Misplaced Pages

Constitutional autochthony: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:46, 3 February 2006 editDemiurge (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,771 edits rv POV-pushing← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:46, 4 November 2024 edit undoMonkbot (talk | contribs)Bots3,695,952 editsm Task 20: replace {lang-??} templates with {langx|??} ‹See Tfd› (Replaced 1);Tag: AWB 
(83 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Assertion of constitutional nationalism from an external power}}
'''''Constitutional Autochthony''''' is a term used by ] to describe the process of asserting ] through symbols in ].
In ], '''constitutional autochthony''' is the process of asserting constitutional ] from an external legal or political power. The source of ] is the ] word αὐτόχθων translated as ''springing from the land''.<ref>{{dl|date=July 2021}}</ref> It usually means the assertion of not just the concept of ], but also the concept that the constitution derives from their own native traditions.<ref>{{cite book |title=The Constitutional Structure of the Commonwealth |url=https://archive.org/details/constitutionalst0000whea |url-access=registration |author-link=Kenneth Wheare |last=Wheare |first=Kenneth |year= 1960 |publisher=] |location=Oxford |pages= }}</ref> The autochthony, or home grown nature of constitutions, give them authenticity and effectiveness.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nou.edu.ng/noun/NOUN_OCL/pdf/Law%20243.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2009-11-30 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090521041759/http://www.nou.edu.ng/noun/NOUN_OCL/pdf/Law%20243.pdf |archive-date=2009-05-21 }} page 7</ref> It was important in the making and revising of the constitutions of ], ],<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/indias-benign-constitutional-revolution/article4345212.ece|title=India's benign constitutional revolution|date=2013-01-26|newspaper=The Hindu|language=en-IN|issn=0971-751X|access-date=2016-03-06}}</ref> ], ],<ref>{{cite book |title= Journal of Commonwealth Political Studies, 1 |last=Weare |first=Kenneth |year= 1961 |pages= 41–55 |chapter=Constitutional autochthony in Ghana}}</ref> ], ],<ref>{{cite book |title=The Constitutional History and Law of Sierra Leone (1961-1995)|last=Thompson |first= Bankole |year=1986 |publisher=]| isbn=978-0-7618-0473-4 |pages=107–145|chapter=The Republican Constitution of 1971: The Quest for Constitutional Autochthony }}</ref> ]<ref>{{cite book |title=Zambia Law Journal. Volume 29 |last=Anyangwe |first=Carlson |year= 1997 |pages= 1–32 }}</ref> and many other members of the ].<ref>{{cite book |title=Essays in Imperial Government Presented to Margery Perham |last=Robinson |first=Kenneth |author2=Madden, Frederick |year= 1963|publisher=] |location= Oxford|pages= 249–288 |chapter=Constitutional autochthony and the transfer of power }}</ref>


This proposition found doctrinal support in the influential theory propounded by the legal philosopher, ], which had it that it was inconceivable for a legal system to split into two independent legal systems through a purely legal process. One of the implications of Kelsen’s theory was that the ] ({{langx|de|Grundnorm}}) of the imperial predecessor’s Constitution would continue to be at the helm of the legal system of the newly liberated former colony despite the legal transfer of power, precisely because the transfer of power was recognised as {{gloss|legal}} by the Constitution of the imperial predecessor.<ref name=":0" />
==Example==


==Ireland==
One famous case of ''Constitutional Autochthony'' occurred in the ] between ] and ]. Having been elected to govern a state that it had opposed the very existence of, ] under ] stripped the Irish Free State of many of the state symbols that it saw as being overly reminiscent of the ''ancien régime''. Among the changes made were the abolition of the ], appeals to the ], a ] weighted towards former ] and the office of the ].
A process of constitutional autochthony occurred in the ] between 1932 and 1937. The ] government elected in 1932 led by ], who had opposed the ] in 1922 that had created the state, stripped the Irish Free State of many of the state symbols that it saw as being overtly reminiscent of British rule. Among the amendments made to the ] were the abolition of the ] (by the ''Constitution (Removal of Oath) Act 1933''), appeals to the United Kingdom's ] (by the ''Constitution (Amendment No. 22) Act 1933''), and the office of the ] (by the '']''). The ] of ] in December 1936 was used to significantly redefine the royal connection.<ref></ref>


In 1937, the Irish Government introduced a ] that replaced the 1922 Constitution, which as originally enacted had been agreed with the British Government following the 1921 ]. This changed the legal name of the country to Ireland (in English) and Éire (in Irish). It was possibly a ], since the new constitution was not enacted by ] but merely approved by it pending a plebiscite through statute, but was instead given legitimacy by the people of Ireland through a ].
In 1937 a whole new constitution was introduced that contained traditional ] symbols:


The process de Valera engaged in from 1932 to 1937 has been described by Professor ] and others as 'constitutional autochthony'.{{Citation needed|date=August 2008}}
* An assertion that the "national territory" covered the whole of the island of Ireland, including ] not under the rule of the Irish state;


==India==
* A special position for the ];
Independence was formally granted to India by the enactment of the ] though the executive decision to grant India independence was arrived at earlier in the ] in 1946. It was under this Plan that the Constituent Assembly was envisaged and charged with the mandate of drafting the new Constitution for India. This was legally recognised in Section 8 of the Independence Act. The Cabinet Mission Plan had envisaged that the new Constitution would be put to the Crown-in-Parliament for approval.<ref name=":0" />


