Talk:State (law)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
It is necessary to have a page specific to statehood and the law. In too many instances, references are being made from technical legal pages to political or geographic material that is completely irrelevant to the issues involved. -David91 09:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Amendment to UK element
My original version listed England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and then, "the Channel Islands and Sark" as being the relevant states within the UK. An amendment was made to the following form of words: "and is associated through the Crown with the Crown dependencies: the bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey."
Would someone with up-to-date legal knowledge please confirm which version is correct. Rather than have incorrect information on public display pending clarification, I have removed all reference to the UK.
On my side, I refer to what I would take to be a standard formulation as in section 1(1)(b) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1949, 12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6, ch. 100, which applied as long as the husband was not domiciled elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, or the Isle of Man. Similar jurisdiction was available in proceedings for annulment; see section 1(2); see also 13 HALSBURY, supra note 31, ¶ 502 (discussing the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1937).
The Channel Islands is the coded entity for domicile purposes at http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Bz_zSZ-RJfcJ:www.lsc.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/e6mgdl22ejan6jwl4y6n7lxvqojwzrzovj6vn3zgzsue67gzwlle54cbop3uk73me5txhxvxxlgq5h/AnnexD200506v1.doc+UK+Gov+domicile+Channel+Islands&hl=en
On the other side, the following information is offered:
There are no "Channel Island laws": each of the bailiwicks passes and registers its own laws, and has its own legislature. The bailiwicks have their own courts - with the exception that there is a Channel Islands appeal court (which hears appeals under the laws of the relevant bailiwick). The Bailiwick of Guernsey is quasi-federal, with Sark and Alderney being autonomous jurisdictions within the Bailiwick. According to the States of Alderney website "The Court of Alderney deals with all civil matters and is administered by six Jurats and a Chairman. Appeals are made to the Royal Court in Guernsey and then to the Channel Islands' Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council." How this fits in with the definition of state you are attempting to set out, I leave to your legal interpretation! Man vyi 06:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I take the fact that there is a single appellate court for the Channel Islands as supporting my view that it is the Channel Islands as a whole that represent the state, perhaps accepting that Sark is not a separate state. All comments gratefully received.
-David91 07:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Some interesting information on the Channel Islands Court of Appeal: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] — Instantnood 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This article is very erroneous
Article begins with saying:
- For the purposes of Public International Law and Private International Law, a state is a defined group of people, living within defined territorial boundaries and more or less subject to an autonomous legal system exercising jurisdiction through properly constituted courts.
I don't think that is correct. I don't know much about private international law, but the most common usage of "state" in public international law is in the sense of a "soverign state", not a (possibly non-soverign) separate legal jurisdiction. So, this article is at least 50% incorrect. --SJK 06:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Apparent confusion of the term
I'm going to throw my proposal in on what's likely wrong here. There is another page for the sovereign political entity. I think what we are looking for with this page is the representatives of the state. The origin of this would be first Rex and Regina, when criminal prosecutions were done in the name of the king or queen. In the US, where there is no king or queen, we needed a new name. Actually, we've had (and continue to use) multiple terms. People, State, and even the name of the state itself. In the case of the Feds they use the US. So for example, a criminal trial against defendant John Doe in the US might be US v. Doe, State v. Doe, People v. Doe, or Wisconsin v. Doe, depending on the jurisdiction. This is the definition we're looking for, no? I'm going to wait a week or two, see if anyone complains, then fix the pag to what I think it was intended for.
I also have noted there is no legal definition for Rex, Regina or People as I am indicating. I'll probably throw up links to this page from their disambig pages rather than generate separate pages for each as they all explain a similar concept. Ikeinthemed
While this may be a relevant thing to include in the article, I don't see that as being its main point at all. The purpose is to explain the difference between the meanings of "state" in Public International Law and Private International Law, and the article is linked to from elsewhere to explain this difference. Please don't remove this. Martin Orr 10:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Definately an understandable position. Here's how I see it. The definition I am proposing is, in my experience, used far more often. It is used every time a criminal case comes to court in 99% of English-speaking nations (and at times, as a civil litigant depending on jurisdiction). The current international law definition is instead only used in very rare circumstances, and in a very narrow area of the law. International law could qualify as a rather small subcategory of civil law, whereas my definition permeates all areas of the law - even Family Law (for back child support and ailimony/maintenance payments) if you can believe that! I think that because the definition I am proposing is more common it should go on this page.
I did not mean to imply this page's definition should be removed, merely relegated to a further more specific disambig page, perhaps State (International Law). So State (law) would have Rex (law), Regina (law) and People (law) revert to it and include my proposed (to come) definition. What this page currently contains would be relegated to State (International Law) due to it's less common prevalence. Sorry if I wasn't clear the first time I proposed a change.
So I suppose my argument in summary is that my definition is the primary topic of the term State (law) and the current definition is more specific. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation, particularly the primary versus specific topic area. Further comments welcome. Ikeinthemed
- Seems reasonable Martin Orr 21:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What's going on here
Based on what I've read, what is really going on here is this. There are two concepts:
- the private international law / conflict of laws notion of jurisdiction, which is a territory (either a soverign state, or a subnational entity) which has laws, courts etc. The issue here, is that it has to be decided which courts will hear a case, and which laws will apply to the case
- the public international law notion of a state, which is a soverign entity (e.g. the United States of America, the Commonwealth of Australia, etc.), with the power to engage in foreign relations, enter into treaties, possess territory in an ultimate sense, levy war and make peace, &c., &c.
Now, the problem is that the terminology (as usual here is a bit confused). Meaning (1) is often referred to as jurisdiction, or country, or state. Meaning (2) is always (formally) referred to as state, but it also often informally called a country, etc. So, we have two brances of the law (private international law, and public international law), which use the same term in two different ways. The problem with the current article is that its all about meaning (1), and doesn't mention meaning (2) at all. --SJK 12:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
