Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Regional Integration in the Caribbean: CARICOM and the Caribbean Court of Justice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2018

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 9))

  • 989 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter introduces readers to Caribbean integration law, through an examination of both the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and its regional court, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). After briefly situating CARICOM in its historical and economic context, the chapter reviews the CCJ’s development of regional integration law through its original jurisdiction (treaty-interpreting) jurisprudence. Most of the seminal original jurisdiction cases of the Court are briefly, but critically assessed, in a roughly chronological order. The chapter concludes by drawing comparisons between some of the Caribbean developments, on the one hand, and their parallels in the European Union, on the other. The chapter concludes by offering some final observations on what may appear to be a recent, ‘cooling off’ period for the court.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    CARICOM was created by the Treaty Establishing the Caribbean Community (adopted 4 Jul 1973, in force 1 Aug 1973) 949 UNTS 17 [“Treaty”]. This was replaced by the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas Establishing the Caribbean Community, Including the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (adopted 5 Jul 2001, in force 1 Jan 2006) 2259 UNTS 293 [“RTC”]. For further information on the process leading to the entry into force of the RTC, and the regime it creates, see Berry (2014), pp. 8–67.

  2. 2.

    The CCJ was created by the Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice (adopted 14 Feb 2001, entered into force 23 Jul 2002) 2255 UNTS 319 [“Agreement”]. The Court was inaugurated on April 16, 2005. See generally, Berry (2014), pp. 383–436.

  3. 3.

    For historical overviews see e.g. Berry (2014), pp. 17–31; Müllerleile (1996), pp. 31–75.

  4. 4.

    See e.g. Springer (1962), pp. 3–8.

  5. 5.

    For discussions of the Federation see Springer (1962); Müllerleile (1996), pp. 31–75.

  6. 6.

    Müllerleile (1996), p. 41.

  7. 7.

    See the Treaty. For commentary see Geiser et al. (1976).

  8. 8.

    For an overview of data on CARICOM Members see e.g. Berry (2018).

  9. 9.

    Berry (2018).

  10. 10.

    See generally, Berry (2014), pp. 247–311.

  11. 11.

    See RTC, chapters 3 and 5.

  12. 12.

    See RTC Articles 1, 87, 88, 90 and 91.

  13. 13.

    See Article XXV of the Agreement.

  14. 14.

    See RTC Articles 211 (compulsory and exclusive), 213 (original, meaning disputes may be filed directly before the CCJ without reference to a prior judicial body), 215 (binding), 216 (compulsory), 219 (final, by implication), 221 (legally binding precedents). See also Agreement Articles III(2) (final), XII (exclusive), XV (binding), XVI (compulsory), XXI (judgments to constitute legally binding precedents).

  15. 15.

    See Trinidad Cement Ltd and TCL Guyana Inc v Guyana [2009] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave) paras [25]–[27].

  16. 16.

    See Article 19(3)(b) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, both reproduced in the Consolidated Versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ 2016 C 202, as available through http://eur-lex.europa.eu/collection/eu-law/treaties.html (20 June 2018).

  17. 17.

    All of the CCJ’s original jurisdiction cases are available through the Court’s website: http://www.ccj.org/judgments-proceedings/original-jurisdiction-judgments (25 June 2018). In citing these cases the Court’s neutral citation numbers have been used. An additional, descriptive term in parentheses has also been included at the end of each citation to indicate the stage of the case which the judgment concludes.

  18. 18.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 5 (OJ) (merits), paras [5]–[6] and [9].

  19. 19.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2008] CCJ 1 (OJ) (interim order). See also Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave), paras [6]–[8].

  20. 20.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave).

  21. 21.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave), para [34].

  22. 22.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave), paras [10]–[13]; Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, in force 27 Jan 1980) 1155 UNTS 331.

  23. 23.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave), para [13].

  24. 24.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave), para [13].

  25. 25.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave), para [18].

  26. 26.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave), paras [25]–[28].

  27. 27.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave), paras [28] and [29].

  28. 28.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave), para [33].

  29. 29.

    See Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave), para [38].

  30. 30.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave), paras [38]–[44].

  31. 31.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 5 (OJ) (merits), para [18].

  32. 32.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 5 (OJ) (merits), para [23].

  33. 33.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 5 (OJ) (merits), para [27] [citing Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others v Italian State [1991] ECR I-5357 (ECJ)]. See also ibid paras [24]–[26].

  34. 34.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 5 (OJ) (merits), paras [33]–[34].

  35. 35.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 5 (OJ) (merits), paras [35]–[40].

