TNAG-1022-FCO40-1272-Relations-between-Hong-Kong-and-the-United-Nations-1981 — Page 102

GENERAL

13. The following general points should also be borne in mind

by delegations:

(a) we cannot condone the use of violence by

(b)

(c)

liberation movements in their attempt to achieve

their aims. References to the 'armed struggle

of NLMS are unacceptable for this reason.

There are often references in UN fora to General

Assembly resolutions recognising NLMS as repre-

sentatives of peoples. Neither the United Nations,

nor any other international organisation, can

determine by resolution who are the authentic representatives of the peoples concerned, since this contradicts the principle of self-determination (on which see section on page 81).

Particular care should be taken over any attempt

to designate one particular NLM as the 'sole representative' of some body or other.

NLMS AND THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS

14. Two Protocols, additional to the Geneva Conventions and regulating the conduct of warfare, were concluded at the Geneva Diplomatic Conference in 1977 and have now entered into force. (The UK has signed and, in common with NATO partners, is moving towards ratification in due course.) Article 96 of Protocol I

(which deals with the protection of the victims of international

armed conflicts) allows an NLM, engaged in 'fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination', to become subject to the provisions of the Protocol (providing

the other party to the conflict is also a Party to the Protocol)

by means of a unilateral declaration addressed to the depositary

(the Swiss Government). Such a declaration would bring the

Protocol and the Geneva Conventions into force for the NLM

with immediate effect, and would subject the NLM to the

rights and obligations of the Protocol and Conventions. important to note that although NLMS can in this way get into

a situation where the Protocol and the Conventions apply to a

conflict in which they are involved, they do not become in a

formal sense a Party to the Protocol. A similar provision is

contained in the Protocols concluded at the UN Weaponry Conference

/in October 1980

CONFIDENTIAL

(73)

It is