Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Show Me the Money: Enforcing Original Jurisdiction Judgments of the Caribbean Court of Justice

  • RIA MOHAMMED-DAVIDSON

Abstract

This article examines the challenges surrounding the enforcement of decisions of international courts, using the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as the fulcrum of the analysis. When sitting in its original jurisdiction, the CCJ adjudicates claims arising from the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas and the operation of the Caribbean Single Market and Economy. However, there is no clear route for the enforcement of original jurisdiction decisions. The Agreement Establishing the CCJ leaves the issue of enforcement to the states themselves, who in turn have either failed to enact enforcement legislation or have provided for enforcement to be carried out ‘in like manner’ as the decisions of domestic courts. This phraseology raises the spectre of the Crown Proceedings Act and its legislative progeny which bar the pursuit of enforcement proceedings against the state. Several solutions to this enforcement conundrum are discussed, ranging from a regional enforcement treaty, akin to the New York Convention, to enforcement at common law using the Fick case, with the merits and demerits of each examined in turn.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Show Me the Money: Enforcing Original Jurisdiction Judgments of the Caribbean Court of Justice
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Show Me the Money: Enforcing Original Jurisdiction Judgments of the Caribbean Court of Justice
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Show Me the Money: Enforcing Original Jurisdiction Judgments of the Caribbean Court of Justice
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All

1 This categorization is taken from the Danish National Research Foundation's Centre of Excellence for International Courts University of Copenhagen, www.jura.ku.dk/icourts/research/institutionalisation/ (last visited 22 June 2015). For further information see R. Mackenzie, C. Romano, and Y. Shany, The Manual on International Courts and Tribunals (2010).

2 Koh, H., ‘Why Do Nations Obey International Law?’ (1997) 106 Yale Law Journal 2599.

3 Payandeh, M., ‘The Concept of International Law in the Jurisprudence of H.L.A. Hart’, (2010) 21 EJIL 967.

4 Rudisa Beverages and Caribbean International Distributors Inc. (CIDI) v. Guyana [2014] CCJ 1 (OJ) (‘Rudisa’); Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (‘Myrie’); Trinidad Cement Limited v. the Competition Commission [2013] CCJ 2 (OJ); Hummingbird Rice Mills v. Suriname and The Caribbean Community [2012] CCJ 2 (OJ); Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Incorporated v. the State of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana [2010] CCJ 1 (OJ) (‘TCL 3’), [2009] CCJ 6 (OJ) (‘TCL 2’), [2009] CCJ 5 (OJ) (‘TCL 1’); and Trinidad Cement Limited v. the Caribbean Community [2009] CCJ 4 (OJ) (‘CC’).

5 C. Denbow, The Privy Council and CCJ Debate – A Different Analysis (2015) available at www.denbowlawoffice.com/atts/2015-04-29-The%20Privy%20Council%20-%20CCJ%20Debate%20-%20A%20different%20analysis.pdf (last visited 22 June 2015).

6 The Jamaica Gleaner, Shanique Myrie gets Long- awaited Money from Barbados (2014) www.jamaica-gleaner.com/power/53791 (last visited 22 June 2015).

7 Oppong, R. Frimpong and Niro, L. C., ‘Enforcing Judgments of International Courts in National Courts’ (2014) 5 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 344, Appendix I.

8 Ibid., at 346.

9 S. Rosenne, The International Court of Justice: An Essay in Political and Legal Theory (1957), at 102.

10 Corfu Channel case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. People's Republic of Albania) Merits, Judgment of 9 April 1949, [1949] ICJ Rep. 4.

11 S. Rosenne and Y. Ronen, The Law and Practice of the International Court 1920 – 2005 (2005), at 233–9.

12 [1954] ICJ 2. Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America) Preliminary Question, Judgment of 15 June 1954, [1954] ICJ Rep. 19.

13 Malleson, K., ‘Promoting Judicial Independence in the International Courts: Lessons from the Caribbean’ (2009) 58 (3)ICLQ 671, at 675.

14 ‘Bridge Over Troubled Waters: The Caribbean Community, The Caribbean Court Of Justice, Shanique Myrie And Community Law’, Address delivered by the Right Honourable Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines at the Norman Manley Law School, Jamaica on 17 April 2014.

15 [2009] CCJ 1 (OJ), at 21–30.

16 [2009] CCJ 2 (OJ) (‘CC 2’).

