Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T13:23:21.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Western centrism, contemporary international law, and international courts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2021

Salvatore Caserta
Salvatore Caserta*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Karen Blixens Plads 16, 2300Copenhagen S, Denmark
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article unpacks the notion of western centrism in contemporary international law by developing a framework to capture its varied patterns. It argues that western centrism can have three different manifestations – systemic, evaluative, and professional – depending on whether it refers to the rationality, the narratives, or the actors at play in the international legal field. The article then discusses three theoretical approaches that can help scholars dealing with western centrism in international (legal) scholarship. These are: (i) the critical readings of those scholars that explain international law through the lens of power and domination; (ii) the Stanford school of sociological institutionalism, which explains international institutions and norms through the role of culture and global scripts; and (iii) post-Bourdieusian reflexive sociology, which analyses the roles of transnational legal elites in colonial and post-colonial settings. Finally, the article reconstructs the experience of the Caribbean Court of Justice in the light of western centrism, demonstrating that, different from what is often argued in the literature, the Court is not a failed replica of the Court of Justice of the EU, but an institution in its own right, with its own approach to international law, its own successes and failures.

Keywords

Caribbean court of JusticeEurocentrisminternational legal theorysociology of lawwestern centrism
Type
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , June 2021 , pp. 321 - 342
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research is funded by the Danish National Research Foundation Grant no. DNRF105 and conducted under the auspices of the Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre of Excellence for International Courts (iCourts).

References

1 In the literature, the term often used to describe this phenomenon is Eurocentrism. I prefer the term western centrism because, in my view, this term best represents the state of the art of the exercise of global power and the construction of its narratives. While almost synonyms, I would still argue that the two terms differ. Eurocentrism refers back to colonial times, where European powers dominated the world. In a world like the present one, in which new centres of (western or westernized) powers have come to impose their cultural, economic, and legal models, the term western centrism seems more appropriate. Although colonial constructions and patterns did survive the end of empires, see E. Said, Orientalism (1978).

2 See, among many others, Gathii, J., ‘International Law and Eurocentricity’, (1998) 9 European Journal of International Law 184CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 See, for instance, W. Jenks, The Common Law of Mankind (1958). For a critique of this view see S. Pahuja, Decolonising International Law - Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality (2011); M. Mazower, No Enchanted Palace. The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations (2009).

4 See, among others, D. Otto, ‘Subalternity and International Law: The Problems of Global Community and the Incommensurabilty of Difference’, (1996) 5(3) Social & Legal Studies 337.

5 The appeal that international law has on non-western actors can also be seen in that often the disappointments generated by the inefficiencies of international law in non-western contexts are explained in terms of distorted practical applications of such law, and not by its inherent fallacies and/or by its complicity with powerful actors. See Pahuja, supra note 3, at 1.

6 International law was central to the decolonization process, when the so-called Third World appropriated the idea of self-determination to vest claims of independence with legal clothes. R. Holland, European Decolonization 1918-1981: An Introductory Survey (1985), at 112.

7 C. Romano, ‘The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Pieces of the Puzzle’, (1998) 31 NYU Journal of International Law & Politics 709. See K. Alter, ‘The Global Spread of European Style International Courts’, (2012) 35(1) West European Politics 135. See also A. Jetschke and T. Lenz, ‘Does Regionalism Diffuse? A New Research Agenda for the Study of Regional Organizations’, (2013) 20 Journal of European Public Policy 626.

