Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Cox, Noel
dc.date.accessioned 2010-09-29T14:16:20Z
dc.date.available 2010-09-29T14:16:20Z
dc.date.issued 2010-09-29
dc.identifier.citation Cox , N 2010 , ' The coup d¿etat and the Fiji Human Rights Commission ' . in : Jon Fraenkel . ANU Press , pp. 321-336 . en
dc.identifier.other PURE: 160543
dc.identifier.other dspace: 2160/5730
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2160/5730
dc.description Cox, Noel, ¿The coup d¿etat and the Fiji Human Rights Commission¿ in Jon Fraenkel, Stewart Firth and Brij Lal (eds.), The 2006 military takeover in Fiji: a coup to end all coups? (ANU Press, Canberra, 2009) 321-336 en
dc.description.abstract The report of the Fiji Human Rights Commission (¿the Commission¿), ¿The Assumption of Executive Authority on December 5th 2006 by Commodore J.V. Bainimarama, Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces: Legal, Constitutional and Human Rights Issues¿, is a remarkable apology for the military regime in Fiji. There are two elements in it that lead to this conclusion. The first (which has two parts) is the assertion that: The RFMF overthrew an illegally constituted, unconstitutional Government which was acting against the public interest in violation of public security and public safety protections in the Constitution. This amounts not only to a condemnation of the previous (civilian) government as illegal, but also to an endorsement of a political role for the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF). The second element is the assertion that the overthrow of the government was not merely in the interests of the country, but was legal, under the doctrine of necessity. Both of these arguments are contentious. The first because it is not the role of the military to act as a political arbiter ¿ it is for the courts to decide if a government acts improperly or illegally (or indeed is illegally or irregularly constituted); the second because, while the doctrine of necessity provides limited legal justification for certain acts in defence of the constitutional order or the stability of a country, it does not allow for military coups against de facto or de jure governments. The failure of the Commission to criticise the coup ¿ indeed its endorsement of it ¿ is a dangerous development in an already difficult situation fraught with risk to the future stability of civil society. If the Commission cannot bring itself to champion the paramountcy of the rule of law, and instead encourages the military to adopt an active political role, then the constitution of the country is in serious, and probably long-term, trouble. en
dc.format.extent 16 en
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher ANU Press
dc.relation.ispartof Jon Fraenkel en
dc.title The coup d¿etat and the Fiji Human Rights Commission en
dc.type Text en
dc.type.publicationtype Book chapter en
dc.contributor.institution Department of Law & Criminology en


Files in this item

Aside from theses and in the absence of a specific licence document on an item page, all works in Cadair are accessible under the CC BY-NC-ND Licence. AU theses and dissertations held on Cadair are made available for the purposes of private study and non-commercial research and brief extracts may be reproduced under fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review. If you have any queries in relation to the re-use of material on Cadair, contact is@aber.ac.uk.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search Cadair


Advanced Search

Browse

Statistics