Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T14:12:02.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

REGULATING NORTHERN IRELAND: THE SPECIAL POWERS ACTS, 1922–1972

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 1998

LAURA K. DONOHUE
Affiliation:
Churchill College, Cambridge

Abstract

Although the 1922–43 Special Powers Acts (SPAs) played a central role in prompting the Northern Irish civil rights movement in the late 1960s, virtually no secondary literature exists on the operation of the statutes. This article examines the manner in which the unionist government employed the acts during the tenure of the northern parliament. It suggests that the 1922–43 SPAs became a central grievance of the minority community because of the manner in which regulations introduced under their auspices were exercised: the ministry of home affairs initially used the emergency statutes to return civil order to the province; however, as violence declined the government began to utilize regulations to prevent the expression of republican ideals. Any attempt to garner support for a united Ireland was perceived as an attack on the Northern Irish constitution. Concurrent with this shift was a change in justification for the 1922–43 SPAs: from being required in order to establish law and order in the face of rising violence, they were soon heralded by unionists as necessary to maintain the constitutional structure of the North. In preventing the public exposition of republicanism, expressions of nationalism were likewise limited. This impacted upon a large portion of the minority community, giving rise to claims that the statutes were being unfairly applied.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 1998 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I thank Dr Matthew Kramer, Dr Mark Goldie, Professor Paul Arthur, and Professor Keith Jeffery for their comments on earlier versions of this essay.