-6-
for any military purpose (other than perhaps, for example,
leave or convalescent purposes in limited numbers), and we
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 about which we are of course
not competent to express an opinion.
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
adwquately made out by Great Britain. We would have thought that
to litigate this matter before the International Court and
support it by evidence consisting of the opinions of
British military experts which would be subjected to cross-
examination at the instance of the Chinese would involve
considerable disadvantages from the point of view of security
and similar considerations.
*
We are asked whether, if it were desired to bring the
matter before the International Court, Great Britain should
follow the course adopted in the case of British Honduras by
depositing an acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction in
relation to the present dispute. In view of the fact that
the United Kingdom Declaration made on the 28th February, 1940,
applies only to disputes arising after the 5th February, 1930,
we think that it would be desirable to file such a further
acceptance/