Agreement Establishing The Ccj

Posted on


Article III of the Agreement establishing the Single Committee provides that the seat of the Court shall be situated in the territory of a Party, which shall be fixed by a qualified majority of the Contracting Parties. [21] [28] In 1999, Trinidad and Tobago signed an agreement with the Caribbean Community to establish the headquarters of the CCJ and CSC offices in that country. [77] This was followed by the contracting parties` decision that Trinidad and Tobago should serve as the seat[77] of the tribunal in the 1990s and the promotion of the CCJ by Basdeo Panday (then Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago) and his desire to reach an agreement with the opposition to bring into force the agreement establishing the CCJ; and that Trinidad and Tobago is indeed the basis of the Court. [28] The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is the Caribbean Regional Court, which was adopted on 14 The Agreement establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice. The agreement was signed that day by the Caricom States of Antigua and Barbuda; Barbados; Belize; Grenada; Guyana; Jamaica; St. Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Suriname; and Trinidad and Tobago. Two other States, Dominica and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, signed the agreement on 15 February 2003, bringing the total number of signatories to 12. The Bahamas and Haiti, although full members of CARICOM, were not yet signatories and, pending the United Kingdom`s status as a British territory, they had to await the United Kingdom`s acts of seizure before ratifying them. The Agreement establishing the Caribbean Court entered into force on 23 July 2003 and the CCJ was inaugurated on 16 April 2005 in Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago, seat of the Court. In 2005, a largely identical agreement was signed between Trinidad and Tobago and the CCJ and the newly established RJLSC to determine the headquarters of the CCJ and the RJLSC offices in Trinidad and Tobago,[78] as required by Article III of the agreement establishing the CCJ itself.

[21] However, a significant difference lies in the pool of empowered judges, whose decisive body is appointed. Indeed, the JCPC has no explicit limit on the number of legal officers entitled, while for the CCJ, the initial limit is nine judges other than the president (although this limit can be increased by the agreement of all member states). . . .

Comments are closed.