.22.
CONFIDENTIAL
-
2
39 says the ICCPR "shall remain in force" it must be referring to the status quo, which is that there is
an obligation in international law to respect the ICCPR. Perhaps that is all that is entrenched.
2.
Another important reason for not relying on
the Basic Law for entrenchment is that any challenge to a Hong Kong law as infringing guaranteed rights will become an issue of possible inconsistency with the BL. Such inconsistency is prohibited by article 11 of the present draft of the BL. By article 157 the power of interpretation of the BL is vested in the Standing Committee of the NPC, although that Committee is required to authorize the HKSAR courts to interpret the BL in the course of adjudicating "cases" before them. But this authorization can only be given to them to interpret provisions of
the BL "within the limits of the autonomy of the Region". This is literally meaningless in the sense that no "provisions"
of the BL are within the limits of HKSAR autonomy. Perhaps it means that matters arising in cases otherwise within the HKSAR field of autonomy might involve the application of provisions of the BL to those matters, and this could involve the Hong Kong courts in interpreting
the BL. But that field of autonomy does not include matters of foreign affairs (article 13) nor of defence (article 14). If, for example, a repressive law against peaceful assembly were adopted by Hong Kong in 2005, having been sent to LegCo with the appropriate certificate of a compliant Attorney General, and if there were no internal entrenchment of the Bill of Rights enabling Hong Kong courts to intervene, who would decide if the law contravened article 27 of the BL which protects
"freedom of assembly"? The NPC might well take the position that such assemblies represent a threat to the defence of the PRC, and interpret the BL so as to allow the suppression of peaceful assemblies. If, on
CONADENTIAL
.../3