  36. 36.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 5 (OJ) (merits), para [43].

  37. 37.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2009] CCJ 6 (OJ) (stay of execution).

  38. 38.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2010] CCJ 1 (OJ) (contempt).

  39. 39.

    Trinidad Cement Limited and TCL Guyana Inc v. Guyana [2010] CCJ 1 (OJ) (contempt), para [25].

  40. 40.

    Rudisa Beverages & Juices NV v Guyana [2014] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits).

  41. 41.

    For comparisons of the more difficult experiences of other regional tribunals see e.g. Madsen et al. (2018) and Alter et al. (2016).

  42. 42.

    Trinidad Cement Limited v. CARICOM [2009] CCJ 2 (OJ) (special leave), [2009] CCJ 4 (OJ) (merits).

  43. 43.

    Trinidad Cement Limited v. CARICOM [2009] CCJ 2 (OJ) (special leave), para [32].

  44. 44.

    Trinidad Cement Limited v. CARICOM [2009] CCJ 2 (OJ) (special leave), para [36].

  45. 45.

    See Trinidad Cement Limited v. CARICOM [2009] CCJ 2 (OJ) (special leave), paras [38] and [41].

  46. 46.

    Trinidad Cement Limited v. CARICOM [2009] CCJ 2 (OJ) (special leave), para [43].

  47. 47.

    Trinidad Cement Limited v. CARICOM [2009] CCJ 2 (OJ) (special leave), paras [52] and [55]–[56].

  48. 48.

    Trinidad Cement Limited v. CARICOM [2009] CCJ 2 (OJ) (special leave), para [68].

  49. 49.

    Johnson v. CARICAD [2009] CCJ 3 (OJ) (special leave), para [3].

  50. 50.

    Johnson v. CARICAD [2009] CCJ 3 (OJ) (special leave), paras [14]–[15].

  51. 51.

    Johnson v. CARICAD [2009] CCJ 3 (OJ) (special leave), para [19].

  52. 52.

    Hummingbird Rice Mills v. Suriname and CARICOM [2011] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave), [2012] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), [2012] CCJ 2 (OJ) (costs).

  53. 53.

    Hummingbird Rice Mills v. Suriname and CARICOM [2012] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), para [24].

  54. 54.

    Hummingbird Rice Mills v. Suriname and CARICOM [2012] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), paras [27]–[28].

  55. 55.

    Hummingbird Rice Mills v. Suriname and CARICOM [2012] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), para [38].

  56. 56.

    Hummingbird Rice Mills v. Suriname and CARICOM [2012] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), para [38].

  57. 57.

    Hummingbird Rice Mills v. Suriname and CARICOM [2012] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), paras [46]–[47].

  58. 58.

    Hummingbird Rice Mills v. Suriname and CARICOM [2012] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), paras [47]–[48].

  59. 59.

    Hummingbird Rice Mills v. Suriname and CARICOM [2012] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), para [49].

  60. 60.

    Hummingbird Rice Mills v. Suriname and CARICOM [2012] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), para [50].

  61. 61.

    For more on stare decisis and the CCJ see Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2012] CCJ 3 (OJ) (intervention).

  62. 62.

    Trinidad Cement Limited v The Competition Commission [2012] CCJ 4 (OJ) (merits).

  63. 63.

    Trinidad Cement Limited v The Competition Commission [2012] CCJ 4 (OJ) (merits), para [3].

  64. 64.

    Trinidad Cement Limited v The Competition Commission [2012] CCJ 4 (OJ) (merits), para [10].

  65. 65.

    Trinidad Cement Limited v The Competition Commission [2012] CCJ 4 (OJ) (merits), paras [11]–[13].

  66. 66.

    Trinidad Cement Limited v The Competition Commission [2012] CCJ 4 (OJ) (merits), paras [29]–[37].

  67. 67.

    Trinidad Cement Limited v The Competition Commission [2012] CCJ 4 (OJ) (merits), para [37].

  68. 68.

    Trinidad Cement Limited v The Competition Commission [2012] CCJ 4 (OJ) (merits), para [25].

  69. 69.

    Trinidad Cement Limited v The Competition Commission [2012] CCJ 4 (OJ) (merits), para [26].

  70. 70.

    Trinidad Cement Limited v The Competition Commission [2012] CCJ 4 (OJ) (merits), para [25].

  71. 71.

    Trinidad Cement Limited v The Competition Commission [2012] CCJ 4 (OJ) (merits), paras [45]–[48].

  72. 72.

