}
:
5.
The doctrine you refer to in paragraph 3 of your letter is that "colonial" postal and money order agreements are potentially registrable with the United Nations irrespective of whether they are expressed between:
(2)
(b)
the postal administration of an overseas territory and the postal administration of a sovereign State; or
the postal administration of an overseas territory and the postal administration of an overseas territory of a sovereign State.
This view has been consistently held since 1955 when we registered a number of such postal and money order agreements. There is no new doctrine as far as we can recall, it was the inclusion of a Postal Agreement in our Treaty series for 1967 which David Anderson commented upon to you at the time.
6. Paragraphs 3 to 5 above deal only with the question of capacity. Needless to say, in order that instruments may be considered registrable they must also satisfy the requirements of form and substance.
7.
Turning to the four agreements the State Department have submitted for registration, we agree that all of them may be registered, for the following reasons:
(1)
(2)
Arrangement between the United States of America and Hong Kong relating to trade in cotton textiles, effected by an exchange of letters dated at Hong Kong on 7 and 16 November 1964. (TIAS 5872)
Agreement between the United States of America and Hong Kong relating to trade in cotton textiles, effected
by an exchange of notes dated at Hong Kong on 26 August 1966 (TIAS 6088)
These items are considered to be "mutually acceptable arrangements" of the kind provided for in Article 4 of the GATT Long-term Arrangements regarding International Trade in Cotton Textiles, which extends to Hong Kong. We are prepared to accept that the two United States/Hong Kong bilaterals are régistrable in form and substance. capacity, the Government of Hong Kong did not seek a specific authority from Her Majesty's Government to conclude the agreements but
2.
As regards
↓
1