[BBC News] Freedom of Douglas for Cavendish

[Skeddan]

It indicates the mens re of the framers of the resolution. It is a summary of the purpose of the resolution

I don't know of any case where the heading of a UN Resolution has been treated even as an external aid to interpretation. The operative part is the text – that shows the intention, the heading is simply a short title reference.

 

"bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations".

 

Preamble – which unlike the heading is part of the resolution, though not an operative part. This doesn't limit the scope of the operative part though. Also, as noted, colonialism 'in all its forms and manifestations' can be very broad and sweeping (Russian takeover of Baltic States, Japan in Manchuria, etc. - could all be considered to be a form or manifestation of colonialism).

 

exploitative colonialism of weaker and more primitive countries by stronger ones. That is what the word is generally reckoned to mean (and was so reckoned to mean at that time).

 

I don't know this is what the word means in the context of the UN. Weaker, certainly – at least insofar as there is subjugation of a foreign power. More primitive? I don't think it would be easy to assess whether one people are more primitive than another, or how primitive one has to be in order to be colonised. Whose standards do you go by? (As I think you acknowledge, thinking has changed over the notion that a people have to be 'backward').

 

I don't know what 1514 had in mind beyond what is given in the operative text - it certainly has been applied much more widely than to the type of territories you mention.

 

Examples?

 

Gibraltar and Pitcairn, both of which are currently Administered by the UK, and which are listed with the UN as Non Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs). Malta, Cyprus, and others could also be cited as past examples.

 

What do you mean by a "true colonial territory of the British"? How does IoM differ from this?

 

First: British colonies were administered at various times by different Whitehall departments;

 

The UK can choose whatever interpretation of a colony it likes and when to apply it according to purpose, and decide which office will look after where. DCA have been responsible for IoM and British Overseas Territories (including colonies). The Documentary Evidence Act 1868 (currently in force) states: "British colony and possession" shall for the purposes of this Act include the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man . . . The Evidence Act 1851 (in force) states: The words “British Colony” as used in this Act shall apply . . . to the islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Sark, and Man, and to all other possessions of the British Crown, wheresoever and whatsoever.

 

The UK's definition and administering department doesn't make any difference for the purposes of whether or not the people of the territory have a right to self determination or not.

 

it is generally agreed that colonies were places run primarily for economic gain by superior powers

 

I'm not sure this is a necessary condition to be considered as a colonial situation, or that a non-independent territory would not have right to self determination because of this.

 

However IoM was exploited heavily by Britain. The whole takeover was for economic gain and exploitation of resources - IoM's exploitation played a vital role in fuelling Britain's power and imperial expansion through Britain's exploitation of its manpower for the Navy.

 

But I am quite sure that nobody would, in the last two hundred years, ever have regarded the IOM as a colony in the normal sense of the word.

 

If the 'normal sense of the word' you mean 'exploitative control of a weaker and more primitive country by a stronger one' (or whatever is relevant for self-determination), then wouldn't IoM fall under this? (Even if it never occured to anyone that IoM should be entitled to self-determination, that doesn't prove this right is not applicable).

 

But just because colonies need not always be backward, does not make the IOM a colony.

 

If colonies need not always be backward, then it seems to come down to them being weaker and under the control of a stronger country.

 

Is there anything else required to be a colonial country for the purposes of the right to self-determination? If not, then why is IoM not a colony? (surely it is weaker than the UK, has not attained full independence, and is under the control of the UK).

 

(Some would also claim that IoM was backward and 'more primitive' than the UK. Also there was the 'cultural dominance', with language etc. If former economic exploitation is a condition, IoM fits this.)

 

So what basis is there for claiming that IoM not a colony in the sense this applies to the right of self-determination?

 

Irrespective of the semantics of whether or not IoM is a colony, the principle of the right to self-determination is a wide one and applies generally to 'dependent territories' outside the territorial limits of the relevant state, and which have not attained independence. i.e. "any people or territory separated from but subject to a ruling power." (which is also one of the definitions of 'colony').

 

(However there may be exceptions to this right of self-determination - e.g. Hong Kong, since this would have infringed on PRC's sovereign rights to the territory).

 

So why doesn't IoM qualify? What exception does it fall under?

 

My view is that the IOM enjoys very favourable status. Lots of support from the UK (think medical, for a start), internal self-government, and low taxes.

 

Fair enough, and fair enough also if people want to keep things as they are – but it doesn't mean that IoM is not a colony, nor that the right of self-determination doesn't apply.

 

But if it rocks the boat too much, the UK might just say "sod it", and make it an administrative suburb of Lancaster.

 

You seem to suggest the UK could do this unilaterally – I disagree. Firstly you would have to show that the right of self-determination does not apply, and that the people of IoM have no right to freely determine their own political status (otherwise this would be in violation of International Law and invalid). You would then have to show that whatever that status is under this exception, it is such that this unilateral annexation could be done. (e.g. Hong Kong might have been an exception, but even so, the UK could not have unilaterally annexed the territory).

 

Again the issue is getting to the legal rights – I'm not saying IoM should become independent or change its status, but just trying to clarify that status (being obscure may for example lead IoM to be overly timid so as not to 'rock the boat' out of a misguided fear of what the UK might do).

 

So what's going on with the right of self-determination, and why has IoM been left out?

[Miss Take]

Please, for the love of god, someone put this thread out of its misery.

 

Sorry. Try this, it might be more in your line:

 

Knitting for dummies

 

S

 

Sorry - I came last in practical girlywork in school so it's not much use to me - I do have a first class honours degree in chemistry though. Shit - I can't believe I've stooped to the level of internet bragging. Please accept my apology.

[Sebrof]

Skeddan, I think you are getting bogged down in semantic detail. The UK was interested in the IOM for strategic reasons, not economic ones. It didn't want the French, Germans, or anyone else having a toehold so close to Great Britain.

 

The IOM is the size of a UK market town. It had no material economic benefit whatsoever. This statement is therefore absurd: "IoM's exploitation played a vital role in fuelling Britain's power and imperial expansion through Britain's exploitation of its manpower for the Navy." The IOM's ferries were obviously valued highly at Dunkirk, but you cannot possibly pretend that the IOM ever made any difference economically. It's just too small.

 

But the main point is that how Britain considers the IOM dictates how Britain treats the IOM. It does not, and never did, consider the IOM a colony, and therefore considers Resolution 1514 to be irrelevant. The UN, which framed the resolution, thinks the same way, or they would have nudged Britain to do grant independence.

 

The IOM is certainly analogous to Gibraltar, Pitcairn, Diego Garcia, and the Falklands, which are also under British control for strategic reasons. (Spain's huffing and puffing about Gib is of no consequence because Spain persists in hanging on to two pieces of Morocco against Moroccan wishes - Ceuta and Melilla.) Again, the purpose is strategic rather than economic, and therefore Britain has always, and will probably continue, to resist any pressure for change.

 

Coming back to the point of Resolution 1514; it was concerned with economic exploitation (which usually as a consequence necessitated subjugation). Neither of these apply in the case of the IOM. The IOM is part of the British Islands, and by a happy quirk of fate enjoys more freedoms than anywhere else in those islands (save the similarly-positioned Channel Islands).

 

So it comes down to this: you claim that Resolution 1514 applies to the IOM, and the UK and the UN disagree, because (rightly in my view) they don't consider it to be a colonial situation. That's the nub of it.

 

S

[Sebrof]

Please, for the love of god, someone put this thread out of its misery.

 

Sorry. Try this, it might be more in your line:

 

Knitting for dummies

 

S

 

Sorry - I came last in practical girlywork in school so it's not much use to me - I do have a first class honours degree in chemistry though. Shit - I can't believe I've stooped to the level of internet bragging. Please accept my apology.

 

That's all right, and sorry for being rude. But I do think that if you aren't interested in a thread, the best thing to do is not read it.

 

S

[Skeddan]

The IOM is the size of a UK market town. It had no material economic benefit whatsoever. This statement is therefore absurd: "IoM's exploitation played a vital role in fuelling Britain's power and imperial expansion through Britain's exploitation of its manpower for the Navy."

 

I was referring to the takeover in 1765. Prior to this the Royal Navy was in dire straits with a desperate shortage of manpower - especially able bodied seamen (i.e. experienced seafaring men). Hence press-gang laws. The situation was so bad that in some cases sick seamen were conscripted from hospitals and brought on board the ships on stretchers. IoM was outside UK jurisdiction. There was also a large number of skilled and experienced men - fishing and also the 'running trade' (some notorious for being able to outrun and outmaneuvre the Navy cutters). Within a few years of the takeover it's been estimated that 1/5 of the crews of the Royal Navy were Manx (that is total, the figure for the most vital able bodied seamen, like the topsailsmen, was probably higher). British seapower would have been far far weaker without this influx - and naval supremacy in the French wars was a key factor. It's not unreasonable to suppose that Naval manpower was key motivation in the takeover and the 'running trade' a pretext with some colourable legitimacy for the takeover - though putting a stop to this was also desirable.

