TNAG-1845-FCO40-2620-House-of-Commons-Select-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs-enquiry-1989 — Page 100

1963-83-23 13:41

G.L.S

33 P.12

tha

saying before that any amendment to this law cannot be acainst provisions in the Joint Declaration. That is it's

not within the defined areas

of the Joint Declaration then, the National People's Congress cen amend it. So you have a problem between that body and the regional courts which have to be resolved in some way. This is the way that they've resolved it. I don't yet know whether there will be people in Hong Kong. lawyers, who still consider this

18 inadeguate and who will put forward alterations.

0:

one

Originally, before the Joint Declaration. of the proposals was that there should be a Supreme Court which might be made up of lawyers from Hong Kong and lawyers from the People's Republic which would adjudicate. would be the final adjudication Of conflict between the SAR system and the PRC system. That disappeared. It didn't form part of the Joint Declaration. What did form part OF the Joint Declaration was the final adjudication to the independent judicial

and power.

now I think what you are saying is that for whatever reason Article 157 is even a resigning from that. Is that situation which is going to be acceptable to the people of Hong Kong? Not just to the lawyers, because the lawyers are just the machinery. The people whose rights may be very differently treated if the final adudication is in the People's Republic. than if it was being

-ding to the established system in the SAR.

tr:

1.

Governor:

I'll try to comment on that.

Chairman.

to

new

A

first of all what was discussed before the Joint Declaration came out I'm

not familiar with the particular argument that you were putting forward, but what came out of the Joint Declaration was that the power of final adjudication would rest in Hong Kong with the Hong Kong SAR. And there the issue to be dealt with was. how to change from the present system when there is final appeal to the

Privy Council something new and the objective was to try to make sure that the system rested in Hong Kong so that it was the apex of the common 13% system as it applied in Hong Kong. So it was not a final appeal to court in Peking and that is what's laid down in Article 81, I think it is. of the draft Basic Law when it says in terms "the power of final adjudication of

the Hong Kong SAR shall be vested in the Court final appeal of the

and region

that may invite judges elsewhere" So that is laid down very clearly in the second draft tha Basic Law. If people in Hong Kong believe that 157 19 KOK adequate way of dealing with the problem of the relationship becwest the region and the centre. which is clearly S difficult conceptual Cone itutional problem to deal with. then I'm sure they'11 put thei: views forward.

0:

Аз

from

I understand it as I read i this is not just a final court of appeal on cases which would Occus within Hong Kong.

that is as it were trapped within Hong Kong Article 81

It's about as you described it.

interpretation of Basic Law if there was a dispute on the Chinese authorities rights opposed

interpretation

by

the

of

a:

the

be

quit be thi

Kong's rights. that right ? And in

to relation to what

to

Hong

constitution,

is

narrowly defined

in

Its

that sense it would is left as it were

11