TNAG-1580-FCO40-2154-Extension-to-Hong-Kong-of-European-Community--European-Free-1987 — Page 14

CODE 18-77

AWO Ltd.

7/84

NIKK 371/3. RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

DES

Mr Canty,

1 1 NOV 1986

CHEFICEH

WIAD

ution taken

Reference....

Larken Infaton to spearth his

рабов.

OF 24/w

ра

DRAFT EC/EFTA JUDGMENTS CONVENTION

TERRITORIES

1.

EXTENSION TO DEPENDENT

Since I last wrote to you on this subject on 10 September, I have seen a number of other communications from the Territories to which you are responsible, though not, I think, yet any definitive response from Bermuda. On the Hong Kong side, we do now have the letter of 29 September confirming that they wish an extension of the Convention to Hong Kong to be sought.

2. I would like, when all the important replies are in, to send copies of all the responses to Lord Chancellors' Department and give them an up-to-date list of those territories to which we would wish to extend the Convention. Can you please put together the copies and the information?

3. I attach a copy of the latest report from Mr Rodney, his letter of 29 September to me with enclosures. You will see that there is still resistance on the part of the EFTA countries to any kind of extension (pages 4 and 5 of the report). I gather that the opposition came principally from the Swiss, with some support from Sweden and Norway. It is helpful that Mr Rodney was able to smoke out some of our EC partners who have similar, though less extensive, problems and make the Swiss realise that we are not alone.

4.

I think we should continue to take the line set out in para- graph 5 of my letter of 3 July. On specific points raised at the meeting in opposition to our line, the fact that territorial extension clauses are becoming increasingly rare does not mean that we have to accept in fora other than those dominated by a third world majority that they should disappear entirely. It is highly relevant that the existing judgments Convention between the EC countries provides for extension. If all our European partners can accept that we have the power of extension, why should it be so unthinkable that the EFTA countries should do the same? The type of clause that the Swiss are suggesting, giving a right of objection to each other individual State Party is virtually unprecedented and would create a most confused and undesirable situation.

5.

Mr Rodney's second argument was that the other State Parties were only entitled to look upon the Metropolitan State of the UK as the Party, which for the purposes of international law would include the Dependent Territories, and it was entirely a matter for us whether we extended or did not. I have some sympathy with the EFTA countries in finding this a somewhat. theoretical position. It is however perfectly true, and worth pointing out, that in situations where there is no territorial extension

/clause,