3
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1984
+ IT IS A BINDING INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT AND. AS THE AGREEMENT 'TSELF SAYS, BINDING IN ALL ITS PARTS, INCLUDING THE ANNEXES. IT IS A BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO SOVEREIGN STATES, THE HIGHEST KIND OF COMMITMENT THEY CAN GIVE TO EACH OTHER IN THAT RESPECT, AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, IT IS A BINDING INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT BUILT ON THE FOUNDATION OF COMMON INTEREST. WE WANT THIS TO SUCCEED, THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT WANTS THIS TO SUCCEED. THE PEOPLE OF HONG KONG, OF COURSE, WANT IT TO SUCCEED, AND THAT IS THE CEMENT, THE FOUNDATION OF GOODWILL, WHICH UNDERPINS AND SUSTAINS THIS BINDING INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT. +
+SOME HAVE POINTED OUT TO ME THAT IN CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS, THE TEXT OF THE ENGLISH VERSION IS NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE TEXT OF THE CHINESE VERSION. WHICH TEXT PREVAILS?' THEY HAVE ASKED.
+ THE JOINT DECLARATION ITSELF PROVIDES THAT BOTH TEXTS ARE EQUALLY AUTHENTIC. SO NEITHER PREVAILS OVER THE OTHER. BUT THIS IS A COMMON ENOUGH PROBLEM IN INTERNATIONAL LAW. INDEED IT CAN ARISE IN NATIONAL LAW AS WELL. IN SWITZERLAND FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE I AM TOLD STATUTES ARE WRITTEN IN THREE DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. WHERE THERE IS A PROBLEM OF INTERPRETATION, THE APPROACH IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS TO DISCOVER THE ESSENTIAL INTENTION FROM THE TWO TEXTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE. IF ONE IS CLEAR AND THE OTHER IS VAGUE OR IMPRECISE, THAT IS EASY. IF BOTH TEXTS ARE CLEAR BUT DIFFERENT FROM ONE ANOTHER, THEN THE MEANING WHICH CARRIES THE ESSENTIAL INTENTION IS TO BE SOUGHT.
+YOU WILL APPRECIATE THAT THESE NEOGITATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT BOTH IN ENGLISH AND CHINESE. AND THE NEGOTIATORS WERE ALSO TRYING TO SECURE THEIR OWN PREFERRED WORDING. SO EACH PHRASE, EACH SENTENCE, WAS SETTLED AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION OF ITS MEANING IN BOTH LANGUAGES. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OF LANGUAGE WILL BE FOUND, BUT GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY OF THE TASK OF THE NEGOTIATORS, IT WOULD NOT BE SURPRISING IF THERE WERE OCCASIONALLY DIFFERENT SHADES OF MEANING. BUT I BELIEVE THAT IS UNLIKELY TO OBSCURE THE ESSENTIAL INTENTIONS OF THE TWO GOVERNMENTS.
+STILL ON THE QUESTION OF FORM. SOME COMMENTATORS HAVE ASKED WHY THERE WAS AN EXCHANGE OF MEMORANDA DEALING WITH THE USE OF BRITISH PASSPORTS AFTER 1997.
+WHY WERE THESE PROVISIONS NOT IN THE ANNEXES?+ +ARE THEY SOMEHOW LESS BINDING?+
/+IT SEEMS