paragraph 2 of the Convention of 1898, namely
that:
"Within the remainder of the newly-leased
territory Great Britain shall have sole
jurisdiction."
The reservation made relates to the City of
Kowloon, but the use of the word "sole" in the
sentence quoted suggests that the parties to the
Convention contemplated that the jurisdiction
1
over Kowloon would at least be shared.
26.
The Chinese case therefore seems to rest
on the interpretation of the words in the first
sentence of paragraph 2 of the Convention, namely
"That within the City of Kowloon the Chinese
officials now stationed there shall continue to
exercise jurisdiction except so far as may be inconsistent with the military requirements for
the defence of Hong Kong." The Chinese con-
tention is that these words import a complete
reservation of jurisdiction to Chinese officials
subject only to the military requirements for the
defence of Hong Kong. In their favour it may
be said that the words "to exercise jurisdiction"
are not expressly qualified in any way and
therefore the jurisdiction reserved is full
jurisdiction. On the other hand, the language used is rather surprising if that was the real
intention. It would have been much easier to
express the idea of a complete reservation of
jurisdiction to China in so many words. Against
the Chinese contention it may be argued that the
reference to "the Chinese officials now
stationed there" coupled with the word "continue"
implies that it was only the jurisdiction which
at the time of the Convention was exercised by
Chinese officials that should thereafter be exercised by them.
27. /
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN.