CONFIDENTIAL
21
機密
under international law and could use this as an excuse for
repealing the BOR in 1997. This argues for the deletion of the two provisions. Another advantage of deleting them is that, as they stand, they suggest that other articles which provide that certain conduct "shall be prohibited" create
an obligation to legislate further. Such a construction is not intended (see paragraph 37 above). On the other hand, deletion of Article 17 alongside Clause 13 should not give
rise to doubts about the faithfulness of the BOR in
translating the obligations under the ICCPR as applied to
Hong Kong.
The argument against deleting the two provisions is that might provoke demands for the deletion
of other reservations, such as the one relating to the
establishment of an elected Legislative Council. However,
such demands
demands could be easily countered: the deletion of
Clause 13 (the reservation) is a necessary consequence of
the deletion of Article 17: in the case of other
reservations there is no proposal to delete the relevant
article.
45.
and
On balance we recommend the deletion of Article 17
Clause 13.
This would be consistent with the
international obligation not to
to legislate further in this field and would have the advantage of removing from the bor
the provisions which were the most likely to cause
confusion about the meaning of the "shall be prohibited"
articles.
Avoiding Use of the Term "Reservations" (Part III)
46.
Some submissions are opposed to the existence of
Part III of the White Bill for a number of reasons: that
international agreement should not be
reservations
to
an
CONFIDENTIAL #2
機密
21