G.F. 323
0003230
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.0./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when the latter was invoked it superseded the former.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.O's legal advisers would be consulted on these
points also.
46.
I then raised the second question, i.e. Hong Kong's
C.T.C. relationship. I maintained that, as relationships
in the C.T.C. here did not depend on G.A.T.T. membership
(the C.T.A. existed under a G.A.T.T. waiver and there are
/ non-G.A.T.T. members)
CONFIDENTIAL