The framers introduced two deliberate procedural errors in the enactment of the Constitution of India in violation of the Independence Act:
* A directly elected ].
# They did not put the Constitution to the approval of the either the British Parliament as envisaged by the Cabinet Mission Plan or the Governor-General as envisaged in the Indian Independence Act 1947;
# Following the Irish precedent, Article 395 of the Constitution of India repealed the Indian Independence Act — something the Constituent Assembly did not have the authorisation to do.
In doing so, the framers not only repudiated the source which authorised them to enact the Constitution but it was also a denial, albeit symbolic, of Indian independence being a grant of the imperial Crown-in-Parliament.<ref name=":0" />


==References==
* A stress on "traditional"-style family life.
{{reflist}}


==External links==
Though impressive on paper, in reality none of the powers were anything more than symbolic. The claim to Northern Ireland in ] was qualified by a declaration in Article 3 that, "pending the re-integration of the national territory" the laws of the Irish state would not extend outside the boundaries of the Irish Free State. The "special position" given to ] had no legal definition or meaning, while the directly elected presidency was created in a way that ensured it didn't need in practice to be filled by direct election. Most of the 'family values' articles, such as the 'special position' of the 'woman in the house' were explicitly described in the constitution as not legally binding.
*
*{{Dead link|date=July 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}


{{DEFAULTSORT:Constitutional Autochthony}}
The articles in effect were merely decorative, intended to give the impression that the new Ireland after 1937 was more truly nationalist and traditionalist than the previous Irish Free State. The process de Valera engaged in has been described by Professor ] and others as ''Constitutional Autochthony''.
]
]

Latest revision as of 02:46, 4 November 2024

Assertion of constitutional nationalism from an external power

In political science, constitutional autochthony is the process of asserting constitutional nationalism from an external legal or political power. The source of autochthony is the Greek word αὐτόχθων translated as springing from the land. It usually means the assertion of not just the concept of autonomy, but also the concept that the constitution derives from their own native traditions. The autochthony, or home grown nature of constitutions, give them authenticity and effectiveness. It was important in the making and revising of the constitutions of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Ghana, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Zambia and many other members of the British Commonwealth.

This proposition found doctrinal support in the influential theory propounded by the legal philosopher, Hans Kelsen, which had it that it was inconceivable for a legal system to split into two independent legal systems through a purely legal process. One of the implications of Kelsen’s theory was that the basic norm (German: Grundnorm) of the imperial predecessor’s Constitution would continue to be at the helm of the legal system of the newly liberated former colony despite the legal transfer of power, precisely because the transfer of power was recognised as 'legal' by the Constitution of the imperial predecessor.

Ireland

A process of constitutional autochthony occurred in the Irish Free State between 1932 and 1937. The Fianna Fáil government elected in 1932 led by Éamon de Valera, who had opposed the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922 that had created the state, stripped the Irish Free State of many of the state symbols that it saw as being overtly reminiscent of British rule. Among the amendments made to the Constitution were the abolition of the Oath of Allegiance (by the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Act 1933), appeals to the United Kingdom's Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (by the Constitution (Amendment No. 22) Act 1933), and the office of the Governor-General (by the Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act 1936). The abdication of Edward VIII in December 1936 was used to significantly redefine the royal connection.

In 1937, the Irish Government introduced a whole new constitution that replaced the 1922 Constitution, which as originally enacted had been agreed with the British Government following the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty. This changed the legal name of the country to Ireland (in English) and Éire (in Irish). It was possibly a break of legal continuity, since the new constitution was not enacted by Dáil Éireann but merely approved by it pending a plebiscite through statute, but was instead given legitimacy by the people of Ireland through a plebiscite.

The process de Valera engaged in from 1932 to 1937 has been described by Professor John M. Kelly and others as 'constitutional autochthony'.

India

Independence was formally granted to India by the enactment of the Indian Independence Act 1947 though the executive decision to grant India independence was arrived at earlier in the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946. It was under this Plan that the Constituent Assembly was envisaged and charged with the mandate of drafting the new Constitution for India. This was legally recognised in Section 8 of the Independence Act. The Cabinet Mission Plan had envisaged that the new Constitution would be put to the Crown-in-Parliament for approval.

The framers introduced two deliberate procedural errors in the enactment of the Constitution of India in violation of the Independence Act:

  1. They did not put the Constitution to the approval of the either the British Parliament as envisaged by the Cabinet Mission Plan or the Governor-General as envisaged in the Indian Independence Act 1947;
  2. Following the Irish precedent, Article 395 of the Constitution of India repealed the Indian Independence Act — something the Constituent Assembly did not have the authorisation to do.

In doing so, the framers not only repudiated the source which authorised them to enact the Constitution but it was also a denial, albeit symbolic, of Indian independence being a grant of the imperial Crown-in-Parliament.

References

  1. Wheare, Kenneth (1960). The Constitutional Structure of the Commonwealth. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 89.
  2. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-05-21. Retrieved 2009-11-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) page 7
  3. ^ "India's benign constitutional revolution". The Hindu. 2013-01-26. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2016-03-06.
  4. Weare, Kenneth (1961). "Constitutional autochthony in Ghana". Journal of Commonwealth Political Studies, 1. pp. 41–55.
  5. Thompson, Bankole (1986). "The Republican Constitution of 1971: The Quest for Constitutional Autochthony". The Constitutional History and Law of Sierra Leone (1961-1995). University Press of America. pp. 107–145. ISBN 978-0-7618-0473-4.
  6. Anyangwe, Carlson (1997). Zambia Law Journal. Volume 29. pp. 1–32.
  7. Robinson, Kenneth; Madden, Frederick (1963). "Constitutional autochthony and the transfer of power". Essays in Imperial Government Presented to Margery Perham. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 249–288.
  8. Dáil Éireann - 12 December, 1936. Executive Authority (External Relations) Bill, 1936 - Committee Stage.

External links

Categories: