Wescot-Williams urges four-country talks after Dutch Cabinet rejects IPKO dispute regulation
.jpg)
GREAT BAY--Chairlady of Parliament MP Sarah Wescot-Williams responded to the Dutch Cabinet’s newly published position on a Kingdom dispute regulation, calling for an immediate meeting of the four countries to agree next steps before the next IPKO in February 2026. On Thursday there were also new developments from The Hague, where the outgoing Dutch government has expressed reservations about several Council of State recommendations intended to strengthen relations within the Kingdom.
In her press briefing, MP Wescot-Williams said the Kingdom needs a workable dispute mechanism that meets the Charter’s requirement under Article 12a. She noted that the parliamentary delegations at the recently held IPKO arrived at a new joint proposal, yet the Dutch Cabinet now prefers to revive an earlier draft Kingdom Disputes Act that the islands rejected in the past. She described this reversal as inconsistent with the Dutch government’s May 23 statement indicating that a joint position would be developed with the countries.
“The dispute regulation is not a choice, it is according to the Charter, it should have been there,” MP Wescot-Williams said. She added that the first step now is coordinated political consultation among the four countries, so positions are aligned before any legal drafting proceeds. She emphasized that this meeting is urgent, since the Dutch response appeared after IPKO, while the islands submitted their views in advance as requested.
Wescot-Williams recalled that delays among the Caribbean countries were resolved prior to IPKO; elections had slowed coordination, but Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten reached agreement on a common draft. Consistent with Kingdom procedures, Aruba’s Prime Minister was positioned to table the joint text because the relevant Plenipotentiary minister was not present in the Kingdom Council of Ministers at the time.
In the meantime, the outgoing Dutch government has signaled reservations about a series of Council of State recommendations, including expanding voting rights for Caribbean residents, introducing a formal dispute settlement mechanism, and enhancing cooperation in education and poverty reduction.
While acknowledging certain advantages, the Cabinet cited limited democratic influence, practical obstacles in implementation, and concerns about separating legal from policy disputes. The Cabinet indicated it will seek consultations with Curaçao, Aruba, and Sint Maarten to formulate a joint response to the Council of State’s advice.
The MP re-confirmed that she has written the Prime Minister to clarify the Cabinet’s departure from the joint approach announced in May, and to ask whether any related correspondence has been received by government. She also stated that she is exploring what legal recourse may exist for the failure to implement the Charter’s dispute regulation mandate. “We will not lose focus,” she said. “Parliaments must keep this at the forefront, and the countries must meet and determine how far to go.”
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 Dutch 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.
Join Our Community Today
Subscribe to our mailing list to be the first to receive
breaking news, updates, and more.
