The law proposal for a kingdom dispute regulation submitted to the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament in the Netherlands by Dutch State Secretary of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations Raymond Knops (see related story) is probably the best achievable result for now. The Kingdom Council of Ministers dominated by Dutch cabinet members approved it despite opposition from the three plenipotentiary ministers in The Hague of Curaçao, Aruba and St. Maarten.
This illustrates the very so-called democratic deficit within the Kingdom of the Netherlands that this proposed dispute regulation is intended to address, because the partners are supposed to be “of equal worth,” according to the Kingdom Charter. Another example is that for lack of a Kingdom Parliament it is only the Dutch legislature to which the Kingdom Government is held accountable,
The Parliaments of the Dutch Caribbean too will receive copies of the draft Kingdom Law and can send delegates to the Second Chamber as non-voting observers when the draft bill is dealt with. The reason these three countries voted against it in the Kingdom Council of Ministers was their desire to first discuss the matter during the Inter-Parliamentary Kingdom Consultation IPKO in St. Maarten next January to create broad-based support.
However, all indications are that the law will have enough backing in The Hague. The same should be the case for Willemstad, Oranjestad and Philipsburg, as the regulation’s scope was limited to disputes of a strictly legal rather than more general political and administrative nature.
Where the islands did not get their way is regarding the body to handle conflicts that fall under the regulation. They wanted the Supreme Court or another High College of State to do so, but the Netherlands stuck to its choice for the Advisory Department of the Kingdom Council of State.
The latter too has only one member each of the Dutch Caribbean countries, but the others are not active politicians who might be sensitive to the popular vote, and were appointed mainly for their perceived wisdom and maturity. Besides, the Council of State is already the entity where appeals against Kingdom Council of Ministers decisions can be filed.
Their rulings are not binding and won’t be either under the new dispute regulation, but they certainly carry weight and require strong motivation when ignored. While that may not be ideal, it certainly seems better than nothing.
Continuing to argue about a dispute regulation for another eight years just doesn’t make sense and would – in fact – defeat the purpose.