 

I don't see anything absurd in the statement I made.

 

The UK was interested in the IOM for strategic reasons, not economic ones. It didn't want the French, Germans, or anyone else having a toehold so close to Great Britain.

 

I don't know of any evidence to suggest this was the reason for the takeover in 1765. Though a sovereign state and an 'absolute kingdom', IoM was under the suzerainty of the UK - i.e. it was obliged to at least remain neutral in any conflict with the UK, and could not be a toehold for foreign powers - and UK was obliged to defend IoM against invasion and conquest by France or anyone else - so I don't see the 'strategic reasons' you suggest were ever a factor. Nor at the time was there any threat of this.

 

But the main point is that how Britain considers the IOM dictates how Britain treats the IOM. It does not, and never did, consider the IOM a colony, and therefore considers Resolution 1514 to be irrelevant. The UN, which framed the resolution, thinks the same way, or they would have nudged Britain to do grant independence.

 

I agree the UK does not consider IoM is eligible for self-determination. I also agree that this non-eligibility may be accepted by the UN. However it does not explain why (e.g. because it is like Hong Kong).

 

The IOM is certainly analogous to Gibraltar, Pitcairn, Diego Garcia, and the Falklands, which are also under British control for strategic reasons.

 

And which are not 'colonies' as you might have it, yet are listed as NSGTs and eligible for self determination. However IoM is not. Why not?

 

The IOM is part of the British Islands, and by a happy quirk of fate enjoys more freedoms than anywhere else in those islands (save the similarly-positioned Channel Islands).

 

Are you suggesting this exempts IoM from the right of self-determination?

 

So it comes down to this: you claim that Resolution 1514 applies to the IOM, and the UK and the UN disagree, because (rightly in my view) they don't consider it to be a colonial situation. That's the nub of it.

 

You're right in what you say at the start of your post - shouldn't get bogged down in semantics of 'colony' since self-determination has developed and is far more widely applicable.

 

As I've said, self-determination is applicable to non-independent territories generally - i.e. where the territory concerned is separated from but subject to a ruling power (apart from certain exceptions), and not only applicable to 'colonial situation' as you seem to think of it, and elaborated in Resoluton 2625 and other instruments - e.g. ICJ.

 

Re applicability of self-determination to 'non-colonial' situations, see for example 'The United Nations System' by N.D. White, 2002. p.61 etc. Link

 

If the argument is simply that self-determination is only a right for strictly 'colonial' situations and IoM does not fit this, then can you point me to any authorities showing that self-determination is limited in scope in the way you suggest, and which would thereby exclude IoM. (not having a dig - I'd really like to identify any such authorities).

 

Some of the reasons which might be suggested are: 'enjoys freedoms, is part of British Islands, people have white faces, weren't primitive, limited exploitation, supposedly receives financial support, only held for strategic reasons'. None of these are sufficient to except IoM from right of self determination given that IoM is separated from but subject to a ruling power, and has not exercised any right of self determination or attained independence.

 

However you raise a good point in noting IoM is not recognised as a 'self-determination situation' by the UK (nor does it seem by the UN). This doesn't explain why.

 

So it comes down to this: you claim that Resolution 1514 applies to the IOM, and the UK and the UN disagree,

 

Let's be clear on this: No, I don't claim 1514 or any other right of self-determination applies to IoM - to clarify what I said in a previous post - in my view IoM falls under an exception (like Hong Kong) - the UK cannot grant independence because it does not own the sovereignty, and this would fall under the 'caveat' to thsi right of self determination, hence is exempt from self-determination.

 

It seems the UK and maybe the UN have decided it is (validly) exempt. Why? The reason you sugest is

 

because (rightly in my view) they don't consider it to be a colonial situation. That's the nub of it.

 

My point is that this does not give grounds for an exemption as IoM as self-determination is in any case not only applicable to 'colonial' situations, but also cases of foreign occupation, alien subjugation, and other like situations where the territory is separate from but subject to a ruling power. Hence this simply isn't good enough as a reason

 

I don't know of any other exceptions to the principle of self-determination other than in this 'caveat'. If IoM didn't fall under an exception for this reason, then why else would it not have the right to self-determination? (that is not a rhetorical question - maybe there is some as yet unidentified valid reason for exception?)

 

One could also argue that the UK chooses to pretend it doesn't have this obligation and UN turns a blind eye to this - but that only means the people of IoM are being deprived of the 'inalienable' right of self-determination - not that they do not have this right.

 

Sebrof - I wonder if you are perhaps suggesting that 'strategic' reasons may be grounds for an exemption? (i.e. if IoM were to become independent it might become a 'Cuban' style Russian missile base on its doorstep or the like, hence this would be contrary to the UK's right to security - or the like?) If so, it's interesting line (and might be used to claim a UN Charter 52(1) exception), but I think would need to be developed further - especially since - if self-determination were to opt for independence - then IoM could be established a 'neutralised' state, and this would be more proportionate to any legitimate security / strategic concern than denial of right to self-determination.

[Sebrof]

The IOM is the size of a UK market town. It had no material economic benefit whatsoever. This statement is therefore absurd: "IoM's exploitation played a vital role in fuelling Britain's power and imperial expansion through Britain's exploitation of its manpower for the Navy."

 

I was referring to the takeover in 1765. Prior to this the Royal Navy was in dire straits with a desperate shortage of manpower - especially able bodied seamen (i.e. experienced seafaring men). Hence press-gang laws. The situation was so bad that in some cases sick seamen were conscripted from hospitals and brought on board the ships on stretchers. IoM was outside UK jurisdiction. There was also a large number of skilled and experienced men - fishing and also the 'running trade' (some notorious for being able to outrun and outmaneuvre the Navy cutters). Within a few years of the takeover it's been estimated that 1/5 of the crews of the Royal Navy were Manx (that is total, the figure for the most vital able bodied seamen, like the topsailsmen, was probably higher).

 

I have to say that I find that estimate most unlikely. But even if true, press-ganging Manx sailors does not make the IOM a colony.

 

But the main point is that how Britain considers the IOM dictates how Britain treats the IOM. It does not, and never did, consider the IOM a colony, and therefore considers Resolution 1514 to be irrelevant. The UN, which framed the resolution, thinks the same way, or they would have nudged Britain to do grant independence.

 

I agree the UK does not consider IoM is eligible for self-determination. I also agree that this may be accepted by the UN. However it does not explain why (e.g. because it is like Hong Kong).

 

Because the people are British, I would suggest. The Manx are just as British as the Scots, the Northern Irish, the Welsh, the Cornish. All had (and still have, to some degree) their own languages, culture, history, traditions, laws, etc.. But they also have a lot in common, and historically it has made sense for them to be united.

 

Hong Kong is different. Hong Kong is land that was leased for a fixed period of time from a sovereign power, and surrendered at the end of the lease. The population, far from being subjugated, was more free than the people in mainland China, and there was a lot of illegal immigration from the mainland.

 

The IOM is certainly analogous to Gibraltar, Pitcairn, Diego Garcia, and the Falklands, which are also under British control for strategic reasons.

And which are listed as NSGTs. However IoM is not. Why not? Because, as part of the British Isles, there is no other obvious status for the IOM.

 

The IOM is part of the British Islands, and by a happy quirk of fate enjoys more freedoms than anywhere else in those islands (save the similarly-positioned Channel Islands).

 

Are you suggesting this exempts IoM from the right of self-determination?

 

Well, I don't think it really has any more right than, say, Salisbury. The fragmentation of a country into tiny city states is hardly desirable. The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that the IOM should really have been absorbed into the UK, but that the authorities simply couldn't be bothered. And by "should" I mean from the point of view of tidiness. I can't see any reason why it should be treated differently from, say, Lewis and Harris.

 

So it comes down to this: you claim that Resolution 1514 applies to the IOM, and the UK and the UN disagree, because (rightly in my view) they don't consider it to be a colonial situation. That's the nub of it.

 

You're right in what you say at the start of your post - shouldn't get bogged down in semantics of 'colony' since self-determination has developed and is far more widely applicable. As I've said, self-determination is applicable to non-independent territories generally - i.e. where the territory concerned is separated from but subject to a ruling power (apart from certain exceptions), and not only applicable to 'colonial situation' as you seem to think of it

 

Re applicability of self-determination to 'non-colonial' situations, see for example 'The United Nations System' by N.D. White, 2002. p.61 etc. Link

 

However you raise a good point in noting IoM is not recognised as a 'self-determination situation' by the UK (nor does it seem by the UN). This doesn't explain why.

