TNAG-0243-FCO40-279-Conduct-of-Hong-Kong-commercial-relations-1973 — Page 91

CONFIDENTIAL

*

in station to

him lottan

extrim

3. So that I can form a view as to whether Articles XXIV and XXVI of the GATT affect the general proposition I have set out in paragraph 1 of this minute and thereby enable Hong Kong to retaliate of her own motion to the exclusion of the exercise of such a right by the United Kingdom, I need to know from your Department:

(a)

(2)

(c)

4.

whether the U.K. has, in accordance with Article XXVI (5)(a) of the GATT, notified the Executive Secretary that Hong Kong was a separate customs territory (in which case I should like to see the notification and

whether, going on from there, action has been taken under Article XXVI (5) (c) of the GATT in respect of Hong Kong so that Hong Kong has, upon sponsorship through a declaration by the United Kingdom, acquired "full autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial relations", and is thereby deemed to be a contracting party;

whether, in your view, there are other relevant provisions of the GATT to which my attention should be drawn.

I am of course pretty sure that the action mentioned in (b) above has not been taken, so to speak, across the board, but something may have been done in relation to cotton textiles. Whether we are contemplating proceeding in accordance with Article XXVI (5) (c), I do not know but I should like to be put fully in the picturë before advising.

5. I am sorry to keep grousing about this matter but I am bound to comment that it is most unsatisfactory situation (for whatever reasons it has arisen) where a bold assertion is made in a brief that FCO Legal Advisers have been expressed a view in circumstances where such Legal Advisers have had no opportuni ty whatever of checking whether what is attributed to them is correct. This unsatisfactory situation deteriorates further when the Department, is subsequently quite unable to produce anything of any as to support the assertion that that advice was given Subject of course to my seeing the factual information for which I have asked in paragraph 3(a) and (b) above, my impression at the moment is that it is very likely that the statement of the legal position in the brief is not correct.

us see.

But let

CONFIDENTIAL

(D. M. Edwards)

20 August, 1970.