8 Researchers in the fields of third world approaches to international law and historical sociology have contested the privileged role of the West in constructing international law and provided alternative histories to the conventional narrative according to which international law has spread from Europe to the rest of the world: S. Seth, ‘Historical Sociology and Postcolonial Theory: Two Strategies for Challenging Eurocentrism’, (2009) 3(3) International Political Sociology 334; B. Chimni, ‘Third World Approaches to International Law: A Manifesto’, (2006) 8 International Community Law Review 3. Comparative international lawyers have demonstrated how international law practices vary due to national adaptations: A. Roberts, Is International Law International? (2017); M. Koskenniemi, ‘The Case for Comparative International Law’, (2009) 20 The Finnish Yearbook of International Law 1; A. Lorca, ‘Eurocentrism in the History of International Law’, in B. Fassbender and A. Peters (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law (2012); A. Lorca, Mestizo International Law (2014). Post-colonial theorists have argued that the very concepts upon which international law is built are inherently western centric, and thus not adequate to regulate non-western contexts: D. Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference (2008); W. Mignolo, Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking (2000). Finally, legal pluralists have questioned the monolithic nature of many international legal concepts, demonstrating that these instead derive from various legal principles and cultures: S. Merry, ‘Legal Pluralism’, (1988) 22 Law and Society Review 869; H. Quane, ‘Legal Pluralism and International Human Rights Law: Inherently Incompatible, Mutually Reinforcing or Something in Between?’, (2013) 33(4) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 675. From the perspective of fragmentation and pluralism see D. Kennedy, ‘One, Two, Three, Many Legal Orders: Legal Pluralism and the Cosmopolitan Dream’, (2007) 31 New York University Review of Law and Social Change 641.

9 See, among others, A. Quijano, ‘Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America’, (2000) 15(2) International Sociology 215. See also A. Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (2004); B. Chimni, International Law and World Order: A Critique of Contemporary Approaches (2017).

10 See, among others, J. Meyer, J. Boli and G. Thomas, ‘Ontology and Rationalization in the Western Cultural Account’, in W. Scott and J. Meyer (eds.), Institutional Environments and Organizations (1994).

11 Y. Dezalay and B. Garth, The Internationalization of Palace Wars: Lawyers, Economists, and the Contest to Transform Latin American States (2002); Y. Dezalay and B. Garth, Asian Legal Revivals: Lawyers in the Shadow of the Empire (2010); M. Madsen and Y. Dezalay, ‘The Force of Law and Lawyers: Pierre Bourdieu and the Reflexive Sociology of Law’, (2012) 8 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 433.

12 The CCJ is the judicial organ of the Caribbean Common Market (CARICOM). See D. Simmons, ‘The Caribbean Court of Justice: A Unique Institution of Caribbean Creativity’, (2005) 29 Nova Law Review 69.

13 For instance, D. O’Brien and S. Foadi, ‘Caricom and Its Court of Justice’, (2008) 37(4) Common Law World Review 334. See also D. O’Brien and S. Morano-Foadi, ‘The Caribbean Court of Justice and Legal Integration within Caricom: Some Lessons from the European Community’, (2009) 8(3) Law & Practice of International Courts & Tribunals 399.

14 I. Wallerstein, ‘Eurocentrism and Its Avatars: The Dilemmas of Social Science’, (1997) 46(1) Sociological Bulletin 21.

15 J. Blaut, The Colonizer’s Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History (2012).

16 N. Hostettler, Eurocentrism: A Marxian Critical Realist Critique (2012).

17 G. Joseph, V. Reddy and M. Searle-Chatterjee, ‘Eurocentrism in the Social Sciences’, (1990) 31(4) Race & Class 1.

18 As I discuss in Section 3.1. This form of power is what has been label by Mark Haugaard, power over or coercion; that is the military, economic, and/or political domination of the West in international law and relations: M. Haugaard, ‘Rethinking the Four Dimensions of Power: Domination and Empowerment’, (2012) 5 Journal of Political Power 1. On this form of power see also R. Dahl, ‘The Concept of Power’, (1957) 2 Behavioral Science 3. See also H. Arendt, The Human Condition (1958); T. Parsons, ‘On the Concept of Political Power’, (1963) 107 Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 1.

19 On this see K. Tucker, ‘Unraveling Coloniality in International Relations: Knowledge, Relationality, and Strategies for Engagement’, (2018) 12(3) International Political Sociology 215.

20 See Pahuja, supra note 3. See also Chakrabarty, supra note 8.

21 See Anghie, supra note 9. See also Gathii, supra note 2; M. Ishay, The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era (2008); A. Pollis and P. Schwab, ‘Human Rights: A Western Construct with Limited Applicability’, in C. Koggel (ed.), Moral Issues in a Global Perspective I: Moral and Political Theory (2008); H. Christie, ‘The Poisoned Chalice: Imperial Justice, Moral Relativism, and the Origins of International Criminal Law’ (2010) 72, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 361.