 

Let's be clear on this: No, I don't claim 1514 or any other right of self-determination applies to IoM - to clarify what I said in a previous post - in my view IoM falls under an exception (like Hong Kong) - the UK cannot grant independence because it does not own the sovereignty, and this would fall under the 'caveat' to thsi right of self determination, hence is exempt from self-determination.

 

But Britain, or rather HM the Queen, does "own" the sovereignty.

 

I don't know of any other exceptions to the principle of self-determination other than in this 'caveat'. If IoM didn't fall under an exception for this reason, then why else would it not have the right to self-determination?

 

The 'reasons' that might be given otherwise - some of which might be suggested are: 'enjoys freedoms, is part of British Islands, people have white faces, weren't primitive, limited exploitation, supposedly receives financial support, only held for strategic reasons'. None of these are sufficient to except IoM from right of self determination given that IoM is separated from but subject to a ruling power, and has not exercised any right of self determination or attained independence.

 

So other than an exception under the caveat as I posited, what good reason could there for IoM being excepted? (that is not a rhetorical question - maybe there is some as yet unidentified valid reason for exception?)

 

(One could also argue that the UK chooses to pretend it doesn't have this obligation and UN turns a blind eye to this - but that only means the people of IoM are being deprived of the 'inalienable' right of self-determination - not that they do not have this right)

 

Sebrof - I wonder if you are perhaps suggesting that 'strategic' reasons may be grounds for an exemption? (i.e. if IoM were to become independent it might become a 'Cuban' style Russian missile base on its doorstep or the like, hence this would be contrary to the UK's right to security - or the like?) If so, it's interesting line, but I think would need to be developed further - especially since - if (big if) self-determination were to opt for independence - then IoM could be established a 'neutralised' state, and this would be more proportionate to any legitimate security / strategic concern than denial of right to self-determination.

 

If the argument is simply that self-determination is only a right for strictly 'colonial' situations and IoM does not fit this, please could you provide some clearer definition and authority showing that self-determination is limited in scope in the way you suggest.

 

I suspect that most people have until now assumed that the IOM has been a contented part of a sort of extended UK, so the question of a general right of the IOM to self-determination (in or outside Res. 1514) hasn't needed to be discussed in a serious way by the powers that be in the UK and UN.

 

But if the IOM were to clamour for independence, just as people fear the Scots are close to doing, then I think the picture changes, and the IOM's claims might be heard. After all, if a large majority of Scots clamour for independence, I am sure they will get it. We are hardly likely to have a re-run of Bannockburn.

 

S

[Skeddan]

But even if true, press-ganging Manx sailors does not make the IOM a colony.

 

I wasn't claiming this did. I was responding to your claim that my statement was 'absurd', and noting that IoM had been exploited. Being exploited alone does not make a place a colony - clearly not if it is within the territorial limits of the state doing the exploiting.

 

Because the people are British, I would suggest. The Manx are just as British as the Scots, the Northern Irish, the Welsh, the Cornish.

Pitcairners are British, as are people in British colonies, but that doesn't deny them a right to self-determination.

 

(not all Manx are as British as the Scots etc. - unlike Scots those defined as 'Manxmen' do not have right of establishment in EU - i.e. similar to Pitcairners and people from British Overseas Territories).

 

Hong Kong is different. Hong Kong is land that was leased for a fixed period of time from a sovereign power, and surrendered at the end of the lease. The population, far from being subjugated, was more free than the people in mainland China, and there was a lot of illegal immigration from the mainland.

Yes UK did not own the sovereignty, and for this reason self-determination did not apply. Freedoms and lack of oppression do not take away the right of self-determination. (don't confuse 'subjugation' - i.e. subject to foreign power - e.g. in imposing legislation, with 'oppression'). HK was under the 'subjugation' of the UK - i.e. the UK had paramount power over the territory during its possession (though no power to grant independence).

 

Well, I don't think it really has any more right than, say, Salisbury.

Salisbury is part of the UK and within the territorial limits. IoM is not domestic territory. Unlike Salisbury, IoM is a non-independent terrtory seperate from but subject to a ruling power. That is the critical distinction.

 

(As Crawford would explain it, the people of Salisbury enjoy self-determination through participation in the political process through their elected representative in Parliament. The people of IoM have not such representation in Parliament. Do you want to try to revive the notion of 'virtual representation' that was floated for America around the time of the American Revolution?).

 

But Britain, or rather HM the Queen, does "own" the sovereignty.

 

Can you substantiate this? Can you show exactly how she obtained ownership of the sovereignty (not just de facto possession and effective control, but legal title). (Yes, I know about 'Purchase Act', so-called 'revestment' etc. etc. - but see my previous posts for reasons why this doesn't suffice to show the QUeen has legal title to the sovereignty beyond that of de facto possession).

 

Try as I might I haven't been able to find a robust argument and evidence to support this claim. Instead everything points to this not being so.

 

In fact one of the reasons for the question of self-determination is taht it seems that this is another example which shows that sovereignty is not owned by the Queen. However one must first consider if there might be any other explanation for IoM being exempt. Simply saying 'this is not the reason' and insisting that IoM is not exempt under the 'HK caveat' 'because the Queen owns the sovereignty' isn't good enough.

 

There has to be a credible explanation for why IoM is exempt - either because the Queen doesn't own the sovereignty ('HK caveat'), or some as yet unidentified reason (or alternatively you might argue the UK is not complying with International Law, IoM does have this right, and it is being wrongly denied - which shouldn't be presumed unless it can first be proved that the 'HK caveat' is not applicable.).

 

I'm trying to get a grip on what might be this alternative explantion for the exemption. I can't see anything so far suggested is really tenable (though 'regional strategic defence' is perhaps a nice possibility).

 

I suspect that most people have until now assumed that the IOM has been a contented part of a sort of extended UK,

 

I have no idea what 'being part of a sort of extended UK' means. Wouldn't this be true of people in British Overseas Territories who are entitled to self determination? (i.e. in colonies and other possessions). Even if part of an 'extended UK' in a geographic sense (British Islands?) IoM is not part of the UK itself and has no represention in Parliament, which has paramount power over IoM, hence I don't see how this could suffice to exempt from right of self-determination.

 

so the question of a general right of the IOM to self-determination (in or outside Res. 1514) hasn't needed to be discussed in a serious way by the powers that be in the UK and UN.

 

If there is a possibilty that IoM should have the right of self-determination, then this ought to be looked at in a serious way by the 'powers that be' in the UK in order to ensure the UK is meeting its obligations in international law. The UK is obliged to take steps in all territories that have a right to self-determination whether the people there demand this or not. Even if there is 'contentment' among the population, failure to take such steps when required is still a breach of its obligations.

 

I'd suggest that the 'powers that be' are not so amiss and neglectful as you suppose, and that they have looked at it in a serious way, and are satisfied that IoM is exempt - the question is could there be any other reason for its being exempt other than the 'non-sovereignty' caveat?

 

But if the IOM were to clamour for independence, just as people fear the Scots are close to doing, then I think the picture changes, and the IOM's claims might be heard. After all, if a large majority of Scots clamour for independence, I am sure they will get it. We are hardly likely to have a re-run of Bannockburn.

 

It isn't just about independence. There are other options such as 'Free Association' and incorporation - i.e. annexation to become part of the UK. The point is that self-determination means that people in non-independent territories have the right to determine their political status. At the moment people have no say, and there is no prospect of having any say over this. If IoM was not exempt, and UK met obligations, then the issue would be raised and there would be debate over it - that's the way it works. You seem to think that the right of self-determination only comes into play if there is a clamouring for independence (where do you get that idea from?).

 

Are you perhaps suggesting that the issue should be left unclear until there is some clamouring for independence?

 

I think often people get stuck in a paradigm and take it as 'unquestionable fact' that the Queen owns the sovereignty. Given this assumption, it becomes impossible to give an satisfactory explanation - which is frustrating, so it is left as being something 'complex', 'too hard', and 'mysterious', which is all very frustrating, and then this is dismissed as a pointless exercise (rather like children do), so 'dropping it' allows one to get away with a non-answer. I'm happy to accept any sensible explanation that is tenable and stands up, and would more than welcome one - but if there is no other possibility then why not revisit this 'assumption' and 'unquestionable fact'? Oddly the notion that the Queen doesn't own sovereignty of IoM gives a very simple and elegant explanation which fits very well to everything - including IoM being exempt from self-determination (but to see that have to get beyond "oh no - it can't be!!").

