EUSTATIUS--The deposed coalition of Progressive Labour Party (PLP) with Reuben Merkman in the Executive Council of St. Eustatius has lost the injunction filed against the Dutch State on October 31.
Former Island Council Members Clyde van Putten, Rechelline Leerdam and Reuben Merkman, former Commissioners Derrick Simmons Jr. and Charles Woodley, and PLP requested in the Court proceedings that the measures taken by the Dutch Government in February to set aside Statia’s democratically-elected officials be declared null and void. In case of non-compliance they claimed daily penalties of US $1 million, to be deposited in the Island Government’s coffers.
The injunction sought to halt the Government Commissioners and the Dutch Government from taking any further actions in Statia and demanded the reinstatement of what they consider the legitimate Island Government until an election is held, or until the outcome of the main case is decided.
The plaintiffs argued that national law can never supersede international law whereby the Dutch Government, as signatory to the United Nations Charter, is obliged to recognise and respect Statia’s right to self-government based on Article 73 of the Charter and other relevant resolutions and treaties.
However, the judge stated in the verdict that Statia had obtained a “full measure of self-government,” which can be attained not only through independence, but also by free association with or integration in an independent state.
According to the Court, Statia had obtained full self-government when it became part of the Netherlands Antilles in 1954.
In this respect, the Court followed the Dutch State in in its opinion that Article 73 of the UN Charter no longer applies to Statia since the introduction of the Kingdom Charter in 1954.
Furthermore, the Court declared PLP’s case against the Dutch State inadmissible. Also, plaintiffs’ appeal to the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties was rejected.
The Court dismissed the appeals to the European Human Rights Treaty and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as claims of racial discrimination.
Van Putten said an appeal in the summary proceedings will be filed, based on a preliminary review of the ruling.
He said, “The ruling issued by the Judge seems to confirm the observations and concerns of some people when the case was filed that ‘complaining the Dutch to the Dutch’ would be an exercise in futility and that the ruling would be one of ‘class justice.’
“In the ruling, the Court did not directly answer the main legal question, which is if national law can supersede or set aside international law. However, it did answer the question indirectly, by almost verbatim following the defendant’s arguments and line of reasoning. It did so without substantiating why each legal argument presented by the plaintiffs, including the relevant jurisprudence as is customary, is valid or not in the opinion of the Court.
“However, the Netherlands was only discharged of its obligations under article 73e of the UN Charter. The majority of the population of St. Eustatius never chose the current status and still are opposed to it, and regardless of which status the people of St. Eustatius chose or will choose voluntarily, it must meet the criterion of a full measure of self-government based on absolute equality with the Netherlands.”
