In the nineteenth century, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held sway over the lives, liberties and property of more than a quarter of the world's inhabitants.

In the nineteenth century, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held sway over the lives, liberties and property of more than a quarter of the world's inhabitants.

Countries that have a domestic final appellate court have established a judicial institution over which they have control as part of the policymaking governing structure and how they view other existing and emerging extraterritorial courts will be influenced by their perception of the court and the role it will play when the policies of the governing coalition are challenged. This book analyzes that phenomenon in terms of the broader construction and understanding of the state in the era of international law, legal tribunals, and globalization. By zooming in on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC), an ancient colonial court, Harold Young examines how the Caribbean Community, specifically, the 15 former British colonies comprising the Caribbean Basin are navigating their changing political environments and transitioning to its own extraterritorial court, the Caribbean Court of Justice. Using historical reviews, descriptive analyses, and statistical methodologies Young finds that the choice to retain the JCPC at independence is influenced by the colonial experience, the length of colonial rule, and how deeply embedded the JCPC is on the governing structures of the new state.

"This book examines the origins and growth of judicial review in the key G-20 constitutional democracies, which include: the United States; the United Kingdom; France; Germany; Japan; Italy; India; Canada; Australia; South Korea; Brazil; South Africa; Indonesia; Mexico; and the European Union. The book considers five different theories, which help to explain the origins of judicial review, and it identifies which theories apply best in the various countries discussed. It considers not on what gives rise to judicial review originally, but also what causes of judicial review lead it to become more powerful and prominent over times. The positive account of what causes the origins and growth of judicial review in so many very different countries over such a long period of time has normative implications"--

This two-volume set examines the origins and growth of judicial review in the key G-20 constitutional democracies, which include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, India, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Mexico, and the European Union, as well as Israel. The volumes consider five different theories, which help to explain the origins of judicial review, and identify which theories apply best in the various countries discussed. They consider not only what gives rise to judicial review originally, but also what causes of judicial review lead it to become more powerful and prominent over time. Volume One discusses the G-20 common law countries and Israel.

Imperial Justice explores the imperial control of judicial governance and the adjudication of colonial difference in British Africa. Focusing on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the colonial regional Appeal Courts for West Africa and East Africa, it examines how judicial discourses of native difference and imperial universalism in local disputes influenced practices of power in colonial settings and shaped an evolving jurisprudence of Empire. Arguing that the Imperial Appeal Courts were key sites where colonial legal modernity was fashioned, the book examines the tensions that permeated the colonial legal system such as the difficulty of upholding basic standards of British justice while at the same time allowing for local customary divergence which was thought essential to achieving that justice. The modernizing mission of British justice could only truly be achieved through recognition of local exceptionality and difference. Natives who appealed to the Courts of Empire were entitled to the same standards of justice as their 'civilized' colonists, yet the boundaries of racial, ethnic, and cultural difference somehow had to be recognized and maintained in the adjudicatory process. Meeting these divergent goals required flexibility in colonial law-making as well as in the administration of justice. In the paradox of integration and differentiation, imperial power and local cultures were not always in conflict but were sometimes complementary and mutually reinforcing. The book draws attention not only to the role of Imperial Appeal Courts in the colonies but also to the reciprocal place of colonized peoples in shaping the processes and outcomes of imperial justice. A valuable addition to British colonial literature, this book places Africa in a central role, and examines the role of the African colonies in the shaping of British Imperial jurisprudence.

Controversy, especially religious controversy, was the great spectator sport of Victorian England. This work is a study of the biggest and best of Victorian religious controversies. Essays and Reviews (1860) was a composite volume of seven authors (six of them Anglican clergymen) which brought England its first serious exposure to biblical criticism. It evoked a controversy lasting four years, including articles in newspapers, magazines and reviews, clerical and episcopal censures, a torrent of tracts, pamphlets and sermons, followed by weightier tomes (and reviews of all these), prosecution for heresy in the ecclesiastical courts, appeal to the highest secular court, condemnation by the Convocation of the clergy and a debate in Parliament. Essays and Reviews was the culmination and final act of the Broad Church movement. Outwardly the conflict ended inconclusively; at a deeper level, it marked the exhaustion both of the Broad Church and of Anglican orthodoxy and the commencement of an era of religious doubt. This controversy illustrates the pathology of Victorian religion in its demonstration of the propensity to controvert and the methods of controversialists. It is both the greatest Victorian crisis of faith and the best case study of Victorian religious controversy.