clause, our practice is to append to our ratification a list of those territories to which it will also apply. This does not give rise to objection. What the EFTA countries are asking for is something a good deal more restrictive upon us than the usual UN situation, which is highly unreasonable.
6. I would, however, like to suggest to LCD that we take a more conciliatory line, directed towards the problem which the EFTA countries profess to see, namely that by entering into this treaty with the UK and the other EC countries with dependencies, they will find themselves bound to give effect to judgments of all manner of strange little places with dubious judicial standards. Our answer to that could be in two parts. First, we are quite prepared to say in advance which are the territories to which we would anticipate extending the Convention. So they cannot say they are buying a "pig in a poke". Secondly, the rule of law and judicial standards in these territories are ensured by the United Kingdom. We are not talking about palm tree justice, but about a sophisticated system. We could add as a third point that it is surely in their interests that judgments of their own courts can be enforced in what have become major commercial centres.
7.
I should be grateful for your reaction to these suggested lines of argument. In particular would you see any objection to indicating in advance the names of the territories to which we would propose to extend the treaty?
20 October 1986
CC:
Mr Leeks, HKD
Mrs Eason
MR Eaton
Legal Advisers
Page 15Page 16
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.