Jump to content

The Queen


Recommended Posts

The Standard goes up even in non-residences. For instance, when she visits Parliament Hill in Canada, her Canadian Royal Standard is flown on the Peace Tower. Also when she visited Vimy Ridge, her flag was hoisted.

But an Olympic Stadium is NOT her residence; and she is merely an honored Guest there. Her sovereignity does NOT extend to the Olympic venues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But an Olympic Stadium is NOT her residence; and she is merely an honored Guest there. Her sovereignity does NOT extend to the Olympic venues.

Sorry, half disagree and half agree. Legally, the Queen is sovereign over the olympic venues as they fall within her realm, otherwise they couldn't be policed. It's like saying the POTUS had no authority in Atlanta. The only places that do not recognise the Crown as sovereign in the UK are embassies, various UN properties and the acre we gave to the USA next to Magna Carta Island to honour JFK.

You are right on the residences. The Standard always flies at her residences when she is present, which include the Palace of Westminster (Parliament) where a bed is kept for her, but hasn't been used in centuries. Any other public or private venue can request to fly the flag if the monarch is present but it's up to them to ask and they must do so at their own expense ie buy a flag from the College of Arms. British Embassies will run up the royal standard for example, and Blair House in Washington did (as it tickles American cockles). The standard wasn't raised when she visited Ireland, as it's a bit of a touchy subject, given her father was legally the King until 1949, and the President of Ireland's house was the seat of the Viceroy and they had to chisel the Royal Coat of Arms off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, half disagree and half agree. Legally, the Queen is sovereign over the olympic venues as they fall within her realm, otherwise they couldn't be policed. It's like saying the POTUS had no authority in Atlanta. The only places that do not recognise the Crown as sovereign in the UK are embassies, various UN properties and the acre we gave to the USA next to Magna Carta Island to honour JFK.

.

I believe the legal framework under which the IOC awards its Games to the various host cities is that a host city is merely given the 'privilege to stage and host a Games' but it is the IOC that ultimately owns the property. Just as they can 'lend' the Games to any city wanting to stage the Games at their expense, the IOC can yank them any time they want to. For example, Hitler was merely a guest of the IOC to open the Games...but the activity belonged to the IOC. The whole enterprise has to operate under the 'international' guise with which the IOC esteems itself. So just like the Greek and Italian presidents at Athens 2004 and Torino 2006, they were merely "invited" by the IOC to open the Games. Their presence at the event is at the behest of the IOC. Listen to Rogge saying...I now invite the XXXX to open the Games of so-so. The reigning monarch/president/governor-general (as in Canada's case)/Dictator for Life--however you want to call the rank, does NOT exercise their sovereignty over the Olympics.

As you said, that is just like UN compounds all over the world, they are 'international property.' The US cannot rule over the UN compound in New York; same in Geneva and Paris. If there is a crime or murder say on UN property, then the New York City/Parisian/Geneva police are called in to try and solve the case; but if diplomats are involved, they cannot be touched and more often than not; they are declared personae non gratae and are asked to leave. Same thing with "the Queen and her sovereignity over Olympic venues in the UK." Does NOT apply. That is why they fly multiple Olympic flags over the official venues (almost to the point of overkill)...and NOT the Union Jack. That signifies that the grounds are administratively 'international/IOC premises' for the duration of the Games. But it is the host country's duty to provide protection to the grounds, just as they do for embassies, consulates, on a normal, year-round basis

It is fine legalese; but there is a fine distinction between who really OWNS the Games and who runs it. Most of those issues are covered in the Host City contracts that are signed immediately upon the awarding of a particular Games to the winning city. That is why they make a big deal of capturing that moment for the world to see because it is a commitment of the new city to the IOC's terms...and which is why Denver turning back its commitment in 1972 (for 1976) was a big faux pas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are disagreeing on the concept of sovereignty, and there's no need to, as we seem to be thinking of very different definitions, and as Baronworld always seems like so much more fun than the real world, I'm happy for you to always think you are right! . LOCOG did not seek an Act of Parliament to temporarily surrender sovereignty over Olympic Venues, so I can only conclude, that under British statute, the Crown still has sovereignty over these, but both property and intellectual rights are divested through the IOC and LOCOG, as stated in the contract that was forced public (against IOC wishes) by a Freedom of Information Ruling in 2010. What are you saying is sovereignty (at least in terms of the British legal tradition) actually are rights pertaining to property, which I wouldn't disagree with, but are not rights that change national sovereignty in any way. Therefore the Queen is merely invited to a private venue in her country, and protocol is followed accordingly. The IOC are tough customers. The Mayor of London at the time said that his legal team told him not to sign the contract, but he had no choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are disagreeing on the concept of sovereignty, and there's no need to, as we seem to be thinking of very different definitions, and as Baronworld always seems like so much more fun than the real world, I'm happy for you to always think you are right! . LOCOG did not seek an Act of Parliament to temporarily surrender sovereignty over Olympic Venues, so I can only conclude, that under British statute, the Crown still has sovereignty over these, but both property and intellectual rights are divested through the IOC and LOCOG, as stated in the contract that was forced public (against IOC wishes) by a Freedom of Information Ruling in 2010. What are you saying is sovereignty (at least in terms of the British legal tradition) actually are rights pertaining to property, which I wouldn't disagree with, but are not rights that change national sovereignty in any way. Therefore the Queen is merely invited to a private venue in her country, and protocol is followed accordingly. The IOC are tough customers. The Mayor of London at the time said that his legal team told him not to sign the contract, but he had no choice.

