THE HAGUE--Following intense discussions on Thursday and many years of delay, the Parliaments of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten finally reached an agreement on the dispute regulation (geschillenregeling) for the Kingdom.

 

Rulings of the body in charge of the dispute regulation will be binding rather than a mere advice, which is a major victory for the islands.

 

Besides the aspect of a binding ruling, the delegations agreed to give several pointers for the four governments at the Kingdom Conference in Curaçao on June 16. A higher body in the Kingdom, such as the High Court, the Council of State or a separate Joint Court of Justice, will be appointed to serve as the body in charge of the dispute regulation.

 

This body also can serve as a mediator in the conflict at an early stage of the dispute before resorting to a binding ruling. "Strictly legal disputes" directly relating to the Kingdom Charter will resort under the arrangement.

According to reliable sources, the fact that the dispute regulation will apply only to the Charter will severely limit the range of this arrangement.

 

However, the islands are under the impression that all decisions of the Kingdom Council of Ministers will fall within the range of the dispute regulation, including the instrument of giving an instruction imposing a General Measure of the Kingdom Government ("Algemene Maatregel van Rijkbestuur" AMvRB) and the Kingdom Laws.

 

The agreement implied concessions for both the Dutch delegation and the delegations of the islands. The Dutch delegation initially was against a binding character of the dispute regulation, while the islands wanted an arrangement with a broad range to include all decisions of the Kingdom Council of Ministers. The islands ultimately agreed to the demand of the Dutch delegation that the dispute regulation would be limited strictly to legal disputes on the stipulations in the Charter.

 

The delegations of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten submitted a joint proposal for a dispute regulation during the Inter-Parliamentary Kingdom Consultations IPKO on Thursday morning. Member of the Curaçao Parliament Alex Rosaria of the PAIS party presented the islands' joint paper.

 

The main points of this proposal were that the body in charge of the dispute regulation should be independent and consist of experts with the authority to settle disputes through a binding ruling. Conflict mediation beforehand should prevent as much as possible that disputes end up in a ruling.

 

The Dutch Caribbean countries were clear about the range of the dispute regulation, which in their opinion should cover the Kingdom Charter, existing Kingdom Laws, decisions of the Kingdom Council of Ministers on Kingdom Laws, General Measures of the Kingdom Government and agreements and protocols between the countries.

 

All delegations were content with the agreement that was reached. "This is a very big step and we are happy to have reached this far. We had to force a decision. We all did concessions," said Member of the St. Maarten Parliament Sarah Wescot-Williams of the Democratic Party (DP).

 

"This is a gigantic achievement. There were big differences of opinion which we managed to overcome, because the desire to arrive at a solution was greater," said Member of the First Chamber of the Dutch Parliament Marijke Linthorst of the Labour Party PvdA.

 

"This is a beautiful result. Concrete decisions can now be taken at the Kingdom Conference," said Member of the Curaçao Parliament Elmer Wilsoe of the PS party. The island delegations made clear during the morning session that they wanted to arrive at a framework for a dispute regulation this week so the governments of the four countries can discuss this at the Kingdom Conference in Curaçao on June 16.

 

Clear message

Wescot-Williams and Wilsoe emphasised that the Parliaments of the countries had an indispensable role in the process to set up a dispute regulation and that it was essential to send a clear message as Parliaments at this time.

 

"The governments have to wait for a signal from the Parliaments. It is up to us to make a statement, because otherwise they will not get very far at the Kingdom Conference," said Wescot-Williams. She referred to the Integrity Chamber and the law enforcement protocol that St. Maarten and the Netherlands signed over the weekend to make a point that agreements like that needed prior approval of the Parliament.

 

"To this day we have not officially received the protocol from our Government. Do we want a protocol which states that a dispute arrangement can be established based on an AMvRB, or do we want to set the contours, the framework for a dispute regulation so that it is clear that agreements of a lower level would have to resort under such?" said Wescot-Williams.

 

According to Wilsoe, it was up to the Parliaments to indicate the direction the Council of Ministers subsequently would have to execute, not the other way around. "We have to deliver a framework," he said. Wilsoe said decisive action also was needed to prevent the Kingdom partners from further drifting apart. "Tension is unnecessarily growing in the Kingdom," he said.

 

Member of the Aruba Parliament Rene Herdé of the AVP party called on his colleague Parliamentarians on Thursday morning to seize the opportunity to reach an agreement. "We have been talking about a dispute regulation for too long. Agreements were made in the past and motions were adopted. But apparently we didn't get very far. We are now together and we should seize that moment. It would be a pity to leave without an agreement in the pocket. An agreement would be a historic gain," he said.

 

Kingdom Integrity Law

The Dutch delegation also wanted to talk about a proposal initiated by Member of the Second Chamber Roelof van Laar of the PvdA party about establishing a Kingdom Integrity Law. However, the island delegations refused to discuss this proposal because they first wanted legal advice on it. They also considered it inopportune to take a sudden decision on such an important matter.

 

Member of the Second Chamber André Bosman of the liberal democratic VVD party called it a "missed opportunity" if parties did not brainstorm on the formulation of joint integrity norms for the Kingdom. "The proposal is merely a direction. The formal attitude of the islands is a pity," he said.

 

After several adjournments and backroom talks, parties reached an agreement on the dispute regulation and it was decided to discuss further the Dutch proposal for a Kingdom Integrity Law in the Parliamentary integrity work group. On St. Maarten's request it was decided that an inventory would be made of the integrity-related laws and regulations that are in place in the individual countries as well as the plans in this area.

 

The IPKO will conclude today, Friday, with the ratifying of the decision-list, followed by a joint press conference.

 

The Daily Herald

 

Related article:

- Still no consensus on dispute arrangement