Fijian nationality law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fiji Citizenship Act
Coat of arms of Fiji.svg
Parliament of Fiji
Long title
Enacted byGovernment of Fiji
Status: Current legislation

Fijian nationality law is regulated by the Fijian Constitution of 2013, as amended; the 2009 Citizenship of Fiji Act, and its revisions; and various British Nationality laws.[1][2][3] These laws determine who is, or is eligible to be, a national of Fiji. Fijian nationality is typically obtained either on the principle of jus soli, i.e. by birth in Fiji or under the rules of jus sanguinis, i.e. by birth abroad to parents with Fijian nationality.[4] It can be granted to persons with an affiliation to the country, or to a permanent resident who has lived in the country for a given period of time through naturalisation.[5] Nationality establishes one's international identity as a member of a sovereign nation.[6] Though it is not synonymous with citizenship, for rights granted under domestic law for domestic purposes, the United Kingdom, and thus the commonwealth, have traditionally used the words interchangeably.[7]

Acquiring Fijian nationality[]

Nationality in Fiji is acquired at birth, or later in life by registration or naturalisation.[8]

By birth[]

Birthright nationality applies to:

  • Persons born in Fiji provided that at least one parent is Fijian and neither parent has diplomatic immunity; or[1]
  • Foundlings discovered in the territory are deemed to be Fijians as long as no contradictory evidence of nationality exists.[1]

By registration[]

Nationality by registration includes those who have familial or historic relationship affiliations with Fiji.[9] Persons who acquire nationality by registration include:

  • Persons born abroad to at least one parent who is a Fijian national and whose birth is registered. If the person is over the age of eighteen, they must reside in Fiji;[4]
  • Persons born abroad who have been legally adopted by at least one parent who is Fijian;[10]
  • Minor children of a person who has become a naturalised Fijian;[11]
  • The spouse of a Fijian national who has a valid marital relationship and has resided in the territory for 3 of last 5 years; or[10]
  • Former nationals of Fiji who lost their nationality because of acquisition of a foreign nationality.[12]

By naturalisation[]

Regular naturalisation in Fiji is acquired by submitting an application to the Minister responsible for immigration. Applicants must verify that they are of good character, have familiarity with the language, and intend to reside in the territory.[5] Recognizing that people may need to reside in more than one country due to education, familial obligations, or work, Fiji does not require continuous residency to meet the amount of time required. Instead, an aggregate period equivalent to five years over the past ten years immediately preceding the application is necessary to meet the amount of time one must have lived in the territory.[13][Notes 1] Applicants who are approved for naturalisation are required to take an Oath of Loyalty.[13]

Loss of nationality[]

Fijian nationals may renounce their nationality provided they have legal majority and capacity and have obtained other nationality.[17] Denaturalisation may occur if a person obtained nationality through fraud, false representation, or concealment or if they have committed acts of treason or disloyalty to the nation.[18]

Dual nationality[]

Since 2009, dual nationality has been allowed in Fiji.[19]

History[]

Pre-colonial period (1500s–1874)[]

Social order in Fijian pre-colonial society was arranged under Tu'is, tribal chiefs, who governed in a system supported by district leaders and local headmen of clans, as well as the heralds, priests, warriors and common people. In return for providing for the welfare of the inhabitants, chiefs received the service and tribute of their subjects.[20][21] Chiefdoms were small and typically only controlled limited areas of territory.[21] Dutch sailors under the command of Abel Tasman of the Dutch East India Company reported the islands around 1624 and they were known to British sailors before William Bligh charted the islands in 1789.[22] The first Christian missionaries to establish a church in Fiji arrived in 1832[23] and by 1840 a prosperous settlement had been established at Levuka.[24] The 1840s were a period of intense conflict in which various chiefs attempted to gain dominance.[25] The 1850s began with Seru Epenisa Cakobau, a chief and warlord, declaring war on the Christians, but abandoning the scheme when faced with the arrival of a British warship and Tongan chiefs who were prepared to defend the missionaries.[26] In 1854, he converted to Christianity and the following year, defeated his rivals, and asserted that he had become king of Fiji, though he had no official authority beyond Vunivalu of Bau.[27][28]