 

I can't see why anyone could be so sure the Queen owns the sovereignty. I really feel I'm not seeing something - can anyone pleaase give a rational explanation why the notion that she doesn't own the sovereignty can be firmly rejected - ideally one that would be legally robust? (At the moment it seems to me like an exercise in trying to see the Emperor's new clothes).

 

Anyhow back to self determination - have I not grasped something which offers a tenable explanation for why IoM is exempt? (other than 'HK caveat'). If so, I'd find it really helpful if you could perhaps summarise the reasons why you now think IoM is exempt.

[Sebrof]

I am finding it difficult to match opening and closing brackets, so I'll quote freestyle as necessary.

 

First, Salisbury. As I mentioned, I believe that the IOM is a crown dependency by default - nobody could be bothered to do the right thing and annexe it into the UK - I suspect it wasn't thought worth the trouble. The IOM's status as a crown dependency means that the crown can really do whatever it likes - in theory. And that means that it could still annexe the IOM. Given that, its status is effectively much the same as Salisbury's because it could be made to be exactly so at the stroke of a pen.

 

Second, sovereignty. You will recall the debates over the Falklands/Malvinas at the time of the Falklands war. There was a great deal of discussion, and one thing that came out clearly was that Britain's claim was enormously strengthened by the fact of possession over a long period - squatters' rights, in other words. I suspect that the same argument could be used in respect of the IOM against any claim that the queen is not sovereign. After a while, de facto becomes de jure. If you go back far enough, most land titles (in the old world) came about because a man with a sword stood on a piece of ground and said: "This is mine".

 

Exemption. This where we really differ. I don't agree that it is necessarily the case that the UK considers the IOM to be exempt from a right to self-determination. Although the IOM may seem to be important from a Manx perspective, from Whitehall it really isn't on the radar, except when it causes embarassment by using the birch, or encouraging money-laundering. As I said earlier, strident demands from the IOM for independence (or any other constitutional change, like joining the UK proper) would cause the question to be considered. Up until now, I doubt if it has been seriously considered, and even if it had been, I would expect that whatever was decided was kept under a hat for the sake of an easy life.

 

By "a sort of extended UK" I mean things like the NHS, NI, VAT, telephone numbers, post codes, mail services, all of which are specifically UK-related services or matters that one would not expect to be shared with another "territory". Certainly none of these things were shared with any colonies.

 

I think there is a great deal about the IOM's relationship with the UK that is "unclear", and that it probably suits the UK, and, to a large extent, the IOM, to leave it that way. Clarity might lead to the realisation that something ought to be done differently, and that would require work, money, and possible political fall-out. While the IOM is basically content, and not being a nuisance, I think Whitehall is happy to maintain the status quo.

 

So I think you sense a conspiracy or cover-up where (in my view) none actually exists. I am inclined to think that politicians and civil servants crave an easy life, and are happy to let sleeping tigers lie.

 

But put it to the test. Get up a referendum, and ask people to vote for one of three options: independence, annexation, or status quo. If enough people sign, and if they don't all vote for number 3, then petition Westminster. Given the present situation over there, they might be glad of a diversion.

 

S

[Skeddan]

First, Salisbury. As I mentioned, I believe that the IOM is a crown dependency by default - nobody could be bothered to do the right thing and annexe it into the UK - I suspect it wasn't thought worth the trouble. The IOM's status as a crown dependency means that the crown can really do whatever it likes - in theory. And that means that it could still annexe the IOM. Given that, its status is effectively much the same as Salisbury's because it could be made to be exactly so at the stroke of a pen.

 

There's no doubt that IoM is a 'Crown Dependency', or that it is a possession of the Crown, but what does this mean exactly? Dependency... (Hmmm - the Baltic states were 'Soviet Dependencies' - part of 'an extended USSR'). In any event, surely it means a non-independent terrtory seperate from but subject to a ruling power (whether the ruling power is mean and bad like the Russians, or nice and good like HMG). I think it safe to say that one of the features of a Crown Dependency is that it is a territory that is not part of the UK but is subject to the UK (via Queen in Council or Queen in Parliament). That sounds like it should have a right to self determination.

 

You say "The IOM's status as a crown dependency means that the crown can really do whatever it likes - in theory. And that means that it could still annexe the IOM. Given that, its status is effectively much the same as Salisbury's because it could be made to be exactly so at the stroke of a pen."

 

The argument seems to be that the crown could annex, so IoM may be treated as if it has already been annexed. (Saddam could at the stroke of a pen have made Iraq democratic. Given that...). I can't see how such a notion could be seriously argued. One has to look at the status as it is, and deal with facts: IoM is not part of the UK. Salisbury is.

 

Leaving that aside, I'm interested in the reasons why you think the crown has such a unilateral power to annex IoM.

 

I'd argue it could not. The reasons are:

 

a) if IoM is a non-independent territory eligible for self-determination, doing so would be in breach of ergo omnes principles of international law and would not be valid.

 

b) conversely if IoM is not eligible for self-determination because the Crown does not own the sovereignty, this would also be invalid (just as an annexation of Hong Kong or Iraqi annexation of Kuwait would not have been a legal annexation in international law).

 

c) at least so far, no robust case has been made out showing that IoM does not fall into either of the above categories ('self-determination' or 'territorial integrity'). Until and unless the Crown can make out its title and right to effect such annexation (e.g. by right of conquest), one cannot assume such an annexation would be legal. (show the treaty etc.)

 

 

I'm also wondering if you are suggesting a Crown Dependency is some sort of 'exceptionalist territory' - one where the Crown can (in theory) do whatever it likes. Is the argument: Crown Dependencies have an extraordinary, and unique status, which is entirely aberrant, and this allows the Crown extraordinary and unique powers, unconstrained by considerations that apply in the rest of the world (and this effectively allows the crown to do whatever it likes). I don't understand the theory. Could the crown deport the population? Commit genocide? How far do these powers go and what is the source of this power? (Divine right?) Sounds like a rather fanciful and desperate way of trying to get out of a hole - especially if there is a perfectly rational and sensible alternative (Occam's Razor). If that can be shown to be the only possible sound conclusion one can draw, ok - but I wouldn't leap to this (though some might dearly relish the idea of being entirely subject to the personal autocratic power of the Queen).

 

Second, sovereignty. You will recall the debates over the Falklands/Malvinas at the time of the Falklands war. There was a great deal of discussion, and one thing that came out clearly was that Britain's claim was enormously strengthened by the fact of possession over a long period - squatters' rights, in other words. I suspect that the same argument could be used in respect of the IOM against any claim that the queen is not sovereign. After a while, de facto becomes de jure. If you go back far enough, most land titles (in the old world) came about because a man with a sword stood on a piece of ground and said: "This is mine".

 

i.e. 'prescription' I've looked at that, but there are very strong arguments against (including decisions by ICJ). It would take a bit to detail these arguments - if you're interested I'd be happy to do so. Still all this gets you is the possibility of an argument that the crown owns the sovereignty - not why there is no right of self determination (as there is in the Falklands).

 

However re Falklands you will note that like Gibraltar it is disputed sovereignty and dealt with through the UN 'Special Political and Decolonization Committee'. (UK claims sovereignty and says sovereignty cannot be transferred without exercise of right of self-determination - however as sovereignty is disputed, it is not clear that right can be exercised as this may be prejudicial to the sovereign rights and territorial integrity of Argentina / Spain). The UK is very vigorous about the right of self-determination for Gibraltar and the Falklands - why not IoM?

 

Exemption. This where we really differ. I don't agree that it is necessarily the case that the UK considers the IOM to be exempt from a right to self-determination. .... Up until now, I doubt if it has been seriously considered, and even if it had been, I would expect that whatever was decided was kept under a hat for the sake of an easy life.

 

You seem to suggest that the UK is failing in its duty, negligent and even using wilful ignorance to avoid tackling the question. What you are suggesting is that the UK is behaving illegally and in breach of its international obligations (!). That's a pretty serious accusation to make - and would need good evidence to support it - and so far I've seen none. I think you sense conspiracy or cover up where (in my view) none exists.

 

However regardless of what the UK do or don't think, or choose not to think, the current question is whether or not IoM is exempt - and if exempt, what basis there could be for this.

 

By "a sort of extended UK" I mean things like the NHS, NI, VAT, telephone numbers, post codes, mail services, all of which are specifically UK-related services or matters that one would not expect to be shared with another "territory". Certainly none of these things were shared with any colonies.

 

OK. However none of these things serve to make IoM part of the UK itself or count for or against a right of self determination - the key issue is that it is not part of the UK, but a non-independent territory subject to the rule of the UK.