17 Ibid., at 30.

18 Ibid., at 40–1.

19 [2012] CCJ 3 (OJ) (‘Myrie 2’).

20 Decision on Special Leave Application delivered on April 18, 2010.

21 See Myrie 2, supra note 19, at 28.

22 Ibid., at 14.

23 Ibid., at 25.

24 Antigua & Barbuda (24 July 2003); Bahamas (10 February 2006); Barbados (6 July 2004); Belize (17 February 2005); Dominica (8 April 2003); Grenada (1 July 2003); Guyana (2 July 2003); Haiti (8 February 2008); Jamaica (3 September 2003); Montserrat (29 January 2006) St. Kitts and Nevis (12 August 2004); St. Lucia (28 May 2003); St. Vincent & the Grenadines (12 August 2002); Suriname (9 June 2003); Trinidad & Tobago (3 July 2003).

25 See TCL 3, supra note 4, at 51.

26 See TCL 2, supra note 4, at 7.

27 Antigua & Barbuda (14 February 2001); Barbados (14 February 2001); Belize (14 February 2001); Dominica (15 February 2003); Grenada (14 February 2001); Guyana (14 February 2001); Jamaica (14 February 2001); St. Kitts and Nevis (14 February 2001); St. Lucia (14 February 2001); St. Vincent & the Grenadines (15 February 2003); Suriname (14 February 2001); Trinidad & Tobago (14 February 2001). Source: CARICOM Secretariat.

28 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331, Art. 26.

29 Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Incorporated v. the State of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana [2009] CCJ 1 (OJ), [9].

30 Antigua & Barbuda: Caribbean Community Act 2004; Barbados: Caribbean Community Act 2003, CAP 15; Belize: Caribbean Community Act 2004; Dominica: Caribbean Community Act 2005; Grenada: Caribbean Community Act 2006; Jamaica: Caribbean Community Act 2004; St Kitts and Nevis: Caribbean Community Act 2005; St. Lucia: Caribbean Community Act 2004; St. Vincent & the Grenadines: Caribbean Community Act 2005, Suriname: Act of March 10, 2003 containing approval of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas Establishing the CARICOM Single Market and Economy and Trinidad and Tobago: Caribbean Community Act 2005 Chap 81:11.

31 Barbados: Constitution of Barbados, s 79D(4); Dominica: Caribbean Court of Justice (Original Jurisdiction) Act 2005, s 11; Grenada: Caribbean Court of Justice Act, Chap 39D, s 11; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines:

Caribbean Court of Justice Act, Cap 18, s 11 and Jamaica: Caribbean Court of Justice (Original Jurisdiction) Act 2005, s 12.

32 Caribbean Court of Justice Act 2004, s. 11.

33 Antigua & Barbuda: Crown Proceedings Act, Chapter 121; The Bahamas: Crown Proceedings Act 1963, C. 10; Belize: Crown Proceedings Act, Chapter 167; Barbados: Crown Proceedings Act, Cap 197; Dominica: State Liability and Proceedings Act 1984; Grenada: Crown Proceedings Act, Cap 74; Guyana: State Liability and Proceedings Act, Cap 6:05, Jamaica: Crown Proceedings Act 1959; Montserrat: Crown Proceedings Act, Chap 2:06; Saint Lucia: Crown Proceedings Ordinance, Chap 13; Saint Kitts/Nevis: Crown Proceedings Act, Cap 5.06; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: Crown Proceedings Act, Cap 85; Trinidad and Tobago: State Liability and Proceedings Act, Chap 8:02.

34 Anguilla: Crown Proceedings Act, c 160; Bermuda: Crown Proceedings Act 1966, Title 8, Item 105; British Virgin Islands: Crown Proceedings Act, Cap 21; Cayman Islands: Crown Proceedings Law 1997; Turks and Caicos Islands: Crown Proceedings Ordinance, Chap 50.

35 Street, H., ‘The Crown Proceedings Act 1947’, (1948) 26 (3)Public Administration 156.

36 W. Baker Clode, The Law and Practice of Petition of Right Under the Petitions of Right Act 1860 (1887).

37 These procedures include Latin information, English information, writ of capias ad respondendum, writ of subpoena ad respondendum, writ of appraisement, writ of scire facias, writ of extent or of diem clausit extremum, writ of summons, petition of right and proceedings by way of monstrans de droit.

