Frost, Tom (2024) The Colonial Constitution in the Supreme Court. In: Russell, Jennifer and Graham, Lewis, eds. The Supreme Court at 15: Reflections on Public Law. Routledge, Abingdon. (In press) (Access to this publication is currently restricted. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided) (KAR id:109392)
PDF
Author's Accepted Manuscript
Language: English Restricted to Repository staff only |
|
Contact us about this Publication
|
![]() |
Abstract
The Bancoult litigation before the Supreme Court continues a long-standing tradition of imperial courts not considering colonial abuses of power. The Bancoult cases show that when it comes to the colonial constitution, UK public law is still not able to provide redress and remedies for colonised peoples. It also shows a disinclination of domestic courts to consider the historical context of colonial wrongs. The Chagossians, claimants who wished to undo the wrong of being exiled from their homeland, did not have their claim dealt with in the round. The dispute was reduced to specific heads of claim which meant wider injustices could not be rectified.
Item Type: | Book section |
---|---|
Uncontrolled keywords: | Chagos Islands; British Empire; Public Law; judicial review; UK Supreme Court |
Subjects: |
J Political Science > JV Colonies and colonization. Emigration and immigration. International migration K Law K Law > KD England and Wales |
Divisions: | Divisions > Division for the Study of Law, Society and Social Justice > Kent Law School |
Funders: | University of Kent (https://ror.org/00xkeyj56) |
Depositing User: | Tom Frost |
Date Deposited: | 12 Apr 2025 19:34 UTC |
Last Modified: | 14 Apr 2025 10:35 UTC |
Resource URI: | https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/109392 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes) |
- Export to:
- RefWorks
- EPrints3 XML
- BibTeX
- CSV
- Depositors only (login required):