RESTRICTED
refers only to governments, which in practice means governments of a States. It is unlikely that the notion of government would be interpreted to include the EEC; or to include the government of a non-sovereign entity (especially in view of the express provision in Article XXXIII for "a government acting on behalf of a separate customs territory possessing full autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial relations and of the other matters provided for in this Agreement"
It is clear, therefore, that the EEC cannot become a contracting party without an amendment to the General Agreement. Clearly the amendment could be framed so as to take account of the special position of Hong Kong. I think Miss Elliott's question in paragraphs 3 and 4 of her letter amounts to: assuming that the General Agreement is amended so that the EEC may accede to it under Article XXXIII either as well as, or instead of, the individual members of the EEC, what would be the position of the United Kingdom's rights and obligations under the General Agreement in respect of the Hong Kong customs territory vis à vis the United Kingdom, the other members of the EEC, and the EEC?
As
7. If the EEC became a contracting party in addition to its Member States, the United Kingdom's rights and obligations in respect of the Hong Kong customs territory would continue vis â vis the other members of the EEC and in addition they would extend to the EEC itself. before, there would be no rights or obligations between the United Kingdom in respect of the Hong Kong customs territory and the United Kingdom in respect of the metropolitan customs territory.
8.
If,
on the other hand, the EEC became a contracting party instead of its members, the position would be more complex. Presumably some arrangement could be made for the United Kingdom to remain a contracting party in respect of the Hong Kong customs territory or to accede in respect of that territory under Article XXIII.
9.
I now turn to the problem raised in paragraphs 5-8 of Miss Elliott's letter. I fully agree with Miss Elliott that the proviso to Article XXIV:1 would not prevent the creation of rights and obligations between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong if Hong Kong were "deemed to be a contracting party" under Article XXVI:5(c). This view is supported by the wording of these provisions and by the practice thereunder. Article XXIV:1 prevents the creation of rights or obligations between the United Kingdom metropolitan customs territory and any other customs territory "in respect of which this Agreement has been accepted under Article XXVI" by the United Kingdom. The Spil Agreement is "accepted under Article XXVI" only under XXVI:5 (a) or (b). By contrast, Article XXVI:5(c) provides that any customs territory in respect of which a contracting party has accepted the Agreement (i.e. under Article XXVI:5 (a) or (b)) may, in certain circumstances, be deemed to be a contracting party. The drafting is perhaps not too happy, but it is clear that being deemed to be a contracting party
RESTRICTED
/under