Unincorporated Treaties and Small States

Abstract

For small, developing, common law dualist jurisdictions aspiring to good governance based on the rule of law, their written constitutions are normally expressed to be their supreme law which regulates the allocation of governmental powers and accords their citizens a measure of predictability in the evaluation of their civil rights and determining their civic responsibilities. Predictably, therefore, competent decision‐makers of such states are extremely wary of international developments in treaty‐making and judicial decision‐making which, unwittingly or by design, operate to subject the interpretation and application of their supreme law to external determinants hostile or indifferent to their indigenous value systems. In the premises, dualism as historically understood and practiced by small, weak, sovereignties is seen as a normative prophylactic device for safeguarding and sustaining their preferred values. Drawing on a wealth of case law and legal literature, this article undertakes an in‐depth evaluation of the legal ramifications of unincorporated treaties on dualist jurisdictions, with particular emphasis on small Caricom Member States. Reference is made to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), which has been called upon to examine and pronounce on recent innovative determinations of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) and which have been expressed by competent regional decision‐makers to introduce unacceptable levels of uncertainty into the administration of criminal justice in the Caribbean Community. It is submitted that the determinations of the JCPC reached in Thomas v Baptiste and reaffirmed in Neville Lewis v Attorney‐General of Jamaica, which ratified unincorporated treaties concluded by the executive, appear to have far‐reaching negative implications for the Member States of the Caribbean Community.