not
articles of the Hague Convention XIII.
that
it
a necessary result of this that a
license should be refused for the construction of
they
4
See article Y!!!
these vessels in Hong Kong as it armed until they reach Cunton
of the
not
If that
the
the Convention question then is whether it is advisable or not to
refuse a license for their construction. I doubt if
See 14 m
53846/38
a comparison can be drawn between this question and
the assembly of civil aircraft for supply to China
bly of
Una 374.0
A.M. comode
[in Hong Kong, whichȚi
cannot be permitted. No decision has yet been taken
whether in all matters the Colonial Govt. should act
as if a state of war were in existence between China
and Japan and, while in the matter of the use of
territorial waters the Colonial Govt. have been
See 7230/1/38
Genval instructed to adopt the position of a neutral power
(see 6 on 53838/15/37.)
есте
(see 19 on 53846/38).
Article & says "A web
8 Gost is bound to employ templey
Qui usa at
its Missioned to brevent the
het at
amig
filling
of em
reval within
ito periodiction which it hem person's lies is cilerind Co Creuse. or Engage in hosile
Verations
925
~ lover
with which that fest.
a at peains
in time of war, in other matters they have been
instructed that the particular question at issue
should be treated on a peace time basis. In one
instance it has even been considered advisable to
go beyond what is strictly required of a neutral
power, and the F.0. consider that it will be
inadvisable to allow the assembly of civil aircraft
in Hong Kong for delivery to China.
There is
therefore scarcely a precedent for considering this question. I think I am right in stating, however,
that while a neutral power is under an obligation to
prevent the departure from its ports of armed vessels
of war to a belligerent, it is under no obligation
to prevent the departure of unarmed vessels for a
belligerent or the sale of munitions to a belligerent
by its own subjects. On the whole, it appears to be
advisable for Hong Kong to act in this matter as if
a