From 1860, white settlers were attracted to Fiji in increasing numbers to grow cotton.[29] Disruption of the supply of cotton from the United States because of the Civil War created high prices for the commodity in Britain and fueled the growth of a plantation economy in Fiji.[30] Lacking incentives which were valuable to the Fijian population, planters devised a system of blackbirding to secure labourers from the Ellice Islands, Gilbert Islands, and New Hebrides. These South Sea Islanders were recruited by unscruplous means, which the British Foreign Secretary warned were akin to slavery, to enter a period of indentured servitude.[31] Rapid growth in immigration and labour demands, coupled with problems of securing land title from communally held lands, made evident the need for an organised government and court system where people could seek redress.[32][33]

Lacking these, Cakobau's claims of authority led , the US Commercial Agent to Fiji, to seek reparations from him to pay for property losses sustained by Americans at the hands of Fijians.[32][28][34] Unable to pay, Cakobau tried convince the British consul in Fiji, William Thomas Pritchard to pay the debt in exchange for land.[28][35] Despite having the Great Council of Chiefs' support of the plan, in 1862 the British declined the purchase, fearing Cakobau did not have the authority to offer the land.[28][36] In 1865 a confederation of chiefs was established to deal with the growing numbers of settlers wanting to purchase land. A constitutional government was established for Bau and Cakobau was crowned in 1867.[28][37] A group of Melbourne capitalists agreed to pay off the American debt in exchange for lands to colonise, but the venture and Cakobau's government eventually failed.[28] Between 1865 and 1871 five constitutions were drafted for limited districts and none beyond the territories of local chiefs. When the first confederation lapsed in 1867, the Lau Confederation was established under Enele Maʻafu. It united three chiefdoms, but expired in 1870.[37]

Expansion of the European presence in Fiji to nearly 2000 people, finally led to establishment of a successful government in 1871.[28][38] The constitution of the Kingdom of Fiji was based upon the Hawaiian constitution and Cakobau was installed as king.[39] Under the terms of the constitution, native-born inhabitants, naturalised foreigners and resident foreigners who served in the government were required to swear an oath of allegiance to support the kingdom's constitution.[40][41] Foreigners, regardless of whether they were naturalised had been permitted to help draft the constitution, but only native-born subjects were allowed to serve as ministers.[42] Officeholders could only be male inhabitants who had established domicile in the country for a minimum of six months.[43] The inability of the government to deal with the demands of the planters as well as resistance from some of the local chiefs led to negotiations by the Fijian government for British annexation, which was finalised in 1874.[28][40]

British colonial period (1874–1970)[]

Fiji became a Crown Colony of the British Empire on 10 October 1874, and its people became thus subjects of the British crown.[3][44] In Britain, allegiance, in which subjects pledged to support a monarch, was the precursor to the modern concept of nationality.[45] The crown recognised from 1350 that all persons born within the territories of the British Empire were subjects.[46] Those born outside the realm — except children of those serving in an official post abroad, children of the monarch, and children born on a British sailing vessel — were considered by common law to be foreigners.[47] Marriage did not affect the status of a subject of the realm.[48] Other than common law, there was no standard statutory law which applied for subjects throughout the realm, meaning different jurisdictions created their own legislation for local conditions, which often conflicted with the laws in other jurisdictions in the empire.[49] Nationality laws passed by the British Parliament were extended only to the Kingdom of Great Britain, and later the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.[46][50]

The Governor, Arthur Hamilton-Gordon, 1st Baron Stanmore, immediately upon assuming office in Fiji, faced the task of creating a viable economy and limiting the expenses of the colony on the crown. He undertook a series of measures beginning in 1875 to limit Fijian labourers to the confines of their villages and to secure indentured labourers from the British Raj to replace Fijian plantation workers.[51] The purpose of the confinement of workers to villages and plantations was to prevent individuals from moving outside of their province and avoiding contributions to pay the provincial tax assessments, which were paid in crops, rather than cash.[33][52] Its secondary purpose was to consolidate the power of local leaders who would in turn provide for cheaply maintaining order and oversight of their respective villagers, allowing local leaders to administer native affairs.[33][53] Gordon also devised a system of land management based upon the non-alienation of Fijians from their communally-held properties. After settling European claims, he gave local chiefs the authority for land distribution for their communities.[33]

