TNAG-1349-FCO40-1790-Chinese-visa-office-in-Hong-Kong-1984 — Page 228

FCO40 Hong Kong Department Records 聯邦事務部香港部檔案 All

:

doud?

Copy to Fur Whomesley Legal Adv.

CONFIDENTIAL

TOP COPY

HKK 349/1.

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

De

12 MAP $294

>

4987

GISTRY

on Taken

(16)

PP PEKING

GRS 583

CONFIDENTIAL

FM FCO 091600Z MAR 84

TO PRIORITY PEKING

TELEGRAM NUMBER 204 OF 09 MARCH

INFO PRIORITY HONG KONG

YOUR TELNOS 234 AND 235:

1. WE FIND IT SURPRISING

INDEX

co

CHINESE VISA OFFICE IN HONG KONG

see (19) 2

THAT THE CHINESE HAVE PRESENTED US WITH

A NEW DRAFT AT THIS LAST STAGE. AT YOUR NEXT MEETING YOU MAY

WISH TO MAKE SOME REFERENCE TO THE DELAY THIS HAS CAUSED.

2. WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT IN YOUR TELNO

235:

3. AS A GENERAL POINT, AS THIS IS, TECHNICALLY, AN UNDERSTANDING

RATHER THAN AN AGREEMENT, THE WORD 'WILL' SHOULD PROPERLY BE USED

INSTEAD OF 'SHALL' SEMICOLON THIS POINT OCCURS IN FIVE PLACES IN

PARA 3, THREE PLACES IN PARA 4 AND TWICE IN PARA 5.

4.

PARAGRAPH 3: NO OBJECTION TO PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH.

IT IS AN AMALGAM OF ARTICLE 35 OF THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON

CONSULAR RELATIONS (VCCR) AND ARTICLE 27 OF THE VIENNA

CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS (VCDR). WE NOTE THAT IT GIVE

ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY TO THE BAG (IE ON THE SCALE OF ARTICLE 27(3) O

VCDR AND NOT THE MORE LIMITED PROTECTION AFFORDED BY ARTICLE

35(3) OF VCCR). WE SUGGEST TWO DRAFTING AMENDMENTS TO PARAGRAPH

3:

(1) ALTHOUGH WE HAVE NO LEGAL OBJECTION TO 'BRITISH HONG KONG

AUTHORITIES', WE THINK IT SOUNDS ODD LINGUISTICALLY AND WOULD

PREFER TO REPLACE IT BY 'BRITISH AUTHORITIES IN HONG KONG'. THE

LATTER PHRASE WAS USED BY THE CHINESE IN AN EARLIER DRAFT (YOUR

TELNO 49 OF 17 MAY 1983 TO HONG KONG), AND APPEARED IN THE UK/CHINA

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1981. PRESUMABLY THE

CHINESE WOULD NOT OBJECT TO IT NOW. FOR OUR OWN PART, SINCE WE

ACCEPTED THE PHRASE IN 1981, WE CAN SCARCLEY ATTEMPT NOW TO IMPROVE

ON IT(FROM A POLITICAL POINT OF VIEW) BY DELETING 'BRITISH'.

(II) THE WORD QUOTE ARTICLE UNQUOTE IN THE LAST SENTENCE IS

INCONSISTENT WITH TERMINOLOGY USED ELSEWHERE. WE SUGGEST FIRST

1

CONFIDENTIAL

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.