TNAG-1492-FCO40-2050-Future-of-Hong-Kong-General-Agreement-on-Tariffs-and-Trade-(-1986 — Page 90

CONFIDENTIAL

раздник

FROM: PAUL FIFOOT

DATE: 22 APRIL

DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISER

1986

276

Mr Smith, HKD

HONG KONG AND THE GATT: HONG KONG TELNO 1147

(96

I am

-(68

The rationale in paragraph 3 of TUR is self-evident. not sure that it is an answer to para 2(A) of our telno 674, but that is not a matter for me.

1.

2.

Paragraph 6 of TUR is presumably the answer to our paragraph 2(B). In principle there is nothing wrong with a separate Hong Kong office dealing with GATT and other economic matters, some, or all, of whose members have a second role as part of a Hong Kong unit of UKmis. There may however be practical problems about immunities and inviolability of premises and papers which will need to be explored through UKmis with the Swiss.

3.

This brings us to our paragraph 2(C). Hong Kong's retrieval system is obviously better than mine since they have been able to refer to UKmis Geneva's telno 424 on the question whether Switzerland accords privileges and immunities in relation to the GATT. The Geneva telegram however only answers one of the questions in paragraph 3 of my minute of 14 April (the first question in paragraph 5 of our TUR). It does not answer the question whether Switzerland would accord such privileges and immunities to Hong Kong as a separate member of the GATT. Indeed paragraph 2 of UKmis telno 424 is pessimistic on that issue.

4.

Apart from the general question whether Switzerland would accord immunities to Hong Kong (and the fact that states such as France and Hungary keep separate GATT offices is not a precedent for a GATT member which is not a State), there is the problem about the inviolability of a separate office as respects Hong Kong papers not relating to GATT. If the separate Hong Kong office were used for other subjects, and contained papers relating to those other subjects, they would not benefit from any inviolability which was a consequence of membership of GATT unless that separate office were treated as part of the UK mission for those purposes.

That, I suspect, would defeat the purpose of having a separate office. Is this a practical problem?

HKK 122/1

লি

ffor

29 APR 1986

Paul Fifoot

CONFIDENTIAL

Page 90Page 91