In 1880, Gordon contracted with the Colonial Sugar Refining Company of Sydney to establish a sugar mill and prepare the land for sugar cultivation. The infusion of capital and success of the venture provided financial security for the colonial government and expanded the need for Indian labour.[54][55] In 1881, the island of Rotuma was annexed to the Colony of Fiji by a British proclamation.[56] The Immigration Ordinance of 1885, allowed almost total liberty for employers and their foremen to punish labourers for all manner of infractions including absence from or deserting their work, disobedience or insubordination, inciting others to commit infractions, procuring rations, property damage, and using insults, among others.[57] Laws governing the three groups, whites, native Fijians, and imported labourers, heightened the racial divisions in the territory.[58]}[59] Europeans dominated the economic and political sphere. Fijian authorities had no jurisdiction over Indian settlements nor ability to grant Indians a means to participate in Fijian governance councils and increasingly the Indian laboring population was confined to those areas producing sugar, so as to limit their potential influence in the colony.[60]

Gendered practices in each community, carved out separate spheres for men and women.[61] Married women in the European community were subjugated to the authority of their husbands under coverture, and the law was structured to maintain social hierarchies by regulating familial matters like, who could marry, legitimacy, and inheritance.[62][63] Women in native communities had traditionally been viewed as chattel, responsible for domestic and farming duties; gathering water and firewood; making and mending cloth, nets, and pottery; and preparations for gatherings.[64] Colonial legal codification established for native Fijians that descent was patrilineal and clan registration occurred through the Native Land Register.[65] Native Regulation No. 12 of 1877 on Marriage and Divorce legalised civil marriage and allowed native women the opportunity to file for divorce over the objections of the Great Council of Chiefs.[66][67] For indentured women, the Colony of Fiji did not recognise any marriage performed under religious rituals or that had not been registered in India or by a government official in Fiji.[68][69] Since their movements were confined to the plantation, very few marriages of Indian women were recorded.[68] Only illegitimate children were allowed to be registered deriving descent from their mothers.[70]

In 1911, at the Imperial Conference a decision was made to draft a common nationality code for use across the empire.[71] The British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 allowed local jurisdictions in the self-governing Dominions to continue regulating nationality in their territories, but also established an imperial nationality scheme throughout the realm.[72] The uniform law, which went into effect on 1 January 1915, required a married woman to derive her nationality from her spouse, meaning if he was British, she was also, and if he was foreign, so was she.[73][74] It stipulated that upon loss of nationality of a husband, a wife could declare that she wished to remain British and provided that if a marriage had terminated, through death or divorce, a British-born national who had lost her status through marriage could reacquire British nationality through naturalisation without meeting a residency requirement.[75] The statute reiterated common law provisions for natural-born persons born within the realm on or after the effective date. By using the word person, the statute nullified legitimacy requirements for jus soli nationals.[76] For those born abroad on or after the effective date, legitimacy was still required, and could only be derived by a child from a British father (one generation), who was natural-born or naturalised.[77] Naturalisations required five years residence or service to the crown.[78]

In 1916, the last shipload of Indian indentured labourers arrived in Fiji and the program was officially ended by India in 1920.[69][79][80] Indian labourers who had served their five year contracts were eligible to be repatriated to India. If they remained in Fiji for an additional five years, their repatriation was at government expense. Forty to fifty percent of the more than 60,000 labourers who had worked in Fiji returned to India, though some of those later returned to Fiji.[69][81] As an incentive to have Indo-Fijians remain in the territory, they were promised lands to tenant farm at the end of their indentures.[82] From 1911, the Governor, F. Henry May pressured local chiefs to allow fallow land to be leased by the government to allow the colonial government to administer it. By 1916, a decree was promulgated requiring Fijians to turn over all land to be leased for production to the government's control.[83] The provision was enacted to ensure that Indian tenants were not unfairly ejected from leases because another tenant offered a larger lease payment.[84] The end of confinement of labourers to the plantation in 1920, led to strikes and demands for inclusion in the society, which for the most part had excluded them and required them to be racially segregated.[85][86]

