CONFIDENTIAL
FM HONG KONG
TO PRIORITY FCO
TELNO 969
OF 16101OZ JUNE 93
AND TO PRIORITY PEKING
CONFIDENTIAL
16/6
M. Mahall 14 aleak feal
INFO PRIORITY UKREP JLG HONG KONG
STOP COPY Q DIST?
162460
MDLIAN 9476
370119 RECEIVED IN PICISTRY
17 JUN 1993
DESK OFFICER
REGISTRY
INDEX
PA
Action Taken
JLG RESTRICTED
LOCALISATION OF LAWS: LIABILITY FOR CARRIAGE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL.
1. WE HAVE PREPARED A PAPER FOR CONSULTING THE CHIENSE SIDE ON THE LOCALISATION OF UK ENACTMENTS ON THE LIABILITY FOR CARRIAGE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL. WE ARE FAXING A COPY OF THE PAPER TO BUNTEN HKD. GRATEFUL FOR YOUR EARLY COMMENTS.
THE CONTINUED APPLICATION OF THE IRO IN QUESTION (THE PARIS CONVENTION) WAS REACHED IN THE IRO SUB-GROUP AT ITS MEETING ON 3 JUNE 1993. THIS IS REFLECTED IN PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE PAPER.
2 =
3
YOU MAY WISH TO NOTE THAT THE UK ENACTMENTS IN THIS AREA CURRENTLY APPLYING TO HONG KONG HAVE THE EFFECT OF IMPLEMENTING NOT ONLY THE PARIS CONVENTION AND ITS PROTOCOL, BUT ALSO THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE PARIS CONVENTION AND THE PROTOCOL TO THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION. HOWEVER, UNLIKE THE PARIS CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL, THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL HAVE NOT BEEN APPLIED TO HONG KONG. THE ONLY EFFECT OF THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION WAS TO INCREASE THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE UNDER THE PARIS CONVENTION. WE PROPOSE, NEVERTHELESS, TO LOCALISE THE ENACTMENTS, AS THEY STAND, INCLUDING THOSE PARTS WHICH IMPLEMENT THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION. THIS WOULD CAUSE HONG KONG'S OWN LAW TO REFLECT THE REVISED RATES OF THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION. BUT, IN ORDER NOT TO COMPLICATE OUR CONSULTATION WITH THE CHIENSE SIDE, THIS POINT IS NOT COVERED IN DETAIL IN THE CONSULTATION PAPER. WE SEE NO NEED TO MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION GIVEN THAT THE PURPOSE OF OUR LOCALISATION PROPOSAL IS TO LOCALISE RELEVANT APPLICABLE UK LEGISLATION. IF, HOWEVER, THE CHINESE SIDE RAISE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS, WE WOULD EXPLAIN THE BACKGROUND TO THEM.
4. AS REGARDS THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE HONG KONG LEGISLATURE IS EMPOWERED TO REPEAL THE UK ORDERS IN QUESTION, OUR VIEW IS THAT ALTHOUGH THE 1983 AND 1986 ORDERS DID NOT DIRECTLY
1
PAGE CONFIDENTIAL