CONFIDENTIAL
achie by inducing the PRC to accede to the relevant
convention, and modifying their application as between the
PRC and Hong Kong by bilateral agreement. But this is
somewhat cumbersome.
Moreover the PRC may not wish to
accede and existing members may not wish to accept their
accession. It would appear to be simpler to incorporate
the main elements of the conventions, modified as
described above, into a free-standing bilateral agreement.
Such an agreement would be likely to be necessary even if
neither, HMG nor the Hong Kong Government accepted any
liability, to establish Hong King rights to compensation
from the PRC.
Conclusions
Compelle any
or legal reason why HMG showed 6. There is no logical necessary for HMG-to assume any
third party liability in respect of the Guangdong project
beyond those which it already has under international
convention and which arise solely from the provision of
fuel. To the extent that HMG might put risk capital,
it would thereby accept some liability, but this would be
limited to the value of its investment. But the Guangdong
project is essentially a joint venture, and the PRC is
likely to insist on shared liability as part of the price
for preferring supplies from the UK. If this price has to
be paid we should aim to get the PRC to accept:
(a) that the operating company should have strict liability
up to an agreed limit:
(b)
be liable;
British contractors should not
that the PRC Government should accept all residual
liability with the PRC. In return, no claim would be
permissable against the PRC Government in respect of
damage in Hong Kong.
CONFIDENTIAL