 

I doubt you'd think the UK could have 'decolonised' Kenya by adminsitrative arrangements re NI, telephone numbers and post codes, and entering into a VAT agreement. French Polynesia is an interesting one - France claims this is domestic territory and purportedly has been annexed to France. They return members of parliament, so, it is argued, enjoy self-determination through integration, and is not subject to foreign rule. IoM has not been annexed, and there is not this political intergration.

 

I think there is a great deal about the IOM's relationship with the UK that is "unclear", and that it probably suits the UK, and, to a large extent, the IOM, to leave it that way. Clarity might lead to the realisation that something ought to be done differently, and that would require work, money, and possible political fall-out. While the IOM is basically content, and not being a nuisance, I think Whitehall is happy to maintain the status quo.

 

It may suit the UK, but in what sense does it suit IoM? (I've argued that ungrounded perception that UK has greater powers than it actually has may lead IoM to be less vigorous in its dealings with the UK. This can lead to Manx interests not being pursued as fully and forcefully as they might be otherwise).

 

You say "Clarity might lead to the realisation that something ought to be done." If so what can be said in favour of burying head in sand?

 

Cost? It may take some work - but not too much, nor would it be unduly expensive. Can one justify not having clarity over such a fundamental question? I don't see political fall out over clarifying respective rights, responsibilities, clear delineation of limits of power, and so on. Identifying and exercising legitimate rights shouldn't be considered 'hostile' - though of course Whitehall may be happier if IoM stays in the dark and is more 'amenable'.

 

So I think you sense a conspiracy or cover-up where (in my view) none actually exists. I am inclined to think that politicians and civil servants crave an easy life, and are happy to let sleeping tigers lie.

 

No, I really don't see it as conspiracy or cover-up, just that Whitehall have preferred to maintain a circumspect silence and 'constructive ambiguity' for reasons of political expediency, and IoM has placidly gone along with this.

 

I don't think the notion that the crown does not own sovereignty is some terrible wrongdoing that's been hidden - just a state of affairs that has arisen from some legal quirks and which is perfectly legitimate and legal (but which it is perhaps convenient not to make explict if no need to do so). If anything it is cock-up rather than conspiracy - and that tends to be brushed under the carpet. I'm not sure one could even claim nonfeasance or misfeasance by the UK, let alone malfeasance as perhaps in the case of the Chagos Islands. If anything I think the UK is very scrupulous about complying with all legal obligations with IoM - even if it means some tap dancing around bumps in the carpet.

 

To dismiss my argument as 'conspiracy theory' is prejudging the question of whether or not the crown owns sovereignty (an ad hominem argument). I'm just trying to get at what the situation actually is with an open mind, and presenting arguments and counter-arguments which are open to challenge - not making unsubstantiated and unverifiable accusations about some 'web of lies' or the like.

 

In any case I haven't seen any lies. Just a fudging of the questions, and keeping things vague, obscure and within the bounds of the 'constructive ambiguity'. It is non-official publications, poor historians and Wikipedians who make all sorts of bogus and misleading statements. When there is a legal duty involved - e.g. the Kilbrandon Royal Commission, the matter is simply tap danced around - e.g. " 'it's complex' " - and left at that.

 

In fact there is a basic principle that one should not presume wrongdoing - but should work on the basis of the assumption that public officers are carrying out their duties in a lawful manner. This is why I don't accept you notion of negligence, or wilful blindness / contrived ignorance and failure to 'ensure respect' for ergo omnes principles of law. I certainly see no reason to conclude that the UK are acting unlawfully by a wrongful denial of a right of self-determination.

 

In my view the UK's conduct re IoM is entirely lawful (But maybe some conspiracy theorists will think otherwise). However unless one supposes 'the powers that be' are acting unlawfully, it seems impossible to come to any conclusion other than that the Crown does not own sovereignty and IoM is a de facto possession of the Crown i.e. a 'dependency' - or, if you like, a 'Crown dependency'.

 

Nothing wrong with that, and at least one gets a clear and straightforward explanation of IoM's status. If you can show a flaw in this reasoning, or offer a clear and sensible alternative explanation of the 'Crown Dependency' and IoM's status in International Law (other than 'obscure'), I'd really really like to hear it.

[Lonan3]

So you really think that making Cavendish a freeman of Douglas is going to sort all that?

[Sebrof]

First, Salisbury. As I mentioned, I believe that the IOM is a crown dependency by default - nobody could be bothered to do the right thing and annexe it into the UK - I suspect it wasn't thought worth the trouble. The IOM's status as a crown dependency means that the crown can really do whatever it likes - in theory. And that means that it could still annexe the IOM. Given that, its status is effectively much the same as Salisbury's because it could be made to be exactly so at the stroke of a pen.

 

There's no doubt that IoM is a 'Crown Dependency', or that it is a possession of the Crown, but what does this mean exactly? Dependency... (Hmmm - the Baltic states were 'Soviet Dependencies' - part of 'an extended USSR'). In any event, surely it means a non-independent terrtory seperate from but subject to a ruling power (whether the ruling power is mean and bad like the Russians, or nice and good like HMG). I think it safe to say that one of the features of a Crown Dependency is that it is a territory that is not part of the UK but is subject to the UK (via Queen in Council or Queen in Parliament). That sounds like it should have a right to self determination.

 

You say "The IOM's status as a crown dependency means that the crown can really do whatever it likes - in theory. And that means that it could still annexe the IOM. Given that, its status is effectively much the same as Salisbury's because it could be made to be exactly so at the stroke of a pen."

 

The argument seems to be that the crown could annex, so IoM may be treated as if it has already been annexed. (Saddam could at the stroke of a pen have made Iraq democratic. Given that...). I can't see how such a notion could be seriously argued. One has to look at the status as it is, and deal with facts: IoM is not part of the UK. Salisbury is.

 

Leaving that aside, I'm interested in the reasons why you think the crown has such a unilateral power to annex IoM.

 

I'd argue it could not. The reasons are:

 

a) if IoM is a non-independent territory eligible for self-determination, doing so would be in breach of ergo omnes principles of international law and would not be valid.

 

b) conversely if IoM is not eligible for self-determination because the Crown does not own the sovereignty, this would also be invalid (just as an annexation of Hong Kong or Iraqi annexation of Kuwait would not have been a legal annexation in international law).

 

c) at least so far, no robust case has been made out showing that IoM does not fall into either of the above categories ('self-determination' or 'territorial integrity'). Until and unless the Crown can make out its title and right to effect such annexation (e.g. by right of conquest), one cannot assume such an annexation would be legal. (show the treaty etc.)

 

 

I'm also wondering if you are suggesting a Crown Dependency is some sort of 'exceptionalist territory' - one where the Crown can (in theory) do whatever it likes. Is the argument: Crown Dependencies have an extraordinary, and unique status, which is entirely aberrant, and this allows the Crown extraordinary and unique powers, unconstrained by considerations that apply in the rest of the world (and this effectively allows the crown to do whatever it likes). I don't understand the theory. Could the crown deport the population? Commit genocide? How far do these powers go and what is the source of this power? (Divine right?) Sounds like a rather fanciful and desperate way of trying to get out of a hole - especially if there is a perfectly rational and sensible alternative (Occam's Razor). If that can be shown to be the only possible sound conclusion one can draw, ok - but I wouldn't leap to this (though some might dearly relish the idea of being entirely subject to the personal autocratic power of the Queen).

 

Second, sovereignty. You will recall the debates over the Falklands/Malvinas at the time of the Falklands war. There was a great deal of discussion, and one thing that came out clearly was that Britain's claim was enormously strengthened by the fact of possession over a long period - squatters' rights, in other words. I suspect that the same argument could be used in respect of the IOM against any claim that the queen is not sovereign. After a while, de facto becomes de jure. If you go back far enough, most land titles (in the old world) came about because a man with a sword stood on a piece of ground and said: "This is mine".

 

i.e. 'prescription' I've looked at that, but there are very strong arguments against (including decisions by ICJ). It would take a bit to detail these arguments - if you're interested I'd be happy to do so. Still all this gets you is the possibility of an argument that the crown owns the sovereignty - not why there is no right of self determination (as there is in the Falklands).

 

However re Falklands you will note that like Gibraltar it is disputed sovereignty and dealt with through the UN 'Special Political and Decolonization Committee'. (UK claims sovereignty and says sovereignty cannot be transferred without exercise of right of self-determination - however as sovereignty is disputed, it is not clear that right can be exercised as this may be prejudicial to the sovereign rights and territorial integrity of Argentina / Spain). The UK is very vigorous about the right of self-determination for Gibraltar and the Falklands - why not IoM?

 

Exemption. This where we really differ. I don't agree that it is necessarily the case that the UK considers the IOM to be exempt from a right to self-determination. .... Up until now, I doubt if it has been seriously considered, and even if it had been, I would expect that whatever was decided was kept under a hat for the sake of an easy life.