    Trinidad Cement Limited v The Competition Commission [2012] CCJ 4 (OJ) (merits), para [45]. For a similar statement about the Court’s role see Rudisa Beverages & Juices NV v Guyana [2014] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), para [27].

  73. 73.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2012] CCJ 3 (OJ) (intervention), [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits).

  74. 74.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), para [2].

  75. 75.

    See Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), paras [3]–[4].

  76. 76.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2012] CCJ 3 (OJ) (intervention), para [2].

  77. 77.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2012] CCJ 3 (OJ) (intervention), paras [35]–[36].

  78. 78.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2012] CCJ 3 (OJ) (intervention), paras [33]–[34].

  79. 79.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2012] CCJ 3 (OJ) (intervention), paras [8]–[9].

  80. 80.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2012] CCJ 3 (OJ) (intervention), para [20].

  81. 81.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits).

  82. 82.

    Article 240(1) of the RTC reads: “Decisions of competent Organs taken under this Treaty shall be subject to the relevant constitutional procedures of the Member States before creating legally binding rights and obligations for nationals of such States.”

  83. 83.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), paras [51]–[52] and [55].

  84. 84.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), para [10].

  85. 85.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), para [10].

  86. 86.

    As reproduced in Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), at para [43] (emphasis in the original).

  87. 87.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), para [45].

  88. 88.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), para [47].

  89. 89.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), paras [58]–[61].

  90. 90.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), para [62].

  91. 91.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), para [62].

  92. 92.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), para [63].

  93. 93.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), paras [65] and [67].

  94. 94.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), para [70].

  95. 95.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), para [71].

  96. 96.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), paras [73]–[74].

  97. 97.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), para [75].

  98. 98.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), para [76].

  99. 99.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), paras [77]–[83].

  100. 100.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), paras [88]–[92].

  101. 101.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), paras [94]–[100].

  102. 102.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), para [94].

  103. 103.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), para [69] (emphasis added).

  104. 104.

    CJEU, Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585 and CJEU, Case 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze v Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629.

  105. 105.

    Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ) (merits), para [80] (emphasis added but citations omitted).

  106. 106.

    Compare, for example, CJEU, Case 14/83 Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891, para [26], or CJEU, Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Bernhard Pfeiffer v. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz [2004] ECR I-8835.

  107. 107.

    Maurice Tomlinson v Belize and Trinidad and Tobago [2014] CCJ 2 (OJ) (special leave) [2016] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits).

  108. 108.

    Maurice Tomlinson v Belize and Trinidad and Tobago [2016] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), paras [30]–[38] (Belize) and [39]–[55] (Trinidad).

  109. 109.

    In Maurice Tomlinson v Belize and Trinidad and Tobago [2016] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), at para [56] the CCJ explained:

    [T]he Court wishes to state that it is not to be taken as condoning the indefinite retention on the statute book of a national law which in appearance seems to conflict with obligations under Community law. Member States should ensure that national laws, subsidiary legislation and administrative practices are transparent in their support of the free movement of all CARICOM nationals. This is a necessary aspect of the rule of law, which, as the Court has indicated, is the basic notion underlying the Caribbean Community. In principle, national legislation should expressly be harmonized with Community law. Any permanent or indefinite discord between administrative practices and the literal reading of legislation is undesirable as the rule of law requires clarity and certainty especially for nationals of other Member States who are to be guided by such legislation and practice. [Citations omitted].

  110. 110.

    Rudisa Beverages & Juices NV v Guyana [2014] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits).

  111. 111.

    Rudisa Beverages & Juices NV v Guyana [2014] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), para [7].

  112. 112.

    Rudisa Beverages & Juices NV v Guyana [2014] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), para [17].

  113. 113.

    Rudisa Beverages & Juices NV v Guyana [2014] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), paras [17]–[18].

  114. 114.

    Rudisa Beverages & Juices NV v Guyana [2014] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), paras [19]–[20].

  115. 115.

    Rudisa Beverages & Juices NV v Guyana [2014] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), para [20].

  116. 116.

    Rudisa Beverages & Juices NV v Guyana [2014] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), para [22]. Note that the definition of “import duties” is defined in Article 1 of the RTC as including “any other charges of equivalent effect”.

  117. 117.

    Rudisa Beverages & Juices NV v Guyana [2014] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), para [27].

  118. 118.

    Rudisa Beverages & Juices NV v Guyana [2014] CCJ 1 (OJ) (merits), para [39].

  119. 119.

