that Chinese jurisdiction was inconsistent with the
military requirements for the defence of Hong Kong. It is
thought that these words require that there should be somet
definable military danger or disadvantage to be
anticipated from the presence of Chinese officials in
Kowloon. It is doubted whether it would be sufficient
to say that in the event of a Communist attack, not
anticipated as likely to occur in the foreseeable future,
Chinese jurisdiction in Kowloon City would be a source of
danger or embarrassment, particularly if the circumstances
are that at any moment in such an eventuality the
British authorities could terminate the exercise of such
jurisdiction by expelling the Chinese officials. The
provision does not, it is thought, enable the Chinese
authorities to introduce Chinese troops into Kowloon City as
a garrison or for any military purpose (other than perhaps,
for example, leave or convalescent purposes in limited
numbers), and one would have thought that it would be a
simple matter in the event of anticipated military operations
to expel Chinese officials from Kowloon City and terminate
the exercise of their jurisdiction. This, however, is a
matter involving, technical military considerations.
In the event of the dispute between Great Britain and
China coming before the International Court, if it were
sought to justify British jurisdiction in Kowloon City on
the ground that Chinese jurisdiction would be inconsistent
with military requirements, it would be for the Court to
decide whether in fact military requirements, for the defence
of Hong Kong made it necessary that jurisdiction in Kowloon
City should not be exercised by the Chinese authorities.
The view of the British Military authorities would not
determine the matter; the opinions which they expressed would
be evidence before the Court upon which the Court itself
would pronounce in deciding whether the case of military
requirements was adequately made out by Great Britain.
would have thought that to litigate this matter before' the
International Court and support it by evidence consisting of
/the
One
Page 115Page 116