Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/Q7278165> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 65 of
65
with 100 triples per page.
- Q7278165 subject Q6995532.
- Q7278165 subject Q6996184.
- Q7278165 subject Q7377982.
- Q7278165 subject Q8195524.
- Q7278165 subject Q8354774.
- Q7278165 subject Q8512172.
- Q7278165 subject Q8685506.
- Q7278165 subject Q8912702.
- Q7278165 abstract "Template:Infobox court caseR v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Bancoult (No 2) was a case in the House of Lords concerning the removal of the Chagos Islanders and the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. The Chagos Islands, acquired by the United Kingdom in 1814, were reorganised as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) in 1965 for the purpose of removing its inhabitants. Under a 1971 Order in Council, the Chagossians were forcibly removed, and the central island of Diego Garcia leased to the United States for use as a military outpost.In 2000, Olivier Bancoult brought a judicial review claim against the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for the initial ordinance which led to the Chagossian removal. Bancoult sought a writ of certiorari on the grounds that the ordinance was ultra vires ("beyond power" - that is, that the ordinance had been made without legal authority), a claim upheld by both the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal. In response, Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary, repealed the 1971 Order in Council and announced he would not appeal against the decision, allowing the Chagossians to return home.In 2004, a second Order in Council, the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004, was produced, again reinstating the off-limits nature of the Chagos Islands. Bancoult brought a second case, arguing that this Order was again ultra vires and unreasonable, and that the British government had violated legitimate expectation by passing the second Order after giving the impression that the Chagossians were free to return home.The new Order was again struck down by the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal before proceeding to the House of Lords where it was heard by Lords Hoffmann, Bingham, Rodger, Carswell and Mance between 30 June and 3 July 2008. In their judgment, issued on 22 October 2008, the Lords decided by a 3-2 majority to uphold the new Order in Council, stating that it was valid and, although judicial review actions could look at Orders in Council, the national security and foreign relations issues in the case barred them from doing so. In addition, Cook's statement had not been clear and unambiguous enough to provide legitimate expectation.The reaction to the decision was negative, with academics accusing the majority Law Lords of failing to do their job as members of the judiciary to "rework things like neo-imperial texts and outdated legal attitudes to the prerogative in order to cure obvious injustices and to vindicate a modern conception of the rule of law"; at the same time, their approach to legitimate expectation was also questioned, with the case described as an "unfortunate regression" from Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service, where judges were willing to debate legitimate expectation in a similarly politically sensitive situation.".
- Q7278165 thumbnail Diegogarcia.jpg?width=300.
- Q7278165 wikiPageExternalLink 61.html.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q1027.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q1056352.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q1058404.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q1058855.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q1137751.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q1239.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q12519.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q131569.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q1371091.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q138203.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q145.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q15989934.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q1703244.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q1818985.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q184851.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q192188.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q211582.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q2424692.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q2519071.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q2636819.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q30.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q311214.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q335830.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q335930.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q358834.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q3704604.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q42523.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q4772736.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q4809228.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q517.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q5176381.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q5284586.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q610320.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q6244212.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q6303012.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q655406.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q6687916.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q6995532.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q6996184.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q7278299.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q7325919.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q7375091.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q7377982.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q740724.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q7610493.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q8195524.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q8354774.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q8512172.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q8685506.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q8912702.
- Q7278165 wikiPageWikiLink Q899485.
- Q7278165 comment "Template:Infobox court caseR v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Bancoult (No 2) was a case in the House of Lords concerning the removal of the Chagos Islanders and the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. The Chagos Islands, acquired by the United Kingdom in 1814, were reorganised as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) in 1965 for the purpose of removing its inhabitants.".
- Q7278165 label "R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Bancoult (No 2)".
- Q7278165 depiction Diegogarcia.jpg.