巩固超国家权力:加勒比法院汤姆林森案判决评析

Salvatore Caserta, M. Madsen
{"title":"巩固超国家权力:加勒比法院汤姆林森案判决评析","authors":"Salvatore Caserta, M. Madsen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2856227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is a commentary on two of the latest decisions of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Tomlinson v. Belize, and Tomlinson v. Trinidad and Tobago. In these two cases, the CCJ was called to rule over the legality under the Treaty of Chaguaramas of the Immigration Acts of Belize and Trinidad and Tobago, both of which contain express provisions banning the entry of homosex-uals into those two countries. The CCJ rejected the two cases by claiming that the two Immigration Acts had in fact not been applied by Belize and Trinidad and Tobago. At the same time, the Court ruled that CARICOM law requires member states to admit homosexuals from other CARICOM states, and that Belize and Trinidad and Tobago may therefore not indefinitely retain legislation that appears to conflict with their obligations under Community law. In these two cases, the CCJ also touched upon important legal issues, such as freedom of movement in the CARICOM and indirect and direct effect of Community Law. We argue that these two rulings are important new step for the CCJ with regard to consolidating its position as an authoritative supranational court.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consolidating Supranational Authority: A Commentary on the Caribbean Court of Justice's Decisions in the Tomlinson Cases\",\"authors\":\"Salvatore Caserta, M. Madsen\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2856227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article is a commentary on two of the latest decisions of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Tomlinson v. Belize, and Tomlinson v. Trinidad and Tobago. In these two cases, the CCJ was called to rule over the legality under the Treaty of Chaguaramas of the Immigration Acts of Belize and Trinidad and Tobago, both of which contain express provisions banning the entry of homosex-uals into those two countries. The CCJ rejected the two cases by claiming that the two Immigration Acts had in fact not been applied by Belize and Trinidad and Tobago. At the same time, the Court ruled that CARICOM law requires member states to admit homosexuals from other CARICOM states, and that Belize and Trinidad and Tobago may therefore not indefinitely retain legislation that appears to conflict with their obligations under Community law. In these two cases, the CCJ also touched upon important legal issues, such as freedom of movement in the CARICOM and indirect and direct effect of Community Law. We argue that these two rulings are important new step for the CCJ with regard to consolidating its position as an authoritative supranational court.\",\"PeriodicalId\":81320,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Georgetown immigration law journal\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Georgetown immigration law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2856227\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Georgetown immigration law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2856227","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文是对加勒比法院(CCJ)的两项最新判决的评论,即汤姆林森诉伯利兹案和汤姆林森诉特立尼达和多巴哥案。在这两个案件中,中央法院被要求根据《查瓜拉马斯条约》对伯利兹和特立尼达和多巴哥的《移民法》的合法性作出裁决,这两个国家都载有禁止同性恋者进入这两个国家的明确规定。中央法院驳回了这两个案件,声称伯利兹和特立尼达和多巴哥实际上没有适用这两项移民法。与此同时,法院裁定,加勒比共同体法律要求成员国承认来自其他加勒比共同体国家的同性恋者,因此伯利兹和特立尼达和多巴哥可能不会无限期保留似乎与共同体法律规定的义务相冲突的立法。在这两个案件中,中央法院还触及了重要的法律问题,如加共体的行动自由和共同体法的间接和直接影响。我们认为,这两项裁决是中央法院巩固其作为权威超国家法院地位的重要新步骤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Consolidating Supranational Authority: A Commentary on the Caribbean Court of Justice's Decisions in the Tomlinson Cases
This article is a commentary on two of the latest decisions of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Tomlinson v. Belize, and Tomlinson v. Trinidad and Tobago. In these two cases, the CCJ was called to rule over the legality under the Treaty of Chaguaramas of the Immigration Acts of Belize and Trinidad and Tobago, both of which contain express provisions banning the entry of homosex-uals into those two countries. The CCJ rejected the two cases by claiming that the two Immigration Acts had in fact not been applied by Belize and Trinidad and Tobago. At the same time, the Court ruled that CARICOM law requires member states to admit homosexuals from other CARICOM states, and that Belize and Trinidad and Tobago may therefore not indefinitely retain legislation that appears to conflict with their obligations under Community law. In these two cases, the CCJ also touched upon important legal issues, such as freedom of movement in the CARICOM and indirect and direct effect of Community Law. We argue that these two rulings are important new step for the CCJ with regard to consolidating its position as an authoritative supranational court.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信