CO
6
CHINA
to consider whether the United Kingdom could submit the dispute to the International Court relying on China's declaration. Would China be able to invoke the condition as to reciprocity in the Chinese declaration and the limita- tion in the United Kingdom declaration as providing a good ground for opposing the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court over the dispute?
21. It is pointed out by Lauterpacht and by Hudson (Oppenheim's International Law, 6th Ed. Vol. II, p. 55, Hudson, Permanent Court. p. 465) that the reservation as to reciprocity is really superfluous because paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute states expressly that the declaration accepting compulsory jurisdiction is made "in relation to any other Member or State accepting the same obligation." This means, according to Hudson, that the Court's jurisdiction applies only to the common ground covered by the applicants' and respondents' declarations. Consequently, an application can only rely upon a declaration made by the other side within the limitation set by the applicants' own declaration. Hudson cites obiter dicta from two decisions of the Permanent Court of International Justice to this effect. It seems, therefore, that the result is that China, for example, could invoke our reservations against us. The Law Officers will, however, recall that in the case of British Honduras, precisely because His Majesty's Government's general acceptance of the optional clause excluded situations and facts prior to 1930, His Majesty's Government deposited a further special acceptance of the optional clause covering all questions relating to the boundaries of that territory. If it were deemed expedient, His Majesty's Government could presumably deposit another special acceptance of the optional clause covering all questions relating to the interpretation of the Treaty of 1898.
22. The legal basis of the claim of the Chinese Government is most fully stated in the Note of 5th February, 1948, from the Chinese Ambassador to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Paper E, No. 4). In this Note the Chinese Government maintains, inter alia, that the reservation of a special zone connected with the leased territories formed part of a general Chinese policy and was not confined to Kowloon citing in particular leases to Germany and Russia.
23. A Memorandum has been prepared by the Foreign Office Research Department regarding the terms of all the leases made by China in 1898 and 1899 to foreign Powers (Paper F). It will be seen that there were five such leases in all, two to Great Britain and one to Germany, Russia and France respectively. It is submitted, however, that there exists a true parallel in this respect only between Kowloon and the leases containing two other walled cities Wei-hai-wei (British) and Kinchow (Russian) and in regard to them the Chinese statement is true. The case of the German lease is different because there a zone was specially excepted from the lease altogether. In the case of the two British and of the Russian leases the walled cities (Kinchow, Kowloon and Wei-hai-wei) were included within the territory leased but in the case of Kowloon and Wei-hai-wei provision was made, subject to military requirements, for the continued exercise of a measure of Chinese jurisdiction. In the case of Kinchow (Russian) there was no provision for continued Chinese jurisdiction in the walled city in the original lease at first; it was inserted in an additional agreement later but so many difficulties arose in practice that, after a Russian demand in 1901 for the abolition of Chinese administration, the Chinese abandoned in 1903 their attempts to exercise it. In any case there is not in this provision the overriding limitation. which is found in both the leases to the United Kingdom-" except so far as may be inconsistent with naval and military requirements for the defence of the territory leased." Further, if the negotiations regarding Kowloon are looked at (Paper A, paragraph 5) it will be seen that the Chinese at first refused to include the City of Kowloon in the lease, and were only induced to do so by the provision under discussion. In the case of the lease to France, there was no walled city and no area within which Chinese jurisdiction was to continue.
24. The Chinese note, referring to the words of the Convention, which speak of "Chinese officials now stationed there" and requiring them to exercise their jurisdiction in a manner consistent with the military requirements for the defence of Hong Kong, says that these words cannot logically be taken to mean only the persons then holding office in the city and not to include all their successors. It points out that there is no provision in the Convention for the withdrawal of the Chinese officials, and emphasises the distinction with the remainder of the newly-leased territory over which Great Britain is to have sole jurisdiction, and argues that this implies that within Kowloon City Great Britain. is not empowered to exercise such jurisdiction. The note adds that the Chinese Government has never renounced jurisdiction over Kowloon City. The argument
한
2
!