Restrictions on Aliens in the United Kingdom, 1914-1919 : a Study of the Origins and Political Background of the Aliens Restrictions Acts of 1914 and 1919.

At first glance the Aliens Restriction Act of 1914, which was introduced and passed on the first day of World War One, seems a hasty and ill-prepared piece of legislation. Actually, when examined in the light of Arthur Marwick's thesis that war is a forcing house for pre-existent social and governmental ideas, it becomes clear that the act was not after all the product of hastily formed notions. In point of fact it followed the precedent of detailed draft clauses produced in 1911 by a sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence established to consider the treatment of aliens in the event of war. Indeed the draft clauses and the restrictions embodied in the 1914 act were strikingly similar to restrictions on aliens legislated in 1793. Hostility to aliens had been growing from 1905 to 1914 and this hostility blossomed into xeno-phobia on the outbreak of war, a crucial precondition for the specifically anti-enemy fears of the time. In 1919 the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Bill was introduced into parliament to extend temporarily the provisions of the 1914 act thus permitting the Home Secretary to plan permanent, detailed legislation. Two minority groups of MPs with extreme views on the treatment of aliens were prominent in the debates on this bill. The extreme Liberal group which advocated leniency in the treatment of aliens had little effect on the final form of the bill, but the extreme Conservative group, which demanded severe restrictions on aliens, succeeded in persuading the government to include detailed restrictions. Despite its allegedly temporary nature, the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act of 1919 was renewed annually until 1971.

TOWARD A POLITICAL CONCEPTION OF MINORITY RIGHTS: RECONCILING SOVEREIGNTY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND MINORITY CLAIMS

The question that I will explore in this research dissertation is whether one can defend the rights of homeland minorities as a progressive extension of the existing norms of human rights. This question calls for several deeper inquiries about the nature, the function and the underlying justifications for both human rights and minority rights. In particular, this research project will examine the following issues: on what normative grounds the available norms of human rights and minority rights are justified; if there is any methodic way to use the normative logic of human rights to support substantial forms of minority claims, such as the right to self-determination; whether human rights can take the form of group rights; and finally, whether there is any non-sectarian basis for justifying the minority norms, which can be acceptable from both liberal and non-liberal perspectives. This research project has some implications for both theories of minority rights and human rights. On the one hand, the research employs the topic of minority rights to shed light on deficiencies of the existing political theories of human rights. On the other hand, it uses the political theory to shed light on how existing theories of minority rights could be improved and amended. The inquiry will ultimately clarify how to judge the merit of the claim that minority rights are or should be a part of human rights norms.

Strategic Diplomacies: Indigenous Governance, International Politics, and Natural Resources in Canada

International Relations theory would predict that central governments, with their considerable material resources, would be unlikely to face a challenge from a substate government. However, substate governments, and particularly Indigenous governments, are pushing back against central government control in both domestic and international spheres. Indigenous governments are leveraging their local mining sectors to realize their interests and express local identities—interests and identities that may not be congruent with those of the central government. Applying the case study of the resource extraction sector in Canada, this thesis asks: under what conditions are substate governments able to challenge the authority of central governments in the international arena? Canada’s reliance on the global extractive resource sector is a major driver of its international policy preferences, but the increased engagement of Indigenous governments in the sector challenges the control of the federal government. Focusing on the resource extraction sectors in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, this thesis argues that there is a mutually reinforcing relationship between Indigenous governments’ international engagement and their domestic autonomy; both challenge the parameters of state authority. Both force the state to respond to claims of control from multiple sites and to clarify convoluted policy environments. A confluence of factors—including increased Indigenous connections to the globalized economy, new Canadian regulatory frameworks, and recent Supreme Court of Canada cases regarding Indigenous lands—have all altered the space in which Indigenous governments in Canada participate in the resource extraction sector and produce overlapping or multilevel governance structures. This thesis demonstrates that Indigenous international engagement entrenches the authority and political legitimacy manifest in Indigenous governments’ insistence on equitable and horizontal negotiations in Canada’s lucrative resource extraction sector. A cumulative process occurs in which domestic and international expressions of political autonomy reinforce each other, produce further opportunities to express authority in both environments, and trouble the state’s capacity to fully realize its international policy preferences.