CO537-3707 — Page 109

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 adequately made out by Great Britain. 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.

One

It is not thought, therefore, that His Majesty's Government could successfully resist the Chinese claim unless upon the ground of military requirement. As stated it is doubtful whether it would be. desirable to latigate this question, but if it were litigated, it would be necessary to establish that there was some present or apprehended contingency of a military character which, from a military point of view, rendered it impossible to agree to a resumption: of Chinese. jurisdiction.. It would be for the Court to pronounce upon evidence of military experts on each side subjected to cross-examination by the other, whether or not the defence of military requirement had been made out.

It is

Generally, it is considered preferable that negotiations should be continued upon the lines on which they are at present proceeding. thought that ary compromise, which included some acceptance by the Chinese of the position that any concession the British Government might make was not to be construed as an admission of the Chinese righės to resume jurisdiction would be desirable in British interests. This is because, in general, it is not felt that the British case really is in any se08€ impregnable, Apart from the defence of military requirement, 1t 18 y thought that the British case is weak, and a little uncertainty is felt although on a technical military question of this sort the view is expressed with great reserve and hesitation whether, even if Great Britain were prepared to litigate the matter, at could be affirmatively established that there was some actual military situation at present subsisting or likely to develop in the foreseeable futurs which made it impossible to concede the Chinese claim to resume jurisdiction.

My

Before considering further the view expressed in paragraph 1 02 your telegram under reference, 1 shall await your comments from the military angle. In the course of your comments you wil1`doubtless indicate the views of the Local Defen& Committeg.

SHOSP.

Coples sent to:m

Poreign Office

Ministry of Defence

MT.

P.D. Coates.

» Mr. J., Boale,