No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Contemporary Commonwealth: A General View
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 May 2009
Abstract
There is an old adage that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. It is certain that the beauty, the utility, and the significance of the Commonwealth association appear very differently to its various members. This was true of the pre-war Commonwealth: between the end of the first world war and the beginning of the second there were marked differences of attitude among the members. The central problem was seen as the definition of the relationship between the United Kingdom and what were then described as the self-governing dominions. To South Africa, the Irish Free State, and Canada—in varying degrees—it was important that the relationship should be spelled out in terms which assured, so far as was possible through the medium of statute and the articulation of conventional rules, a status of equality between the United Kingdom and the dominions. To Australia and New Zealand the attempt at such a definition appeared undesirable; quieta non movere seemed to them the counsel of wisdom.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The IO Foundation 1959
References
1 Mansergh, Nicolas, The Multi-Racial Common-wealth; Proceedings of the Fifth Unofficial Common-wealth Relations ConferenceHeld at Lahore, Pakistan,17–27 March 1954, London, 1955, P. 155.Google Scholar
2 The Constitution of the Federation of Malaya provides for the election by the nine native rulers of the Malay States of one of their number for a five-year term.
3 Nicolson, Harold, King George the Fifth; Hit Life and Reign, London, 1952, p. 477–482.Google Scholar
4 Quoted in Hall, Hersel D., “The British Common-wealth of Nations,” American Political Science Review, December 1953 (Vol. 47), p. 1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Jennings, William I., The Commonwealth in Asia, Oxford, 1951, p. 116.Google Scholar
6 Underhill, Frank H., The British Commonwealth, An Experiment in Cooperation among Nations, Durham, North Carolina, 1956, p. 20.Google Scholar
7 Harris v. Minister of Interior [1952] x Times Law Reports 1245, 1261.Google Scholar
8 Federation of Pakistan v. Moulvi Tamizuddin Khan (1954). Text printed in Jennings, William I., Constitutional Problems in Pakistan, Cambridge, England, 1957, p. 185.Google Scholar
9 Franks, Oliver, Britain and the Tide of World Affairs, London, 1955, cited in Underhill, op. cit., P. 73.Google Scholar
10 Greenwood, Gordon, “Australia's Triangular Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs, July 1957 (vol. 35. No. 4), P. 699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Commonwealth v. New South Wales (1923), 32 Commonwealth Law Reports, 200, 208.Google Scholar
12 McHenry, Dean E. and Rosecrance, Richard N. “The Exclusion of the United Kingdom from the ANZUS Pact,” International Organization, Summer 1958 (Vol. 12, No. 3), p. 320–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Mansergh, , The Multi-Racial Commonwealth, op. cit., p. 44.Google Scholar
14 Cited in Mansergh, Nicholas, The Commonwealth and the The Nations,London, 1948 p. 79.Google Scholar
15 Mansergh, , The Multi-Racial Commonwealth, op. cit., p. 138.Google Scholar
16 Warner, Denis, “South East Asia. How Happy a Year?” New Republic, January 26, 1959, p. 14–15.Google Scholar
17 Statement in the House of Representatives, December 5, 1957, Current Notes (Vol. 28), p. 970.Google Scholar
18 Underhill, , op. cit., p. 20.Google Scholar
19 Ibid. p. 66.
20 Mansergh, , The Multi-Racial Commonwealth, op. Cit., p. 142.Google Scholar