Dutch govt pours cold water on new dispute regulation proposal

THE HAGUE--So much for IPKO. At the conclusion of the Interparliamentary Kingdom Consultations (IPKO), attention quickly shifted to the Dutch government’s newly published response to last year’s Council of State advice marking the seventieth anniversary of the Charter for the Kingdom in which a functioning dispute regulation was described as essential to rebuild trust within the Kingdom and to safeguard equality among its four countries.

While the delegations at IPKO arrived at a new proposal for dispute regulation, the response makes clear that the Dutch Cabinet prefers to revive the earlier draft Kingdom Disputes Act (Rijkswet geschillenregeling Koninkrijk) as the path toward implementing a dispute settlement mechanism, as already required under Article 12a of the Charter but never enacted. This earlier, unilateral framework, will be viewed as dead-on-arrival as it was rejected by the islands before and more than likely will be again.

Especially frustrating to the islands is the fact that they presented their opinions as requested prior to IPKO. The Dutch government dispatched their after IPKO had concluded.  

The Council of State had strongly urged that a functioning dispute regulation is essential to rebuild trust within the Kingdom and to safeguard equality among its four countries. It warned that the absence of such a mechanism has long fueled mistrust and unnecessarily escalated political disagreements. While the Cabinet acknowledges this concern, it draws a distinction between legal and political disputes. According to the Cabinet, most Kingdom conflicts are hybrid in nature, and binding rulings by a judicial body on political questions would be inappropriate.

Instead, the government supports reviving the earlier draft law, which offers a structured framework where disputes are first handled through dialogue and negotiation, supplemented by independent advice. Only strictly legal questions could result in binding rulings, while political aspects would remain with the governments and parliaments. In the Cabinet’s view, this represents the most workable and realistic way to fulfill the Charter’s requirement without transferring sensitive political questions to a court-like body.

The Council of State’s advice also addressed other long-standing issues in Kingdom relations. On consensus Kingdom laws, it recommended clear procedures for adoption and termination to ensure equal participation of all partners. The Cabinet endorsed this and proposed that the four prime ministers jointly adopt Guidelines for Consensus Legislation to formalize such procedures.

On the democratic deficit, the Cabinet acknowledged concerns but rejected both expanded voting rights in Dutch parliamentary elections for Caribbean nationals and the creation of a separate Kingdom Parliament. Instead, it suggested strengthening the roles of Caribbean special delegates in The Hague and enhancing the position of plenipotentiary ministers in the Kingdom Council of Ministers.

‍