The Constitutional Status of the Overseas Territories of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland (on the Example of Sovereign Zones of Akrotiri and Dhekelia)

Abstract

The article deals with the general constitutional characteristics of the status of British overseas territories. It marks the directions of cooperation between Britain and its oversees territories. The author argues the position on the variability and the nominality of the partnership of Britain and the overseas territories stated in the White Paper. On the example of the British overseas territories the article shows that the partnership has a pronounced asymmetrical diversified character, reflecting fundamentally differing approaches and implementation of interaction between Great Britain and the overseas territories. In addition, within the framework of the partnership, the interaction (collaboration) based on the presumed independence status of participating parties to achieve mutually beneficial goals is not suggested In support of the idea of the development of the nominality of the partnership it is emphasized that the category of the sovereignty of the Kingdom, which the Overseas Territories White Paper qualifies as the basis for partnership, excludes the autonomy of the overseas territories since sovereignty absorbs partnerships, thus reducing its qualitative characteristics On the basis of the analysis of the 1960 Treaty of Establishment and the Cyprus Act 1960 the author considers the constitutional status of the sovereign zones of Akrotiri and Dhekelia as an overseas territory of the UK. It is noted that the Republic of Cyprus at the constitutional level reflects the existence and recognition of the British enclave. The author analyses the provisions of the 2012 Overseas Territories White Paper in the context of the regulatory undeniability of the sovereignty of the Kingdom and actual lack of prospects for addressing the issue of the territories release On the basis of a comparative law analysis of the constitutional status of other British military bases in parts of their administration by the British authorities it is stressed that a solution to the issue of the Bureau for Office (the Ministry of Defence or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) depends on geopolitical interests, the organization of effective management of the territories and not only from their military orientation. The author indicates the conditionality of 'the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia Order in Council 1961' due to the specifics of the conditions and procedures for the target use of the territory. The characteristics of the constitutional status of the administrator of the overseas territory are considered The constitutional plot governing the 'benchmarks' for exercising legislative functions are analyzed To sum up, it is concluded that the areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are administrative-territorial units of the United Kingdom, subject to central management mode