1. For a general survey of the origins and main features of the Caribbean Free Trade Organization see N.V. Hinkinson (information officer at the Commonwealth Caribbean Regional Secretariat), “The Caribbean Free Trade Association” (1969), not published but obtainable at the said Secretariat in Georgetown, Guyana, 1969. For a broad geographical and legal perspective, see Simmonds, K.R., “International Economic Organizations in Central and Latin America and the Caribbean: Regionalism and Sub-Regionalism in the Integration Process”, 19 I.C.L.Q. (1970) in particular pp. 388–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Economic and political information is given in the booklet “Carifta and the Economic Community” produced by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago (July, 1968)

The present writer was fortunate to be able to take part in a meeting of legal experts convened, under the auspices of the Organization of American States and the Institute of International Relations of the University of the West Indies (St. Augustine, Trinidad), in Barbados in February 1970. That meeting discussed, among other subjects, some of the topics entered upon in this article and the participants had the benefit of a preparatory research paper written by Mr. Carlyle L. Williams for this “Seminar on the Legal and Institutional Aspects of Caribbean Economic Integration”.

2. 7 International Legal Materials (1968) p. 935.

3. After the manuscript for this Article had been sent to the printer, British Honduras (Belize) in fact became a Member of Carifta.

4. The economic consequences for the Commonwealth Caribbean if Britain enters the E.E.C. are summarized for the main West Indian products involved in “The Commonwealth Caribbean and the E.E.C.” –A study by the West India Committee, London 1967. For the text of the E.E.C. treaty and related documents, see U.N.T.S. Vols. 294, 295, 296, 297 and 298, or “International Organization and Integration”, edited by van Panhuys, H.F., Brinkhorst, L.J., Maas, H.H., van Leeuwcn-Boomkamp, L.– Sijthoff, Leyden 1968, pp. 753–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. For the legal position of the Associated States in general, see Margaret, Broderick, “Associated Statehood –A new form of Decolonization”, 17 I.C.L.Q. (1968), pp. 368–404.Google Scholar

In this section only the position of the Associated States vis-a-vis association agreements of Carifta is discussed. For an elucidation of the many other legal problems that could arise for Carifta in connection with the special position of the Associated States, see Reive, R.v.H., “The International Competence of the Associated States in the Carifta Treaty” in Some Problems of International Law in the Commonwealth Caribbean –edited by Meyers, H., University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica, 05 1970.Google Scholar

6. The Heads of Agreement and the Draft Despatch, made at the Antigua Contitutional Conference (February 1966) can be found in Documents On International Relations In The Caribbean, edited by Preiswerk, R. –Institute of International Relations, The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad, and Institute of Caribbean Studies, Universidad de Puerto Rico, Rio Pedras, 1970 – on p. 564 ffGoogle Scholar. Also in: Command Paper 2963 (H.M. Stationery Office, London, 1966).Google Scholar

7. Italics supplied

8. W.I.A. 1967, Schedule I, section 4 (3) b.

9. When the island of Anguilla is rejected the associated statehood of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla in February 1967 and proclaimed secession from that three-island combination, the Government the Associated State (in St. Kitts) appealed to the British Government for armed intervention, but the U.K. reply was to the effect that the matter related neither to external affairs nor to defence, but was exclusively one of an internal nature. However, on the 19th of March 1969 the U.K. landed troops at Anguilla. It was not clear whether this action was legally qualified by the intervening power as a measure falling within the reserved domain of defence or as an application of Para. 7 of the Heads of Agreement, which states that U.K. troops can only be introduced within the territory of the Associated State for purposes other than defence at the request of the Government of the Associated State. Compare Broderick, op.cit. p. 384. For the role played by the fifth Heads of Government Conference with regard to the British action, see Yves, Collart, “Regional Conflict Resolution in the Commenwealth Caribbean” (pp. 184 and 185)Google Scholar in: Regionalism and the Commonwealth Caribbean, edited by Roy, Preiswerk, Institute of International relations, University of the West Indies, Trinidad 1969.Google Scholar

10. Article 32.2 is cited below, on p. 65.

11. Compare below, pp. 59–61, where the same problem of estoppel is discussed in relation to the Associated States powers in the field of external affairs.

12. As “Associated Members” of the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America, however, the Associated States can be admitted under this delegation, and that in the form of a collective Associated Membership; see the U.N. Interoffice Memorandum of October 18, 1967; from: Blaine Sloan, Director General Legal Division, Office of Legal Affairs, to: Mr. Richard Paw U, Chief Regional Commissions Section, Economic and Social Council Secretariat, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Subject: Relationship between ECLA and the West Indies Associated States –no symbol number. See also: U.N.-ECLA: PR/1/3–52 of June 13, 1967. The official admission of the Associated States (and of Montserrat) “as a single associate member of the Commission” was effected by Resolution 283 (AC.61) of the “Committee of the Whole of the Economic Commission for Latin America” on April 23, 1968 (see U.N.-E/4499; E/CN.12/AC. 61/14/Rev. 1).

13. Aid agreements, the Despatch provides, can only be concluded with members of the British Commonwealth, with the United States and with an international organization (shortly perhaps the Common Market? ) of which the United Kingdom is a member.