22 The examples are many. For instance, western categories, values, and norms constitute the main pillars upon which human rights are based, as these, in essence, promote western (and universalized) ideas of individual autonomy, equality, and secularism: S. Merry, ‘Human Rights and Transnational Culture: Regulating Gender Violence Through Global Law’, (2006) 44(1) Osgoode Hall Law Journal 53. Recently, the International Criminal Court has been criticized by African states for reproducing colonial inequalities. See, W. Wouter, ‘The Clash of Civilisations in International Law’, E-International Relations, 25 April 2018, available at www.e-ir.info/2018/04/25/the-clash-of-civilizations-in-international-law/.

23 Anghie, supra note 9, at 1. See also B. Bowden, ‘The Colonial Origins of International Law: European Expansion and the Classic Standard of Civilization’, (2005) 7(1) Journal of the History of International Law 1; F. Johns, R. Joyce and S. Pahuja (eds.), Events: The Force of International Law (2011). A confirmation of this is also provided by Grewe’s ultra-realist account of international law built upon Carl Schmitt’s Nomos de Erde. See W. Grewe, The Epochs of International Law (2000).

24 See Bowden, supra note 23.

25 J. Westlake, The Collected Papers of John Westlake on Public International Law (1914), L. Oppenheim (ed.).

26 See Anghie, supra note 9.

27 For a broader discussion of Eurocentrism, the sources of international law, and the role of history, see R. Parfitt, ‘The Spectre of Sources’, (2014) 25(1) The European Journal of International Law 297.

28 M. Koskenniemi, ‘Histories of International Law: Dealing with Eurocentrism’, (2011) 19 Rechtgeschichte 152, at 160. See also Pahuja, supra note 3.

29 For a general introduction on the phenomenon of proliferation of international courts see Romano, supra note 7. See also K. Alter, The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights (2013).

30 See, for instance, empirical chapters in K. Alter, L. Helfer and M. Madsen, International Court Authority (2018).

31 This is the case of the East African Court of Justice and the Economic Community of West African States Court of Justice. See J. Gathii, ‘Mission Creep or a Search for Relevance: The East African Court of Justice’s Human Rights Strategy’, (2013) 24 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 249; S. Ebobrah, ‘The Ecowas Community Court of Justice: A Dual Mandate with Skewed Authority’, in Alter et al., supra note 30.

32 Like in the case of the Central American Court of Justice and of the Mercosur Permanent Review Court. G. Vidigal, ‘Paraguay’s Suspension before the Mercosur Court’, (2013) 2 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 337.

33 Like for the Andean Tribunal of Justice. K. Alter, L. Helfer and M. Guerzovich, ‘Islands of Effective International Adjudication: Constructing an Intellectual Property Rule of Law in the Andean Community’, (2009) 103(1) American Journal of International Law 1.

34 See C. Bailliet, ‘Measuring Compliance with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: The Ongoing Challenge of Judicial Independence in Latin America’, (2013) 4(31) Nordic Journal of Human Rights 477.

35 O. Schachter, ‘The Invisible College of Lawyers’, (1977) 72(2) Northwestern University Law Review 217.

36 S. Kumar and C. Rose, ‘A Study of Lawyers Appearing before the International Court of Justice, 1999–2012’, (2014) 25(3) The European Journal of International Law 893.

37 See Roberts, supra note 8.

38 M. Madsen, ‘Who Rules the World? The Educational Capital of the International Judiciary’, (2018) 3 University of California Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law 97.

39 See Quijano, supra note 9. See also Anghie, supra note 9.

40 See Meyer et al., supra note 10.

41 See, Dezalay and Garth, supra note 11. Madsen and Dezalay, supra note 11.

42 E. Haas, The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces (1968). M. Keck and K. Sikkink, Activists Beyond Border: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (1998).

43 M. Madsen, ‘Reflexivity and the Construction of the International Object: The Case of Human Rights’, (2011) 5(3) International Political Sociology 259.

44 On this, the scholarship on the power and authority of international courts is relevant. See Alter et al., supra note 30.

