1. The expressions ‘subject of international law’ and ‘international person’ will be used in this article as synonyms, such in accordance with present-day practice – in this connection see, inter alia, Tammes, A.J.P., InternationaalPubliekrecht 2d ed. (Amsterdam: Erven Bohn, 1973), p. 56Google Scholar; Verzijl, J.H.W.International Law in Historical Perspective, vol. II (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1969), p. 1Google Scholar; O'Connell, D.P., International Law, vol. I (London: Stevens, 1970), pp. 80–83Google Scholar; Schermers, H.G., International Institutional Law, vol. II (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1972), p. 625Google Scholar and the literature cited on this page.

2. “Treaty Establishing the Caribbean Community” (hereinafter called ‘the Treaty’), see: 12 International Legal Materials 1973, p. 1033.Google Scholar

3. Article 14 provides:

“1. The following institutions shall be recognised as Associated Institutions of the Community –

(a) the Caribbean Development Bank;

(b) the Caribbean Investment Corporation;

(c) the West Indies Associated States Council of Ministers;

(d) the East Caribbean Common Market Council of Ministers;

(e) the Caribbean Examinations Council;

(f) the Council of Legal Education;

(g) the University of Guyana;

(h) the University of the West Indies;

(i) the Caribbean Meteorological Council;

(j) the Regional Shipping Council;

(k) any other institution recognised as such by the Conference.

2. The Community shall seek to establish such relationships with its Associate Institutions as will promote the achievement of its objectives”.

4. Extensive literature exists on the concept of ‘subjects’. The author of this article has been greatly enlightened by the following three articles: Tammes, A.J.P., Internationaal Publiekrecht, 2d ed. (Amsterdam: Erven Bonn, 1973), pp. 56–96Google Scholar; Tammes, A.J.P., “‘Een ieder verbindende’ verdragsbepalingen”, Nederlands Juristenblad 1962, No. 4, pp. 69–80 and No. 5, pp. 89–99Google Scholar; Szàszy, I., “La règle juridique, le droit subjectif et le sujet de droit international”, in: Ibler, V., ed., Mélanges offerts à Juraj Andrassy (La Haye: Martinus Nijhoff, 1968), pp. 307–350.Google Scholar

5. To the contrary, e.g., Verzijl, , op. cit, vol. II, pp. 1–15, particularly p. 3.Google Scholar

6. Although a State will more frequently have access to an international body other than a judge oi arbitrator.

7. See, however, Scelle's view according to which each State and therefore each national judge has, amongst others, the duty to maintain international law; in the exercise of this task the Organs of the State (and therefore also the judge) function as international organs (“dé-doublement fonctionnel”) – Scelle, G., Manuel Elémentaire de Droit International Public (Paris: Les Editions Domat-Montchrestien, 1943), pp. 21–33 and 442.Google Scholar

7a. Thus the question whether national law prescribes transformation of the international rule into a national rule of law before (e.g.) an individual can have his (then transformed) rights enforced in a national court is left out of consideration here: the problem of applicability of the international rule according to national law is not what this essay aims at.

8. The Bahamas did not form part of the Federation at any time.

9. For the various international organisations which have existed in the area since 1942; see: Corkran, H. Jr., Patterns of International Cooperation in the Caribbean 1942–1969 (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1970).Google Scholar

10. Article 10 of the Caricom-Treaty reads:

“Institutions of the Community shall be –

a) the Conference of Ministers responsible for Health

b) the Standing Committee of Ministers responsible for Education

c) the Standing Committee of Ministers responsible for Labour

d) the Standing Committee of Ministers responsible for Foreign Affairs

e) the Standing Committee of Ministers responsible for Finance

f) the Standing Committee of Ministers responsible for Agriculture

g) the Standing Committee of Ministers responsible for Mines

h) any other institution that may be established and designated as such by the Conference in accordance with article 8”.

The following were established in addition: The Standing Committee of Ministers responsible for Industry (see Press Release No. 21, 1974) and the Standing Committee of Ministers responsible for Transport (Press Release No. 32, 1974).

11. The International Law Commission underlined on page 318 of its 26th Report (1974) to the General Meeting of the UN in connection with the discussions on “state responsibility”, that a component State of a Federal State may be termed a subject of international law: “Where an organ of a component state of a federal state acts in a sphere in which the component state has international obligations that are incumbent on it and not on the federal State, that component state clearly emerges at the international level, as a subject of international law separate from the federal State …”.

