# Talk:R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2)

This review is transcluded from Talk:R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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:

The use of the word "exiled" appears contentious. To a lay person that implies politically (or even militarily) hostile ejection of a person from their country. This does not appear to be on that level; nor does it appear to be ejection from their country, but from one territory to another within a country. While I personally sympathise with people in this situation, i don't think "exiled" is right. The fact that it was used by the minority judges but (i presume) not the majority underlines its potentially tendentious nature.
I don't think moving the people from British territory to the Mauritius can really be described as "from one territory to another within a country", but I see your point about the language; changed. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
"The public and academic reaction to the decision was a negative one": this is followed by a quote, but not a cite to make clear who is being quoted.
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem to say anything about final effects. Eg, were there Chagossians who had returned and were now again relocated? I'm assuming not. Any other effects? Apologies, alternative arrangements offered by governments, any announcement from the Chagossian refugee group?
Effects outside of the litigation, yes, but not as part of it. There were some decisions by US courts, and a Mauritian decision on compensation for the matter, but not as part of the litigation itself. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
That's about it. A very interesting case. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those changes. One other thing. THe lead currently says "The Chagos Islands, acquired by the United Kingdom in 1814, were reorganised as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) in 1965 for the purpose of removing its inhabitants". Are you sure the purpose of the 1965 reorganisation was the removal, or was the removal just one part of it - which is what the body text seems to imply? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Journal articles state that the reorganisation was to remove the inhabitants, based on declassified foreign office documents I don't have access to. Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'm done. cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:59, 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.

Christian Nauvel, "A Return from Exile in Sight? The Chagossians and their Struggle" (2006) 5 Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 96-126 Retrieved 9 May 2011
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)

Well, external links should normally be as limited as possible (although I'd be perfectly happy to shove it in the article by using it as a source!). My formatting style is semi-automated by a WP tool; it doesn't use the standard OSCOLA system because it's not deigned specifically for law (which isn't a bad thing. I've always found OSCOLA to be a bit dense if you're a lay editor). Ironholds (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Ironholds.  I agree that OSCOLA should be followed, if possible, for all discussion of UK law.  If you would like to add in some direct URLs, fine - or we could collaborate on that. This could be good for those (all but Law people, such as ourselves) who do not have any clue about legal citation styles.  Even within Law, OSCOLA is rather special:  it isn't the same as the US Blue Book or (also e.g.) the Australian Guide to Legal Citation. Your automated style program may be following the Chicago Manual of Style, which so far as I am aware is used only in the Humanities (I have just had to use it for an article to be published in a Humanities journal).  There is no World Standard and perhaps there ought not to be, but we live in style(s) (sorry). --Wikiain (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I meant OSCOLA should'nt be used ;p. Except for things like case citations, obviously - the format that most law journals are displayed in using OSCOLA, the blue book or the AGLC is rather awkward for laypersons to parse. The automated style is, I believe, Harvard or Chicago - it has the advantage of being easily readable by most people (which is why we're here, really). On the direct URLs, the best way to include it would be as a source - first because we can then improve the article, second because we can then justify giving it a link. Ironholds (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. --Wikiain (talk) 17:26, 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)

You're entirely correct; should now be fixed :). Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)