PHILIPSBURG--Members of Parliament (MPs) on Thursday approved a proposal to seek advice from the Advisory Council regarding the draft consensus kingdom law for the Caribbean Body for Reform and Development (COHO).
The matter was handled in an urgent meeting of the Central Committee as well as a public meeting, which were both held on Thursday.
The request stemmed from a letter that Parliament received from the Committee of Kingdom Affairs and Inter-Parliamentary Relations (CKAIR) containing a proposal for the request to the Advisory Council, for advice concerning the draft consensus Kingdom Law COHO. The proposal contains a number of “legal questions” to the Advisory Council. The COHO draft law is currently being handled by the Parliaments of the Kingdom.
In its meeting of Thursday, the CKAIR decided that questions should be urgently sent to the Advisory Council of St. Maarten to assist Parliament in its research and analysis of the draft COHO law.
The questions for the Advisory Council includes what specific ways the Council has identified as areas in which parliamentary oversight is bypassed; whether the budget right and oversight role of the Parliament has been reinstated with the note of amendment to the draft Kingdom Law; what problems may arise if the Parliament of St. Maarten refuses to pass a budget or amend a budget in a different manner than the COHO requires in order to execute their agenda; can a consensus kingdom law preclude a unilateral exit option (opt-out) by one of the consenting parties; and what is to be considered the COHO’s “rechtstatelijke inbedding” authority?
Other questions were: Does the Advisory Council consider the current trajectory for execution of reforms (onderlinge regelingen, country packages, implementation agenda) a sufficient method within the existing structure to execute reforms? Are the expressed concerns of the council sufficiently addressed in the amendments to the consensus kingdom law?
All draft kingdom (consensus) laws are vetted based on (compliance with) existing international laws and conventions, and the corresponding legal obligations of the Kingdom of the Netherlands as “State party” and its (constituent) states. This follows, among other things, from the State party’s obligations under article 103 of the UN Charter.
In the opinion of the Advisory Council, has the Government of the Netherlands adequately substantiated (in writing) that the current draft kingdom consensus law is in full compliance with all international laws, in particular with those related to St. Maarten’s right to a full measure of self-government based on absolute equality with the Netherlands, and the obligations of the Government of the Netherlands sub article 73 a-d of the UN Charter?
If the answer to the latter question is “yes,” can the Advisory Council indicate how this substantiation has taken place? If the answer is “no,” is it the opinion of the Advisory Council that this substantiation should take place? If so, how and when, and can the Advisory Council indicate what the potential (international) legal and/or other ramifications can/will be for the further handling c.q. approval of the current draft law?