Amendments to the British Nationality Act were enacted in 1918, 1922, 1933 and 1943 changing derivative nationality by descent and modifying slightly provisions for women to lose their nationality upon marriage.[87] In Fiji, in 1930 immigration restrictions were placed on single men migrating there from India and from 1931 Indian migration was limited to around 600 persons per year, which was reduced to 350 persons annually in 1938.[88][89] Passports for Indo-Fijians were restricted to those who had been born in Fiji or those who were brought in under the indenture program and who had lived in Fiji for at least ten years.[89] Because of a rise in statelessness, a woman who did not automatically acquire her husband's nationality upon marriage or upon his naturalisation in another country, did not lose their British status after 1933.[90] A constitutional revision in Fiji in 1936 assured that though there were more Indo-Fijians in the population than indigenous Fijians, the rights and interests of the native population were paramount and were protected under law.[91][92] The Legislative Council under terms of the 1936 Constitution gave five representatives each to Fijian, European, and Indo-Fijian constituencies and would remain in effect for over twenty-five years.[93]

The 1943 revision to the British Nationality Act allowed a child born abroad at any time to be a British national by descent if the Secretary of State agreed to register the birth.[90] Under the terms of the British Nationality Act 1948 British nationals in Fiji were reclassified at that time as "Citizens of the UK and Colonies" (CUKC).[94] The basic British nationality scheme did not change overmuch, and typically those who were previously defined as British remained the same. Changes included that wives and children no longer automatically acquired the status of the husband or father, children who acquired nationality by descent no longer were required to make a retention declaration, and registrations for children born abroad were extended.[95] The Fijian Affairs Ordinance of 1944 reestablished the former Native Regulations Board calling it the Fijian Affairs Board and granting it more powers. The board tied the Fijian members of the Executive Council, the Legislative Council, the Great Council of Chiefs, and a legal advisor to control the administration of Fijian affairs.[96] During the war years, Europeans sought to form a solidarity with the Fijian leadership to prevent Indo-Fijian domination because of their greater numbers.[97] In 1961 to dismantle the remaining forced labour systems, regulations were passed to eliminate communal obligations and grant provincial councils regulating authority.[98] Direct elections of members of the Legislative Council occurred after 1963 constitutional amendment which gave each constituency (European, Fijian, Indo-Fijian) a fairly equal number of electors with a majority of one for Fijians.[99] From the early 1960s, Britain began pressing towards Fijian self-government and independence.[99]

Post-independence period (1970–present)[]

Fiji gained independence on 10 October 1970.[56] Generally, persons who had previously been nationals as defined under the classification of "Citizens of the UK and Colonies", would become nationals of Fiji on Independence Day and cease to be British nationals. Exceptions were made for persons to retain their British nationality and status if they (or their father or grandfather) were born, naturalised, or registered in a part of the realm which remained on 10 October part of the United Kingdom or colonies, or had been annexed by such a place.[56] Other exceptions included that wives of CUKCs did not lose their status as a CUKC unless their husband lost his status at independence.[3] Under the terms of the 1970 Fiji Independence Order, the only people who did not automatically become nationals at independence were those who could only derive nationality from their mother or from a grandparent.[56] The constitution defined Fijians as descendants of indigenous people from Fiji, or the islands of Melanesia, Micronesia, or Polynesia, or Indians whose ancestors originated in the Indian subcontinent.[100] Subsequent to independence, the Legislature passed the Citizenship Act of 1971, which contained additional provisions for acquisition of nationality.[3]

In 1987, a coalition government formed by Timoci Bavadra, which had a majority of Indo-Fijian ministers, was overthrown by a coup d'état. The Monarchy of Fiji was replaced with a Republican government and the constitution lapsed. Because of the suspension of the legislature, until 1990, the head of state ruled by decree.[101] In 1990, a new constitution which guaranteed the primacy of the interests and institutions of indigenous Fijians was adopted.[101][102] The legislature was composed of one representative for Rotuma, five general representatives, twenty-seven Indo-Fijian representatives and thirty-seven Fijian members.[101] Chinese, European, Melanesian, and Polynesian inhabitants were unacknowledged by identity and limited to the five general seats.[103] The Great Council of Chiefs was elevated to a position above the law and beyond oversight mechanisms.[104] It was recognised at the time that the 1990 Constitution was an interim document and in 1995 a Constitutional Review Commission was appointed.[101]

The 1997 Constitution attempted to eliminate provisions for ethnic dominance and replace them with systems that created a united national identity.[105] To that end, activists involved in the Fiji Women's Rights Movement focused on ensuring that a Bill of Rights was included in the new constitution and that gender discrimination was addressed.[106] At the time, the provisions for nationality only allowed legitimate children to derive nationality through a father, unless the child's grandfather (father of its native-born mother, who was married to a foreigner), had been Fijian. Illegitimate children could only derive nationality from their mother.[107] Foreign husbands of Fijian women were not eligible for residency or naturalization on the basis of their marriage, but foreign wives were automatically eligible to be resistered upon marriage with a Fijian husband. The efforts of women's groups were successful in eliminating gender inequalities from the nationality provisions in the 1997 Constitution.[106]

