In course with Mauritius’ independence from Britain, the Chagos Archipelago (ceded to Britain by France) was made into a separate territory, the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), for it to be depopulated . Additionally, the principal island Diego Garcia was to be leased to the United States as a military base . This was accomplished through the use of prerogative powers. The BIOT Order 1965 allowed the BIOT Commissioner to make laws for the territory’s peace, order and good government (Allen 2014 p 13), whom accordingly issued the Immigration Ordinance 1971, an Order in Council, providing that the population of the islands were to be exiled (Poole 2010 p 87).
Bancoult (No 2) followed the decisions in the aftermath of the High Court quashing …show more content…
Majority held that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was discriminatory under the Human Rights Act 1998 because the power was only extended to non-nationals . In A v SSHD, human rights laws had worked in favour of liberalism as it empowered courts to question an Act of Parliament. This suggests that if the Human Rights Act 1998 or ECHR applied to Bancoult (No 2), there could have been a better outcome for liberalism. Nonetheless, Lord Bingham reasoned that through the Chagossians’ connection with the BIOT, they are British Dependent Territory citizens under the British Nationality Act 1981 . Therefore, the 2004 Order would be invalid, as the Crown’s duty to protect its citizens cannot be satisfied from expelling them from their homeland . This reflects Locke’s principles of liberalism that individuals are endowed with natural rights to life, liberty and property, and the substantive rule of law as the State exists to provide laws that protect fundamental freedoms (Held 2006 p 59). However, it may be argued that legislating morality would make legality of a law dangerously subjective for there is no universally approved standard of human rights (Bingham 2007 p
Bancoult (No 2) followed the decisions in the aftermath of the High Court quashing …show more content…
Majority held that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was discriminatory under the Human Rights Act 1998 because the power was only extended to non-nationals . In A v SSHD, human rights laws had worked in favour of liberalism as it empowered courts to question an Act of Parliament. This suggests that if the Human Rights Act 1998 or ECHR applied to Bancoult (No 2), there could have been a better outcome for liberalism. Nonetheless, Lord Bingham reasoned that through the Chagossians’ connection with the BIOT, they are British Dependent Territory citizens under the British Nationality Act 1981 . Therefore, the 2004 Order would be invalid, as the Crown’s duty to protect its citizens cannot be satisfied from expelling them from their homeland . This reflects Locke’s principles of liberalism that individuals are endowed with natural rights to life, liberty and property, and the substantive rule of law as the State exists to provide laws that protect fundamental freedoms (Held 2006 p 59). However, it may be argued that legislating morality would make legality of a law dangerously subjective for there is no universally approved standard of human rights (Bingham 2007 p