    Guyana’s difficulties in paying the total of US $7.72 million in reimbursement and interest ordered by the Court led to negotiations between the parties and an eventual mutually-agreed settlement for US $6.22 million. See e.g., ‘Gov’t still paying off balance on RUDISA settlement’, Stabroek News, February 18, 2016, available at http://www.stabroeknews.com/2016/news/stories/02/18/govt-still-paying-off-balance-rudisa-settlement/ (24 June 2018).

  120. 120.

    SM Jaleel & Co Ltd & Guyana Beverages Inc v Guyana [2017] CCJ 2 (OJ) (merits).

  121. 121.

    SM Jaleel & Co Ltd & Guyana Beverages Inc v Guyana [2017] CCJ 2 (OJ) (merits), paras [1]–[5].

  122. 122.

    SM Jaleel & Co Ltd & Guyana Beverages Inc v Guyana [2017] CCJ 2 (OJ) (merits), para [5].

  123. 123.

    SM Jaleel & Co Ltd & Guyana Beverages Inc v Guyana [2017] CCJ 2 (OJ) (merits), paras [14]–[37].

  124. 124.

    Cf SM Jaleel & Co Ltd & Guyana Beverages Inc v Guyana [2017] CCJ 2 (OJ) (merits), paras [38]–[39].

  125. 125.

    SM Jaleel & Co Ltd & Guyana Beverages Inc v Guyana [2017] CCJ 2 (OJ) (merits), paras [40]–[55].

  126. 126.

    SM Jaleel & Co Ltd & Guyana Beverages Inc v Guyana [2017] CCJ 2 (OJ) (merits), para [56].

  127. 127.

    SM Jaleel & Co Ltd & Guyana Beverages Inc v Guyana [2017] CCJ 2 (OJ) (merits), para [58].

  128. 128.

    For an example of prospective application of a decision by the ECJ, one which would have had far-reaching economic consequences, see e.g., CJEU, Case 43/75 Defrenne v SABENA [1976] ECR 455.

  129. 129.

    Cabral Douglas v Dominica [2017] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave).

  130. 130.

    Cabral Douglas v Dominica [2017] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave), para [35].

  131. 131.

    Cabral Douglas v Dominica [2017] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave), paras [20]–[22]. In this regard, however, it should be noted that the Court analysis of Article 36(4)(b) of the RTC could be argued as being too restrictive. This provision protects the supply of services “(b) in the territory of one Member State to the service consumer of another Member State.” Given that the applicant was organising (in the Court’s own words in ibid para [1]), “an international concert to mark the opening of the annual carnival in Portsmouth,” it would appear likely that some of the concert goers would have been from other CARICOM Members.

  132. 132.

    Cabral Douglas v Dominica [2017] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave), para [28].

  133. 133.

    See RTC Article 211 (compulsory and exclusive) and Agreement Article XII (exclusive).

  134. 134.

    See Trinidad Cement Ltd and TCL Guyana Inc v Guyana [2009] CCJ 1 (OJ) (special leave).

References

  • Alter K, Gathii J, Helfer L (2016) Backlash against international courts in West, East and Southern Africa: causes and consequences. Eur J Int Law 27(2):293–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry D (2014) Caribbean integration law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berry D (2018) Enforcement of regional economic integration in the Caribbean: treaty enforcement by the regional court and regimes for enhanced cooperation. In: Butler P, Lein E, Salim R (eds) Integration and international dispute resolution in small states. The world of small states. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 61–86

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Geiser H, Alleyne P, Gajraj C (1976) Legal problems of Caribbean integration: a study of legal aspects of CARICOM. Sijthoff, Leyden

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen M, Cebulak P, Wiebusch M (2018) Backlash against international courts: explaining the forms and patterns of resistance to international courts. Int J Law Context 14(2):197–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müllerleile C (1996) CARICOM integration: progress and hurdles—a European view. Kingston Publishers, Kingston

    Google Scholar 

  • Springer H (1962) Reflections on the failure of the first West Indian Federation, Occasional Papers in International Affairs No 4. Harvard University Center for International Affairs, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Bridgetown, Barbados

    David S. Berry

Authors
  1. David S. Berry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David S. Berry .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Marc Bungenberg

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  3. School of Law, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Christian J. Tams

  4. Competition and Regulation Institute, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

  5. Faculty of Law and Criminal Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Andreas R. Ziegler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Berry, D.S. (2018). Regional Integration in the Caribbean: CARICOM and the Caribbean Court of Justice. In: Bungenberg, M., Krajewski, M., Tams, C.J., Terhechte, J.P., Ziegler, A.R. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2018. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2018_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2018_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97751-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97752-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation