Cyril Radcliffe, 1st Viscount Radcliffe
Cyril John Radcliffe, 1st Viscount Radcliffe, was a British lawyer and Law Lord best known for his role in the partition of British India. He served as the first chancellor of the University of Warwick from its foundation in 1965 to 1977. Radcliffe was born in Llanychan, Wales, the son of a British Army captain, his maternal grandfather was the President of the Law Society between 1890 and 1891. Radcliffe was educated at Haileybury College, he was conscripted in World War I but his poor eyesight limited the options for service so he was allocated to the Labour Corps. After the War, he attended New College, Oxford as a scholar, took a first in literae humaniores in 1921. In 1922 he was elected to a prize fellowship at All Souls Oxford, he won the Eldon Law Scholarship in 1923. He was called to the bar by the Inner Temple in 1924, joined the chambers of Wilfred Greene the Master of the Rolls, he practiced at the Chancery bar, was appointed a King's Counsel in 1935. During World War II, Radcliffe joined the Ministry of Information becoming its Director-General by 1941, where he worked with the Minister Brendan Bracken.
In 1944 he was made a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire. He returned to the bar in 1945. Radcliffe, a man who had never been east of Paris, was given the chairmanship of the two boundary committees set up with the passing of the Indian Independence Act, he was faced with the daunting task of drawing the borders for the new nations of Pakistan and India in a way that would leave as many Hindus and Sikhs in India and Muslims in Pakistan as possible. Radcliffe submitted his partition map on 9 August 1947, which split Punjab and Bengal in half; the new boundaries were formally announced on 14 August 1947 — the day of Pakistan's independence and the day before India became independent of the United Kingdom. Radcliffe's efforts saw some 14 million people — seven million from each side — flee across the border when they discovered the new boundaries left them in the "wrong" country. In the violence that ensued after independence, estimates of loss of life accompanying or preceding the partition vary between several hundred thousand and two million, millions more were injured.
After seeing the mayhem occurring on both sides of the boundary, Radcliffe refused his salary of 40,000 rupees. He was made a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire in 1948; the poet W. H. Auden referred to Radcliffe's role in the partition of India and Pakistan in his 1966 poem "Partition". In 1949, Radcliffe was made a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, sworn of the Privy Council, created a life peer as Baron Radcliffe, of Werneth in the County of Lancaster. Unusually, he had not been a judge. In the 1940s and 1950s he chaired a string of public enquiries in addition to his legal duties and continued to hold numerous trusteeships and chairmanships right up until his death, he chaired the Committee of Enquiry into the Future of the British Film Institute, whose recommendations led to the modernisation of the BFI in the post-war period. From 1957 he was chairman of the Radcliffe Committee, called to enquire into the working of the monetary and credit system; the committee published a report known as the Radcliffe report which suggested reforms on how monetary policy is run.
He was a frequent public speaker and wrote numerous books: he gave the BBC Reith Lecture in 1951 - a series of seven broadcasts titled Power and the State which examined the features of democratic society, considered the problematic notions of power and authority. He presented the Oxford University Romanes Lecture in 1963 on Mountstuart Elphinstone. In 1962 he was made a hereditary peer as Viscount Radcliffe, of Hampton Lucy in the County of Warwick. Lord Radcliffe married the Honourable Antonia Mary Roby, daughter of Godfrey Benson, 1st Baron Charnwood and former wife of John Tennant, in 1939, he died in April 1977, aged 78. He had no issue and the viscountcy of Radcliffe became extinct on his death. In 2006, two sets of Chancery barristers' chambers in Lincoln's Inn merged and adopted the name "Radcliffe Chambers" in his honour. Radcliffe Line Partition of India Chester, Lucy P. Borders and Conflict in South Asia: The Radcliffe Boundary Commission and the Partition of Punjab. Manchester UP, 2009
Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of federal systems in Canada. Canada is a federation with 11 jurisdictions of governmental authority: the country-wide federal Crown and 10 provincial Crowns; each derives its authority from the Canadian Crown and includes the Queen-in-Parliament, the Queen-in-Council, the Queen's Bench. Three territorial governments in the far north exercise powers delegated by the federal parliament, municipal governments exercise powers delegated by the province or territory; each jurisdiction is independent from the others in its realm of legislative authority. Most sectors are under federal jurisdiction or that of the provinces, such as education and healthcare; the division of powers was laid out in the British North America Act of 1867, a key document in the Constitution of Canada. Amendments were made to the Acts of North America and the Constitution Act, 1982; the federal nature of the Canadian constitution was a response to the colonial-era diversity of the Maritimes and the Province of Canada the sharp distinction between the French-speaking inhabitants of Lower Canada and the English-speaking inhabitants of Upper Canada and the Maritimes.
