..
. 323
000323
45.
CONFIDENTIAL
}
I then asked whether it was juridically possible for the U.K. to give Hong Kong de jure and de facto "the
right to act on its own behalf and fulfil its G.A.T.T.
obligations" (Analytical Index) through a declaration under
Article XXVI(5)(c). (The use in this Article of the words
"deemed to be a contracting party" was intended to enable
a territory to which it was applied to be represented
either by a separate delegate or by the delegate of the contracting party which was internationally responsible for that territory). The F.C.O./D.T.I. representatives thought that it was possible, although there was no exact precedent.
Going on, I next asked whether or not, in the circumstances of a declaration under Article XXVI(5)(c), a G.A.T.T. relationship would then automatically come into being between the U.K. and Hong Kong despite the proviso to Article XXIV(1).
The D.T.I. view, expressed by Miss Elliott, was that
Articles XXIV and XXVI could not operate at the same time: when the latter was invoked it superseded the former. But the D.T.I. representatives could not express a definitive
opinion on this point. Laird wondered if the Contracting Parties might not be approached to reconsider the provisions
in question, on the grounds that they appeared no longer to fit the circumstances, at least of Hong Kong (as had been suggested to me by Muir as long ago as 1967). It was agreed that the F.C.0's legal advisers would be consulted on these
points also.
46.
I then raised the second question, 1.e. Hong Kong's 3.T.C. relationship. Drainpained that, as relationships
in the 0.7.0
10 0.5.
here did not depend on C.A.7.4. membership
dated under i A.7.T. NAlv..' and there are
A
尸
1.4, nem ers)
1
i