38 Chap 8:02.

39 See section 25(3) of the Crown Proceedings Act (UK) and section 27(3) of the State Liability and Proceedings Act (Trinidad and Tobago).

40 [2001] UKPC 30, [2002] 1 AC 167.

41 [1971] AC 972.

42 [1994] 1 AC 377.

43 See Gairy, supra note 40, at 19.

44 Ibid.

45 See TCL 3, supra note 4.

46 Ibid., at 48–9.

47 See TCL 1, supra note 4 and TCL 1, supra note 4.

48 See Myrie, supra note 4.

49 See Rudisa, supra note 4.

50 See TCL 1, supra note 4.

51 Case C-6/90, Francovich v. Italy [1991] ECR-1-5357.

52 See TCL 1, supra note 4, at 32–4.

53 Ibid., at 45.

54 See CC, supra note 4.

55 See TCL 3, supra note 4.

56 Ibid., at 54.

57 Ibid., at 32–6.

58 For example Prosecutor v. Tadić, Judgment on Allegations of Contempt against Prior Counsel, Milan Vujin, Case No. IT-94-1-A-R77, A. Ch., 31 January 2000; and Prosecutor v. Beqa Beqaj, Judgment on Contempt Allegations, Case No. IT-03-66-T-R77, T. Ch. I, 27 May 2005.

59 See TCL 3, supra note 4, at 40.

60 See Myrie, supra note 4.

61 Ibid., at 43–4.

62 Ibid., at 93–100.

63 Shanique Myrie's Case: A Big Test For CARICOM And The CCJ (2013) www.caribbean-events.com/article/shanique-myries-case-big-test-caricom-and-ccj#sthash.v1DFflEp.dpuf (last visited 22 June 2015); R. Saunders, Shanique Marie (sic) Case before the CCJ - a landmark for free movement of Caribbean People? (2013) www.sirronaldsanders.com/viewarticle.aspx?ID=353 (last visited 22 June 2015); The Barbados Advocate, Myrie's move (2013) www.barbadosadvocate.com/newsitem.asp?more=local&NewsID=24140 (last visited 22 June 2015); www.facebook.com/pages/Support-Shanique-Myrie/268231373312015 (last visited 22 June 2015).

64 Soren Waugh, Illegal Cavity Search Victim Shanique Myrie Growing Impatient With Barbados (2014) www.bessfm.com/illegal-cavity-search-victim-shanique-myrie-growing-impatient-with-barbados/ (last visited 22 June 2015); Shanique Myrie threatens to head back to CCJ (2014) www.nevispages.com/shanique-myrie-threatens-to-head-back-to-ccj/ (last visited 22 June 2015).

65 Martina Johnson, No System in Place to Enforce Myrie Judgment (2014) available at antiguaobserver.com/no-system-in-place-to-enforce-myrie-judgment-ccj-judge/ (last visited 24 November 2014).

66 Kyle Christian, Retiring Judge says onus on Gov’ts to abide by CCJ Rulings (2014) available at antiguaobserver.com/retiring-justice-says-onus-on-govts-to-abide-by-ccj-s-rulings/ (last visited 24 November 2014).

67 Caribbean 360, Barbados Government Promises to Pay Shanique Myrie this Week (2014) available at www.ieyenews.com/wordpress/?s=Shanique±Myrie (last visited 24 November 2014).

68 See Rudisa, supra note 4.

69 Ibid., at 22.

70 Ibid., at 39.

71 Rudisa and CIDI has since notified the Court of the non-payment and a hearing has been tentatively scheduled for 22 July 2015. See Schedule of Court Sittings April 2015, May 2015, June 2015 and July 2015 www.caribbeancourtofjustice.org/judgments-proceedings/judgments-sittings (last visited 22 June 2015).

72 See Rudisa, supra note 4, at 40.

73 Ibid., at 38.

74 Guyana: Caribbean Court of Justice Act 2004, Cap 3:07.

75 Cap 6:05.

76 (1954) 347 U.S 483.

77 (1955) 349 U.S. 294, at 301.

