M
149)
нказ
187A
CONFIDENTIAL
RR HONG KONG
GRS 325
CONFIDENTIAL
FM FCO 252008Z MAR 81
TO ROUTINE HONG KONG (FOR GOVERNOR)
TELEGRAM NUMBER 290 OF 25 MARCH
3399
Акк
340
RECEIVED IN RESISTRY NO. 51 2 1 APR 1981
INDEX
PA
REGISTRY
Action Taken
ло
llas 815
INFO ROUTINE PEKING
YOUR TEL NO 296: NATIONALITY BILL
1. IT IS CORRECT TO SAY THAT CBDTS WILL REMAIN BRITISH (OR UK)
NATIONALS AS WILL FOR EXAMPLE BRITISH CITIZENS AND OTHER
CATEGORIES. 'NATIONAL' IS AN INTERNATIONAL LAW TERM WHICH
DENOTES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL AND THE STATE
WHICH IS PRIMA FACIE ENTITLED TO REPRESENT HIS INTERESTS IN THE
SPHERE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION, ON THE OTHER HAND, MAY SUBDIVIDE NATIONALS INTO CATEGORIES EACH
POSSESSION A DIFFERENT STATUS AND DIFFERENT RIGHTS.
2.
IN THE SENSE OF BEING NATIONALS THE POSITION FOR CEDTS IS
NOT ALTERED BY THE BILL. THERE ARE SOUND LEGAL AND PRACTICAL
REASONS FOR NOT IMPORTING THIS INTERNATIONAL LAW TERM INTO
MUNICIPAL LAW. WE DO NOT DO SO AT PRESENT AND THERE IS NO
INTENTION OF DOING SO IN RELATION TO ANY CITIZENSHIP TITLES.
THE MOST LIKELY TITLE FOR ANY DEPENDENCIES WHO OPT FOR
SEPARATE CITIZENSHIP ON THE BROAD LINES WE ENVISAGE IF
CONTINGENCY PROVISION IS MADE IS EG CEDT GIBRALTAR.
3.
4.
YOUR PARA 3.
MAKE LITTLE OR NO
OF FORMALLY ATTACHING THE NAME OF THE DEPENDENCY TO THE CITIZENSHIP TITLE MAY NEVERTHELESS BE ATTRACTIVE TO SOME (EG GIBRALTAR) AND IT WOULD DENOTE THAT A PERSON WITH THIS TITLE
HAD RIGHTS, PARTICULARLY THE RIGHT OF ABODE IN THAT TERRITORY.
WE WOULD NOT EXPECT A DEPENDENCY TO BE ALLOWED TO ADOPT A SEPARATE CITIZENSHIP, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE LITTLE MORE THAN A
NAME IN PRACTICE, IF IT COULD NOT GIVE THE RIGHT OF ABODE IN
THAT TERRITORY TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO COULD CLAIM THAT TITLE.
CBDT IN ITS PRESENT FORM DOES NOT CONVEY THE SAME IDEA OF
ATTACHMENT TO AND RIGHTS IN A PARTICULAR TERRITORY AND THERE
SEPARATE CITIZENSHIP ON LINES ENVISAGED WOULD
PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE FROM CBDT. THE PROSPECT
1
CONFIDENTIAL