John A. Macdonald, Canada's first prime minister favoured a unitary system; the foundations of Canadian federalism were laid at the Quebec Conference of 1864. The Quebec Resolutions were a compromise between those who wanted sovereignty vested in the federal government and those who wanted it vested in the provinces; the compromise based the federation on the constitution of the British Empire, under which the legal sovereignty of imperial power was modified by the conventions of colonial responsible government, making colonies of settlement self-governing in domestic affairs. A lengthy political process ensued before the Quebec Resolutions became the British North America Act of 1867; this process was dominated by John A. Macdonald, who joined British officials in attempting to make the federation more centralized than that envisaged by the Resolutions; the complex resulting constitution was couched in more centralist terms than intended. As prime minister, Macdonald tried to exploit this discrepancy to impose his centralist ideal against chief opponent Oliver Mowat.
In a series of political battles and court cases from 1872 to 1896, Mowat reversed Macdonald's early victories and entrenched the co-ordinated sovereignty which he saw in the Quebec Resolutions. In 1888, Edward Blake summarized that view: " a federal as distinguished from a legislative union, but a union composed of several existing and continuing entities... not fractions of a unit but units of a multiple. The Dominion is the multiple and each province is a unit of that multiple..." The accession of Wilfrid Laurier as prime minister inaugurated a new phase of constitutional consensus, marked by a more-egalitarian relationship between the jurisdictions. The federal government's quasi-imperial powers of disallowance and reservation, which Macdonald abused in his efforts to impose a centralised government, fell into disuse. During World War I the federal Crown's power was extended with the introduction of income taxes and passage of the War Measures Act, the scope of, determined by several court cases.
The constitution's restrictions of parliamentary power were affirmed in 1919 when, in the Initiatives and Referendums Reference, a Manitoba act providing for direct legislation by way of initiatives and referendums was ruled unconstitutional by the Privy Council on the grounds that a provincial viceroy could not permit "the abrogation of any power which the Crown possesses through a person directly representing it". Social and technological changes worked their way into constitutional authority. In 1926, the King–Byng Affair resulted in a constitutional crisis, the impetus for changes in the relationship between the governor general and the prime minister. Although its key aspects were political in nature, its constitutional aspects continue to be debated. One result was the Balfour Declaration issued that year, whose principles were codified in the Statute of Westminster 1931. It, the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, gave the federal parliament the ability to make extraterritorial laws and abolish appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Criminal appeals were abolished in 1933, but civil appeals continued until 1949. The last Privy Council ruling of constitutional significance occurred in 1954, in Winner v. S. M. T. Limited. After that, the Supreme Court of Canada became the final court of appeal. In 1937, Lieutenant Governor of Alberta John C. Bowen refused to give Royal Assent to three Legislative Assembly of Alberta bills. Two would have put the province's banks under the control of the provincial government. All three bills were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference re Alberta Statutes, upheld by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. World War II's broader scope required passage of the National Resources Mobilization Act to supplement the powers in the War Measures Act to pursue the nation
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the highest court of appeal for certain British territories and Commonwealth countries. Established on 13 August 1833 to hear appeals heard by the King-in-Council, the Privy Council acted as the court of last resort for the entire British Empire, continues to act as the highest court of appeal for several independent Commonwealth nations, the Crown Dependencies, the British Overseas Territories. Formally a statutory committee of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, the Judicial Committee consists of senior judges who are Privy Councillors: they are predominantly Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and senior judges from the Commonwealth, it is referred to as the Privy Council. In Commonwealth realms, appeals are nominally made to "Her Majesty in Council", who refers the case to the Judicial Committee for "advice", while in Commonwealth republics retaining the JCPC as their final court of appeal, appeals are made directly to the Judicial Committee itself.
