Wonderful @El Pip, the concessions were a real oddity.
We did this, a lot, as you depict; though we weren't alone. My favourite example of legal imperialism are the Ottoman Nizamiye Courts, which were a truly odd mix of Ottoman and French laws (and French law is migraine-inducing). And although gone, there are a couple of decisions which raised their head not long ago and interpreting it for a modern audience was life changingly painful.
The extraterritorial application of our laws over others hasn't gone away; there is a huuuuuuge body of jurisprudence on whether (and to what extent) our forces take the European Convention of Human Rights with them when they deploy overseas. It's a developing area of law, and one that will effect how British (and a lot of other nations, not necessarily Western European in outlook - Russia, Turkey anyone?) troops conduct their business when we next use them in moderate scale.
As for the difference between UK and US appetite, my 'take' is that the UK bar and judiciary was, in its chaotically flexible way, evolved to allow barristers and judges to slope off around the world for a bit (the Raj is the obvious one). We still do this, albeit on a much diminished level of glamour, now; yours truly is (cough, fanfare of trumpets) on the list of approved advocates in the wonderfully mad Sovereign Base Area Court (it's a hoot) and a senior member of chambers talks endlessly of his two years as Attorney General on the Turks and Caicos Islands. Unlike the FCO, where Governorships are a backwater (well, perceived as a backwater - although Rex Hunt's ghost would disagree!) legal positions in the Overseas Territories are good CV bolstering material - you tend to get more responsibility early.
Not by name, but in function and (largely) form we did. The Law Lords acted as the highest appellate court of the UK (so after Crown Court / High Court Appeals to the Court of Appeal, you could, if there was a legal poins, go on to the House of Lords from the Court of Appeal). The Supreme Court has developed a power and stature of all its own, but the work that they do was being done previously, just in a slightly less showy way.
There is also, as Pippy mentions, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which did (and does) hear appeal cases. It's scope has diminished, but they still pump out decisions from time to time.
I do like the idea of the British Supreme Court for China so had to get that detail in, it was an odd system and only the British really went for it. The US Court for China was a much more half arsed system as no US judge really want to go out there (looks like bad pay and promotion/seniority problems for those who did) and US law in the region was a mess (the federal system really did not work well with extra-territoriality and Congress never got round to deciding what system should apply),, hence most firms tended to register as 'English law' with effects we see to this day. It's also apparent quite how bad a situation China was in at the start of the 20th Century, when you have conceded extra-territoriality and trade concessions to the likes of Denmark, Mexico and Peru you are in a bad way.
We did this, a lot, as you depict; though we weren't alone. My favourite example of legal imperialism are the Ottoman Nizamiye Courts, which were a truly odd mix of Ottoman and French laws (and French law is migraine-inducing). And although gone, there are a couple of decisions which raised their head not long ago and interpreting it for a modern audience was life changingly painful.
The extraterritorial application of our laws over others hasn't gone away; there is a huuuuuuge body of jurisprudence on whether (and to what extent) our forces take the European Convention of Human Rights with them when they deploy overseas. It's a developing area of law, and one that will effect how British (and a lot of other nations, not necessarily Western European in outlook - Russia, Turkey anyone?) troops conduct their business when we next use them in moderate scale.
As for the difference between UK and US appetite, my 'take' is that the UK bar and judiciary was, in its chaotically flexible way, evolved to allow barristers and judges to slope off around the world for a bit (the Raj is the obvious one). We still do this, albeit on a much diminished level of glamour, now; yours truly is (cough, fanfare of trumpets) on the list of approved advocates in the wonderfully mad Sovereign Base Area Court (it's a hoot) and a senior member of chambers talks endlessly of his two years as Attorney General on the Turks and Caicos Islands. Unlike the FCO, where Governorships are a backwater (well, perceived as a backwater - although Rex Hunt's ghost would disagree!) legal positions in the Overseas Territories are good CV bolstering material - you tend to get more responsibility early.
The UK didn't have a supreme court until the 2000s I think, so putting them up elsewhere is funny in a way. Interesting how they became the runners of law just by being the only ones who showed up to work.
Not by name, but in function and (largely) form we did. The Law Lords acted as the highest appellate court of the UK (so after Crown Court / High Court Appeals to the Court of Appeal, you could, if there was a legal poins, go on to the House of Lords from the Court of Appeal). The Supreme Court has developed a power and stature of all its own, but the work that they do was being done previously, just in a slightly less showy way.
There is also, as Pippy mentions, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which did (and does) hear appeal cases. It's scope has diminished, but they still pump out decisions from time to time.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1