 

You seem to suggest that the UK is failing in its duty, negligent and even using wilful ignorance to avoid tackling the question. What you are suggesting is that the UK is behaving illegally and in breach of its international obligations (!). That's a pretty serious accusation to make - and would need good evidence to support it - and so far I've seen none. I think you sense conspiracy or cover up where (in my view) none exists.

 

However regardless of what the UK do or don't think, or choose not to think, the current question is whether or not IoM is exempt - and if exempt, what basis there could be for this.

 

By "a sort of extended UK" I mean things like the NHS, NI, VAT, telephone numbers, post codes, mail services, all of which are specifically UK-related services or matters that one would not expect to be shared with another "territory". Certainly none of these things were shared with any colonies.

 

OK. However none of these things serve to make IoM part of the UK itself or count for or against a right of self determination - the key issue is that it is not part of the UK, but a non-independent territory subject to the rule of the UK.

 

I doubt you'd think the UK could have 'decolonised' Kenya by adminsitrative arrangements re NI, telephone numbers and post codes, and entering into a VAT agreement. French Polynesia is an interesting one - France claims this is domestic territory and purportedly has been annexed to France. They return members of parliament, so, it is argued, enjoy self-determination through integration, and is not subject to foreign rule. IoM has not been annexed, and there is not this political intergration.

 

I think there is a great deal about the IOM's relationship with the UK that is "unclear", and that it probably suits the UK, and, to a large extent, the IOM, to leave it that way. Clarity might lead to the realisation that something ought to be done differently, and that would require work, money, and possible political fall-out. While the IOM is basically content, and not being a nuisance, I think Whitehall is happy to maintain the status quo.

 

It may suit the UK, but in what sense does it suit IoM? (I've argued that ungrounded perception that UK has greater powers than it actually has may lead IoM to be less vigorous in its dealings with the UK. This can lead to Manx interests not being pursued as fully and forcefully as they might be otherwise).

 

You say "Clarity might lead to the realisation that something ought to be done." If so what can be said in favour of burying head in sand?

 

Cost? It may take some work - but not too much, nor would it be unduly expensive. Can one justify not having clarity over such a fundamental question? I don't see political fall out over clarifying respective rights, responsibilities, clear delineation of limits of power, and so on. Identifying and exercising legitimate rights shouldn't be considered 'hostile' - though of course Whitehall may be happier if IoM stays in the dark and is more 'amenable'.

 

So I think you sense a conspiracy or cover-up where (in my view) none actually exists. I am inclined to think that politicians and civil servants crave an easy life, and are happy to let sleeping tigers lie.

 

No, I really don't see it as conspiracy or cover-up, just that Whitehall have preferred to maintain a circumspect silence and 'constructive ambiguity' for reasons of political expediency, and IoM has placidly gone along with this.

 

I don't think the notion that the crown does not own sovereignty is some terrible wrongdoing that's been hidden - just a state of affairs that has arisen from some legal quirks and which is perfectly legitimate and legal (but which it is perhaps convenient not to make explict if no need to do so). If anything it is cock-up rather than conspiracy - and that tends to be brushed under the carpet. I'm not sure one could even claim nonfeasance or misfeasance by the UK, let alone malfeasance as perhaps in the case of the Chagos Islands. If anything I think the UK is very scrupulous about complying with all legal obligations with IoM - even if it means some tap dancing around bumps in the carpet.

 

To dismiss my argument as 'conspiracy theory' is prejudging the question of whether or not the crown owns sovereignty (an ad hominem argument). I'm just trying to get at what the situation actually is with an open mind, and presenting arguments and counter-arguments which are open to challenge - not making unsubstantiated and unverifiable accusations about some 'web of lies' or the like.

 

In any case I haven't seen any lies. Just a fudging of the questions, and keeping things vague, obscure and within the bounds of the 'constructive ambiguity'. It is non-official publications, poor historians and Wikipedians who make all sorts of bogus and misleading statements. When there is a legal duty involved - e.g. the Kilbrandon Royal Commission, the matter is simply tap danced around - e.g. " 'it's complex' " - and left at that.

 

In fact there is a basic principle that one should not presume wrongdoing - but should work on the basis of the assumption that public officers are carrying out their duties in a lawful manner. This is why I don't accept you notion of negligence, or wilful blindness / contrived ignorance and failure to 'ensure respect' for ergo omnes principles of law. I certainly see no reason to conclude that the UK are acting unlawfully by a wrongful denial of a right of self-determination.

 

In my view the UK's conduct re IoM is entirely lawful (But maybe some conspiracy theorists will think otherwise). However unless one supposes 'the powers that be' are acting unlawfully, it seems impossible to come to any conclusion other than that the Crown does not own sovereignty and IoM is a de facto possession of the Crown i.e. a 'dependency' - or, if you like, a 'Crown dependency'.

 

Nothing wrong with that, and at least one gets a clear and straightforward explanation of IoM's status. If you can show a flaw in this reasoning, or offer a clear and sensible alternative explanation of the 'Crown Dependency' and IoM's status in International Law (other than 'obscure'), I'd really really like to hear it.

 

Skeddan,

 

I'll come back to you on this tomorrow.

 

S

[Maxmann]

Possibly you are unaware that the Queen is queen of Scotland and Wales, too. And the IOM, for that matter. And that God Save The Queen is the British national anthem, as well as being, at one time, the national anthem of about a quarter of the nations of the world.

 

Possibly you were unaware that the IOM does not have a "Queen". Constitutionally the English Queen is Lord of Mann which just proves you're talking completely through your arse on that one.

 

When British athletes play in the Olympics, they are playing as Britons, not as little Englanders, wily Welshmen, scheming Scots, idle Irish or manky Manxmen.

 

Britons? That is course meaning British people - i.e people of British ethnicity - those being citizens of the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, or of one of the British overseas territories.

 

Therefore somebody from Wales can represent Britain as they are UK citizens they are still, however, Welsh by birth (ie. born in Wales). Yet again what a load of irrelevant factually incorrect crap you have posted.

[Maxmann]

Regarding the Queen being the Queen of the Isle of Man, Someone mentioned her being Lord of Man.Yet if you got to the list of all the titles the Queen holds, there is no mention of her being Lord of Man, so is this just some sort of made up Honary title?

[Albert Tatlock]

First, Salisbury. As I mentioned, I believe that the IOM is a crown dependency by default - nobody could be bothered to do the right thing and annexe it into the UK - I suspect it wasn't thought worth the trouble. The IOM's status as a crown dependency means that the crown can really do whatever it likes - in theory. And that means that it could still annexe the IOM. Given that, its status is effectively much the same as Salisbury's because it could be made to be exactly so at the stroke of a pen.

 

There's no doubt that IoM is a 'Crown Dependency', or that it is a possession of the Crown, but what does this mean exactly? Dependency... (Hmmm - the Baltic states were 'Soviet Dependencies' - part of 'an extended USSR'). In any event, surely it means a non-independent terrtory seperate from but subject to a ruling power (whether the ruling power is mean and bad like the Russians, or nice and good like HMG). I think it safe to say that one of the features of a Crown Dependency is that it is a territory that is not part of the UK but is subject to the UK (via Queen in Council or Queen in Parliament). That sounds like it should have a right to self determination.

 

You say "The IOM's status as a crown dependency means that the crown can really do whatever it likes - in theory. And that means that it could still annexe the IOM. Given that, its status is effectively much the same as Salisbury's because it could be made to be exactly so at the stroke of a pen."

 

The argument seems to be that the crown could annex, so IoM may be treated as if it has already been annexed. (Saddam could at the stroke of a pen have made Iraq democratic. Given that...). I can't see how such a notion could be seriously argued. One has to look at the status as it is, and deal with facts: IoM is not part of the UK. Salisbury is.

 

Leaving that aside, I'm interested in the reasons why you think the crown has such a unilateral power to annex IoM.

 

I'd argue it could not. The reasons are:

 

a) if IoM is a non-independent territory eligible for self-determination, doing so would be in breach of ergo omnes principles of international law and would not be valid.

 

b) conversely if IoM is not eligible for self-determination because the Crown does not own the sovereignty, this would also be invalid (just as an annexation of Hong Kong or Iraqi annexation of Kuwait would not have been a legal annexation in international law).

 

c) at least so far, no robust case has been made out showing that IoM does not fall into either of the above categories ('self-determination' or 'territorial integrity'). Until and unless the Crown can make out its title and right to effect such annexation (e.g. by right of conquest), one cannot assume such an annexation would be legal. (show the treaty etc.)