12. Article 4 of the Caricom-Treaty enumerates the “objectives of the Community”. One of these objectives is:

“the sustained expansion and continuing integration of economic activities, the benefits of which shall be equitably shared taking into account the need to provide special opportunities for the Less Developed Countries”.

13. The present version of the text of the “Annex Establishing the Caribbean Common Market”, which is attached to the Caricom-Treaty, is for the greater part identical to that of the text of the Carifta Agreement, which bound the relevant territories from 1968 until the effective date of the Caricom-Treaty. The principal difference is that the text of Carifta empowered the Council to take binding decisions in more instances, and furthermore, that the text which is valid at present is a well-balanced instrument which is better suited to the specific character of Caribbean relationships. For the text of Carifta, see: 7 International Legal Materials 1970 pp. 935 et seq.Google Scholar

14. Press Release No. 19/1974, it follows from the text quoted that “Her Majesty's Government at Westminster” may prevent Caricom from concluding treaties, since the conclusion of treaties requires the absence of a dissenting vote in the “Conference” (Article 28 in conjunction with Article 9).

15. The foreign policy of the Members of Caricom is discussed in the Committee of Ministers of Foreign Affairs. This Committee may only make recommendations and direct them to the Member State. These recommendations, too, require the absence of a dissenting vote in order to be adopted.

16. See Broderick, Margaret, “Associated Statehood – a new form of Decolonization”, 17 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1968, at p. 396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. See Article 24 of Title II of the Act of Accession relative to the then dependent countries and Annex VI of the Treaty of Accession relative to Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago.

18. Press Release No. 19/1074, p. 4, issued by the Secretariat of Caricom. All Press Releases quoted or to be quoted are issued by this Secretariat.

19. For the Anguilla problem, see: Brisk, W.J., The Dilemma of a Ministate: Anguilla (Columbia: University of South Carolina, Institute of International Studies, 1969).Google Scholar

20. Press Release No. 32/1974, Annex. 1.

21. Press Release No. 33/1974, p. 2.

22. I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 3.Google Scholar

23. I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 26.Google Scholar

24. The House of Lords, in connection with the discussion on the West Indies Act – Hansard, February 3–9, 1967, No. 645, col. 1504.

25. See for instance the Preamble reading: “The governments of the signatory territories have agreed as follows:” and Article 31 paragraph (1), which reads: “This agreement shall be subject to ratification by the Legislatures of all the Signatory Territories”.

25a. Paragraph 4 of Article 9 prescribes that in order to reach a valid decision or recommendation of the Conference “not less than three quarters of its members including at least two of ihe More Developed Countries vote in favour of any decision or recommendation”. Here also “its members” may be read as: its members present and voting.

26. I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 174.Google Scholar

27. The second objective is: “the co-ordination of the foreign policies of Member States”; the third objective is “functional co-operation”.

28. For the Conference see the Annex: Article 5 paragraph (1) which refers to Article 8 paragraph 3 of “the Treaty” in respect of the relationship existing between the Council and the Conference (cited). For the Secretariat see the Annex: Article 9 which refers to Article 9 of “the Treaty”.

29. It is actually given as: “internationally” instead of “international”, but this must be a misprint – The Caribbean Community, A Guide (Caribbean Community Secretariat, Georgetown, 20th 06 1973), p. 69.Google Scholar On p. 91 it is repeated that “The Common Market, as in the case of the Community is endowed with international legal personality”.

30. At present both headquarters are established in Georgetown.

31. This expression is constantly used whenever the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties refers to the act definitively binding a State. For the Vienna Convention, see, for instance, 8 International Legal Materials 1969, pp. 679Google Scholar et seq.; Ditto UN Doc. A/Conf. 39/27, 23 May 1969 and corrigenda 1.

32. Nevertheless this is possible, of course, in view of the pre-dominant Article 8 paragraph 3, cited in part on page 163.

