[HKC340/1
23 Ark 1990
ра
From: C A Whomersley
Legal Advisers
Date: 6 April 1990
/R/4 cc:
Miss Marsden
Miso Majorfm 1914
17/4 Mogi Mr Moda, n14 p.a.
/12/4
PS
PS/Mr Maude
with submission
PS/Lord Brabazon
Mr Gillmore
Miss Spencer
Mr Burns, News Dept ✓ Mr Paul, HKD
Sir A Watts
Mr Fifoot Ms Barrett
for 1714.
Mr McLaren
HONG KONG ASSURANCES: PRESENTATION: CHINESE ATTITUDES AND CONSULAR PROTECTION
1.
In Mr Fifoot's absence, I wonder whether I might clarify a couple of points in paragraphs 1 and 4 of your minute of 5 April, in which you comment on Mr Paul's submission of 4 April.
2.
There is a legal difference between the situation now and that which will exist after 1997. At present, the Chinese claim that all those born in Hong Kong are Chinese citizens; we can legitimately reject this as Hong Kong is,
we are concerned, British sovereign territory and the Chinese do not have the right to confer their nationality on all persons born in a British sovereign territory. This explains why we have asserted a right to give consular protection to Hong Kong BDTC's who get into trouble in China (your paragraph 1) and should continue to do so (your paragraph 4).
3.
After 1997, however, the situation will be quite different: Hong Kong will clearly then be Chinese sovereign territory (as provided for in the Joint Declaration) and we cannot contest the right of the Chinese to confer their nationality on tnose born there, even if born before 1997. Thus, a Chinese person born in Hong Kong, who receives British citizenship under the Bill will be a dual UK/Chinese national and we would after 1997 have no right under international law to exercise consular protection on his behalf against the Chinese authorities. Of course, we may,
КСУААЕ
115
Page 45Page 46