Department of Trade and Industry
Commercial Relations and Exports
1 Victoria Street London SW1H OET
Telex 27366 Answer Back DTIHQ London
Telegrams Advantage London SW1
RECEIVED IN
RTG.
YN2.51
16 AUG 1972
Telephone 01-222 7877 ext
NICK 6/8
×2621
Your reference
A Lambert Esq
Hong Kong & Indian Ocean Department
F.C.O.
London SW1
Our reference
Date
15th
CRE/28599/P
August 1972
KONG'S
Dear Tony
HONG KONGS GATT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ENLARGED EEC
I am writing to comment on the draft paper enclosed with Dick Crowson's letter of 10 August. This seems to me very clear and helpful, and my only comment of substance (which affects the draft at various points) is on the question whether there is a legal possibility of Hong Kong's becoming a separate contracting party to GATT. I still do not quite understand your Legal Adviser's view that this is impossible, though I realise that it is a starter for practical purposes. For this reason, it seems unnecessary to continue to argue this point. For the record, however, my difficulty of comprehension arises as
follows:
2. The wording of Article XXVI (5) (c) seems clear enough as far as it goes; customs territory only needs full autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial relations (there are really no other matters than external commerce covered by GATT) and a declaration to this effect by the metropolitan power for GATT to be willing to accept it as a contracting party; complete autonomy (eg in defence and diplomatic relations) is not asked for. Given this degree of autonomy, then under Article XXXIII the UK could accede to GATT on behalf of Hong Kong, which I assume would then become a separate GATT entity.
a
3. This means that I do not quite see why the amendment to GATT rules, which I agree (para 4 of the draft) would be necessary to enable the EEC as an entity to become a contracting party, would need to be framed to take account of the special position of Hong Kong, Presumably there could be no question of Hong Kong acquiring separate GATT rights without acquiring autonomy in commercial relations which would require an amendment to the rules. However, as there obviously is a legal doubt about Hong Kong's potential status, it would no doubt be possible to take the opportunity of any amendment to the rules about accession to clear this up.
4. As regards the CTC (para 10), Hong Kong could have separate representation without being deemed to be a contracting party; as is pointed out, non-members of GATT can be members of the LTA. But they are all "countries" ("participating countries" in the LTA formula), and if Hong Kong cannot acquire an international personality or any obligation under international law, then I don't see how it could have any separate existence under the LTA any more than under GATT. Incidentally, I am not quite clear about the distinction drawn in para 10, sixth sentence, between the CTC and its successor body.
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.