understand that the Chinese consider twelve miles to be the extent of territorial waters. The Foreign Offic Legal Adviser after consultation with the Admiralty advised that the marking on the map was misleading and was merely "a delimitation of the area within which all territory is leased, and accompanying the territory, of course the normal territorial waters". He illustrated this by reference to the maps showing Antarotic claims which included large portions of the high seas,
(7.6690/130/10 of 23rd September 1937). On the other hand, it is obviously a tenable theory that the marking on the map was deliberate and that Hong Kong, is excluded. from exercising jurisdiction in the waters west of Lantas which would then presumably be under Chinese sovereignty. The first question therefore on which we should be grateful for your advios is whether the 1937 opinions can still be maintained.
40 The next question then arises as to whether ** Hong Kong should azeroise jurisdiction within the
full limits of the map or only within the three mile limit (either including or excluding the waters west of Lantao). In 1937 His išajesty's Government were concerned to avoid incidents which might compromise their noutrality. in the struggle between Japan and China, and Hong Kong were therefore instructed not to give the appearance of claiming jurisdiction beyond the limits of national or territorial waters properly accepted by international custom. Such waters, in the case of Hồng Kong, were defined generally as follows:❤
(a) Waters within 3 miles of the Colony's territory
and
(b) waters extending 3 miles to seaward of lines
drawn from S.V. Point to Black Point in Deep Bay
/and
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.