[Foundation-l] NYT: Who owns the law? (Noam Cohen)
newyorkbrad at gmail.com
Wed Oct 1 21:02:00 UTC 2008
Becoming a Republic is not the same thing as leaving the Commonwealth.
India is still in the Commonwealth, for example.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:31 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/9/30 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com>:
> > Heh. This does sort of make me interested in a further enquiry though...
> > Are all the countries which base their law on the english system still
> > members of the commonwealth?
> No a bunch left when they became republics. India for example.
> > And no, this is not an idle question or asked merely rhetorically. I
> > really don't know.
> > For that matter, could not, and did not some countries base their legal
> > system on the english laws, and never ever were members of the
> > kingdom/empire/commonwealth in the first place? I could easily imagine a
> > country devising a legal system modeled after the English legal
> > framework, which actually never came under the crown itself.
> Technically the Philippines via the US. But much of what wasn't nabbed
> by Britain was acquired by other Europeans or later the soviets. Not
> sure what ethiopian law is based on these days.
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l