No need for left-handed 'digs' just because I am right. :P As always. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the legal framework under which the IOC awards its Games to the various host cities is that a host city is merely given the 'privilege to stage and host a Games' but it is the IOC that ultimately owns the property. Just as they can 'lend' the Games to any city wanting to stage the Games at their expense, the IOC can yank them any time they want to. .......The reigning monarch/president/governor-general (as in Canada's case)/Dictator for Life--however you want to call the rank, does NOT exercise their sovereignty over the Olympics.

This statement is completely incorrect. Yes you are correct in saying that the host city is given the rights to the 'privilege to stage and host a Games' and with that licensed permission to use olympic symbols and brand and create local olympic symbols, trademarks and promote, organise, secure sponsorship and run an olympic games.

Yes you are correct that at the close of the games these symbols, media etc become the property of the IOC. But this has nothing to do with/or infringes upon state sovereignty, the bid contract is a commercial contract, nothing more.

More over as many articles of london's host city contract show, it is not even a contract entered into by the crown or british government, it is a contract with the incorporated city, the nations NOC and those parties then create an OCOG as shown in the excerpts below:

16. Games Organisation and Planning

The City and the OCOG shall be responsible for the successful Games organisation

and planning. The OCOG shall provide to the IOC, at the OCOG's expense, on a

regular basis, as requested by the IOC, updates, details and deliverables regarding

the OCOG's general organization and the planning process. Further details regarding

the planning, coordination and management of the Olympic Games are contained in

the “Technical Manual on Planning, Coordination and Management of the

Olympic Games”, which forms an integral part of this Contract.

17. Validity of Agreements

The City, the NOC and the OCOG hereby agree to and confirm the following:

a) that the legal validity and effectiveness of all the agreements entered into by

them, directly or indirectly concerning the Games or the IOC's moral or material

rights, are subject to the prior written approval of the IOC; and

B) that, based upon standard form agreements to be provided to the OCOG by the

IOC (-e.g. with respect to sponsorship, suppliership, licensing, sale of Olympic

coins in the territory of the National Olympic Committees, ticket agents), the

OCOG shall establish and submit to the IOC for its prior written approval,

standard form agreements to be executed between the OCOG and third parties

and ensure that all agreements that it enters into with third parties comply

therewith. Any changes to the standard form agreements must be submitted, in

marked-up form, to the IOC for its prior written approval.

Moreover, the fact that this agreement is only commercially binding is why many cities including london and sydney have enacted legislation to grant powers to Locog/socog as a government body, as the contract does not have that authority. In other instances the OCOG has existed as a private company detached from the games (ie Los Angeles):

The Sydney act cites the "Host City Contract means the contract between the International Olympic Committee, the Council of the City of Sydney and the Australian Olympic Committee dated 23 September 1993, and as in force from time to time afterwards."

Also the OCOG is only granted limited powers:

6Legal capacity

(1) SOCOG has, both within and outside New South Wales, the same legal capacity and powers as a company under the
of the Commonwealth, and accordingly has the legal capacity and powers of a natural person.

http://www.legislati...le+0+Y?tocnav=y

This is why the support of the federal government in relation to an olympics bid is relevant, it is why Obama went to speak for and support the Chicago bid, this support is not guaranteed by contract.

As you said, that is just like UN compounds all over the world, they are 'international property.' The US cannot rule over the UN compound in New York; same in Geneva and Paris. If there is a crime or murder say on UN property, then the New York City/Parisian/Geneva police are called in to try and solve the case; but if diplomats are involved, they cannot be touched and more often than not; they are declared personae non gratae and are asked to leave. Same thing with "the Queen and her sovereignity over Olympic venues in the UK." Does NOT apply.