45 See Koskenniemi, supra note 28.

46 There is by no means of theology in the categorization of this literature. The argument I make here is that each of these theoretical approaches take as a starting point aspects that are more linked to one manifestation of western centrism, thus being, in principle, more suited to deeply engage with that particular aspect rather than with all of them.

47 See Quijano, supra note 9.

48 Ibid., at 216.

49 Ibid., at 217–18.

50 A. Quijano, ‘Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality’, (2007) 21(2-3) Cultural Studies 168.

51 See Anghie, supra note 9.

52 M. Koskenniemi, ‘Histories of International Law: Dealing with Eurocentrism’, (2011) 19 Rechtgeschichte 152. See also M. Koskenniemi, ‘On the Idea and Practice for Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose’, in B. Puri and H. Sievers (eds.), Terror, Peace and Universalism. Essays on the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant (2007).

53 H. Maine, International Law. A Series of Lectures Delivered before the University of Cambridge (1887).

54 See, for instance, D. Bederman, International Law in Antiquity (2004).

55 On this point see M. Craven et al., Time, History and International Law (2007), 8.

56 On this point see E. Merry, (2006) Osgoode Hall Law Journal 58.

57 Ibid.

58 See, for instance, M. Berween, ‘International Bills of Human Rights: an Islamic Critique’, (2003) 7 The International Journal of Human Rights 129.

59 M. Foucault, Discipline and Punish (1979). M. Foucault, Power/Knowledge (1980).

60 N. Elias, The Civilizing Process: The Development of Manners (1978). On the notion of habitus, see P. Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977).

61 P. Hall and C. Rosemary, ‘Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms’, (1996) XLIV Political Studies 936.

62 See Meyer et al., supra note 10.

63 J. Meyer et al., ‘World Society and the Nation State’, (1997) 103(1) American Journal of Sociology 144, at 145.

64 J. Meyer and R. Jepperson, ‘The “Actors” of Modern Society: The Cultural Construction of Social Agency’, (2000) 18(1) Sociological Theory 100.

65 P. Bourdieu, On the State: Lectures at the College De France (2012).

66 D. Buhari-Gulmez, ‘Stanford School on Sociologial Institutionalism: A Global Cultural Approach’, (2010) 4(3) International Political Sociology 253. See also, P. DiMaggio and W. Powell, ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphsim and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’, (1983) 48 American Sociological Review 147.

67 J. Beckert, ‘Institutional Isomorphism Revisited: Convergence and Divergence in Institutional Change’, (2010) 28(2) Sociological Theory 150. See also, J. Meyer and B. Rowan, ‘Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony’, (1977) 83(2) American Journal of Sociology 340.

68 See Meyer et al., supra note 63, at 4.

69 M. Elliot, ‘Human Rights and the Triumph of the Individual in World Culture’, (2007) 1(3) Cultural Sociology 343, at 350.

70 See Alter, supra note 29.

71 See the various empirical chapters in Alter et al., supra note 30.

72 See Gathii, supra note 31. See also Ebobrah, supra note 31.

73 See Alter et al., supra note 33.

74 See Vidigal, supra note 32.

75 See Bailliet, supra note 34.

76 N. Kauppi and M. Madsen (eds.), Transnational Power Elites: The New Professionals of Governance, Law and Security (2013).

77 See Dezalay and Garth (2002), supra note 11.

78 Ibid.

79 Ibid., at 5.

80 Ibid., at 7.

81 See Alter, supra note 7.

82 P. Bourdieu and L. Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (1992), at 97.

83 Ultimately, the concept of field was developed to explain the rise of the French state. P. Bourdieu, ‘Les Juristes, Gardiens De L’hypocrésie Collective’, in F. Chazel and J. Commaille (eds.), Normes Juridiques Et Régulation Sociale (1991).

84 Acting in its AJ, the CCJ is also competent to interpret the constitutions of those states. See, Art. XXV of the Agreement.

