![]() | R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 26, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in the
Bancoult litigation, the
English courts and government first decided that the
Chagossians could return home, then that they couldn't, then that they could, and then that they couldn't? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Reviewer: hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC) The article appears generally neutral (but see below), stable, well-written and the one image is in order. Comments:
That's about it. A very interesting case. hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ironholds: this article was needed! Would you have any problem with my adding or substituting external links to scholarly articles where such links are available? E.g.
I'm ok with your formatting of title, date and volume, though I think that what I am using is more usual for Law.
I've linked "British Indian Ocean Territory" to this article. -- Wikiain ( talk) 03:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
A paragraph in the opening section reads "In 2004, a second Order in Council, the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004, was produced, again reinstating the off-limits nature of the Chagos Islands. Bancoult brought a second case, arguing that this Order was again ultra vires and unreasonable, and that Cook had violated legitimate expectation by passing the second Order after giving the impression that the Chagossians were free to return home." However, if the second Order was passed in 2004, that would have been three years after Cook had ceased to be Foreign Secretary (and a year after he had ceased to be a member of the government altogether) - so it could surely not have been passed by Cook. -- 86.186.231.126 ( talk) 16:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 26, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in the
Bancoult litigation, the
English courts and government first decided that the
Chagossians could return home, then that they couldn't, then that they could, and then that they couldn't? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Reviewer: hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC) The article appears generally neutral (but see below), stable, well-written and the one image is in order. Comments:
That's about it. A very interesting case. hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ironholds: this article was needed! Would you have any problem with my adding or substituting external links to scholarly articles where such links are available? E.g.
I'm ok with your formatting of title, date and volume, though I think that what I am using is more usual for Law.
I've linked "British Indian Ocean Territory" to this article. -- Wikiain ( talk) 03:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
A paragraph in the opening section reads "In 2004, a second Order in Council, the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004, was produced, again reinstating the off-limits nature of the Chagos Islands. Bancoult brought a second case, arguing that this Order was again ultra vires and unreasonable, and that Cook had violated legitimate expectation by passing the second Order after giving the impression that the Chagossians were free to return home." However, if the second Order was passed in 2004, that would have been three years after Cook had ceased to be Foreign Secretary (and a year after he had ceased to be a member of the government altogether) - so it could surely not have been passed by Cook. -- 86.186.231.126 ( talk) 16:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)