In the United Kingdom, this legislation is formally made in the name of the monarch by and with the advice and consent of the Privy Council (King-in-Council), but in other countries the terminology may vary.
[5] After the British Empire entered World War I on the Allied side, an Order in Council was made in Canada for the registration and in certain cases for the internment of aliens of "enemy nationality".
[6] During the Second World War, the Soviet newspaper Trud accused poet and university professor Watson Kirkconnell, who was known to be both a Ukrainophile and a publicist of human rights abuses under Stalinism, of being "the Führer of Canadian Fascism".
[7] It is now well documented that Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King seriously considered acting to protect the Soviet-Canadian military alliance against Nazi Germany by silencing Kirkconnell with an Order-in-Council.
[13] The order immediately nullified the existing registrations of ownership for all the weapons it affected, making it illegal for owners to possess, use, transport, or sell them except in a few limited circumstances.
[14] A second Order in Council was simultaneously passed declaring an amnesty period until April 30, 2022, in which time owners of newly-prohibited firearms could have them deactivated, destroyed, or exported to a country in which they could be legally owned.
[16] Orders in Council were controversially used in 2004 to overturn a court ruling in the United Kingdom[17] that held that the exile of the Chagossians from the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) was unlawful.
[20] The Law Lords decided[17] that the validity of an order in council made under the prerogative legislating for a colony was amenable to judicial review.
Finally, none of the orders was open to challenge in the British courts on the ground of repugnancy to any fundamental principle relating to the rights of abode of the Chagossians in the Chagos Islands.