Talk:R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2)

External links to scholarly articles
Ironholds: this article was needed! Would you have any problem with my adding or substituting external links to scholarly articles where such links are available? E.g.


 * Christian Nauvel, "A Return from Exile in Sight? The Chagossians and their Struggle" (2006) 5 Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 96-126 Retrieved 9 May 2011

I'm ok with your formatting of title, date and volume, though I think that what I am using is more usual for Law.

I've linked "British Indian Ocean Territory" to this article. --Wikiain (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, external links should normally be as limited as possible (although I'd be perfectly happy to shove it in the article by using it as a source!). My formatting style is semi-automated by a WP tool; it doesn't use the standard OSCOLA system because it's not deigned specifically for law (which isn't a bad thing. I've always found OSCOLA to be a bit dense if you're a lay editor). Ironholds (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ironholds. I agree that OSCOLA should be followed, if possible, for all discussion of UK law.  If you would like to add in some direct URLs, fine - or we could collaborate on that. This could be good for those (all but Law people, such as ourselves) who do not have any clue about legal citation styles.  Even within Law, OSCOLA is rather special:  it isn't the same as the US Blue Book or (also e.g.) the Australian Guide to Legal Citation. Your automated style program may be following the Chicago Manual of Style, which so far as I am aware is used only in the Humanities (I have just had to use it for an article to be published in a Humanities journal).  There is no World Standard and perhaps there ought not to be, but we live in style(s) (sorry). --Wikiain (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I meant OSCOLA should'nt be used ;p. Except for things like case citations, obviously - the format that most law journals are displayed in using OSCOLA, the blue book or the AGLC is rather awkward for laypersons to parse. The automated style is, I believe, Harvard or Chicago - it has the advantage of being easily readable by most people (which is why we're here, really). On the direct URLs, the best way to include it would be as a source - first because we can then improve the article, second because we can then justify giving it a link. Ironholds (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Wikiain (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph
A paragraph in the opening section reads "In 2004, a second Order in Council, the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004, was produced, again reinstating the off-limits nature of the Chagos Islands. Bancoult brought a second case, arguing that this Order was again ultra vires and unreasonable, and that Cook had violated legitimate expectation by passing the second Order after giving the impression that the Chagossians were free to return home." However, if the second Order was passed in 2004, that would have been three years after Cook had ceased to be Foreign Secretary (and a year after he had ceased to be a member of the government altogether) - so it could surely not have been passed by Cook. --86.186.231.126 (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're entirely correct; should now be fixed :). Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)