PP HONG KONG
GRS 488
SECRET
FM FCO 071630Z FEB 84
TO PRIORITY HONG KONG
SECRET
WattFic
1)
(54)
TOP COPY
Enter
18228 1
...MKK040/11.
*
+
46)
TELEGRAM NUMBER 224 OF 7 FEBRUARY
INFO PRIORITY PEKING
YOUR TELNO 280: FUTURE EGRET: RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS:
INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS.
DESIC OFFRE *
INDEX
1. WE HAVE CONSULTED THE DEPARTMENT'S LEGAL COUNSELLOR WHOSE
VIEWS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
2.
'IT IS QUESTIONABLE WHETHER CHINA COULD ACCEDE IN RESPECT
ONLY OF HONG KONG (CHINA) TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL RIGHTS OR THE INTERNATIONAL
COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS. THE ONLY PROVISIONS
ABOUT TERRITORIAL APPLICATION ARE IN ARTICLES 28 OF THE FIRST
COVENANT AND ARTICLE 50 OF THE SECOND. EACH IS IN IDENTICAL
TERMS AND READS
3.
'THE PROVISIONS OF THE PRESENT COVENANT SHALL EXTEND TO
ALL PARTS OF FEDERAL STATES WITHOUT ANY LIMITATIONS OR
EXCEPTIONS.'
WE OURSELVES ARE BEGINNING IN SUITABLE CASES TO ADOPT THE
PRACTICE, IN THE CASE OF MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTS WHICH HAVE NO
TERRITORIAL APPLICATION PROVISIONS, OF DEFINING THE TERRITORY TO
WHICH WE WILL APPLY THEM. WE ARE DOING THIS IN ORDER TO COUNTER
THE IMPLICATION THAT THEIR APPLICATION WILL EXTEND TO ALL OUR
DEPENDENT TERRITORIES. THIS PRACTICE IS BEGINNING TO GAIN
ACCEPTANCE THROUGH ACQUIESCENCE. IT IS POSSIBLE THEREFORE THAT
IF CHINA DID SEEK TO ACCEDE IN THIS HIGHLY RESTRICTIVE WAY THE
OTHER PARTIES WOULD NOT OBJECT. HOWEVER, THERE IS THE ADDED
COMPLICATION PRESENTED BY THE TWO ARTICLES QUOTED IN PARAGRAPH 2
ABOVE. IT IS TRUE THAT ON THEIR STRICT TERMS THEY APPLY ONLY TO
FEDERAL STATES, AND IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT SINCE CHINA IS NOT A
FEDERAL STATE THEY WERE IRRELEVANT. NEVERTHELESS THE ARTICLES
DO DISPLAY A RESTRICTIVE ATTITUDE TOWARDS LIMITATIONS OF
TERRITORIAL APPLICABILITY. WE COULD NOT THEREFORE BE SURE THAT
JORY
Whor Talen
7 CM9/2
See (61)
1
SECRET