GRS 440
CONFIDENTIAL
FROM PEKING 080840Z JUN 83
TO PRIORITY FCO
CONFIDENTIAL
TELEGRAM NUMBER 536 OF 8/6/83
35
Mr. McQuade
Mr. Hote Добле
woth
36)
Mow are baking
ware bekip acti тежать 16
At first right X
HKK 349/1
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY
16 JUN 1983
DESK OFFICER
INDEX
PA
REGISTRY
Adion Taken
Х
REPEATED FOR INFO TO PRIORITY HONG KONG
HONG KONG TEL NO 765: CHINESE VISA OFFICE
1.
ry
inconors that.
seem
Pl consult Legal Adva FED, Cur Deh
WE FORESEE DIFFICULTIES WITH THE DRAFT NOTE IN TUR.
2. IN PARTICULAR, WE DO NOT THINK THE CHINESE ARE LIKELY
•
TO ACCEPT THE REFERENCE IN B(111) TO EXCEPT IN CASES OF GRAVE
CRIME!
WE REALISE THAT THIS IS TAKEN FROM ARTICLE 41 OF THE
VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS (VCCR), BUT THE FACT IS THAT OUR PREVIOUS UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CHINESE CONTAINED NO SUCH EXCEPTION, AND THIS WOULD THEREFORE BE SEEN AS A DIMINUTION
OF IMMUNITY. PRESUMABLY WE CAN CONTINUE TO ACCORD THE CHINESE
THE IMMUNITY WHICH WE HAD ALREADY GIVEN THEM UNDER THE 1981 AGREE-
MENT BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, EVEN IF THE LEGISLATION DOES NOT
PROVIDE FOR IT.
3. SECONDLY, WE THINK THERE MAY BE DIFFICULTY WITH B(IV), ARISING FROM THE SPECIFIC STATEMENT OF EXCEPTIONS TO IMMUNITY FROM
JURISDICTION WHICH DO NOT EXACTLY REPRODUCE THE WORDING OF VCCR,
EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE MUCH THE SAME EFFECT. THE HITCH HERE
IS LIKELY TO BE CHINESE LACK OF EXPERIENCE WITH
LEGAL DRAFTING.
4. GIVEN THESE PROBABALE DIFFICULTIES, WE DOUBT WHETHER PUTTING FORWARD A NEW DRAFT ON THE BASIS OUTLINED IN YOUR TUR (WHICH IS A VERY FUNDAMENTAL REDRAFT OF THE CHINESE DRAFT), WILL IN FACT BE
ANY SMOOTHER THAN ATTEMPTING TO NEGOTIATE A DRAFT BASED ON OUR
TEL NO 44 TO HONG KONG. WE SHOULD THEREFORE PREFER TO START
ON THE BASIS OF THE LATTER. HOWEVER ON REFLECTION, WE THINK THAT THE
DRAFT IN OUR TEL NO 44, WILL HAVE TO BE EXTENDED TO COVER IMMUNITY
FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS IMMUNITY FROM ARREST OR DETENTION.
CONFIDENTIAL
/THE