Harris
Keller
Slinn
Duffy
not mean they are obliged to accept whole of British position.
Does the JD reference to "Previous system and life-style" mean 1984 or 1997?
1984 and reasonable change.
"Life-style" not normal legal term. Key objection is extension of franchise in FCs. According to article published in Beijing Review, the accusation is that the FC proposals will turn indirect elections into direct ones.
Life-style and laws will continue. But JD indicates areas of development and protection.
Gapes
Keller said FCO position on exchanges "weak". said FCO came close to agreement. Please explain.
He
Keller
Duffy
Slinn
Keller
The exchanges contain one or two points of agreement. FCO said BL did not reflect five principles but Foreign Secretary said he agreed in principle with Chinese proposal and only that he "hoped" BL would reflect the five principles. This was not really a condition. But other conditions were not fulfilled so I agree it was not a binding agreement.
-
Agree with FCO paper. Could not put it any higher than that they reached "a common understanding on certain points". On other points not a meeting of minds. Form and content relevant must also look at context. Letters would need to contain strong language to indicate that a treaty is intended.
Agree with Duffy. No evidence of intention to undertake binding obligations.
Context can be argued both ways. Since JD only a framework, obvious that it needs to be
supplemented by further understandings and binding agreements.
Are annexes to JD part of treaty?
Harris
Slinn
Yes
JD 35.
Harris
Duffy
China in breach of JD?
J
JD Article 4
Annex 2 on JLG
obligation of PRC to co-operate.
Article 5(b) Annex 2 (JD12)
FCO have a valid point
Keller/Slinn Agree.
Harris
Change of FCs - breach of spirit of treaty?