1
RESTRICTED
5.
The Psychotropic Convention does not appear to make this inherent distinction between the metropolitan territory and other territories even though it does have a territorial application Article. It would be possible to read the Convention in the same kind of terms as those outlined in paragraph 2 above, namely to treat the metropolitan state's obligations as extending to all territories, including dependent territories, to which the Con- vention is extended and to be indifferent as to whether the enforcement measures are taken under one piece of legislation or under a number. On the other hand there are provisions which use. the phrase "country or region" much as "any country or territory" or "any of its territories" is used in the Narcotics Convention. Also "region" in the Psychotropic Convention is defined in a similar fashion to "territory" in the Narcotics Convention.
||
6.
Unsatisfactory as the conclusion may be, I, therefore, come to the view that the purpose of Article 28 is to reflect the probabilities of there being separate legislation and separate administrations, and it follows that where we extend the Psycho- tropic Convention to dependent territories, it would accord with the probable intention of the Convention, that if we wished the dependent territories to be treated separately we should declare them as separate regions for the purposes of the Convention.
7.
It will suit Hong Kong's purpose to advance that construction since China is also a party to the Psychotropic Substances Con- vention and Hong Kong will wish to maintain its separateness of administration after 1997. If China is willing to go along with that construction, the language of the Convention (unlike that of the ILO Constitution) should not be a problem: the language in Article 28 has no "colonial" associations. But this construction is not a compelling one and we will have to see how the Chinese react when we consult them under the Guidelines.
of
Paul Fifoot
Legal Advisers
RESTRICTED