CO537-6049 — Page 22

CHINA

31. It is submitted, therefore, that the Treaty makes the exercise of Chinese jurisdiction subordinate to the defence requirements of Hong Kong. His Majesty's Government must be the judges of those requirements. Both in 1899 and on every other occasion when the question was raised the British military authorities have been consistently of the opinion that Chinese jurisdiction is incon- sistent with those requirements and that is their view at the present time.

It may also be argued on the literal interpretation of the Treaty that if once the Chinese jurisdiction is validly interrupted by military requirements there is no right to resume it.

32. The answer of His Majesty's Government to what appears to be the Chinese argument that, even if Chinese jurisdiction may have to cede to the mili- tary requirements of the defence of Hong Kong, His Majesty's Government have no right to jurisdiction in the City is that the City was leased to His Majesty's Government as well as the rest of the territory. Over the rest of the territory His Majesty's Government had sole jurisdiction which implies that over the City His Majesty's Government had, or might in certain circumstances, have some juris- diction. This jurisdiction might be concurrent with or alternative to the Chinese jurisdiction.

33. Mr. Bevin and Mr. Creech Jones would be grateful if you would take the above matters into your consideration and if you would furnish them with your opinion on the following questions:---

(i) Is the dispute a suitable one for submission to the International Court

of Justice?

(ii) If so, whether His Majesy's Government should initiate proceedings by application, without making, or after having made a special declara- tion under the optional clause on the lines indicated in paragraph 21 above, or endeavour to negotiate a special agreement for submission to the International Court?

(iii) Whether His Majesty's Government would have a good prospect of

succeeding before the International Court?

Mr. Bevin and Mr. Creech Jones would also be glad of any observations which you may feel disposed to offer generally on the case.

We have the honour to be,

Gentlemen,

Your obedient Servants,

K. O. ROBERTS-WRAY,

(Signed)

[Colonial Office].

(Signed)

F. A. VALLAT,

(For W. E. BECKETT,

[Foreign Office].)

List of Papers

A. (1) Additional information about Kowloon City and the early history of the dispute as

to jurisdiction over it.

(2) Map of Kowloon City (not reproduced).

B-The Anglo-Chinese Convention of 9th June, 1898.

C.-(1) Order in Council, 20th October, 1898.

(2) Order in Council, 27th December, 1899.

D.-(1) War Office and Admiralty letters of 1934.

(2) British Defence Co-ordination Committee telegram, 29th April, 1948, and Minister of

Defence's letter, 5th May, 1948.

E.-Correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government

concerning the dispute as to jurisdiction over Kowloon City:-

(1) Between 1898-1900.

(2) 1933-1937.

(3) Official statement by Hong Kong Government, 15th September, 1946.

(4) Correspondence since 1946,

F.-Foreign Office Research Department Memorandum on leases granted by China to foreign

Powers in 1898 and 1899.

35538

C