TNAG-1661-FCO40-2309-Hong-Kong-localisation-of-shipping-legislation-1987 — Page 8

epresentation of the Dependent Territories at the IMO. There are

two options:

either: the UK could promote Associate Membership for individual

Dependent Territories;

or

the UK could directly assume

representation (save Hong Kong).

Associate Membership

responsibility for their

12. This might be thought to be the most direct route for

promoting accountability. However, the Dependent Territories might

be loathe to incur the additional costs of the subscription and

attendance and they could not be compelled

seek associate

status. There are other considerations to weigh:

to

(a) accountability cuts both ways. Direct representation

would mean that a Dependent Territory could adopt a different

position at the IMO to that adopted by the UK;

(b)

there would be some political difficulties: objections by

eg Spain as regards Gibraltar or Argentina in respect of the

Falkland Islands.

The United Kingdom Representing the Dependent Territories

13. This approach would involve the UK advising the IMO that from

a specified date the UK would formally represent its Dependent Territories. and that accordingly, the tonnage of the Dependent Territories should be added to the UK figures for assessment and other purposes. Under this approach

this approach Hong Kong would remain the

IMO's sole Associate Member.

14.

Under this route, the accountability of the Dependent Territories would be to the UK rather than to the IMO. This would be in tune with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Bill. The step would be welcomed by Member countries

as a positive move