Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T12:48:24.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - The executive

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2014

Campbell McLachlan
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington
Get access

Summary

The exercise of the foreign relations power within the constitution

In public international law, the state is a unitary concept, since

The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State.

But an account of foreign relations law within Commonwealth states must consider the distribution of the foreign relations power between the three primary organs of government – executive, legislature and judiciary. That is the purpose of Part II of this work.

Traditionally the British constitution concentrated the foreign relations power on the executive, as an exercise of the prerogative power of the Crown. The decision to leave the exercise of the foreign relations power with the King at the time of the Bill of Rights 1688 has proved a remarkably durable Grundnorm in the constitutional arrangements of the Anglo-Commonwealth states. The contemporary scope of this principle will fall to be considered in this chapter. But the central proposition of Part II as a whole is that modern Anglo-Commonwealth constitutions have witnessed a considerable redistribution of the foreign relations power towards greater supervision and control both by Parliament and by the courts. This is so both under the largely unwritten constitutions of the United Kingdom and New Zealand and under the largely written constitutions of Australia and Canada. Indeed, for the most part, the developments have not been mandated by constitutional text, but instead represent an important evolution in living constitutional practice. This development has been engendered by two interrelated factors, each of which reflects the impossibility of maintaining a strict distinction between the international and the national spheres. Parliament in each of the relevant Commonwealth states has extended its role in the light of the impact of foreign relations decisions on the domestic polity. At the same time the courts have increasingly reconsidered their deference to the executive in foreign relations matters, especially in cases where the exercise of the foreign relations power has a direct impact on the civil rights of private persons.

Type
Chapter
Information
Foreign Relations Law , pp. 113 - 148
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Re Ditfort, ex p Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 19 FCR 347, 87 ILR 170, below
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] 1 AC 374 (HL)
R v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Rees-Mogg [1994] QB 552, 570, (1993) 98 ILR 166 (DC)
Khadr v Canada (Prime Minister) 2010 SCC 3, [2010] 1 SCR 44, 143 ILR 225, [34]–[35]
Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477, 498, 55 ILR 11 per Mason J
Re Ditfort, ex p Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 19 FCR 347, 369, 87 ILR 170 per Gummow J
Hansard, HC, vol 2, Written Answers, col 283, 8 April 1981, (1981) 52 BYIL 429
Hansard, HC, vol 3, Written Answers, col 257, 16 April 1981, (1981) 52 BYIL 368
Ross River Dena Council Band v Canada [2002] SCC 54, [2002] 2 SCR 816, [54]
Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477, 498, 55 ILR 11
R v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Everett [1989] 1 QB 811, 820, (1988) 84 ILR 713 (CA)
Operation Dismantle Inc v The Queen [1985] 1 SCR 441, 472 per Wilson J
Air Canada v Attorney General of British Columbia [1986] 2 SCR 539, [15]
Cabinet Manual (UK, 2011),
Cabinet Manual (NZ, 2008), AppC, [9.1(c)(ii)]
Attorney General for Canada v Attorney General for Ontario [1937] AC 326, 347, (1937) 8 ILR 41 (PC)
R v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Rees-Mogg [1994] QB 552, (1993) 98 ILR 166 (DC)
R (Wheeler) v Office of the Prime Minister [2008] EWHC 1409 (DC), [53]
China Navigation Co Ltd v Attorney General [1932] 2 KB 197 (CA)
Chandler v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 763, 791 (HL)
China Navigation Co Ltd v Attorney General [1932] 2 KB 197, 214 (CA)
Cabinet Manual (UK, 2011),
Cabinet Manual (UK, 2011),
Aleksic v Canada (Attorney General) (2002) 215 DLR (4th) 720 (Ont)
Hansard, Cth HR, 21 January 1991, 2 (Hawke)
Hansard, Cth HR, 18 March 2003, 12505 (Howard)
Laws of NZ ‘Defence: Warfare’ (reissue 1, 2011), [16]–[17]
Hansard, HC, vol 566, col 1450, 29 August 2013
Hansard, HC, vol 145, col 802, 21 March 2011
Hansard, HC (Can) vol 141, 17 May 2006
Hansard, HC (Can) vol 142, 13 March 2008
Hansard, HC, vol 524, col 1066, 10 March 2011
Cabinet Manual (UK, 2011),
Hansard, HC, vol 525, col 799, 21 March 2011
Hansard, HC, vol 566, cols 1425–556, 29 August 2013 (motion defeated)
Hansard, HL, vol 747, cols 1719–826, 29 August 2013 (motion to take notice)
R v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Rees-Mogg [1994] QB 552, 570, (1993) 98 ILR 166 (DC)
Blackburn v Attorney General [1971] 1 WLR 1037, (1971) 52 ILR 414 (CA)
R v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Rees-Mogg [1994] QB 552, (1993) 98 ILR 166 (DC)
R (Wheeler) v Office of the Prime Minister [2008] EWHC 1409 (DC)
Kadi v Council of the European Union C-402/05 P, [2009] 1 AC 1225 (ECJ GC)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • The executive
  • Campbell McLachlan, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Book: Foreign Relations Law
  • Online publication: 05 September 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139034937.007
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • The executive
  • Campbell McLachlan, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Book: Foreign Relations Law
  • Online publication: 05 September 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139034937.007
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • The executive
  • Campbell McLachlan, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Book: Foreign Relations Law
  • Online publication: 05 September 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139034937.007
Available formats
×