14. Compare supra p. 57 and infra pp. 59 and 61.

15. In reply to questions by M.P.'s when the W.I.A. was under discussion, the British Government stated “that customs were matters exclusively for local bodies and as such were not within the ambit of the reserved external affairs power of the Government”. See Broderick, op cit. p. 378, referring to: House of Lords, Hansard, February 3–9, 1967, no. 645 col. 1504.

16. Article 2 in conjunction with Article 4(3) Schedule I, W.I.A. 1967.

17. Op. cit. p. 395

18. Op. cit. p. 396.

19. An essential difference between the legal status of the Montserrat colony and that of each of the Associated States is that the colony, if it seeks to acquire independence, is dependent on the United Kingdom, whereas the Associated States have in this respect the decision in their own hands. Under the W.I.A. (Articles 10 and 11, and Schedule 2) an Associated State acquires independence if, first, two-thirds of the members of the legislature and, subsequently, two-thirds of those who cast their votes at a Referendum to this effect express their wish to become independent. The Referendum is not prescribed by the Act if an independent Country of the Commonwealth Caribbean establishes some type of federation or union with the formerly Associated State immediately after the severance of formal ties with the U.K., and that in such a way that the new government of the new federation or union becomes “responsible” for the defence and external affairs of the previously Associated State.”(see Schedule 2, paragraph 4).

In this context it may be useful to quote Article 35(1) of the Carifta agreement: “If a Member Territory, upon becoming a sovereign state recognized internationally, intimates its willingness to continue to participate in this Agreement, then, notwithstanding its having become such a state this Agreement shall continue to have effect in relation to it”.

20. The text of the Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Development Bank is published as a Schedule annexed to Act No. 43–1969 of Jamaica, dated 19 December 1969 (“An Act to Provide for the Membership of Jamaica in the Caribbean Development Bank”), printed by the Government Printer, Duke Street, Kingston, Jamaica.

21. Members of this Bank are: the Carifta Territories, plus the Bahamas, British Honduras, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands (as “Regional States and Territories”) and Canada and the United Kingdom (as “Non-Regional States”). For a critical appraisal of the agreement establishing the Bank, see Fitzgerald, Francis, “The Caribbean Development Bank” in: Regionalism and the Commonwealth Caribbean, edited by Roy, Preiswerk-Institute of International Relations, University of the West Indies, Trinidad 1969.Google Scholar

22. Article 63 provides for a current procedure for “Ratification Acceptance, Accession and Acquisition of Membership.”

23. Theoretically other constructions are also possible and the given presumption is of a practical nature. The Jamaican newspaper “The Daily Gleaner” of April 16, 1970 mentioned that the Heads of Governments Conference meeting at Kingston, Jamaica (see the next note), had adopted a report of the Carifta Council which suggested that the Carifta Territories adopt a “common approach” with regard to association with the Common Market.

24. This Conference, of which more in section 4, is an annual meeting of the Prime Ministers of all “Commonwealth Caribbean Territories” at which all common problems can be dealt with. The sixth Heads of Government Conference was held at Kingston, Jamaica, from April 12 to 17, 1970; the agenda included, among other items, association with the Common Market.

25. See for this convention e.g. International Organization and Integration, edited by van Panhuys, H.F., Brinkhorst, L.J., Maas, H.H. and van Leeuwen-Boomkamp, M. –Sijthoff, Leyden, 1968, pp. 998–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also in 420 U.N.T.S. p. 109.

26. But see below pp. 66, 67, 68.

27. Agreement creating an Association between the Member States of the European Free Trade Association and the Republic of Finland, printed in Van Panhuys, et al. , International Organization and Integration, pp. 1014–1017.Google Scholar

28. Van Panhuys, et al. International Organization and Integration, p. 1013.Google Scholar

29. The quotation marks due before “seek” were lacking in the document consulted.

30. Italics supplied by the “Officials”.

31. See above p. 65.

32. St. Vincent did not acquire “Associated Statehood” until 1969.

33. Another example. The “harmonization of fiscal incentives” is a subject dealt with in Carifta Article 23. The Article grants to the Council (of Ministers) the most extended powers to bring about studies, regulations and even treaty revisions. The H.G.C., however, has not left this matter to the care of the Council. The Secretary General declared in Press Release No. 1/1970: “the Harmonization of Fiscal Incentives … was studied by the U.N. –ECLA on the mandate of the Heads of Governments of Commonwealth Caribbean Countries.”

34. This Memorandum is partly reproduced in Documents On International Relations In The Caribbean (see supra n. 6)), pp. 460–462. The passages cited below are from this source.

35. The Minister of West Indian Affairs of Trinidad and Tobago styles the Conference as “an institution”; “Today, this Conference is an institution comprising all Commonwealth Caribbean Governments, inclusive of the Bahamas and Belize (British-Honduras).” –the Hon. Kamaluddin Mohammed, Minister of West Indian Affairs, “Caribbean Integration”, Government of Trinidad and Tobago, 5th April, 1969, p. 8

36. This conclusion was orally confirmed at the Secretariat.

37. Such was inter alia the case when the H.G.C. decided in 1970 that the Oils and Fats' Agreement should be included in the Carifta Agreement.