Subsequently the 2000 and 2006 coup d'états suspended the 1997 constitution.[108][Notes 2] In 2007, Laisenia Qarase instituted legal proceedings challenging the validity of the coup.[110] The following year the High Court of Fiji, consisting of appointees of the coup leadership, upheld the legality of the coup and an appeal of the decision was filed.[111][112] The Court of Appeal of Fiji in 2009 reversed the prior ruling, noting that the doctrine of necessity could not be used to justify a coup, nor did the terms of the constitution allow the president to dismiss the Prime Minister except under vary narrow circumstances as determined by a vote of no confidence of the legislature.[111] Upon release of the appellate court's ruling, President Josefa Iloilo revoked the constitution.[112][113][114] That same year, Citizenship of Fiji Decree (later known as the Citizenship of Fiji Act, 2009) was passed consolidating all the nationality statutes in the country.[19][114] Public consultations on a new constitution began in 2012 and it was adopted in 2013.[115][116] The definitions of nationals and acquiring nationality under the 2009 Citizenship Act remained in force, but the new constitution allowed for dual nationality.[4][116]

Notes[]

  1. ^ In 2020 an amendment to the 2009 Citizenship Act extended the residency requirement to an aggregate of ten out of the previous fifteen years;[14] however, as it provided that the Act would come "into force on a date or dates appointed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette",[15] it had not yet been implemented in January 2021.[16]
  2. ^ The 2000 coup suspended the constitution but a Supreme Court decision reinstated it in 2001.[109]

References[]

Citations[]

