with New Zealand. Samoa was under New Zealand colonial rule from World War One until 1962.
  • Alliances and Other Military Relationships

    Alliances and Other Military Relationships

    NEW ZEALAND'S SECURITY: Alliances and Other Military Relationships Jim Rolfe Working Paper 10/97 Synopsis New Zealand has entered alliance relationships for many reasons in the 50 years since the end of WW II. At times it has done so for the traditional ʹbalancingʹ or ʹbandwagoningʹ reasons in an attempt to ensure security. At other times alliances have been formed for more emotional reasons to do with the countryʹs cultural and physical links with the other states in the relationship. The military relationship has been just one in a web of relationships between the countries. Direct security issues were often less important in this second form of alliance relationship. On balance, the benefits of alliance relationships have outweighed any disadvantages. Through its alliances New Zealand has gained access to decision makers and decision processes in areas of direct interest to New Zealand. It has not had to make any commitments to those alliances other than ones it would have made with or without an alliance relationship. In the post‐Cold War world, traditional security alliances may be irrelevant. However, military relationships leading to networking and confidence building, and the exchange of information and expertise continue to be important. It is in New Zealandʹs interests to maintain and build its military relationships with as many states in the Asia‐Pacific region as possible. About the Writer Dr Jim Rolfe is an independent defence analyst and teaches international relations at Victoria University of Wellington Centre for Strategic Studies Victoria University of Wellington 1997 © Jim Rolfe ISSN 1173-5473 1 Introduction For some 50 years military relationships have been an important practical and symbolic definer of international linkages and of the ebb and flow of international friendships.
  • Uncharted Waters: Has the Cook Islands Become Eligible for Membership in the United Nations?

    Uncharted Waters: Has the Cook Islands Become Eligible for Membership in the United Nations?

    169 UNCHARTED WATERS: HAS THE COOK ISLANDS BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS? Stephen Eliot Smith* The paper gives in depth considerationto whether the Cook Islands could become a member of the United Nations. The authorconcludes that a Cook Islands applicationfor UN membership would be successful, and undoubtedly UN membership would provide advantagesfor the Cook Islands and its residents. Whether it will become a reality is a political decision that is one aspect of what it means for a State and its people to exercise the treasured right to self-determination. As such, it is a decision that rests solely with the government andpeople ofthe Cook Islands. I Introduction Jonah, my eight-year-old son, is interested in geography. On the wall of his bedroom we have hung a large and detailed political map of the world. Recently, he had been examining the area of the South Pacific, and we had a conversation that went something like this: Jonah: "Dad, are the Cook Islands part of New Zealand?" Me: "No, not really... " Jonah: "On the map under 'Cook Islands' it says 'NZ' in tiny red letters." Me: "Yes, New Zealand and the Cook Islands are good friends, and we share a lot of the same things Jonah: "So New Zealand owns the Cook Islands, right?" Me: "No, we don't own it, but we've agreed to be partners, and..." Jonah: "Did we conquer them in battle?" Me: "No, but... " And so it went, with me providing unsatisfying answers that ultimately were summed up in the classic parental escape-hatch: "it's complicated".
  • Kälin and Kochenov's

    Kälin and Kochenov's

    Kälin and Kochenov’s An Objective Ranking of the Nationalities of the World Kälin and Kochenov’s Quality of Nationality Index (QNI) is designed to rank the objective value of world nationalities, as legal statuses of attachment to states, approached from the perspec- tive of empowering mobile individuals interested in taking control of their lives. The QNI looks beyond simple visa-free tourist or business travel and takes a number of other crucial factors into account: those that make one nationality a better legal status through which to develop your talents and business than another. This edition provides the state of the quality of nationalities in the world as of the fall of 2018. Edited by Dimitry Kochenov and Justin Lindeboom 41 Twenty-Four Shades of Sovereignty and Nationalities in the Pacific Region • 171 41 Twenty-Four Shades of Sovereignty and Nationalities in the Pacifi c Region By Gerard Prinsen Introduction Determining which countries and territories are part of the Pacifi c region can be a matter of debate, because it is arguably the world’s largest region in terms of surface area — occupying about half the globe and encompassing 11 time zones — with rather fl uid, or surprising, boundar- ies. European countries such as France and the UK, at fi rst glance, do not seem to be part of the region, yet the UK is present in the Pacifi c in the form of the Pitcairn Islands, a British Overseas Territory whose Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 836,000 square kilometers is larger than that of the UK proper.
  • Sovereignty, Self-Determination and the South-West Pacific a Comparison of the Status of Pacific Island Territorial Entities in International Law

    Sovereignty, Self-Determination and the South-West Pacific a Comparison of the Status of Pacific Island Territorial Entities in International Law

    http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/ Research Commons at the University of Waikato Copyright Statement: The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). The thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: Any use you make of these documents or images must be for research or private study purposes only, and you may not make them available to any other person. Authors control the copyright of their thesis. You will recognise the author’s right to be identified as the author of the thesis, and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate. You will obtain the author’s permission before publishing any material from the thesis. Sovereignty, Self-Determination and the South-West Pacific A comparison of the status of Pacific Island territorial entities in international law A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws at The University of Waikato by Charles Andrew Gillard The University of Waikato 2012 iii ABSTRACT This paper compares the constitutional arrangements of various territorial entities in the South-West Pacific, leading to a discussion of those entities‟ status in international law. In particular, it examines the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, Norfolk Island, French Polynesia, New Caledonia and American Samoa – all of which are perceived as „Territories‟ in the international community – as a way of critically examining the concept of „Statehood‟ in international law. The study finds that many of these „Territories‟ do not necessarily fit the classification that they have been given.