If the West Indian States truly want to progress from colonialism to sovereignty, then there must be recognition that their constitution now generates its own authority rather than deriving it from any Westminster model or colonial past. The Westminster system was a system used to make legislation work. Caribbean countries, although many are considered independent, there are also some that have been dependent. The Westminster system arose when these Caribbean countries were colonized. The era of imperialism. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay According to the law, although many of these Caribbean countries are considered "independent", Belle Antoine spoke about how the study of law and legal systems is so diverse and is not separated from its social contexts. This means that despite it being their legal system, it is still influenced by the English. There were two types of laws imposed on colonized Caribbean countries: English statutory law and English common law. These were introduced to introduce an incorporation clause and a mode of proclamation. As mentioned, the imperialist contract played a vital role in colonized countries. With the Westminster system comes a lot of history, legacy and contemporary implications. According to AV Dicey, the Westminster model was a model of dispersed government in which the judiciary sometimes played a very different role. They had a practical impact in The urgency with which the region had to implement counter-terrorism laws (chapter 1 page 6 Caribbean Commonwealth Law and Legal Systems) speaks to the vulnerabilities created in the early years of colonialism and its colonial rule . Sovereignty is defined as supreme power or authority. Between the year 1962 and 1983 many British colonies in the Caribbean gained independence. One of the independent Caribbean countries is the Bahamas. Even though we are considered an independent country, our higher court is still located there United Kingdom (UK), Great Britain - The Privy Council (like other former colonized independent countries, as an independent country, we should have some kind of sovereignty because we got our independence and should no longer respond to it). that had once colonized us. There should be divergence between independent countries and their colonizers. The reception of the law generates uncertainty. It also shows how citizens and officials handle the law. The reception of the law expresses an extension by the British Parliament. According to Professor K. W. Patchett of the West Indies, he said that the British Parliament had lost its legislative power over the independent territories. In this case Lord Diplock, expressed the fact that no matter how independent a country may be, once you were a former British colony, English common law is still incorporated, because it was once in the colony. The question in this case was whether or not the law governing the appellants' interpretation differentiated from the law of the Government of Ceylon, from Roman-Dutch law and whether the matter was governed by English law? Nyali Ltd v AG dealt with transplantation and reception. CASE - Public Counsel v The Fair-Trading Commission, which was a Barbados case CASE - R v Vaughn CASE - Campbell v Hall, these were Jamaican cases and the crown treated Jamaica as a stable country when dealing with these cases and was accepted by the Supreme Court. Jamaica was one of many Caribbean colonized countries to be conquered. He held that, as a colony and partially self-governing colony, Jamaica continued to be bound to thedevelopment of law and equity from stare decisis. (page 79 beautiful anotoine). However, this only happened until the country became independent. This came from an English statute in Jamaica in the case of R v Commissioner of Police and others, ex p Cephas (No 2) JAMAICA- The virtue of the exercise of the Crown's prerogatives is said to have been the way in which the common law was introduced into Jamaica. The Westminster system was considered the “independence deal” which had little variation for most territories. These were the change of property rights in the Jamaican constitution, the two-party system, the preservation of the law (symbols and institutions) of this colonial state and the alliance with the Western powers. It is clear that the model of the constitution of many independent countries was provided by the colonial office. The Jamaican Constitution of Jamaica begins as "In the Court of Buckingham Palace", followed by eight pages of medieval-sounding language. As independent countries we should be able to make and enforce our own rules. We are no longer a colonized country, so in order to reach the level of sovereignty we should stop being so dependent on the crown. What is hard to avoid is the fact that our highest court (the Privy Council) is in England. This leaves us with the question: What should the country do to achieve sovereignty, if possible? These laws derived from the Westminster system should be completely curtailed. It seems that even though these countries are independent, it's almost as if they admire the structure of Westminster. Prime Minister Dr Eric WIlliams of Trinidad and Tobago stated that "if the parliamentary system is good enough for England, it is good enough for us". we are at a historical turning point where change is needed and if we needed that much dependence, we should have remained completely, under the British and not fought for our independence. Above all, the unity of the public/society would be considered sovereign. The ability to stand up for people and what is right, including our neighbors, protecting them by any means necessary. Sovereignty also begins in the minds of the people. It is obvious that the old way of thinking is opposed to regionalism. We should be able to share selected attributes of constitutional sovereignty with our regional partners. This determines a sort of substantial sovereignty for each country. We must be able to free ourselves from those who have colonized us and create the society we wish to have. However, CLR James once stated that one must opt ​​for the colonial system or democracy because both cannot co-exist. “for until a local legislature is formed, difficulties will be encountered in making statutory changes” (FOOTNOTE – Jamaican Law Journal 18). Parliamentary sovereignty means that parliament can make or annul laws and no other institution can annul them as the crown can now. Parliamentary sovereignty implies the subordination of the judiciary. This is where the separation of powers comes into play. Judges do not make laws but are able to create precedents. We should stick to statutory law and not common law. Some aspects of English common law were preserved for these colonies which are independent and dependent on legislation. After independence, most former colonized states established their own courts of appeal and retained appeals to the Privy Council, which was then their superior court. English common law introduced ways to which formerly colonized countries had yet to adapt. This has been seen in family law (Henry v Henry). This was a case involving a: 10.1080/14662043.2014.993162