Mr Powell HKD
SECRET
Reference.....
HKK 040/53
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY
1 50CT 1984
DESK OFFICER
INDEX
RE
IRY
PA
Action Taken
со
FUTURE OF HONG KONG : RATIFICATION
1.
2.
JAX 16+
I refer to Mr Anderson's minute of 24 August.
It would appear that Mr Burrows' difficulties arise out
word
The important issues
of the are, in fact
3.
i)
-
"unconstitutional".
that as at present drafted the Declaration is subject to ratification and the exchange of instruments of ratification "shall take place" within a certain period of the signing of the Declaration. The words in quotes imply an obligation on the UK to ratify. Moreover, Parliament may well question the presumption upon their right to determine whether or not the necessary legislation to support ratification should be enacted.
ii) Should the UK not ratify within the stipulated time the Chinese may well not accede to any request for an extension of time. Not only is this dangerous in itself but Parliament may also criticise the deadline in terms of an infringement on their right to deliberate legislation within their timetable.
There is no straight question, therefore, of unconstitu- tionality. A time limit in the terms proposed by Mr Burrows could be acceptable to us if no ratification such as that suggested by Mr Anderson is acceptable to the Chinese. However if we were forced to accept the Chinese proposal it would be necessary for us to include on the record of the negotiations a clear statement that ratification was dependent on legislation of Parliament and that no obligation to ratify could be inferred from the text.
Having regard to the above I enclose herewith a draft telegram by way of reply.
т вин
JD P Bickford Legal Counsellor K 197 233 3923
31 August 1984
SECRET