85 In this function, the Court has been accorded ‘compulsory and exclusive’ power to solve disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTC). In this function, the Court rules over controversies between the CARICOM member states and between them and the Community. The CCJ can also rule over referrals presented by the national courts of the member states and over applications presented by individuals (Art. 211 of the RTC). The RTC, ratified in 2001, reformed the original Treaty of Chaguaramas (TOC), which established CARICOM in 1973 and, to the present day, constitutes the founding legal document of the CARICOM. See, generally, D. Berry, Caribbean Integration Law (2014).

86 See O’Brien and Foadi, supra note 13. Although not directly linked to the CCJ, a rather critical view on regional courts outside the EU is present in various forms and degrees in generalist scholarship on international courts. See, for instance, C. Romano, ‘A Taxonomy of International Rule of Law Institutions’, (2011) 2 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 241. See Alter, supra note 29.

87 This means that the two most influential and populous states in the region – Trinidad & Tobago and Jamaica – remain outside the reach of the CCJ’s AJ.

88 D. Pollard, ‘The Caribbean Court of Justice: Who Stands to Gain?’, in Fifteenth Public Lecture of the Managment Institute of National Development (MIND) (2008).

89 See O’Brien and Morano-Foadi, supra note 13.

90 It never does really, but in international law these dynamics are more evident and impactful.

91 A similar point is expressed in Madsen, supra note 43.

92 Previous versions of this paper emphasized the role of methodology more strongly than the paper does now. This downsizing of the role of methodology in countering western centrism is directly linked to the many comments received in various fora, not the least by some of the reviewers of earlier drafts of the paper. While I agree that western centrism in international (legal) scholarship cannot be reduced to a mere question of methodology, I cannot avoid returning to the consideration that, in truth, what allowed me to minimize the western centric pull inherent in my research was precisely the methodology chosen to conduct the study.

93 See Hall and Rosemary, supra note 61.

94 See Bourdieu and Wacquant supra note 82.

95 The interviews were conducted during three field trips in Trinidad & Tobago, Barbados, Guyana, Nicaragua, and El Salvador between 2013 and 2015.

96 See Madsen and Dezalay, supra note 11.

97 On legalization see J. Goldstein et al. (eds.), Legalization and World Politics (2001).

98 An overview of the longstanding debate of the Court can be found at H. Rawlins, ‘The Caribbean Court of Justice: The History and Analysis of the Debate’, available at ccj.org/papersandarticles/ccj_rawlins.pdf.

99 Available at www.caribbeancourtofjustice.org/about-the-ccj/ccj-concept-to-reality .

100 P. Lewis, Surviving Small Size: Regional Integration in Caribbean Ministates (2002); see also H. Springer, ‘Federation in the Caribbean: An Attempt That Failed’, (1962) 16(4) International Organization 758.

101 Guyana abandoned the Privy Council in 1970, while Grenada suspended the appeals from 1979 to 1991 as a result of the Grenadian Revolution.

102 A. Paine, The Political History of Caricom (2008).

103 Interview with former officer of the CARICOM Secretariat, 23 October 2013. See also E. Williams, Reflections on the Caribbean Economic Community: A Series of Seven Articles (1965).

104 See Appendix V of the Report of the OCCBA, at 66.

105 Report of the 8th Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of CARICOM – REP.87/8/50 HGC, 27/01/1988, at 34.

106 L. Helfer, ‘Overlegalizing Human Rights: International Relations Theory and the Commonwealth Caribbean Backlash against Human Rights Regimes’, (2002) 102 Columbia Law Review 1832.

107 Pratt v. A-G for Jamaica, [1994] 2 A.C, at 30–3.

108 Guerra and Wallen v. The State, [1993] 45 W.L.R. 370 and Bradshaw v. Attorney General of Barbados, [1995] 1 W.L.R. 936.

109 The cases are known as the ‘Trilogy Cases’. Respectively, they are Reyes v. The Queen [2002] 2 W.L.R. 1034, [2002] UKPC 11, [2002] 2 AC 235; The Queen v. Hughes [2002] 2 W.L.R. 1058, [2002] UKPC 12, [2002] 2 AC 259; and Fox v. The Queen [2002] 2 W.L.R. 1077, [2002] UKPC 13, [2002] 2 AC 284.

110 Interview with a former judge of the CCJ and well-known Caribbean lawyer, 21 October 2013.

111 Interview with a Caribbean lawyer belonging to the old English educated legal elite, 21 October 2013. A viewpoint confirmed by all the interviewees.