78 See for example Cooper v. Aaron (1958) 358 U.S. 1, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Board of Education (1969) 394 U.S. 147, Kelly v. Board of Education of Nashville 270 F. 2d 209 (6th Circuit), cert. denied, (1959) 361 U.S. 924 (the federal court in Nashville had jurisdiction over the suit in January 1997), Goss v. Board of Education (1963) 373 U.S. 683, McNeese v Board of Education (1963) 373 U.S. 668, Griffin v. Country School Board (1964) 377 U.S. 218, Green v. Country School Board (1968) 391 U.S. 430, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1970) 402 U.S. 1. See also M. Minnow, In Brown's Wake: Legacies of America's Educational Landmark (2010) and C. Ogletree, All Deliberate Speed: Reflections on the First Half Century of Brown v. Board of Education (2004).

79 See, e.g., McFerren v. County Board of Education of Fayette County (2013) available at www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/August/12-crt-1030.html (last visited 15 January 2015).

80 Art. 221 of RTC.

81 Art. 219 of RTC, Part 31 of OJR.

82 1998 Protocol No 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, restructuring the control machinery established thereby, CETS No 155 (1994).

83 Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Supervision of the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR, First Annual Report 2007, Strasbourg, March 2008.

84 Judgment (Competence), 28 November 2003, IACtHR.

85 1969 American Convention on Human Rights, “Pact of San Jose”, 1144 UNTS 123.

86 See Baena Ricardo, supra note 8, at 58 et seq.

87 Ibid., 84 et seq.

88 L. Burgorgue-Larsen & A. Úbeda De Torres, The Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case Law and Commentary (2011), at 179.

89 The Case of James Sommersett (K.B. 1772) 20 How. St. Tr. 1, 3–4.

90 9 East 192, (K.B.1808) 103 Eng.Rep. 546.

91 Schibsby v. Westenholz (1870) LR 6 QB 155 (QB, England).

92 Applies to judgments from Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Botswana, British Indian Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Dominica, Falkland Islands, Fiji, The Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritius, Montserrat, New Zealand, Nigeria, Territory of Norfolk Island, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Helena, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tasmania, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

93 Applies to judgments from India, Pakistan, Australia, Australian Capital Territory, Tonga, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey, Israel, Surinam and Canada.

94 Part II, Section 9.

95 Ibid.

96 P. Hopkins, International Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, International Business Law Consortium (2006).

97 See, e.g., The Bahamas: Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, Chap 77; Barbados: Foreign and Commonwealth Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, Chapter 201; Belize: Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, Cap. 171; Guyana: Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, Cap 7:04; Trinidad and Tobago: Judgment Extension Act, Chap 5:02

98 [2013] ZACC 22.

99 Ibid., at 2–4.

100 Ibid., at 53.

101 Ibid., at 54–70.

102 Civil Motion No J5/10/2013 (Supreme Court, Ghana, 2013).

103 One in which an international obligation must be incorporated or transformed into domestic law in order to have binding legal effect.

104 Case No: X-ref HC 5483/09 (High Court, Zimbabwe, 2010).

105 Civil Suit No 91 of 2011.

106 (1895)159 US 113 at 163–4.

107 Cap 9 Laws of Uganda.

108 See for example the Bustamante Code 1928; the 1979 Inter-American Convention on the Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards; the 1984 Inter-American Convention on Jurisdiction in the International Sphere for the Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments between Mexico and Uruguay; Brussels I Regulation (2000) and the Brussels II Regulation (2003) in the European Union; the 1952 Agreement on the Execution of Judgments (Arab League Judgments Convention) and the 1983 Arab Convention on Judicial Co-operation (Riyadh Convention).

109 L. Brilmayer, J. Goldsmith & E. O’Hara O’Connor, Conflict of Law: Cases and Materials (2011), at 535.

110 Fry, J., ‘Desordre Public International under the New York Convention: Wither Truly International Public Policy’ (2009) 8 (1)Chinese Journal of International Law 81, at 82.

111 Antigua and Barbuda: Arbitration Act, Cap 33; The Bahamas: Arbitration (Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 2009; Barbados: Arbitration (Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 1985, CAP 110A; Belize: Arbitration Act, Cap. 125; Dominica: Arbitration Act 1988; Jamaica: Arbitration (Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards) Act 2001; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: Arbitration (New York Convention Awards and Agreements) Act 2000, Cap 119; Trinidad and Tobago: Arbitration (Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 1996, Chap 5:30.

112 A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 (1981), at 268.

113 See CC, supra note 4.

114 Ibid., at 32.

* LLB (Hons), LEC (Hons), LLM (Harvard) [].

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed