The Caribbean: Small Caribbean States and the New pax americana
| Published date | 01 January 1999 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025898 |
| Date | 01 January 1999 |
| Pages | 284-287 |
| Author | John Jeremie |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Journal of Financial Crime — Vol. 6 No. 3 — International
INTERNATIONAL
The Caribbean: Small Caribbean States and the
New pax americana
John Jeremie
Two years ago the writer noted that the territories
of the Caribbean,1 while executing MLAT's with
various extra-regional territories,3 had not by and
large embraced global counter-narcotics initiatives.4
The balance has now been decisively and radically
altered. This article attempts an assessment of
some of the more noteworthy current develop-
ments against certain basic norms in international
law.
All Caribbean territories which possess treaty-
making capacity,5 have over the past year or so
concluded counter-drug operations treaties of sub-
stantially uniform character with the US.6 These
treaties have come to be known euphemistically as
'Shipriders' in the Caribbean. Generally speaking,
the treaties cede unprecedented powers to forces of
the US involved in counter-narcotics operations
within the jurisdiction of every Caribbean state. In
practically every case the new treaty arrangements
radically extend the scope of the privileges and
immunities typically enjoyed by visiting forces
under customary international law. While the mis-
chief intended to be caught by the new treaty
arrangements is unmistakable, the radical nature of
the core concepts is cause for great concern. To
use a phrase from the immediate film culture, US
policy in the region now appears to be premised
on the view that the Caribbean drug trade is a
'clear and present danger' to the national security
of the US. There is a supreme danger that in
attempting to provide a cure at all costs the wider
but significant central questions involved in
fashioning a pax
americana
based on 'Shiprider'
have done incalculable damage to the independent
treaty-making integrity of Caribbean states.
Treaties between and among sovereign nations
must contain certain minimum criteria. The cen-
tral question is this: to what extent does 'Shiprider'
when tested on the core objective criteria which
define fairness; specifically reciprocity, equity and
precedent, reflect a sensible and balanced approach
to the problems posed by the regional trade in
narcotics?
THE ANCIEN REGIME
Speaking as a general rule and in the absence of an
express treaty enacted to cover the ground, the
position with respect to the treatment of foreign
forces within the borders of another state is not
satisfactorily dealt with under customary inter-
national law. In
Reference
re
exemption
of
the
United
States
Forces
from Canadian Criminal Law7 the
Canadian Supreme Court was hopelessly dead-
locked on the question. Duff CJ in a forthright
opinion equated all soldiers, domestic and visiting,
with ordinary citizens. He held that a 'soldier does
not, in virtue of his military character, escape the
jurisdiction of the civil courts'.8 The other mem-
bers of the court expressed contrasting views but
in substance arrived at findings for a qualified
regime of privilege and immunity. Even in the face
of his finding of equivalence of visiting troops with
local soldiers Duff CJ did find that there were
exceptional circumstances in which the host state
would as a matter of comity refuse to act. The
general rule, however, was one of subjection to the
laws of the host. The general consensus, Duff CJ
and perhaps Hudson J apart, appeared to be that an
invitation to visiting forces in the present context
was for a reciprocal purpose and advantage and
that it was at least an implied term of the arrange-
ment that 'corporate immunity of prosecution in
Canadian criminal courts would be extended to
members of the United States forces'.9
In The
Schooner Exchange
v McFadden10 the US
Supreme Court held that a licence ought to be
granted to visiting troops on the basis of an express
or implied licence which was to be implied as a
result of the 'equality, independence and dignity of
Page 284
To continue reading
Request your trial