SXMElections.com

THE HAGUE--Three aspects of the dispute regulation (geschillenregling) were a source of discussion at last week's Kingdom Conference: the type of organisation that would execute the regulation, the nature of the disputes that would be resorting under the regulation, and the binding character of the ruling.

Dutch Minister of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations Ronald Plasterk provided details on the discussions between the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten at the June 16 Kingdom Conference in Curaçao in a letter that he sent to the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament on Tuesday.

Plasterk explained that the Dutch delegation indicated a preference for the Council of State of the Kingdom, and to give this existing entity a major role in the dispute regulation because, according to the Netherlands, this entity was "by far" best equipped to deal with disputes of a constitutional character.

However, the three Dutch Caribbean countries preferred to appoint the Supreme Court as the executive body of the dispute regulation. "The Supreme Court does not come into consideration. The Supreme Court is in charge of cassation jurisdiction in criminal, civil and fiscal cases, and has no task regarding legislation and administrations of the Caribbean countries," stated Plasterk.

And, the third option namely to establish a new independent body raises new questions about the composition, range and position in relation to the existing Kingdom entities.

Plasterk explained that talks at the Kingdom Conference regarding the nature of the disputes that required solving showed that the (Dutch Caribbean) countries focused on discussions regarding national redress and the authority of the Kingdom (Government). According to the minister, it was difficult to differentiate between strictly legal and administrative (governmental) interpretations.

Also a point of discussion was whether the ruling of the body in charge of the dispute regulation would be binding or not. Plasterk said that the Dutch delegation wanted to "prevent" that an entity in charge of the dispute regulation would be established which could take decisions with broad administrative consequences which are currently part of the authority of the Kingdom Government.

With no solution in sight for the near future on this lasting issue Plasterk stated, as he did in an interview with The Daily Herald last Wednesday, that the Netherlands proposed at the Kingdom Conference to look for a temporary provision.

Through this provision, countries would be able to seek advice from the Council of State for the Kingdom in the decision-taking process of the Kingdom Council of Ministers. The decision would then be temporarily postponed and only resumed after the Council of State had judged on the matter.

The judgement would be authoritative and the Kingdom Council of Ministers could only deviate from that judgement if it had a good motivation. The advice of the Council of State would be made public.

This provision could be established for a limited number of years until a definite solution had been found through a Kingdom Law securing the execution of the dispute regulation. The temporary provision could also serve to gain experience for a more definite format of solving disputes between the Kingdom partners.

"Through this provision, all disputes on issues between the Kingdom and the countries could be decided on based on a judgement of the Council of State for the Kingdom. This provision goes further than, as was proposed by the Inter-Parliamentary Kingdom Consultations IPKO, to resolve strictly legal disputes based on the Charter and makes a complete review possible on every issue in which a country feels disadvantaged," stated Plasterk.

The Minister remarked that the Dutch Caribbean countries weren't positive about this solution, also not as a temporary provision. Talks will continue in three months at a follow-up meeting of the four governments.

Plasterk's update on the issue of the dispute regulation followed a request of the Second Chamber's Permanent Committee for Kingdom Relations dated June 18 to provide further information on this matter and to clarify why no agreement was reached at the Kingdom Conference. The request was an initiative of Member of Parliament (MP) Wassila Hachchi of the Democratic Party D66.

In his letter, Plasterk also addressed the matter of establishing a Kingdom Law Integrity of Government. MP Roelof van Laar of the Labour Party PvdA had asked the Minister to check with the other countries in the Kingdom whether they would be in favour of regulating integrity of the governments through a Kingdom Law with the possibility to establish a Kingdom Integrity Chamber.

According to Plasterk, the matter was explicitly discussed at the Kingdom Conference. He stated that the three Dutch Caribbean countries were not keen on establishing legislation on a Kingdom level to deal with integrity issues. The three countries contended that they already had national legislation in place to address this matter.

The St. Maarten delegation, led by Prime Minister Marcel Gumbs stated that aside from national legislation, the country was also in the process of setting up an Integrity Chamber. Curaçao remarked that it was implementing the recommendations of the assessment by Transparency International.