K
CONFIDENTIAL
not required by any Article of the G.A.T.T. and there had never
been any procedent. Perhaps it might be necessary at some
future stage for the G.A.T.T. to address itself to this
question if the hypothetical problem looked like becoming
an actuality. As far as Dependent Territories of the Six
were concerned, they had all been catered for in some way
or another under the Rome Treaty arrangements and the question
of the G.A.T.T. rights of any of them vis-a-vis a metropolitan
territory had not arisen.
4. Mr. Muir said that under present provisions, although
Hong Kong was treated as a Contracting Party, she could not
take action against the U.K. within the G.A.T.T., as a
Dependent Territory had no rights against the metropolitan
power. There was, however, a possible escape route: it was
possible for a Dependent Territory to become a Contracting
Party in its own right if it acquired full autonomy in the
conduct of its external commercial relations For example,
Rhodesia had been a Contracting Party since the outset of
the G.A.T.T. There was some ambiguity in the concept of
such "full autonomy" and in practice if the metropolitan
state said it had been acquired by the territory, that was
sufficient for the G.A.T.T.
5. Mr. Muir said that another possibility was for Hong
Kong to have the G.A.T.T. applied de facto to her. The essenco
of the latter procedure was that the territory concerned still
had to have acquired the "full autonomy" required for Contracting
Party status; but instead of opting to be deemed a Contracting
Party it was given time to consider its relationship to the
G.A.T.T. and while it was doing so the G.A.T.T. was applied
de facto in trade relations between that Territory and the
Contracting Parties. This meant, for example, that it obtained
and gave n.f.n. treatment; but, since it was not a Contracting
Party, it had no legal right to such treatment and could not
/vote
}
:
•
#
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.