TNAG-0024-FCO40-60-Visits-by-nuclear-powered-ships-1968 — Page 141

3. There is, however, another aspect to the 1964 agreement. This flows from the simple situatior in 1964 under Government operation of the slip, when the body giving the inter-Govorimental; guarantee of compensation is itself the only concivable defendant in a claim for compensation; thus, for xa le, para. 4 of Annex 2 to the 1964 Agreement envisages

the

a situation in which the U.S. Government is a defendant in a private. law suit in a British law court. Now, although I have no idea how the rules of maritime s law regulate the current situation I should give odds that the only right of an injured party has is against the charterer and not against the bare legal owner; in other words the injured arty would

* 1 stand sue FAST, behind whose viability to pay the U.S. Government : a quasi-

*

inswer

“

In fact, this is exactly the bituition the"

the only Americans themselves envisage and desire; question is how to achieve it. Mr. Iyons's third paragraph suggests that the simplest would be to rely

I con- on the existing guarantees in American lar. fess to extreme difficulty myself in finding my way. through the maze of amendments to tr. U.S. Atomic Energy Act, and I don't see why individuals in Hong. Kong: should be expected to do so, r to have to rely

in other. on something purely internal to .. Ide words, I favour some form of inter-Governmental guarantee.

5. The easiest way to achieve this is to extend the 1964 agreement to Hong Kong by, unilateral ratification under para. (3) (a),"' Apart from graater simplicity, the cbvidus advantage is that it also extends the safety coverage provided by annex 1. The only apparent disadvantage is that discussed in para. 3 above; despite all that, it is surely not envisaged as a practical possibility that claims for compensation arising out of nuclear incident involving the SAVANNAH would be settled by suits' in the courts, rather than by inter-Governmental negot- iations?

6. Ultimately, it all depends on what the Hong Kong government want. I suggest we hold up further action until their reply is received.

Bernan