In the case of Brunei, appeals are made to the Sultan of Brunei, who refers the case to the Judicial Committee for advice. The panel of judges hearing a particular case is known as "the Board"; the "report" of the Board is always accepted by the Queen in Council as judgment. The origins of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council can be traced back to the curia regis, or royal council. In theory, the King was the fount of justice, petitions for redress of wrongs arising from his courts were addressed to him; that power was taken over by Parliament within England, but the King-in-Council retained jurisdiction to hear petitions from the King's non-English possessions, such as the Channel Islands and on, from England's colonies. The task of hearing appeals was given to a series of short-lived committees of the Privy Council. In 1679, appellate jurisdiction was given to the Board of Trade, before being transferred to a standing Appeals Committee in 1696. By the nineteenth century, the growth of the British Empire, which had expanded the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council, had put great strains on the existing arrangements.
In particular, the Appeals Committee had to hear cases in a variety of legal systems, such as Hindu law, with which its members were unfamiliar. In 1833, at the instigation of Lord Brougham, the Lord Chancellor, Parliament passed the Judicial Committee Act 1833; the Act established a statutory committee of the Privy Council, known as The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to hear appeals to the King-in-Council. In addition to colonial appeals legislation gave the Judicial Committee appellate jurisdiction over a range of miscellaneous matters, such as patents, ecclesiastical matters, prize suits. At its height, the Judicial Committee was said to be the court of final appeal for over a quarter of the world. In the twentieth century, the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council shrank as British Dominions established their own courts of final appeal and as British colonies became independent, although many retained appeals to the Privy Council post-independence. Canada abolished Privy Council appeals in 1949, India and South Africa in 1950, New Zealand in 2003.
Twelve Commonwealth countries outside of the United Kingdom retain Privy Council appeals, in addition to various British and New Zealand territories. The Judicial Committee retains jurisdiction over a small number of domestic matters in the United Kingdom; the United Kingdom does not have a single highest national court. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has jurisdiction in the following domestic matters: Appeals against schemes of the Church Commissioners. Appeals from the ecclesiastical courts in non-doctrinal faculty cases. Appeals from the High Court of Chivalry. Appeals from the Court of Admiralty of the Cinque Ports. Appeals from prize courts. Appeals from the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Disputes under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Additionally, the government may refer any issue to the committee for "consideration and report" under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833; the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the Court of Final Appeal for the Church of England.
It hears appeals from the Arches Court of Canterbury and the Chancery Court of York, except on matters of doctrine, ritual or ceremony, which go to the Court for Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved. By the Church Discipline Act 1840 and the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 all archbishops and bishops of the Church of England became eligible to be members of the Judicial Committee. Prior to the coming into force of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Privy Council was the court of last resort for devolution issues. On 1 October 2009 this jurisdiction was transferred to the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Judgments of the Judicial Committee are not binding on courts wit
Security is freedom from, or resilience against, potential harm caused by others. Beneficiaries of security may be of persons and social groups and institutions, ecosystems or any other entity or phenomenon vulnerable to unwanted change by its environment. Security refers to protection from hostile forces, but it has a wide range of other senses: for example, as the absence of harm; the term is used to refer to acts and systems whose purpose may be to provide security. The word'secure' entered the English language in the 16th century, it is derived from Latin securus, meaning freedom from anxiety: se + cura. A security referent is the focus of a security discourse. Security referents may be persons or social groups, institutions, ecosystems, or any other phenomenon vulnerable to unwanted change by the forces of its environment; the referent in question may combine many referents, in the same way that, for example, a nation state is composed of many individual citizens. The security context is the relationships between its environment.
From this perspective and insecurity depend first on whether the environment is beneficial or hostile to the referent, how capable is the referent of responding to its/their environment in order to survive and thrive. The means by which a referent provides for security vary widely, they include, for example: Coercive capabilities, including the capacity to project coercive power into the environment. Any action intended to provide security may have multiple effects. For example, an action may have wide benefit, enhancing security for several or all security referents in the context. Approaches to security are the subject of debate. For example, in debate about national security strategies, some argue that security depends principally on developing protective and coercive capabilities in order to protect the security referent in a hostile environment. Others argue that security depends principally on building the conditions in which equitable relationships can develop by reducing antagonism between actors, ensuring that fundamental needs can be met, that differences of interest can be negotiated effectively.
