XN000022-1995-11-16 — Page 7

- 6-

Governor: No and that is a point made by the United Nations quite clearly itself by the Chairman of the UN Human Rights Committee for the two reasons that I've expressed. First, because the human rights undertakings made about Hong Kong are not undertakings which are retained by the Government. They're undertakings which apply to the individuals, to the people of Hong Kong and those undertakings remain with the people of Hong Kong after 30th June, 1997.

Secondly, because it is accepted that the international covenants should apply to Hong Kong and because Article 40 of the international covenant that we're talking about makes the reporting obligation clear, then I think that every international lawyer concedes that the reporting obligation, in some way, and there are different ways in which you could do it, the reporting obligation continues after 1997. Now in some ways it would be presumptuous for me to argue that the best way of ensuring that the reporting obligation continued would be for China to exceed to the covenants, but plainly that would be a very satisfactory way and would give a great deal of reassurance, I think, beyond Hong Kong.

Ms Christine Loh: Governor, I also would like to ask about the international obligation. You have made Britain's interpretation of the reporting obligation as part of the Joint Declaration quite clear. China obviously has a different interpretation of that obligation. Now, do you consider that if on 1 July 1997 that reporting procedures are not put in place, have not been agreed with China, then would the Joint Declaration be effectively breached on that day on a very fundamental term? If your answer is yes, what will be the consequences?

Governor: First of all, let me make it clear once again that it isn't solely Britain's view that there is a reporting obligation. That view was put very clearly by the Chairman of the Committee to which we, as part of the British delegation, gave evidence only a few weeks ago, as the Honourable Member knows. Now, I have difficulty with "what if" questions, and most of the hot water I've ever got into is as a result of having answered those hypothetical questions. All I will say is no, it involves me saying "if". All I will say is that the Joint Declaration makes clear that the International Covenants should apply to Hong Kong. There are reporting obligations under those International Covenants and therefore not to report would, it seems to me, be difficult to reconcile with ones undertakings under the Joint Declaration. And I think that is a situation which all of us would want to avoid.

--

Ms Christine Loh: Governor, if I can then change the question to a not "if" question. Is it possible for the Joint Declaration to be breached? And if it is, what can we do?