Island Despotism: Trinidad,the British Imperial Constitution and Global Legal Order

Narratives of the history of international law in the early and middle decades of the nineteenth century have emphasised the role of global humanitarian movements in establishing international norms and institutions. The abolition of the slave trade and the amelioration of slavery feature prominently in this account as reform movements that supposedly laid the groundwork for human rights law. Using controversy about the constitution of the island of Trinidad and the excesses of its first governor, Thomas Picton, as a case study, we argue instead that attempts to reform slavery formed part of a wider British effort to construct a coherent imperial legal system, a project that corresponded to a different, and at the time more powerful vision of global order. As experiment and anti-model, Trinidad’s troubles provided critics with an advertisement for the necessity of robust imperial legal power in new and old colonies. Such a call for imperial oversight of colonial legal orders formed the basis of an empire-wide push to reorder the British world.     

The un‐reconstructed republic

Al Grassby, The Australian Republic (Leichhardt, NSW: Pluto Press, 1993) pp.315 $24.95 ISBN 0 04013 894 0.

Alan Atkinson, The Muddle‐Headed Republic (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1993) pp.145 $16.95 ISBN 0 19553 638 X.

George Winterton (ed.), We, the People: Australian Republican Government (St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 1994) pp.209 $19.95 ISBN 1 86373 640 9.

David Headon, James Warden and Bill Gammage (eds), Crown or Country: The Traditions of Australian Republicanism (St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 1994) pp.197 $24.95 ISBN 1 86373 599 2.

Geoffrey de Q. Walker, Suri Ratnapala and Wolfgang Kasper, Restoring the True Republic (St Leonards, NSW: The Centre for Independent Studies, 1993) pp.74 $n.p. ISSN 0726 3635.     

The tropical backyard: performing environmental difference

This paper extends debates investigating the importance of domestic yards and gardens in shaping identities and the everyday practices and performances of human–nature interaction in a tropical city. It presents findings from a pilot study investigating backyards in a small but ethnically diverse neighbourhood in Cairns, Australia—a site that raises questions about the normative constructions of “nature” in much of the literature. The paper explores how Cairns residents make sense of their backyards, especially in terms of how they relate to them as “tropical”. Living in Cairns means managing excess water during the rainy season, dealing with new kinds of pests, and being critically conscious of the temperate bias of Australian garden retailers and house/garden magazines. The paper frames these experiences within a longer tradition of tropicality or a (western) way of making sense of/imagining tropical regions and environmental difference. In so doing, it opens up a new cultural geography of the suburbs, displaces normative constructions of “nature” and shows how the legacies of European colonialism still play out in a dominant Australian culture.     

Does compulsory voting violate a right not to vote?

It is sometimes claimed that compulsory voting violates a particular right not to vote. For some, this assumed right is as fundamental as the right to vote. The existence of such a right, however, has attracted little sustained scholarly attention. This article explores from a political theory perspective whether the alleged ‘right not to vote’ is deserving the same legal and moral protection as the right to vote. I argue on two broad grounds that it is not. First, not all rights are capable of being legally waived and voting is one of them. Second, voting is a right but it is also a duty; it is a duty-right. Therefore, even though many people do fail to vote, doing so does not seem to constitute the exercise of any particular right, nor should it be legally recognised as such.

有人认为强制性投票侵犯了不投票的权利。对于很多人来说,不投票的权利跟投票的权利同等重要。不过这种权利却未得到学术界的持续关注。本文从政治学的角度探讨了所谓的“不投票权”是否应像投票权一样享有法律上和道德上的保护。笔者基于更宽泛的理由认为不应当。首先,并非所有权利都是可以在法律上免除的,投票权即是。其次,投票是权利,也是义务;是权利—义务。所以,尽管许多人没有投票,但这并不构成某种权利,法律上也不应被视作权利。