33. The words quoted originate from Article 18 of the Vienna Convention. They may be applied, presumably, per analogiam, to international organisations which conclude agreements. In this connection it is of importance that the provisions of the constituent instrument of an international organisation which define the capacity of the organisation to conclude treaties, are subject to the general rules of treaty law analogous to those laid down for States by the Vienna Convention, and are not subject solely to the rules emanating from the organisation itself. Otherwise, an organisation which is party to an agreement, may adopt at a later stage an interpretation of its own constituent instrument which results in a declaration of incompetence of the organ which, at the time, performed the seemingly binding acts, and may claim in this way that the agreement concluded is not binding; this could lead to extensive legal uncertainty. In this sense views have been put forward by Tammes at various times before the International Law Commission, inter alia, on page 136 of the I. L. C. Yearbook, 1974, vol. I.Google Scholar With regard to Caricom, its Article 31 paragraph 2 stipulates that all decisions (thus including those whereby the organisation concludes treaties) “shall be subject to the relevant constitutional procedures of the respective Member States”. Whatever this may signify precisely, it does not in any way enhance the certainty that Caricom has, in a particular case, the capacity to conclude an agreement. This is a clear example of the uncertainty which would be the result of the introduction of a general obligation (proposed and discussed by the I.L.C., op. cit., p. 133), not to make the capacity of an international organisation subject to external rules of public international law, but to make it solely subject to the rules of the organisation itself. See also Tammes, A.J.P., Internationaal Publiekrecht, op. cit., p. 73.Google Scholar

34. For the treaty-making power of Carifta see Meijers, H., “‘Carifta’ and Association”, 1 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 1970, pp. 55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar, particularly pp. 63–71. The transition from Carifta to Common Market has been regulated in Article 71 of the Annex.

35. Article 8, see page 163.

35a. Separate membership is possible through Articles 2 and 29 of “The Treaty” and Article 65 of the “Annex”. It is possible to be a “Member” of the Community without being a “Member” of the Common Market (Article 31.1 of “The Treaty”), but it is not possible to be a Member of the Common Market without being a Member of the Community. In this context ‘to be a Member’ should be read as: to be bound by.

36. See Annex V of the Treaty concluded on 28th February 1975 at Lomé, Togo, between the EEC and the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (AF/CEE/ACP/nl 5). The text of the Lome Treaty has been published in ACS-EEG Overeenkomst van Lomé (Luxembourg, Secretariat-General of the Council of the European Communities, 1975).Google Scholar

37. Both agreements are in force. The territorial entities which signed the Caricom Treaty also signed these instruments. The first-mentioned Agreement was furthermore signed by the Bahamas and by the British Colonies Virgin Islands and Caymen Islands. The second Agreement has as signatories, apart from the Caricom Members, the British Colonies Virgin Islands, Caymen Islands, and Turks and Caicos Islands.

38. The expression Commonwealth Caribbean Territories is often used to denote all the Caribbean territories which belong to the British Commonwealth (that is to say all the Englishspeaking territories with the exception of the U.S.A.).

39. Such in accordance with Article 3. In this connection see footnote 50 on p. 181.

40. Article 7 paragraph 3. The fourth paragraph reads: “Each Member shall have one vote. The Chairman of a meeting, in addition to his original vote, shall have a casting vote in the event of an equal division”.

41. Thus a publication of the Caribbean Commonwealth Regional Secretariat (1972) entitled “Regional Co-operation in Education, The Caribbean Examinations Council Comes Into Being”, at p. 8.Google Scholar

42. Op. cit., p. 7.

43. Article VI paragraph 5.

44. For the international legal personality of the various territorial entities see p. 165 and following. The independent States are: Bahamas, Barbados, Granada, Guyana, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago.

44a. For a grouping of international organisations according to the types of entities participatpating in the work of an organization, see Schermers, H.G., “Subjecten van Internationale Organisatie”Google Scholar [Subjects of International Organisation] in: Volkenrechtelijke Opstellen ter ere van de hoogleraren Telders, B.M., van Asbeck, F.M. en Verzijl, J.H.W. (Zwolle, Tjeenk Willink 1957) pp. 170–185Google Scholar; Schermers uses the word “subjects” not in the same sense as it is used in this essay.

45. Article 10 paragraph (1) reads:

“This Agreement shall come into force upon signature or deposit of letters of ratification or acceptance on behalf of the University of the West Indies and the University of Guyana, and on behalf of Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago”.

46. Article XVI paragraph 2, albeit in not quite the same manner. In this case ratification is required

“by any two of the Participating Governments of Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago and by any four of the other Participating Governments”.

47. The equilibrium thus achieved is lightly disturbed within the Examinations Council since the University of Guyana (a Government institution) may appoint two Members; this is not the case in regard to the Council of Legal Education.

