Lorna Lloyd

The Emergence of Global Civil Society

The term ‘civil society’ has been employed in several distinct ways in political thought. John Locke used it interchangeably with ‘political society’, which he imagined as an association based on the rule of law and formed by men in a state of nature to protect their property, which he saw as consisting of life and liberty as well as ‘estate’.1 Locke, however, was very clear that such civil societies excluded absolutist forms of government, while later writers, with the same aim of finding a theoretical foundation for resisting oppressive state power, tended to define civil society as a zone of social activity existing apart from the state. Hegel saw moral superiority and purpose as residing in the state rather than in civil society and Marx equated civil society with ‘bourgeois society’, or the social relations emanating from capitalism. Both thus problematised the term and made it more ambiguous in its connotations than more contemporary theorists, who returned to the notion of civil society as a zone of private social interaction that prevents the state from undermining individual freedom. David Held’s definition provides a succinct and relatively uncontroversial rendering of the modern understanding of the term: Civil society constitutes those areas of social life — the domestic world, the economic sphere, cultural activities and political interaction — which are organized by private or voluntary arrangements between individuals and groups outside the direct control of the state.2

‘What's in a name?’ The curious tale of the office of high commissioner

Members of the Commonwealth do not use the title ‘ambassador’ for the heads of diplomatic missions which they send to one another. Instead, they use the title ‘high commissioner’. This article firstly examines how the office of high commissioner emerged to meet the representational needs of states owing allegiance to a common sovereign. Secondly, it explains why the office survived the transformation of the British empire into the modern Commonwealth of sovereign states. Thirdly, the article considers the factors that continue to make the office appealing to its holders and a diplomatic asset to their states.

“(O)n the side of justice and peace”: 1 Canada on the League of Nations Council 1927–1930

Although very much an international novice, Canada secured election to the League Council in September 1927. It did not, on the whole, have a notable impact on its proceedings. Its people, too, were little moved by its presence at Geneva. And while its Prime minister enjoyed his one visit to the League, his scepticism about it remained undimmed. Nonetheless, its three-year Council term had a number of important consequences. It engineered what was on the face of it a significant amendment to League procedures regarding minorities. The experience and horizons of its Department of External affairs were widened. It became accepted that a Dominion—or India—should always sit on the Council. Its status—and that of the other Dominions—as states equal with Britain was underlined. And by demonstrating that it was not in Britains pocket, Canadas political standing was greatly enhanced. Internationally, it had arrived.

“Another National Milestone”: Canada's 1927 Election to the Council of the League of Nations

Ten days after announcing its candidature, and amidst some surprise, Canada was elected to a non-permanent seat on the Council of the League of Nations. This article will show how and why this came about. In so doing, it will demonstrate that Canadas election was an important episode from several perspectives. First, it was a milestone in Canadas gradual international coming of age, confirming that it was entitled to all the rights and responsibilities of League membership. Second, it was a significant step in the development of the Commonwealth into an association of equals. And, third, it contributed to the gelling of the emerging group system in elections to the League Council.

Loosening the apron strings

In respect of the transformation from empire to Commonwealth, the interwar period was a time of real change. A number of developments marked the process, although this was not fully appreciated or even perceived at the time. This article discusses the significance of these changes with reference to six areas: constitutional developments; the imperial doctrine of inter-se; the emergence of the dominions as international actors; the conduct of diplomacy; economic developments; and defence and war.

Britain and the transformation from empire to Commonwealth

In the middle years of the century, many Britons hoped that the Commonwealth would be a kind of halfway house between empire and normal international relations. Although constituted of independent states, it was expected that dealings between Commonwealth members would have a special character—one which would be especially advantageous to Britain. And for quite a while—probably until the 1970s—and on a number of issues, successive British governments at least purported to believe that this was indeed its nature. However, as a working diplomatic arrangement it is hard to imagine that such a halfway situation could exist for long: the relations of states tend to have their own self‐interested imperatives. In practice there is very little evidence to suggest that a special Commonwealth actually existed after the Second World War. In particular, a series of important events in the years immediately following 1945 undermined the credibility of the idea. Britain, however, did not draw the obvious conclusions fr...

An Acutely Embarrassing Affair: Whitehall and the Indian-South African Dispute at the United Nations (1946)

ABSTRACT Before the Second World War it was a cardinal Commonwealth principle that intra-imperial disputes must be kept away from international fora. Yet in 1946 the not-yet-independent India complained to the United Nations about South African legislation discriminating against people of Indian origin. It did so without seeking Britains approval, and went on to level fierce criticism at Britains opposition to the UN General Assemblys discussion of the matter. This article explains the circumstances which led to these events; uncovers the divergent responses of the relevant British government departments – the India Office, the Dominions Office, and the Foreign Office – and shows how they were resolved; depicts the way in which Britains delegation to the General Assembly handled the matter; and discusses the significance and consequences of the dispute for South Africa and for Anglo-Indian relations.

Bridge, C. (2011). William Hughes: Australia Lentin, A. (2010). General Smuts: South Africa Purcell, H. (2010). Maharajah of Bikaner: India Thornton, M.(2010). Sir Robert Borden: Canada Watson, J. (2010). William Massey: New Zealand

Bridge, C. (2011). William Hughes: Australia. London: Haus, ix + 201 pp.,

C. Bridge, F. Bongiorno, and D. Lee (Eds) (2010). The High Commissioners. Australia's Representatives in the United Kingdom, 1910–2010

19.95, £12.99. Lentin, A. (2010). General Smuts: South Africa. London: Haus, xviii + 221 pp.,

Diplomats at War: British and Commonwealth Diplomacy in Wartime

19.95, £12.99. Purcell, H. (2010). Maharajah of Bikaner: India. London: Haus, xiv + 187 pp.,