This is a mistaken statement, the IOC is not a sovereign state and therefore has no rule of law over any realm in switzerland or otherwise, if there is a murder at olympic park it is a crime executed in the United Kingdom and is subject to British Law. International Law does not apply in the manner you have suggested. No country would give up its soveriegn rights in the manner you have suggested anyway and I have never had to show a passport to enter an olympic park/venue.

Also, there is nothing within the bid contract that relates to real property (ie land) this land is effectively owned by the OCOG with powers vested in it by the City of London and Federal Government. The IOC does not have any property rights over any olympic venues whatsoever, they only have rights on the use of intellectual property rights including olympic symbols, ideals and branding.

But it is the host country's duty to provide protection to the grounds, just as they do for embassies, consulates, on a normal, year-round basis.

Yes they are obligated to provide security to olympic venues. But this is a responsibility of the contracted parties and the created OCOG: therefore it is LOCOG and ultimately the NOC's and city's commercial obligation to provide security under contract. Hence why the fiasco with the private contractor before the london games was a fiasco for LOCOG not the British government as the contract was between LOCOG and the security company.

In practice, of course the British government has a vested interest to secure the games and promote their nation as safe etc. The British government provided further armed services personnel to secure the games, public benefit/safety and avoid embarrasment for LOCOG, not to fulfil an obligation to the IOC. Further to this British Armed forces under the Crown, provide exclusive security on all olympic venues as an excercise of their sovereignty over them, as they are on British Territory.

So the bottom line is, if they wanted to have the royal standard to fly at the stadium, the IOC may not like it, they may even pressure the contracted parties to suggest it is a breach of contract (which I doubt), they may even choose to sue for damages in a Swiss court, but this is not relevant to the Crown or British Government.

In reality it was decided not fly the standard, probably sensibly, as it was likely deemed not appropriate and imposing on the international nature of the games. Also, the fact that it features so heavily in commonwealth games ceremonies may have also been a factor in keeping it out of the OC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes you are correct that at the close of the games these symbols, media etc become the property of the IOC. But this has nothing to do with/or infringes upon state sovereignty, the bid contract is a commercial contract, nothing more.

More over as many articles of london's host city contract show, it is not even a contract entered into by the crown or british government, it is a contract with the incorporated city, the nations NOC and those parties then create an OCOG as shown in the excerpts below:

Oy! So long...

I KNOW that /\/\/. Did I say it was entered into by the host gov't? No, the contract is between the NOC, whichever ....but the way it works,is that ultimately, the host gov't MUST guarantee the spending for the Games. And ultimately, they dance to the IOC's tune. The IOC pretty much gets what it wants.

This is why the support of the federal government in relation to an olympics bid is relevant, it is why Obama went to speak for and support the Chicago bid, this support is not guaranteed by contract.

This is a mistaken statement, the IOC is not a sovereign state OF COURSE NOT. Did I say that? and therefore has no rule of law over any realm in switzerland or otherwise, if there is a murder at olympic park it is a crime executed in the United Kingdom and is subject to British Law. International Law does not apply in the manner you have suggested. No country would give up its soveriegn rights in the manner you have suggested anyway and I have never had to show a passport to enter an olympic park/venue. That's pretty much I said and/or inferred.

Also, there is nothing within the bid contract that relates to real property (ie land) this land is effectively owned by the OCOG with powers vested in it by the City of London and Federal Government. The IOC does not have any property rights over any olympic venues whatsoever, they only have rights on the use of intellectual property rights including olympic symbols, ideals and branding. AGAIN, I didn't say or expect the IOC to pass laws in the venues. Duh!! How stupid do you think I am?? And I said administratively also, in regards to the infraction of its and the IF's rules and laws concerning the running of the competition. Of course, if there is a theft, a murder, on those grounds, the local authorities handle it. DIDn't I say that??

Yes they are obligated to provide security to olympic venues. But this is a responsibility of the contracted parties and the created OCOG: therefore it is LOCOG and ultimately the NOC's and city's commercial obligation to provide security under contract. Hence why the fiasco with the private contractor before the london games was a fiasco for LOCOG not the British government as the contract was between LOCOG and the security company. YES, YES< I KNOW THAT. THat was the similar case in LA 1984 when they hired unarmed private security guards to be the first ring of security. But ultimately, if there were any arrests, they had to call the nearest armed, empowered LAPD (or whichever city it was in) officers to execute the arrest. So, ultimately, it is the gov't authorities who will provide the REAL security.