 

 

I'm also wondering if you are suggesting a Crown Dependency is some sort of 'exceptionalist territory' - one where the Crown can (in theory) do whatever it likes. Is the argument: Crown Dependencies have an extraordinary, and unique status, which is entirely aberrant, and this allows the Crown extraordinary and unique powers, unconstrained by considerations that apply in the rest of the world (and this effectively allows the crown to do whatever it likes). I don't understand the theory. Could the crown deport the population? Commit genocide? How far do these powers go and what is the source of this power? (Divine right?) Sounds like a rather fanciful and desperate way of trying to get out of a hole - especially if there is a perfectly rational and sensible alternative (Occam's Razor). If that can be shown to be the only possible sound conclusion one can draw, ok - but I wouldn't leap to this (though some might dearly relish the idea of being entirely subject to the personal autocratic power of the Queen).

 

Second, sovereignty. You will recall the debates over the Falklands/Malvinas at the time of the Falklands war. There was a great deal of discussion, and one thing that came out clearly was that Britain's claim was enormously strengthened by the fact of possession over a long period - squatters' rights, in other words. I suspect that the same argument could be used in respect of the IOM against any claim that the queen is not sovereign. After a while, de facto becomes de jure. If you go back far enough, most land titles (in the old world) came about because a man with a sword stood on a piece of ground and said: "This is mine".

 

i.e. 'prescription' I've looked at that, but there are very strong arguments against (including decisions by ICJ). It would take a bit to detail these arguments - if you're interested I'd be happy to do so. Still all this gets you is the possibility of an argument that the crown owns the sovereignty - not why there is no right of self determination (as there is in the Falklands).

 

However re Falklands you will note that like Gibraltar it is disputed sovereignty and dealt with through the UN 'Special Political and Decolonization Committee'. (UK claims sovereignty and says sovereignty cannot be transferred without exercise of right of self-determination - however as sovereignty is disputed, it is not clear that right can be exercised as this may be prejudicial to the sovereign rights and territorial integrity of Argentina / Spain). The UK is very vigorous about the right of self-determination for Gibraltar and the Falklands - why not IoM?

 

Exemption. This where we really differ. I don't agree that it is necessarily the case that the UK considers the IOM to be exempt from a right to self-determination. .... Up until now, I doubt if it has been seriously considered, and even if it had been, I would expect that whatever was decided was kept under a hat for the sake of an easy life.

 

You seem to suggest that the UK is failing in its duty, negligent and even using wilful ignorance to avoid tackling the question. What you are suggesting is that the UK is behaving illegally and in breach of its international obligations (!). That's a pretty serious accusation to make - and would need good evidence to support it - and so far I've seen none. I think you sense conspiracy or cover up where (in my view) none exists.

 

However regardless of what the UK do or don't think, or choose not to think, the current question is whether or not IoM is exempt - and if exempt, what basis there could be for this.

 

By "a sort of extended UK" I mean things like the NHS, NI, VAT, telephone numbers, post codes, mail services, all of which are specifically UK-related services or matters that one would not expect to be shared with another "territory". Certainly none of these things were shared with any colonies.

 

OK. However none of these things serve to make IoM part of the UK itself or count for or against a right of self determination - the key issue is that it is not part of the UK, but a non-independent territory subject to the rule of the UK.

 

I doubt you'd think the UK could have 'decolonised' Kenya by adminsitrative arrangements re NI, telephone numbers and post codes, and entering into a VAT agreement. French Polynesia is an interesting one - France claims this is domestic territory and purportedly has been annexed to France. They return members of parliament, so, it is argued, enjoy self-determination through integration, and is not subject to foreign rule. IoM has not been annexed, and there is not this political intergration.

 

I think there is a great deal about the IOM's relationship with the UK that is "unclear", and that it probably suits the UK, and, to a large extent, the IOM, to leave it that way. Clarity might lead to the realisation that something ought to be done differently, and that would require work, money, and possible political fall-out. While the IOM is basically content, and not being a nuisance, I think Whitehall is happy to maintain the status quo.

 

It may suit the UK, but in what sense does it suit IoM? (I've argued that ungrounded perception that UK has greater powers than it actually has may lead IoM to be less vigorous in its dealings with the UK. This can lead to Manx interests not being pursued as fully and forcefully as they might be otherwise).

 

You say "Clarity might lead to the realisation that something ought to be done." If so what can be said in favour of burying head in sand?

 

Cost? It may take some work - but not too much, nor would it be unduly expensive. Can one justify not having clarity over such a fundamental question? I don't see political fall out over clarifying respective rights, responsibilities, clear delineation of limits of power, and so on. Identifying and exercising legitimate rights shouldn't be considered 'hostile' - though of course Whitehall may be happier if IoM stays in the dark and is more 'amenable'.

 

So I think you sense a conspiracy or cover-up where (in my view) none actually exists. I am inclined to think that politicians and civil servants crave an easy life, and are happy to let sleeping tigers lie.

 

No, I really don't see it as conspiracy or cover-up, just that Whitehall have preferred to maintain a circumspect silence and 'constructive ambiguity' for reasons of political expediency, and IoM has placidly gone along with this.

 

I don't think the notion that the crown does not own sovereignty is some terrible wrongdoing that's been hidden - just a state of affairs that has arisen from some legal quirks and which is perfectly legitimate and legal (but which it is perhaps convenient not to make explict if no need to do so). If anything it is cock-up rather than conspiracy - and that tends to be brushed under the carpet. I'm not sure one could even claim nonfeasance or misfeasance by the UK, let alone malfeasance as perhaps in the case of the Chagos Islands. If anything I think the UK is very scrupulous about complying with all legal obligations with IoM - even if it means some tap dancing around bumps in the carpet.

 

To dismiss my argument as 'conspiracy theory' is prejudging the question of whether or not the crown owns sovereignty (an ad hominem argument). I'm just trying to get at what the situation actually is with an open mind, and presenting arguments and counter-arguments which are open to challenge - not making unsubstantiated and unverifiable accusations about some 'web of lies' or the like.

 

In any case I haven't seen any lies. Just a fudging of the questions, and keeping things vague, obscure and within the bounds of the 'constructive ambiguity'. It is non-official publications, poor historians and Wikipedians who make all sorts of bogus and misleading statements. When there is a legal duty involved - e.g. the Kilbrandon Royal Commission, the matter is simply tap danced around - e.g. " 'it's complex' " - and left at that.

 

In fact there is a basic principle that one should not presume wrongdoing - but should work on the basis of the assumption that public officers are carrying out their duties in a lawful manner. This is why I don't accept you notion of negligence, or wilful blindness / contrived ignorance and failure to 'ensure respect' for ergo omnes principles of law. I certainly see no reason to conclude that the UK are acting unlawfully by a wrongful denial of a right of self-determination.

 

In my view the UK's conduct re IoM is entirely lawful (But maybe some conspiracy theorists will think otherwise). However unless one supposes 'the powers that be' are acting unlawfully, it seems impossible to come to any conclusion other than that the Crown does not own sovereignty and IoM is a de facto possession of the Crown i.e. a 'dependency' - or, if you like, a 'Crown dependency'.

 

Nothing wrong with that, and at least one gets a clear and straightforward explanation of IoM's status. If you can show a flaw in this reasoning, or offer a clear and sensible alternative explanation of the 'Crown Dependency' and IoM's status in International Law (other than 'obscure'), I'd really really like to hear it.

 

Skeddan,

 

I'll come back to you on this tomorrow.

 

S

I vote for this post to be 'Post Of The Year', on the simple basis it takes a year to read.

[Mr. Sausages]

First, Salisbury. As I mentioned, I believe that the IOM is a crown dependency by default - nobody could be bothered to do the right thing and annexe it into the UK - I suspect it wasn't thought worth the trouble. The IOM's status as a crown dependency means that the crown can really do whatever it likes - in theory. And that means that it could still annexe the IOM. Given that, its status is effectively much the same as Salisbury's because it could be made to be exactly so at the stroke of a pen.

 

There's no doubt that IoM is a 'Crown Dependency', or that it is a possession of the Crown, but what does this mean exactly? Dependency... (Hmmm - the Baltic states were 'Soviet Dependencies' - part of 'an extended USSR'). In any event, surely it means a non-independent terrtory seperate from but subject to a ruling power (whether the ruling power is mean and bad like the Russians, or nice and good like HMG). I think it safe to say that one of the features of a Crown Dependency is that it is a territory that is not part of the UK but is subject to the UK (via Queen in Council or Queen in Parliament). That sounds like it should have a right to self determination.

 

You say "The IOM's status as a crown dependency means that the crown can really do whatever it likes - in theory. And that means that it could still annexe the IOM. Given that, its status is effectively much the same as Salisbury's because it could be made to be exactly so at the stroke of a pen."

