Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, Widget editors
23,007
edits
Royal Prerogative: Difference between revisions
From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
→United Kingdom
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
===United Kingdom=== | ===United Kingdom=== | ||
:''Main:'' [[en:Royal Prerogative (United Kingdom)|Royal Prerogative (United Kingdom)]] | |||
====British dependencies==== | ====British dependencies==== | ||
Generally, the crown retains all the power of the state in a crown colony (even if in practice it is not directly exercised). Thus the royal prerogative is in theory an unlimited, arbitrary authority<ref>[[:en:Campbell v. Hall]], 1774</ref>. In [[:en:British overseas territories]] however, each inhabited territory has a constitution by which the territory is governed locally. | Generally, the crown retains all the power of the state in a crown colony (even if in practice it is not directly exercised). Thus the royal prerogative is in theory an unlimited, arbitrary authority<ref>[[:en:Campbell v. Hall]], 1774</ref>. In [[:en:British overseas territories|British overseas territories]] however, each inhabited territory has a constitution by which the territory is governed locally. | ||
The absoluteness of the royal prerogative in the colonies was however defeated in the case of [[:en:Campbell v. Hall]], in 1774. Campbell v. Hall decided that once a colony gained a representative assembly (or once the governor has been instructed to call one) then the royal authority is limited to the familiar prerogatives; without the assembly's consent the Crown could not raise taxation nor change the law. | The absoluteness of the royal prerogative in the colonies was however defeated in the case of [[:en:Campbell v. Hall|Campbell v. Hall]], in 1774. Campbell v. Hall decided that once a colony gained a representative assembly (or once the governor has been instructed to call one) then the royal authority is limited to the familiar prerogatives; without the assembly's consent the Crown could not raise taxation nor change the law. | ||
Several of the colonies of the British West Indies thus became "settled colonies", and reverted to "crown colony" status only by Act of Parliament in the nineteenth century<ref>e.g. The St. Vincent and Grenada Constitution Act 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 47)</ref>. | Several of the colonies of the British West Indies thus became "settled colonies", and reverted to "crown colony" status only by Act of Parliament in the nineteenth century<ref>e.g. The St. Vincent and Grenada Constitution Act 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 47)</ref>. | ||
In August 2009 the Government of the [[:en:Turks and Caicos Islands]], a [[:en:UK]] Dependency, was revested in the [[:en:Governor]], on the advice of [[:en:HM Government]] in the | In August 2009 the Government of the [[:en:Turks and Caicos Islands|urks and Caicos Islands]], a [[:en:UK|UK]] Dependency, was revested in the [[:en:Governor|Governor]], on the advice of [[:en:HM Government|HM Government]] in the UK, under an [[:en:Order-in-Council|Order-in-Council]]<ref>The Turks and Caicos Islands Constitution (Interim Amendment) Order 2009</ref> of 18 March 2009, which suspended and amended parts of the Islands' [[:en:Constitution]], and vacated all the offices of [[:en:Government minister|Ministers]] and the House of Assembly. This was not itself an exercise of the Royal Prerogative, as it was made under "the West Indies Act 1962 and of all other powers enabling Her to do so". However, in effect the Order extended the Royal Prerogative in the Islands, vesting wide discretionary legislative and executive powers in [[:en:Her Majesty]]'s [[:en:Governor]]. The [[:en:Governor]] remains subject to the amended Constitution, and in practice to the instructions of [[:en:the Queen]]'s [[:en:Foreign Office]] in the UK. | ||
In the case of [[:en:Chagos Archipelago]] islands, in 2000, the [[:en:High Court of Justice of England and Wales]] ruled that a local Ordinance made by the Commissioner of the [[:en:British Indian Ocean Territory]] exiling the islanders was unlawful, a decision which was accepted by the British [[:en:Foreign Secretary]] [[:en:Robin Cook]]. However that Ordinance was legislation passed under authority given by the royal prerogative, not an exercise of the prerogative itself, and was overturned as being beyond the powers given. After this decision, the British Government issued an [[:en:Order in Council]], a primary exercise of the royal prerogative, to achieve the same objective. This Order was also ruled unlawful by the [[:en:High Court of England and Wales|High Court]], a ruling upheld in the [[:en:Court of Appeal of England and Wales|Court of Appeal]]. However on Wednesday, 22 October 2008, the Government won its appeal in the [[:en:Judicial Committee of the House of Lords|House of Lords]] against the previous rulings. The House decided by a three-to-two majority that the Order in Council was a lawful exercise of authority <ref>[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdjVkpT6_bzQxOkAQiXHQRIerOtw Britain wins appeal over Chagos islanders' return home]</ref><ref>[http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jAGxtNEsx6bLfJqWoxpoftSmC98A Chagos islanders cannot return home]</ref>. | In the case of [[:en:Chagos Archipelago]] islands, in 2000, the [[:en:High Court of Justice of England and Wales]] ruled that a local Ordinance made by the Commissioner of the [[:en:British Indian Ocean Territory]] exiling the islanders was unlawful, a decision which was accepted by the British [[:en:Foreign Secretary]] [[:en:Robin Cook]]. However that Ordinance was legislation passed under authority given by the royal prerogative, not an exercise of the prerogative itself, and was overturned as being beyond the powers given. After this decision, the British Government issued an [[:en:Order in Council]], a primary exercise of the royal prerogative, to achieve the same objective. This Order was also ruled unlawful by the [[:en:High Court of England and Wales|High Court]], a ruling upheld in the [[:en:Court of Appeal of England and Wales|Court of Appeal]]. However on Wednesday, 22 October 2008, the Government won its appeal in the [[:en:Judicial Committee of the House of Lords|House of Lords]] against the previous rulings. The House decided by a three-to-two majority that the Order in Council was a lawful exercise of authority <ref>[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdjVkpT6_bzQxOkAQiXHQRIerOtw Britain wins appeal over Chagos islanders' return home]</ref><ref>[http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jAGxtNEsx6bLfJqWoxpoftSmC98A Chagos islanders cannot return home]</ref>. | ||
