Vol. 12 · pages 291–295

270 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES stipulated in the Constituent statute that ministers were to be members of the executive council or that members of the executive council were to be, or were within a given period, to become members of one or other house of the legislature. In no case is the executive council required by law to be composed of ministers and ministers alone. The executive council includes but does not necessarily consist only of ministers. In certain cases there is no legal necessity for members of the executive council to be members of either house of legislature. The Act prescribed a sphere of activity within which the colonial legislature had power to make laws for the peace, order and good Government of the colony. Thus far the statute. The instructions to the Governor empowered him to govern with an executive council whose advice he might disregard if he thought fit. Responsible Government was based, not upon a statutory basis, but on the faith of the Crown. Character of Inter-Imperial Relations In the Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement, the Dominions appear in a position of complete equality, comparable with that of contracting states, and differences arising out of the agreement would seem suitable for reference to the inter-Imperial tribunal contemplated by the Imperial Conference 1930. [Cmd. 3994, Part VII]. But the relations are not governed by International Law. This was asserted clearly in 1924, when the Irish Free State registered with the Secretariat of the Leagus of Nations, the Articles of agreement for a Treaty of December 6, 1921 on the score that it was a treaty within the meaning of Article 18 of the covenant of the League of Nations, and the British Government insisted that neither the covenant nor the conventions concluded under League auspices were intended to govern relations inter se of parts of the Commonwealth [Keeth. R.G. II. 884, 885.].

271DOMINION STATUS The Imperial Conference 1926, took this view, holding that it had been determined in this sense by the Legal Committee of the Arms Traffic Conference of 1925 [Cmd. 2768 p. 23.] The Dominions save the Irish Free State as well as the United Kingdom, excluded inter-imperial disputes from those to be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice when accepting the optional clauses of the Statute of the Court in 1929 [Cmd. 3452 p. 415] and similarly when accepting the General Act of 1928 for the Pacific Settlement of International disputes [Cmd. 3930 pp. 14, 15], The inter-Imperial preferences are a domestic issue, on which most favoured nation clauses of treaties with foreign states do not operate. Allegiance The bond of a common allegiance involving a common status as British subjects, and this bond is one which cannot be severed by the unilateral action of any part as follows from the formal declaration in the Preamble to the Statute of Westminister that inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations and as they are united by a Common allegiance, any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne or the Royal style and titles, requires the assent of the Parliaments of the Dominions as well as of the United Kingdom. While the Preamble does not make law, it expresses a convention of the constitution which would render it very difficult for the Crown or its representative to assent to a bill passed by any single part which violated this principle of the unity of the British Commonwealth of Nations on a basis of equality of its status. Note.— In approving the report of the Conference of 1929, the Union Parliament recorded that the proposed Preamble “shall not be taken as abrogating from the right of any member of the British Commonwealth of Nations to withdraw therefrom”.

272 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Journal of Parliament of Empire XL 797 800 But this view has never been formally adopted by the Imperial Conference. The equality of status of the Dominions and the U.K. necessitates the consideration of a mode of deciding interImperial disputes [cmd. 3479 p. 41]. For this purpose, the imperial conference 1930 decided that such disputes should be dealt with along the line of ad hoc arbitration, on a voluntary basis. The procedure is to be limited to differences between Government and only such as are justiciable. The Tribunal is to be constituted ad hoc for each dispute ; there are to be five members, none drawn from outside the British Commonwealth of Nations. Each party shall select one from the States members of the Commonwealth of Nations, not parties to the dispute, being persons who have held or hold high judicial office or are distinguished jurists and one with complete freedom of choice. The chairman shall be chosen by these four assessors may be employed if the parties desire-expenses to be borne equally. Each party shall bear those of presenting its case. External Sovereignty of the Dominions They have autonomy. But not status. (They Have)* ceremonial status, but not legal ; de facto but not de jure For many purposes the Dominions are endowed with a considerable amount of international personality independent of the United Kingdom. But the Common allegiance and the Common Crown interfere with the idea of each Dominion being a distinct sovereign state connected merely in a personal union. The issue as to the possibility of neutrality in war has been discussed, but only claimed by the Nationalist Government in South Africa. [Kerth DGII 867 868 71, 72, Sovereignty of Dominions of D. 300-304 463-471 ]. It is open to serious doubt if the King could declare war without automatically involving the Dominions in the war. * Inserted—ed.

273DOMINION STATUS The implications of Dominion Status 1. Does it imply sovereign status ? They have the functions of a sovereign state. But they have not the status of sovereign states. 2. Does it imply the right to secede ? ***** Law Quarterly Review Vol. VI. Right of aliens to enter British territory. p. 27 Subject—compulsion of, to leave the Realm p. 388 Citizenship and allegiance Vol. XVII p. 270 Vol. XVIII p. 49 Law of citizenship in the United States by Prentiss Webster Albany : 1891 Webster “The distinction between citizens proper, that is, the constituent members of the political sovereignty, and subjects of that sovereignty who are not, therefore, citizens is recognized in the best authorities of the public law”. This distinction is true. The further question of who are and who are not citizens has its difficulties. Accept the definition of citizenship to be the enjoyment of equal rights and privileges at home and equal protection abroad, and consider the question from this standpoint, from which alone it should be treated, for we have no law in the U. S. A. which divides our citizens into classes or makes any difference whatever between them. We then discover the importance that the equal rights of citizens when at home should maintain when abroad, because questions as to citizenship are determined by municipal law in subordination to the law of Nations. Therefore, the value of citizenship should not be underestimated.”

274 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Webster View of Roman Law 1. It was by man that the body politic was organised, and in entering the organization with his fellow men, man followed the exercise of his natural rights and became an ingredient of the society of which he, with others, became members. 2. By the organization formed as of man and by man, man was so incorporated into the body politic that he could not depart. 3. Although in the early days of Rome, they alone could call themselves Roman citizens who were free born and born in Rome, yet very soon thereafter, foreigners were admitted to citizenship by authority of the legislative body. Later, as Rome advanced in her conquest of the neighbouring states, to these states the legislative authorities conferred charters by which the citizens of such states were admitted to Roman citizenship and their former citizenship was abolished. 4. Cicero lays down the rule, “that every man ought to be able to retain or renounce his rights of membership of a society,” and further adds, “that this is the firmest foundation of liberty.” Under this the Romans received all who came and forced none to remain with them. 5. This view of the Roman Law was based upon natural law. Effect of Invasion 6. After the downfall of Rome this principle of natural law gave way to the principles of feudalism as introduced by the invaders. 7. The invaders having conquered both the people and their lands, organized their Government, as being in a prince who was all powerful over his subjects. The relation as between man and man and his relation to the Government was forced and involuntary. The natural rights of man as being in man were disavowed. zz