  1. ^ Jump up to: a b c Dziedzic 2020, p. 8.
  2. ^ Buchanan 2013.
  3. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Fransman 2011, p. 926.
  4. ^ Jump up to: a b c Dziedzic 2020, p. 7.
  5. ^ Jump up to: a b Dziedzic 2020, p. 12.
  6. ^ Fransman 2011, p. 3.
  7. ^ Fransman 2011, p. 4.
  8. ^ Dziedzic 2020, p. 10.
  9. ^ Dziedzic 2020, p. 11.
  10. ^ Jump up to: a b Dziedzic 2020, p. 28.
  11. ^ Citizenship Act 2016, p. Part 3, CF8.
  12. ^ Dziedzic 2020, p. 16.
  13. ^ Jump up to: a b Dziedzic 2020, p. 13.
  14. ^ Act No. 35 2020, p. 210.
  15. ^ Act No. 35 2020, p. 209.
  16. ^ Attorney General 2021, p. 5.
  17. ^ Dziedzic 2020, pp. 17–18.
  18. ^ Dziedzic 2020, p. 18.
  19. ^ Jump up to: a b Janine 2009.
  20. ^ Mayer 1915, pp. 18, 21.
  21. ^ Jump up to: a b Gravelle 1979, p. 1: 18.
  22. ^ Gravelle 1979, pp. 1: 14, 16.
  23. ^ Garrett 1982, p. 102.
  24. ^ Gravelle 1979, p. 2: 9.
  25. ^ Gravelle 1979, pp. 1: 65–67, 75–77.
  26. ^ Gravelle 1979, p. 1: 77.
  27. ^ Gravelle 1979, pp. 1: 82–84.
  28. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Campbell 2004.
  29. ^ Nicole 2006, p. 55.
  30. ^ Stokes 1968, p. 165.
  31. ^ Sohmer 1984, p. 142.
  32. ^ Jump up to: a b Stokes 1968, p. 171.
  33. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Sohmer 1984, p. 146.
  34. ^ Gravelle 1979, pp. 2: 10–11.
  35. ^ Gravelle 1979, p. 2: 14.
  36. ^ Gravelle 1979, pp. 2: 15–16.
  37. ^ Jump up to: a b Ward 1948, p. 206.
  38. ^ Ward 1948, p. 205.
  39. ^ Ward 1948, p. 207.
  40. ^ Jump up to: a b Ward 1948, pp. 208–209.
  41. ^ St. Julian 1872, pp. 20, 28.
  42. ^ St. Julian 1872, p. 24.
  43. ^ St. Julian 1872, p. 28.
  44. ^ Newbury 2011, p. 30.
  45. ^ Fransman 2011, p. 129.
  46. ^ Jump up to: a b Fransman 2011, p. 130.
  47. ^ Fransman 2011, p. 131.
  48. ^ Baldwin 2001, p. 525.
  49. ^ Baldwin 2001, p. 526.
  50. ^ Home Office 2017, p. 8.
  51. ^ Nicole 2006, pp. 177–178.
  52. ^ Nicole 2006, pp. 178–179.
  53. ^ Nicole 2006, p. 179.
  54. ^ Nicole 2006, pp. 181–182.
  55. ^ Sohmer 1984, p. 151.
  56. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Fransman 2011, p. 925.
  57. ^ Nicole 2006, pp. 183–185.
  58. ^ Knapman 2014, pp. 21–24.
  59. ^ Nicole 2006, pp. 183–184.
  60. ^ Macnaught 2016, pp. 112–113.
  61. ^ Knapman 2014, p. 157.
  62. ^ Lazarus-Black 1992, pp. 875, 877.
  63. ^ Elvy 2015, pp. 104–106.
  64. ^ Nicole 2006, p. 325.
  65. ^ Carswell 2000, p. 53.
  66. ^ Nicole 2006, p. 326.
  67. ^ Carswell 2000, p. 160.
  68. ^ Jump up to: a b Nicole 2006, p. 347.
  69. ^ Jump up to: a b c Ali 1977a, p. 1783.
  70. ^ Carswell 2000, p. 139.
  71. ^ Fransman 2011, p. 145.
  72. ^ Baldwin 2001, p. 527.
  73. ^ Llewellyn-Jones 1929, p. 123.
  74. ^ Fransman 2011, p. 151.
  75. ^ Baldwin 2001, p. 528.
  76. ^ Fransman 2011, p. 148.
  77. ^ Fransman 2011, pp. 150–151.
  78. ^ Fransman 2011, p. 155.
  79. ^ Macnaught 2016, p. 114.
  80. ^ Gillion 1977, pp. 7–8.
  81. ^ Gillion 1977, p. 4.
  82. ^ Ali 1977a, p. 1784.
  83. ^ Gillion 1977, p. 121.
  84. ^ Gillion 1977, p. 122.
  85. ^ Macnaught 2016, pp. 114–115.
  86. ^ Gillion 1977, pp. 13–14, 16.
  87. ^ Fransman 2011, p. 149.
  88. ^ Ali 1977a, p. 1786.
  89. ^ Jump up to: a b Gillion 1977, p. 117.
  90. ^ Jump up to: a b Fransman 2011, p. 163.
  91. ^ Macnaught 2016, p. 111.
  92. ^ Gillion 1977, p. 173.
  93. ^ Ali 1977b, p. 1829.
  94. ^ Fransman 2011, p. 814.
  95. ^ Fransman 2011, pp. 175–176.
  96. ^ Macnaught 2016, p. 154.
  97. ^ Macnaught 2016, p. 154-155.
  98. ^ Macnaught 2016, p. 157.
  99. ^ Jump up to: a b Macnaught 2016, p. 158.
  100. ^ Reeves 1998, pp. 223–224.
  101. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Reeves 1998, p. 224.
  102. ^ Ghai & Cottrell 2007, p. 640.
  103. ^ Ghai & Cottrell 2007, pp. 643, 648.
  104. ^ Ghai & Cottrell 2007, p. 652.
  105. ^ Ghai & Cottrell 2007, pp. 654, 656.
  106. ^ Jump up to: a b Emde 2019, p. 72.
  107. ^ Carswell 2000, pp. 139–140.
  108. ^ Ghai & Cottrell 2007, pp. 664–665.
  109. ^ Ghai & Cottrell 2007, p. 665.
  110. ^ Jowitt 2009, p. 28.
  111. ^ Jump up to: a b Jowitt 2009, p. 29.
  112. ^ Jump up to: a b International Bar Association 2009.
  113. ^ Katikanen 2009.
  114. ^ Jump up to: a b Jowitt 2009, p. 30.
  115. ^ ABC News 2012.
  116. ^ Jump up to: a b McAdam 2016, p. 313.

Bibliography[]

Retrieved from ""