1989-03-23 13:48 0.1.5
33 P.11
it
be
Joint
Final Appeal in Hong Kong. So that the last resort will be them won't be the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong which the Joint Declaration actually specifically says "independeṛt judicial power including that of final adjudication". Unless words have a different meaning in Hong Kong from what they have here, that can't possibly consistent. the articles can't possibly be consistent with the Declaration. Now, while you're thinking about that one. can I ask you Why that's happened, that the People's Republic have shown. perhaps
of us, quite surprising willingness to accommodate
the sensitivities DE the people in Hong Kong in a whole wide range Of
But for some reason, although you've listed and You've
list of things where there
for
many
areas. about
been
ຈ
the
here
are
to
spoken decided
whole Long improvements, in the early stages, for some reason there seems to have
mind from what was clearly in
in the a reverse
Joint Declaration, What I'd like to know is if you could tell me, is that because
People's Republic demanded a change from the Joint Declaration. or was it because they said. "That's not what we meant in the Joint Declaration to vest the independent judicial power with final
And why did we surrender on it? Why given the power to the Standing Committee. that clearly in the Joint in Declaration, was meant to reside as a matter of final adjudication the Special Administrative Region ?
adjudication."
have
WS
GovernoT:
I'm sorry, at the beginning. did I hear right.
was it Article 1597
0:
concentrate
which advice
Yes, the Article 159. 157 and 1195. Let's just on 159. That's the one, where as I understand it. was explained to us this morning by the Foreign Secretary, the
will the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of
De
Now binding.
that doesn't sound to
like
the final giving adjudication to
its Special Administrative Region through independent judicial power,
Governor:
the
me
This is 157 isn't it. My original
was to 159 and I think the question of final adjudication is 157.
answer
Even
0:
I'm sorry that's my fault then. I misunderstood that you were referring to that. Will that's a change isn't it ? on 157 it's a change.
that the first first draft
„Governor:
Well 157. the point that I was making was this
very much debated and discussed in Hong Kong in draft and the second draft has amended what was in the very substantially. Now the reasoning in the minds of the draftars is something to which I'm not privy. I don't yet know whether there will will still take be people in Hong Kong, particularly lawyers. .who issue with what is in article 157. If so then I'm sure they will all wish to put forward their own views on that. There is. I suspect. trying to draft this the problem of how you deal with the relationship has the between the body which makes the law and writes the law and right to alter the law within well defined parameters and as
in
I
was
10
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.