any of its member states.
It was
recognised by both delegations that it
would be difficult for Britain, as a
member of the enlarged Community, to
speak up in the G,A,T,T, against a fellow
Berber. Britain could however raise the
question at issue with the member state
concerned outside the 0.A.T.T., either in
a Community context or bilaterally.
(c) we pointed out that, if Hong Kong
felt that this would leave her position
more exposed than at present, she had
the possibility of taking unilateral
retaliatory action against any member of
the Community who discriminated against
ber, either by tariff means or through
the exercise of her public purchasing
policy.
(a) we also pointed out that, whereas
it now fell to us to speak for Hong Kong
within the G.A.T.T., this situation
derived from the fact that the G.A.I.T.
had been applied to Hong Kong by virtue
of a declaration on the part of the
United Kingdom as the metropolitan power;
the legal basis of her rights could be
changed by either:-
(1) Hong Kong becoming a Contracting
Party in her own right as had been
done by other dependent territories
(e.g. Rhodesia)
(11) Hong Kong having the G.A,T.T.
applied to her de facte by decision
of the Contracting Parties,
In the former case, Hong Kong would have
/full
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.