BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//talks.cam.ac.uk//v3//EN
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/London
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:19700329T010000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=-1SU
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:19701025T020000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=10;BYDAY=-1SU
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
CATEGORIES:Darwin College Humanities and Social Sciences Semi
 nars
SUMMARY:Islands in the Body Politick: Britain’s Political 
 Constitution and the Conundrum of Colonial Governa
 nce in the 21st Century - Jason Grant Allen
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20131022T131000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20131022T140000
UID:TALK48267AThttp://talks.cam.ac.uk
URL:http://talks.cam.ac.uk/talk/index/48267
DESCRIPTION:The 2009 House of Lords case Bancoult (No 2) deter
 mined the right of the Chagossian community to ret
 urn to its homeland in the Chagos Islands. The cas
 e concerned the judicial review of prerogative leg
 islation\, that is\, legislation for the colony en
 acted by Orders of the Queen in Council\, i.e. the
  United Kingdom government. Bancoult\, who had bee
 n removed from the islands as a child\, sought to 
 have the Orders quashed for ultra vires and irrati
 onality. Ultimately\, the House of Lords confirmed
  the application of judicial review to prerogative
  legislation\, but upheld the Orders exiling the p
 opulation from the islands. The case engaged a bod
 y of colonial law which illuminates the nature of 
 the Crown’s sovereign power in colonial governance
 . This\, in turn\, provides us with an insight int
 o the nature of sovereign power generally and bear
 s on the debate in British public law between thos
 e who advocate a constitution based on customary r
 ights enshrined in the common law\, and those who 
 advocate a constitution based on democratic agency
  and participation as expressed through the will o
 f Parliament. In my presentation\, I criticize the
  judgment of the House of Lords (split 3:2)\, and 
 suggest that a better analysis based on the fiduci
 ary nature of the Crown’s legislative power. Thoug
 h the decision is highly technical\, it engages so
 me questions of substance in British constitutiona
 l theory that might bear on contemporary questions
  of judicial review and parliamentary sovereignty.
LOCATION:The Richard King Room\, Darwin College
CONTACT:Dr Katherine Bowers
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR