Mr Milled
il
Mr. Jones
Heave
see
argue
that they
CONF
fara3. Could ure not
they will be
regarded
as illegal immigrants, not therefore
CC:
"lawfully within the territory of a State
شما
1
UNS 243/2
DATE: 10 MAY 1968
Mr McLaren
Mr Berman, Legal Advisers Mr P K Williams, UND Mr Adams, SEAD
(Artioles 12+ 13 of the Civitt Political Covenant), Mrs S Morphet, Research Dept
Mr Footman
HKD
WH 312
Im 12/5 li Thorne
Not Millett. wd with have the right & libing
fa Rm 17/5
we will be no
по
we already
are!
Last para.
I movement ete (ICCPR Art, 12); but the right to likity / freedom for arbitrary with Last
detention REFUGEES IN HONG KONG (Art 9) afflies
1)에 everyone! You many like to athult.
"
Yes, bout
билеви
worse off than The 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees has are not been extended to Hong Kong. Our obligations in
the basis of general international law and not that particular Convention.
legal in respect of Hong Kong are therefore to be considered on
whether Art
/woften is the /rotter M. Fifirst sees.
2016/5
(a)
In my view:-
there is no legal obligation to accord the right of entry to Hong Kong to persons claiming to be refugees;
(b)
in particular, Sir M Maclehose's statement at the 1979 Conference did not create any legal obligation;
(c)
there is not as yet a generally recognised legal obligation of non-refoulement applicable as respects refugees in Hong Kong.
As regards point (c), however, I think it is not improbable that if the issue of the non-refoulement of refugees were come before an international tribunal (though it is difficult to see how that might happen in the context of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong), the tribunal might be persuaded that such a legal obligation had at last emerged.
2.
The above conclusions are however of limited significance in respect of governments like the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. It is undoubtedly accepted generally amongst States which have been faced with, or concerned with, refugee problems in recent years that there is a /putative high humanitarian obligation not to turn/refugees away
where the consequences of so doing would be to put their lives or safety in danger, and not to return refugees to their country of origin if that too would have the consequences of putting their lives or safety in danger. The consequences of a government ignoring these humani- tarian considerations would, in domestic political terms, be unlikely to be significantly different from a breach
/of
CONFIDENTIAL
1