48. Article 1 paragraph 2.

49. Articles VIII paragraph 2, and V paragraph 5, respectively.

50. For the Legal Council this is laid down in Article 1 paragraph 3(g) which endows this Body with virtually unlimited power to delegate to “any … Committee”, and in Article 2, which confers full powers on the Council to delegate, at its discretion, to the Director of Legal Studies, who, in his turn, may delegate “any of his functions or powers” to a Deputy Director. The functions and powers of the Examinations Council may be delegated by virtue of Article IV paragraph (b) (to the highest official, the Registrar, for, inter alia, attracting foreign “examining Bodies”) arid pursuant to Article IV paragraphs (d), (e) and (k) (to specified subordinate organs and individual Members of the Council). These delegations might result in another example of the legal uncertainty which has been pointed out by Tammes in the International Law Commission (see footnote 33 above), since a third State might not be too sure whether the organ which seems to be its negotiating partner has indeed the (delegated) capacity to conclude Treaties. The problem might come to the fore, for instance, when the Legal Council wishes to conclude an Agreement with a non-Member State relative to the recognition of LL.B. degrees, having in mind Article 3 of its constituent instrument (see page 177 and footnote 39).

51. O'Connell, D.P., International Law, vol. I, 2nd. ed. (London: Stevens 1970), pp. 58–61.Google Scholar This author writes that the English principle that “treaties do not directly affect the Crown's subjects” has a somewhat incidental historical origin and is not founded on ideological principles. O'Connell also states that “Indian courts might give effect to conventions in some circumstances even in the absense of enabling legislation” and refers to a case in 1954. Therefore the Commonwealth Caribbean will not furnish the first examples within the entire Commonwealth of acceptance of the direct applicability of a treaty.

52. Comparable designation rights of professional organisations may be found in the International Labour Organisation, i.e. in respect of the principal organ – the Conference – as well as in respect of the Governing Body (see Articles 3 and 7, respectively, of the Constitution of the I.L.O.). The ECSC Treaty and the EEC and Euratom Treaties have organs (the Consultative Committee of the ECSC, and the two Economic and Social Committees as well as various subordinate organs) on which members of professional organisations are appointed. However, these Committees have an advisory function only and the said members serve on them “in their personal capacity” (Article 18 ECSC, Article 194 EEC, Article 166 Euratom). The professional organisations as such do not have a comparable right of appointment or designation, although the ECSC comes close to it by granting the relevant organisations the right of submitting candidates – however, twice as many candidates as there are seats allotted must be submitted.

53. Case 6/64, Costa v. Enel, 10 Jurisprudence 1964, p. 1206.Google Scholar The translation is published in 3 International Legal Materials 1964, p. 867Google Scholar and III Common Market Law Reports (1964), p. 425.Google Scholar In the same sense Case 2/74, Reyners v. The Belgian State, XIV Common Market Law Reports 1974 vol. 2, p. 305.Google Scholar

54. Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Convention on the Law of Treaties. It should be borne in mind that the “context” in this case is a far-going functional integration.

55. Article 1 paragraph 3(h). Furthermore, it is part of “its functions”

“to undertake and discharge general responsibility for the practical professional training of persons…” (Article 1 paragraph 3 (a)) and “to make proper provision for courses of study … and for holding examinations and granting diplomas and certificates” (Article 1 paragraph 3 (d)).

56. Article IV paragraph (1) provides that it is part of the powers of the Council 'to make rules generally for the purposes of this Agreement”.

57. Naturally, the direct applicability of EEC rules produces a comparable problem for England; for the general problem of the direct applicability of the Law of the European Communities, see Toth, A.G., “The Individual and European Law”, 24 The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1975, 10 pp. 659–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar and for the English position in particular, see p. 611 and the literature mentioned on that page.

58. If the “Conference” so permits, “any State or Territory of the Caribbean Region” may become a member of the Caribbean Community (Article 29). A comparable geographical limitation of membership exists in regard of the Examinations Council (Article XIII). The Agreement Establishing the Council of Legal Education stipulates that only Caribbean Commonwealth Territories mentioned by name, may accede to the Agreement (Article 11 in conjunction with Annex A).

59. Caribbean Community Secretariat, The Caribbean Community, A Guide (Georgetown: Guyana, 1973), p. 27.Google Scholar

60. It is submitted that e.g. any professional organisation or individual which has received international rights under one of the educational agreements mentioned, has the possibility to appeal to one of the Councils in order to ask for a pronouncement of that body affirming his rights. The professional organization or the individual seems to have such a possibility of enforcement in addition to existing possibilities of appeal to its (or his) national authorities or courts. Lack of published practice of the Councils makes it as yet not possible to know whether in some cases exhaustion of local remedies will be required by a Council before an application by a professional organisation or by an individual to a Council will be declared admissible.