 

The argument seems to be that the crown could annex, so IoM may be treated as if it has already been annexed. (Saddam could at the stroke of a pen have made Iraq democratic. Given that...). I can't see how such a notion could be seriously argued. One has to look at the status as it is, and deal with facts: IoM is not part of the UK. Salisbury is.

 

Leaving that aside, I'm interested in the reasons why you think the crown has such a unilateral power to annex IoM.

 

I'd argue it could not. The reasons are:

 

a) if IoM is a non-independent territory eligible for self-determination, doing so would be in breach of ergo omnes principles of international law and would not be valid.

 

b) conversely if IoM is not eligible for self-determination because the Crown does not own the sovereignty, this would also be invalid (just as an annexation of Hong Kong or Iraqi annexation of Kuwait would not have been a legal annexation in international law).

 

c) at least so far, no robust case has been made out showing that IoM does not fall into either of the above categories ('self-determination' or 'territorial integrity'). Until and unless the Crown can make out its title and right to effect such annexation (e.g. by right of conquest), one cannot assume such an annexation would be legal. (show the treaty etc.)

 

 

I'm also wondering if you are suggesting a Crown Dependency is some sort of 'exceptionalist territory' - one where the Crown can (in theory) do whatever it likes. Is the argument: Crown Dependencies have an extraordinary, and unique status, which is entirely aberrant, and this allows the Crown extraordinary and unique powers, unconstrained by considerations that apply in the rest of the world (and this effectively allows the crown to do whatever it likes). I don't understand the theory. Could the crown deport the population? Commit genocide? How far do these powers go and what is the source of this power? (Divine right?) Sounds like a rather fanciful and desperate way of trying to get out of a hole - especially if there is a perfectly rational and sensible alternative (Occam's Razor). If that can be shown to be the only possible sound conclusion one can draw, ok - but I wouldn't leap to this (though some might dearly relish the idea of being entirely subject to the personal autocratic power of the Queen).

 

Second, sovereignty. You will recall the debates over the Falklands/Malvinas at the time of the Falklands war. There was a great deal of discussion, and one thing that came out clearly was that Britain's claim was enormously strengthened by the fact of possession over a long period - squatters' rights, in other words. I suspect that the same argument could be used in respect of the IOM against any claim that the queen is not sovereign. After a while, de facto becomes de jure. If you go back far enough, most land titles (in the old world) came about because a man with a sword stood on a piece of ground and said: "This is mine".

 

i.e. 'prescription' I've looked at that, but there are very strong arguments against (including decisions by ICJ). It would take a bit to detail these arguments - if you're interested I'd be happy to do so. Still all this gets you is the possibility of an argument that the crown owns the sovereignty - not why there is no right of self determination (as there is in the Falklands).

 

However re Falklands you will note that like Gibraltar it is disputed sovereignty and dealt with through the UN 'Special Political and Decolonization Committee'. (UK claims sovereignty and says sovereignty cannot be transferred without exercise of right of self-determination - however as sovereignty is disputed, it is not clear that right can be exercised as this may be prejudicial to the sovereign rights and territorial integrity of Argentina / Spain). The UK is very vigorous about the right of self-determination for Gibraltar and the Falklands - why not IoM?

 

Exemption. This where we really differ. I don't agree that it is necessarily the case that the UK considers the IOM to be exempt from a right to self-determination. .... Up until now, I doubt if it has been seriously considered, and even if it had been, I would expect that whatever was decided was kept under a hat for the sake of an easy life.

 

You seem to suggest that the UK is failing in its duty, negligent and even using wilful ignorance to avoid tackling the question. What you are suggesting is that the UK is behaving illegally and in breach of its international obligations (!). That's a pretty serious accusation to make - and would need good evidence to support it - and so far I've seen none. I think you sense conspiracy or cover up where (in my view) none exists.

 

However regardless of what the UK do or don't think, or choose not to think, the current question is whether or not IoM is exempt - and if exempt, what basis there could be for this.

 

By "a sort of extended UK" I mean things like the NHS, NI, VAT, telephone numbers, post codes, mail services, all of which are specifically UK-related services or matters that one would not expect to be shared with another "territory". Certainly none of these things were shared with any colonies.

 

OK. However none of these things serve to make IoM part of the UK itself or count for or against a right of self determination - the key issue is that it is not part of the UK, but a non-independent territory subject to the rule of the UK.

 

I doubt you'd think the UK could have 'decolonised' Kenya by adminsitrative arrangements re NI, telephone numbers and post codes, and entering into a VAT agreement. French Polynesia is an interesting one - France claims this is domestic territory and purportedly has been annexed to France. They return members of parliament, so, it is argued, enjoy self-determination through integration, and is not subject to foreign rule. IoM has not been annexed, and there is not this political intergration.

 

I think there is a great deal about the IOM's relationship with the UK that is "unclear", and that it probably suits the UK, and, to a large extent, the IOM, to leave it that way. Clarity might lead to the realisation that something ought to be done differently, and that would require work, money, and possible political fall-out. While the IOM is basically content, and not being a nuisance, I think Whitehall is happy to maintain the status quo.

 

It may suit the UK, but in what sense does it suit IoM? (I've argued that ungrounded perception that UK has greater powers than it actually has may lead IoM to be less vigorous in its dealings with the UK. This can lead to Manx interests not being pursued as fully and forcefully as they might be otherwise).

 

You say "Clarity might lead to the realisation that something ought to be done." If so what can be said in favour of burying head in sand?

 

Cost? It may take some work - but not too much, nor would it be unduly expensive. Can one justify not having clarity over such a fundamental question? I don't see political fall out over clarifying respective rights, responsibilities, clear delineation of limits of power, and so on. Identifying and exercising legitimate rights shouldn't be considered 'hostile' - though of course Whitehall may be happier if IoM stays in the dark and is more 'amenable'.

 

So I think you sense a conspiracy or cover-up where (in my view) none actually exists. I am inclined to think that politicians and civil servants crave an easy life, and are happy to let sleeping tigers lie.

 

No, I really don't see it as conspiracy or cover-up, just that Whitehall have preferred to maintain a circumspect silence and 'constructive ambiguity' for reasons of political expediency, and IoM has placidly gone along with this.

 

I don't think the notion that the crown does not own sovereignty is some terrible wrongdoing that's been hidden - just a state of affairs that has arisen from some legal quirks and which is perfectly legitimate and legal (but which it is perhaps convenient not to make explict if no need to do so). If anything it is cock-up rather than conspiracy - and that tends to be brushed under the carpet. I'm not sure one could even claim nonfeasance or misfeasance by the UK, let alone malfeasance as perhaps in the case of the Chagos Islands. If anything I think the UK is very scrupulous about complying with all legal obligations with IoM - even if it means some tap dancing around bumps in the carpet.

 

To dismiss my argument as 'conspiracy theory' is prejudging the question of whether or not the crown owns sovereignty (an ad hominem argument). I'm just trying to get at what the situation actually is with an open mind, and presenting arguments and counter-arguments which are open to challenge - not making unsubstantiated and unverifiable accusations about some 'web of lies' or the like.

 

In any case I haven't seen any lies. Just a fudging of the questions, and keeping things vague, obscure and within the bounds of the 'constructive ambiguity'. It is non-official publications, poor historians and Wikipedians who make all sorts of bogus and misleading statements. When there is a legal duty involved - e.g. the Kilbrandon Royal Commission, the matter is simply tap danced around - e.g. " 'it's complex' " - and left at that.

 

In fact there is a basic principle that one should not presume wrongdoing - but should work on the basis of the assumption that public officers are carrying out their duties in a lawful manner. This is why I don't accept you notion of negligence, or wilful blindness / contrived ignorance and failure to 'ensure respect' for ergo omnes principles of law. I certainly see no reason to conclude that the UK are acting unlawfully by a wrongful denial of a right of self-determination.

 

In my view the UK's conduct re IoM is entirely lawful (But maybe some conspiracy theorists will think otherwise). However unless one supposes 'the powers that be' are acting unlawfully, it seems impossible to come to any conclusion other than that the Crown does not own sovereignty and IoM is a de facto possession of the Crown i.e. a 'dependency' - or, if you like, a 'Crown dependency'.

 

Nothing wrong with that, and at least one gets a clear and straightforward explanation of IoM's status. If you can show a flaw in this reasoning, or offer a clear and sensible alternative explanation of the 'Crown Dependency' and IoM's status in International Law (other than 'obscure'), I'd really really like to hear it.

 

Skeddan,

 

I'll come back to you on this tomorrow.

 

S

I vote for this post to be 'Post Of The Year', on the simple basis it takes a year to read.

 

Me too.