113
International Law, the letter goes on to state that the
Chinese Government, while recognising the dual nationality
of persons born of Chinese parents in British territory,
cannot admit that such persons are divested of their
Chinese nationality, and that there is therefore little
likelihood, in view of the position under existing
Chinese legislation, of any result being obtained from
further discussions of the question.
11. This letter contains three important statements.
Firstly, there is the admission that these individuals
have dual nationality. This admission may one day be
useful in the event of our desiring to secure from the
Chinese Government, with reference to the status of Anglo-Chinese in Malaya, a recognition of the principle that a State may not afford diplomatic protection to one
of its nationals against a State whose nationality such
person also possesses. Secondly there is the statement
that it is impossible to admit that such individuals
are divested of their Chinese nationality, referring to
the principle that under Chinese law they cannot be
regarded otherwise than as Chinese citizens in China. And
thirdly there is the statement that no useful purpose will
be served by continuing these discussions, which may be
taken as a definite refusal on the part of the Chinese
Government to come to an agreement with us on the basis of
exemption for transient visitors from the application
of the Chinese Law,
12. The question now arises as to what further action,
if any, we are to take in the matter. The terms of the
reply which we have now at last been able to extract
from