CO537-3711 — Page 68

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN.

Oppenheim's International Law, 6th ed. Vol.II, p.55 Hudson, Permanent Court, P.465.

In deciding what procedure should be adopted,

however, it is pertinent to consider whether the

United Kingdom could submit the dispute to the

International Court relying on China's declara-

Would China be able to invoke the con-

dition as to reciprocity in the Chinese declara-

tion and the limitation in the United Kingdom

declaration as providing a good ground for

tion.

opposing the compulsory jurisdiction of the

International Court over the dispute?

21. It is pointed out by Lauterpacht and by

Hudson 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 jurisdic-

tion is made "in relation to any other Member

or State accepting the same obligation".

means, according to Hudson, that the Court's

jurisdiction applies only to the common ground covered by the applicants and respondents'

declarations.

This

Consequently, an applicant can

only rely upon a declaration made by the other

side within the limitation set by the applicants

Hudson cites obiter dicta

own declaration.

It seems,

from two decisions of the Permanent Court of

International Justice to this effect.

therefore, that the result is that China, for

example, could invoke our reservations against

us.

22. The legal basis of the claim of the

Chinese Government to jurisdiction over the

City of Kowloon is most fully stated in the note

of the 5th February, 1948, from the Chinese

Ambassador to the Secretary of State for

Foreign Affairs.

It asserts that, under the

Convention/