Search

Since its inauguration in 2005, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has shown itself to be the engine of the regional integration movement. Indeed, the judgments emanating from the court's original jurisdiction have been variously described as contextually relevant, insightful, and even ground-breaking. The court's judgements in the areas of regional trade, the free movement of people and competition policy have buttressed the institution's legitimacy and have placed the court in the league of other reputable international courts, such as the European Court of Justice (ECJ). One of the ways in which the CCJ has distinguished itself in the context of its burgeoning original jurisdiction jurisprudence to date, is through its fulsome embrace of 'general principles of law', such as: proportionality, the duty to state reasons, state liability and the rule of law. This is even in the absence of express Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTC) provisions that articulate these principles. This article addresses the latter principle, namely the rule of law, which is the hallmark of all democratic societies and institutions. In this connection, it examines the CCJ's progressive approach to the rule of law along three taxonomies, as recently articulated by the court itself in Rock Hard Cement v Barbados and The Caribbean Community [2020] CCJ 2 (OJ): (i) as an interpretative tool; (ii) as a procedural lens; and (iii) as a substantive normative principle. After critically examining a range of original jurisdiction decisions, including Trinidad Cement Limited v The Caribbean Community [2009] CCJ 4 (OJ) and Shanique Myrie v Barbados [2013] CCJ 3 (OJ), as well as the implications of these decisions for Caribbean businesses and citizens, it concludes that the CCJ's jurisprudence over the last fifteen years demonstrates in no uncertain terms that the rule of law has emerged as perhaps the most important general principle of CARICOM law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]