{"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}
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.