112 S. Ramphal et al., Report of the West Indian Commission: Time for Action (1992).

113 Interview with former CARICOM official, 26 October 2013.

114 Grande Anse Declaration and Work Programme for the Advancement of the Integration Movement, Issued at the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community, Grand Anse, Grenada, July, 1989. The Ramphal Commission proposed the creation of a CARICOM Secretariat vested with executive and administrative powers, the introduction of a regional legislative system, the establishment of the Common Market and Single Economy, and the creation of an international court entrenched within the process of regional integration. See Ramphal and al., supra note 112.

115 See Ramphal et al., ibid.

116 Ibid., at 498.

117 D. Pollard, The Caribbean Court of Justice: Closing the Circle of Independence (2004). See also L. Birdsong, ‘The Formation of the Caribbean Court of Justice: The Sunset of British Colonial Rule in the English Speaking Caribbean’, (2005) 36 Miami Inter-American Law Review 197.

118 The first local Faculty of Law was established in 1970 in Barbados: www.cavehill.uwi.edu/Law/about-us.aspx.

119 Interview with a Caribbean lawyer belonging to the old English educated legal elite, 21 October 2013.

120 This double role played by lawyers in colonial and postcolonial context is explored in L. Benton, Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History, 1400-1900 (2002). See also, Dezalay and Garth, supra note 11.

121 According to one informant, in Trinidad there are several law firms specializing in cases before the Privy Council. They have generally been opposed to the CCJ out of fear of losing clients. Interview with former Attorney General of Barbados, 6 November 2013.

122 Interview with a Caribbean lawyer belonging to the old English educated legal elite, 21 October 2013.

123 Interview with Trinidadian human rights lawyers, 22 October 2013.

124 Interview with a Caribbean lawyer belonging to the old English educated legal elite, 21 October 2013. Interview with a former judge of the CCJ and well-known Caribbean lawyer, 21 October 2013. Interview with Trinidadian human rights lawyers, 22 October 2013.

125 English common law was and still is part of the curriculum at the UWI. Moreover, many of the younger lawyers pursued LL.M.s and other forms of postgraduate studies in the United Kingdom.

126 Interviews with two lawyers participating in the drafting of the Statute of the Court, 21 October 2013.

127 Interview with regional academic, 31 October 2013. A view that was confirmed by many of the interviewees.

128 Interview with a former judge of the CCJ and well-known Caribbean lawyer, 21 October 2013.

129 The Attorney General of Barbados v. Joseph and Boyce, [2006] CCJ 3 (AJ).

130 Trinidad Cement Ltd. & TCL Guyana Incorporated v. The Co-operative Republic of Guyana, [2009] CCJ 1 (OJ), at 33.

131 Interview with a Caribbean lawyer belonging to the old English educated legal elite, 21 October 21 2013.

132 Myrie v. Barbados, [2013] CCJ 1 (OJ) and Myrie v. Barbados, [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ).

133 Maurice Arnold Tomlinson v. Belize, OA 001 of 2013, and Maurice Arnold Tomlinson v. The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, OA 002 of 2013.

134 The secondary legislation involved in this case was a 2007 Resolution of the Conference of the Heads of Government of the CARICOM which was not transplanted into national law by Barbados. Myrie v. Barbados, [2013] CCJ 1 (OJ), and Myrie v. Barbados, [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ).

135 [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ), at 50, 51, 52 (emphasis added).

136 See Berry, supra note 85.

137 Maurice Arnold Tomlinson v. Belize, OA 001 of 2013, and Maurice Arnold Tomlinson v. The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, OA 002 of 2013.

138 Ibid., at 19–20.

139 Ibid., at 24.

140 Ibid., at 29.

141 Ibid., at 37.

142 According to a study, the cost of filing an appeal with the Privy Council is about US$65,000, more than five times greater than filing an appeal with the CCJ. See A. Maharajh, ‘The Caribbean Court of Justice: A Horizontally and Vertically Comparative Study of the Caribbean’s First Independent and Interdependent Court’, (2014) 47 Cornell International Law Journal 735.