1
to Hong Kong, amendments so made would take effect in respect of Hong Kong as with any other territory where the Convention has effect.
it
4. In these circumstances, if we are to read paragraph 2(4) as subject to paragraph 1 of the Guidelines (ie only applicable where the UK itself acts), it will not apply in relation to amendments to the Annexes. If, however, we were to read paragraph 2 (4) of the Guidelines separate from paragraph 1 of the Guidelines and as applying whenever an amendment is made, however it takes effect, then, indeed, would be necessary to consider whether the amendments were substantial or significant for Hong Kong in order to determine whether we needed to consult the Chinese under the Guidelines. In my view, in this kind of case, we would be justified in acting on the basis that, since the extension of the agreement to Hong Kong also involves the extension of an internal conventional system for amendment, and no act of the United Kingdom is involved, paragraph 2 (4) does not apply indeed cannot apply, because no act of the United Kingdom alone could prevent the amendment affecting Hong Kong and, therefore, there is no purpose in consultation.
5. An example of the second method of amendment is the manner in which the Chicago Convention itself, not its Annexes, may be amended. Although a convention "legislature"
(in this case the Assembly of ICAO) approves amendments, they only come into force in respect of States which ratify the amendments. (The reference to Article 50 (a) is not a reference to a procedure but to an example of an article which had been amended by this process.) The question in this case is not so much whether we need to act to extend such an amendment to Hong Kong as whether our practice, in the absence of a colonial application clause, of ratifying separately for the United Kingdom and the Dependent Territories can apply to such a case. I do not think we could rely on that practice where amendments are made to structure provisions such as was the case when Article 50(a) was amended. In any event that hardly gives rise to a matter of substance or significance for Hong Kong. For both reasons, therefore, I do not think paragraph 2(4) of the Guidelines would apply. However, there could conceivably be a case where such an amendment, if it related to the substantive rather than the structural provisions of the Chicago Convention, might have substantial or significant effect for Hong Kong. In that event we might find it desirable, if not necessary, to consult the Chinese in accordance with paragraph 2(4).
6PFABD