The table shows some of the main domains. The range of security contexts is illustrated by the following examples: Computer security known as cybersecurity or IT security, refers to the security of computing devices such as computers and smartphones, as well as computer networks such as private and public networks, the Internet; the field has growing importance due to the increasing reliance on computer systems in most societies. It concerns the protection of hardware, data and the procedures by which systems are accessed; the means of computer security include the physical security of systems and security of information held on them. Corporate security refers to the resilience of corporations against espionage, theft and other threats; the security of corporations has become more complex as reliance on IT systems has increased, their physical presence has become more distributed across several countries, including environments that are, or may become, hostile to them. Ecological security known as environmental security, refers to the integrity of ecosystems and the biosphere in relation to their capacity to sustain a diversity of life-forms.
The security of ecosystems has attracted greater attention as the impact of ecological damage by humans has grown. Food security refers to the ready supply of, access to, safe and nutritious food. Food security is gaining in importance as the world's population has grown and productive land has diminished through overuse and climate change. Home security refers to the security systems used on a property used as a dwelling; the concept is supported by the United Nations General Assembly, which has stressed "the right of people to live in freedom and dignity" and recognized "t
Board of Commerce case
Re Board of Commerce Act 1919 and the Combines and Fair Prices Act 1919 known as the Board of Commerce case, is a Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in which the "emergency doctrine" under the federal power of peace and good government was first created. Following the end of the First World War, there was a rapid rise in the cost of living in the Canadian economy. In response, the Parliament of Canada passed the Board of Commerce Act, 1919 and the Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919; the assigned the Board of Commerce two main functions: Investigate and restrain combinations, monopolies and mergers constituting a "combine." Inquire into and enforce prohibitions against hoarding and profiteering. In pursuit of its functions, the Board issued an order, prohibiting certain clothing manufacturers in Ottawa from charging higher than specified profit margins; that triggered a dispute as to the Acts' constitutionality, the Board referred the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada by way of stated case under s. 32 of the Board of Commerce Act, posing the following reference questions: Has the Board lawful authority to make the order?
Has the Board lawful authority to require the Registrar or other proper officer of the Supreme Court of Ontario to cause the order when issued to be made a rule of said Court? The SCC split 3-3 on the question of the constitutionality of the legislation. Anglin J, joined by Davies CJ and Mignault J considered the Acts to be intra vires and repeated the observation he had made in the Insurance Act Reference: When a matter of civil rights has attained such dimensions that it affects the body politic of the Dominion and has become of national concern it has in that aspect of it, not only ceased to be "local and provincial" but has lost its character as a matter of "civil rights in the province" and has thus so far ceased to be subject to provincial jurisdiction that Dominion legislation upon it under the "peace and good government" provision does not trench upon the exclusive provincial field and is, therefore and paramount. However, given the Privy Council's rulings in Citizen's Insurance Co. v. Parsons and the Local Prohibition case, he rested his decision to uphold the Acts on the basis of the federal trade and commerce power as well as on the federal power relating to peace and good government.
Idington and Brodeur JJ, in separate opinions, held that they were ultra vires. In particular, Duff J had concerns as to the interpretation of the nature of the power of peace and good government: In truth if this legislation can be sustained under the residuary clause, it is not easy to put a limit to the extent to which Parliament through the instrumentality of commissions, may from time to time in the vicissitudes of national trade, times of high prices, times of stagnation and low prices and so on, supersede the authority of the provincial legislatures. I am not convinced that it is a proper application of the reasoning to be found in the judgments on the subject of the drink legislation, to draw from it conclusions which would justify Parliament in any conceivable circumstance forcing upon a province a system of nationalization of industry. An appeal was filed with the Privy Council. Lord Haldane, for the Council, found that the Acts were ultra vires the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, as they could not be justified under any heading of federal power enumerated in s. 91 of the British North America Act, 1867.
Haldane rejected the general power of peace and good government on the basis that it should be used only in circumstances "such as those of war or famine the peace and good Government of the Dominion might be imperilled under conditions so exceptional that they require legislation of a character in reality beyond anything provided for by the enumerated heads in either section 92 or section 91 itself." Citing his previous decision in John Deere v Wharton, Haldane held that the power to regulate trade and commerce was meaningless unless it could be said to supplement another federal power. In explaining why the federal criminal law power was not of help in the matter, Haldane provided its first definition in Canadian jurisprudence by stating that it would apply "where the subject matter is one which by its nature belongs to the domain of criminal jurisprudence." Haldane's statement as to the nature of the criminal law power was described by Lord Atkin in Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Attorney General of Canada as not being a definition.