In practice, of course the British government has a vested interest to secure the games and promote their nation as safe etc. The British government provided further armed services personnel to secure the games, public benefit/safety and avoid embarrasment for LOCOG, not to fulfil an obligation to the IOC. Further to this British Armed forces under the Crown, provide exclusive security on all olympic venues as an excercise of their sovereignty over them, as they are on British Territory.

So the bottom line is, if they wanted to have the royal standard to fly at the stadium, the IOC may not like it, they may even pressure the contracted parties to suggest it is a breach of contract (which I doubt), they may even choose to sue for damages in a Swiss court, but this is not relevant to the Crown or British Government. -- THAT's PRETTY MUCH WHAT I SAID....in essence.

In reality it was decided not fly the standard, probably sensibly, as it was likely deemed not appropriate and imposing on the international nature of the games. It's JUST NOT DONE. Not done with either gov't of Germany; not done with the USSR; not done with the US, not done with the Empire of Japan or the Kingdom of Norway. For whatever reason, the IOC takes precedence for the period of the Games. So I don't even know why the host government would think about it?? :blink:

What you have said....and you may have outlined it in more detail...but it's IN ESSENCE the same thing. So this is just a matter of semantics.

In essence, Juso, you say potatoe, I say potato. You say tomatoe, I say tomato. Gosh, was I so obtuse in that you had completely paraphrase what I wrote?? :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be Prince Phillip, he seems to be getting frail, he was quite sick at the end of the jubilee celebrations

Old Phil was out and about and went to a few different events

Just seems odd to me that the Queen herself vanished and wasn't seen in public at all after the OC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must have misunderstood the point you were trying to make, but the paraphrasing is a byproduct of my Law degree, not being personal, when I discuss such concepts I am compelled to be exacting in them, and if I am going to disagree (or in this case, maybe misunderstand the point you were trying to make), then out of respect for you (or anyone else on this forum), I feel I should respond carefully and thoughtfully.

I think it was your expression of international property and the Olympic venues being examples of that did not compute for me. I wanted to clarify the property arrangements for olympic games as the IOC only holds possession of intellectual property not real property..

In either case not intended to offend, I always value your insight, in the future, I will switch off my law brain when on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was your expression of international property and the Olympic venues being examples of that did not compute for me. I wanted to clarify the property arrangements for olympic games as the IOC only holds possession of intellectual property not real property..

.

Of course, u are right here. And I did NOT mean to infer that they are a sovereign state that takes over with their laws when they are in town. Of course not, I know that...having worked at both the UN and with 2 OCOGs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old Phil was out and about and went to a few different events

Just seems odd to me that the Queen herself vanished and wasn't seen in public at all after the OC

According to the Court Circular she did have a few public Olympic related outings.

"BUCKINGHAM PALACE:

The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh, accompanied by The Princess Royal and Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence, this morning visited the XXX Olympic Games at the Olympic Park, Stratford, London E20, and were received by the Chairman of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (the Lord Coe), the Chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority (Sir John Armitt) and the Mayor of London (Mr. Boris Johnson).

Her Majesty and Their Royal Highnesses, escorted respectively by the Lord Coe, Sir John Armitt and Mr. James Bulley (Director of Venues and Infrastructure, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games), met Orbit Tower designers and London Ambassadors before visiting the Aquatics Centre and meeting staff and athletes and viewing swimming heats in the pool.

The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh, with The Princess Royal and Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence, afterwards visited the Athletes' Village, were received by the Chairman of the British Olympic Association (the Lord Moynihan) and met members of the Association's staff.

Her Majesty and His Royal Highness subsequently visited an apartment in the Village and met athletes and Team GB athletes.

The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh, with The Princess Royal and Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence then visited the Canteen and, having been received by Mr. Nigel Garfitt (Director of London 2012 Villages) and the Mayor of the Olympic Village (Sir Charles Allen), met athletes, the Villages team and catering staff.

The Queen this afternoon visited London City Airport, Newham, London E16, to mark the Airport's Twenty Fifth Anniversary, and was received by Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant of Greater London (Sir David Brewer), the Chairman of London City Airport (Mr. Roy Griffins), Mr. Declan Collier (Chief Executive Officer) and the Mayor of the London Borough of Newham (Sir Robin Wales)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Queen WAS out and about, went to the swimming but also visited the lesser known operations around the Olympics. Clearly these games were for the 'young' royals. The Queen knows and understands this...Remember she attended the 1948 edition!

I think we would all agree that the over stimulating Closing Ceremony was more for Prince Harry rather than Her Majesty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...