CONFIDENTIAL
139
147631
MDLOAN 1130
(8)
CONFIDENTIAL
FM FCO
TO PRIORITY HONG KONG
TELNO 48 4
OF 2318OOZ FEBRUARY 89
НКО 384 13.
TOP COPY Q DIST ?
Nc 27/2
INFO PRIORITY PEKING, UKREP JLG HONG KONG
300!
YOUR TELNOS 478-482: EXTRADITION: WAY FORWARD
·
1 WE WERE GRATEFUL FOR THE CAREFUL THOUGHT AND EFFORT WHICH CLEARLY WENT INTO TURS. WE HAVE STUDIED THEM CAREFULLY. IN GENERAL, YOUR THINKING APPEARS TO COINCIDE WITH OURS, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS, BOTH GENERAL AND DETAILED. IT SEEMS TO US THAT OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN CONSIDERING THE WAY FORWARD MUST BE TO SEEK NOT TO RE-OPEN ELEMENTS OF THE AGREEMENT WE HAVE ALREADY REACHED WITH THE CHINESE, OR TO PRESENT NEW ISSUES IN A WAY WHICH LEADS THEM TO THINK THAT WE ARE DOING SO. OTHERWISE
THERE IS A RISK THAT THE PACKAGE COULD YET FALL APART.
2. ON THAT BASIS, WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS.
(A) FIRST TUR:
CONSIDER THE REVISED MODEL AGREEMENT IN DUE
IT.
3. PARA 3: WE SHALL
COURSE WHEN WE RECEIVE
4. PARAS 4-5: THESE TWO MATTERS ARE, OF COURSE, CONNECTED.WE AGREE THAT IT IS PROBABLY NOT NECESSARY TO INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THE TWO AREAS IN WHICH REFUSALS MAY HAPPEN IN THE BILATERAL AGREEMENTS, BUT WE BELIEVE IT LIKELY THAT NEGOTIATING PARTNERS WILL INSIST ON INCLUDING A PROVISION CONCERNING THE RIGHT TO INSTRUCT. AS YOU SAY, THE EXISTENCE OF THE RIGHT WILL HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED TO NEGOTIATING PARTNERS AND IT MIGHT BE BETTER, IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO AGREE TO INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO INSTRUCT SPECIFICALLY. WE SEE NO NEED TO INCLUDE IT IN THE MODEL AGREEMENT, HOWEVER. YOU CAN DEAL WITH IT AS IT ARISES.
5.
PARA 6: WE AGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSION, AND YOUR PROPOSED APPROACH WITH EXCO. BUT WE DOUBT THAT THE CHINESE ARE DELIBERATELY CONTEMPLATING BLOCKING ACTION IN THE WAY YOU SUGGEST.
6.
PARA 8:
WE AGREE WITH YOUR THINKING FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW, BUT WONDER WHETHER IT MAKES PRACTICAL SENSE TO TRY TO ALLOW FOR FULL-SCALE JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE LIGHT OF LIKELY CHINESE
1
PAGE
CONFIDENTIAL
Redacted under FOI exemption 27(1)|