CO537-3707 — Page 115

that Chinese jurisdiction was inconsistent with the

military requirements for the defence of Hong Kong. It is

thought that these words require that there should be somet

definable military danger or disadvantage to be

anticipated from the presence of Chinese officials in

Kowloon. It is doubted whether it would be sufficient

to say that in the event of a Communist attack, not

anticipated as likely to occur in the foreseeable future,

Chinese jurisdiction in Kowloon City would be a source of

danger or embarrassment, particularly if the circumstances

are that at any moment in such an eventuality the

British authorities could terminate the exercise of such

jurisdiction by expelling the Chinese officials. The

provision does not, it is thought, enable the Chinese

authorities to introduce Chinese troops into Kowloon City as

a garrison or for any military purpose (other than perhaps,

for example, leave or convalescent purposes in limited

numbers), and one would have thought that it would be a

simple matter in the event of anticipated military operations

to expel Chinese officials from Kowloon City and terminate

the exercise of their jurisdiction. This, however, is a

matter involving, technical military considerations.

In the event of the dispute between Great Britain and

China coming 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

One

Page 115Page 116