Rights (ICCPR) and the immediate questions provoked by it are is its efficacy dependant on the introduction of the substantive provisions of the Covenant directly into the domestic law of Hong Kong and what is the relationship of this Article to the specific rights which precede it in the Chapter. To answer the first question in the affirmative would be to disregard the words " shall remain in force" and to ignore the rights of states to apply the Covenant in such ways as they consider most fitting to their own legal systems and, if they think fit, in a piecemeal fashion, as is the present position in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong itself. On the other hand, there would not appear to be anything in the article which would preclude the re- enactment of the Covenant as domestic law in Hong Kong if that were considered to be the more appropriate or efficacious way of ensuring the implementation of the Covenant's provisions; and Hong Kong has now enacted a Bill of Rights Ordinance for the incorporation of the provisions of the Covenant in the law of the territory. As regards' the second question, the provisions of the ICCPR are more comprehensive than the specific rights; to give but one example, there are various qualifications to the particular rights set out in the Covenant which are designed to protect the rights of others; only one of the specific rights set out in the Basic Law is so qualified.
One possibility of
resolving the differences between the specific rights set out in the Basic Law and the rights in the Covenant which apply by reference is that the Courts will treat the provisions as cumulative and accord to any individual involved the widest measure of protection to be drawn from either, or a combination of both, sets of provisions; that must await resolution by the courts of the SAR. the Bill of Rights Ordinance survives 1997, there may well be a third authority to be taken into account by the courts in attempting to determine what are the rights of the
35
but
If