FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1984
DRAFT ACCORD PROVISIONS BINDING, AG SAYS
*****
THE GOVERNMENTS OF BRITAIN AND CHINA HAVE DRAWN UP WHAT IS CLEARLY AN AGREEMENT, AND ALL ITS PROVISIONS - THE CONTENTS OF THE JOINT DECLARATION AND THE SPECIFIC AND DETAILED CONTENTS OF THE ANNEXES AS WELL ARE BINDING UPON THEM, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, MR MICHAEL THOMAS SAID TODAY.
+THAT IS SIMPLY WHAT THE TEXT ACTUALLY SAYS, AND IT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED ELOQUENTLY BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, SIR GEOFFREY HOWE, AT HIS PRESS CONFERENCE IN NEW YORK ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT,+ MR THOMAS SAID.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS SPEAKING TO THE OUTSTANDING YOUNG PERSONS' ASSOCIATION, AT THE MANDAR IN HOTEL, ON THE DRAFT AGREEMENT ON THE FUTURE OF HONG KONG, PAYING PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO ITS FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT.
FOLLOWING IS THE TEXT OF HIS SPEECH:
+1 AM SURE THAT BY NOW YOU WILL ALL HAVE READ THE WHITE PAPER OR AT LEAST THE TEXT OF THE JOINT DECLARATION AND ITS ANNEXES THAT WERE PUBLISHED ON WEDNESDAY EVENING. MANY PEOPLE HAVE TOLD ME HOW PLEASED THEY WERE WITH THE AMOUNT OF DETAIL IT CONTAINED - MUCH MORE THAN THEY HAD EXPECTED OTHERS HAVE SAID HOW CLEARLY ITS PROVISIONS ARE SET OUT. I HOPE THAT IN READING THOSE PARTS THAT PARTICULARLY AFFECT YOU, WHETHER LAWYERS, BUSINESSMEN, TEACHERS OR MANUFACTURERS, YOU WILL HAVE FOUND THE SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS SPELT OUT FOR THE PRESERVATION OF HONG KONG'S SYSTEMS EXPLICIT AND CONVINCING. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE NEGOTIATIORS ON BOTH SIDES AND THOSE ADVISING THEM HAVE WORKED LONG AND HARD TO PUT TOGETHER A COHERENT AND SUBSTANTIAL PACKAGE.
+ALTHOUGH AS A LAWYER I HAVE A PARTICULAR INTEREST IN THOSE SECTIONS DEALING WITH CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS, THE LAW AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, I DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT ASPECT OF THE TEXT TODAY, BUT RATHER ABOUT THE FORM IN WHICH THE SUBSTANCE IS CONTAINED, AND THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THIS HISTORIC INITIALLING CEREMONY IN PEKING LAST WEDNESDAY MORNING.
+SOME PEOPLE HAVE ASKED 'WHY IS IT ONLY A JOINT DECLARATION?' 'OUGHT IT NOT TO HAVE BEEN CALLED A TREATY?' LAWYERS ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE IDEA THAT THE STATUS AND EFFECT OF A TRANSACTION BETWEEN ANY TWO PARTIES IS DETERMINED BY ITS CONTENT, NOT BY ITS TITLE. ANY EXCHANGE OF PROMISES THAT IS INTENDED TO BE LEGALLY BINDING CAN GIVE RISE TO LEGAL OBLIGATIONS, WHATEVER THE FORM OF WORDS IN WHICH THE PROMISE IS MADE. I CAN PROMISE TO PAY, AGREE TO PAY, UNDERTAKE TO PAY, I CAN DECLARE THAT I WILL PAY. NO LAWYER WOULD MAKE ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM. SO IT DOES NOT MATTER IN LAW - THAT THE NEGOTIATORS FOR THE TWO GOVERNMENTS HAVE CHOSEN TO EXPRESS THE IR AGREEMENT IN THE FORM OF A JOINT DECLARATION CONTAINING A SERIES OF DECLARATIONS BY ONE OR OTHER OR BOTH GOVERNMENTS. THE COVER OF THE WHITE PAPER CALLS IT A +DRAFT AGREEMENT+. BUT THE PARTIES THEMSELVES HAVE AGREED TO USE THE FORMAT OF A JOINT DECLARATION IN WHICH TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES.
/+THE WORD