Tomlinson v. Belize; Tomlinson v. Trinidad and Tobago
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Tomlinson v. Belize; Tomlinson v. Trinidad and Tobago. / Caserta, Salvatore; Madsen, Mikael Rask.
I: American Journal of International Law, Bind 110, Nr. 3, 07.2016, s. 533-540.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Tomlinson v. Belize; Tomlinson v. Trinidad and Tobago
AU - Caserta, Salvatore
AU - Madsen, Mikael Rask
PY - 2016/7
Y1 - 2016/7
N2 - 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 homosexuals 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 steps for the CCJ with regard to consolidating its position as an authoritative supranational court.
AB - 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 homosexuals 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 steps for the CCJ with regard to consolidating its position as an authoritative supranational court.
U2 - 10.1017/S0002930000016948
DO - 10.1017/S0002930000016948
M3 - Journal article
VL - 110
SP - 533
EP - 540
JO - American Journal of International Law
JF - American Journal of International Law
SN - 0002-9300
IS - 3
ER -
ID: 167748516