Importing government services, so to speak, is not the same as granting sovereign status of Mauritius within this zone. It's just leveraging the credibility of their courts to help them solve problems in their judicial system.
It is possible that a similar arrangement could be tried in a place like Haiti. Honduras also has this problem. Many developing countries have the problem of lack of clarity in title. If people fear that the decisions about ownership are influenced by bribes, they will be very hesitant about allowing the judicial system to come to a final decision, and they'll be very fearful about attempts to resolve these questions. Delay might be safer than a resolution.
The key in Haiti, as well as in Honduras, is for it to be a body that is trusted and clearly neutral—honest and not influenced by any of the affected parties.
The other challenge is that in Honduras people will voluntarily opt into this arrangement. In Haiti, if you impose this as the dispute resolution mechanism for all the land in an area you want to try to use for industrialization, many people might become emotionally very opposed to the process because it's imposed on them and they feel it's illegitimate.
It's a very important point that the same person who would voluntarily move to Canada, if they were free to do so, might violently resist an attempt to impose Canadian systems on his or her community. It's just the reality of the way humans work that a choice to opt in has a moral significance that completely changes things, compared to the imposition of something against one's will. My fear about Haiti is that you'd have problems with legitimacy and violent opposition if it were imposed.