Instead, it was held to be "the criminal law in its widest sense," including the ability to make new crimes, the only relevant standard to apply is whether the act would attract penal consequences. In addition, while the matter of the trade and commerce power did not need to be decided in that case, the Board declared that it wished to dissociate themselves from Haldane's previous comment: "No such restriction is properly to be inferred from that judgment." R. S. Khemani. Historical Perspectives on Canadian Competition Policy. Halifax: Institute for Research on Public Policy. P. 255. ISBN 0-88645-136-1
Parliament of Canada
The Parliament of Canada is the federal legislature of Canada, seated at Parliament Hill in Ottawa, the national capital. The body consists of the Canadian monarch, represented by the Governor General; each element has its own officers and organization. By constitutional convention, the House of Commons is dominant, with the Senate and monarch opposing its will; the Senate reviews legislation from a less partisan standpoint and the monarch or viceroy provides royal assent to make bills into law. The Governor General summons and appoints the 105 senators on the advice of the Prime Minister, while the 338 members of the House of Commons—called members of parliament —each represent an electoral district referred to as a riding, are directly elected by Canadian voters; the Governor General summons Parliament, while either the viceroy or monarch can prorogue or dissolve Parliament, the latter in order to call a general election. Either will read the Throne Speech; the most recent Parliament, summoned by Governor General David Johnston in 2015, is the 42nd since Confederation.
The Parliament of Canada is composed of three parts: the monarch, the Senate, the House of Commons. Each work in conjunction within the legislative process; this format was inherited from the United Kingdom and is a near-identical copy of the parliament at Westminster, the greatest differences stemming from situations unique to Canada, such as the impermanent nature of the monarch's residency in the country and the lack of a peerage to form the upper chamber. Only those who sit in the House of Commons are called members of parliament. Though legislatively less powerful, senators take higher positions in the national order of precedence. No individual may serve in more than one chamber at the same time; the sovereign's place in the legislature, formally called the Queen-in-Parliament, is defined by the Constitution Act, 1867, various conventions. Neither she nor her viceroy, participates in the legislative process, save for signifying the Queen's approval to a bill passed by both houses of parliament, known as the granting of Royal Assent, necessary for a bill to be enacted as law.
All federal bills thus begin with the phrase "Now, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows..." and, as such, the Crown is immune from acts of parliament unless expressed otherwise in the act itself. The governor general will perform the task of granting Royal Assent, though the monarch may do so, at the request of either the Cabinet or the viceroy, who may defer assent to the sovereign as per the constitution; as both the monarch and his or her representatives are traditionally barred from the House of Commons, any parliamentary ceremonies in which they are involved take place in the Senate chamber. The upper and lower houses do, each contain a mace, which indicates the authority of the Queen-in-Parliament and the privilege granted to that body by her, both bearing a crown at their apex; the original mace for the Senate was that used in the Legislative Council of the Province of Canada after 1849, while that of the House of Commons was inherited from the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, first used in 1845.
Following the burning of the Centre Block on 3 February 1916, the City of London, donated a replacement, still used today. The temporary mace, made of wood, used until the new one arrived from the United Kingdom in 1917, is still carried into the Senate each 3 February; the Senate's 1.6-metre-long mace comprises gold. The Senate may not sit. Members of the two houses of parliament must express their loyalty to the sovereign and defer to her authority, as the Oath of Allegiance must be sworn by all new parliamentarians before they may take their seats. Further, the official opposition is formally called Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to signify that, though they may be opposed to the incumbent Cabinet's policies, they remain dedicated to the apolitical Crown; the upper house of the Parliament of Canada, the Senate, is a group of 105 individuals appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister. Senators served for life until 1965, when a constitutional amendment imposed a mandatory retirement age of 75.
Senators may, resign their seats prior to that mark, can lose their position should they fail to attend two consecutive sessions of parliament. The Senate is divided amongst four geographic regions: 24 for Ontario, 24 for Quebec, 24 for the Maritimes, 24 for the Western provinces. Newfoundland and Labrador, which became a Canadian province in 1949, is represented by six senators, is not part of a senatorial division. Further, Canada's three territories—the Northwest Territories and Nunavut—are allocated one senator each. An additio