TNAG-1863-FCO40-2643-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1989 — Page 202

CHRISTOPHER K. MITCHELL-HEGGS

D.1

Avoc

orat de Droit Privé

r Barrister-at-Law (Inner Temple)

-

Avec la collaboration de :

JILL SCHOFIELD-THOMMERET b.a. Hons,

Licenciée en Droit, Solicitor

AVRIL S. H. LEE

B. A. Honours Law (Kent)

Barrister-at-Law (Middle Temple) D.S.U. Droit Commercial (Paris 2)

EVELYNE LASSNER-FAROULT

Avocat à la Cour

Correspondants Organiques :

MAURICE MITCHELL-HEGGS m.a. (oxon)

Barrister-at-Law

MANUEL DE YTURBE m.a. (Cantab.)

Licencié en Droit, Barrister-at-Law

ANTHONY MITCHELL-HEGGS

Barrister-at-Law

DR. DOREEN HINCHCLIFFE, ph. d.

London, II. m. Harvard, Barrister-at-Law

CABINET MITCHELL-HEGGS

9, RUE D'ANJOU

75008 PARIS

TÉL. 42 65 13 04 (6 LIGNES)

TELEX 660 853 ARMHYT

TELECOPIEUR AUTOMATIQUE :

(FRANCE: 33-1) 47 42 72 15

~

ว

NOTRE RÉF.CKMH/SB

CABINET EN ANGLETERRE

THE CLOISTERS

INNER TEMPLE, LONDON EC4Y 7AA

TEL: 01.353.21.14

VOTRE RÉF.

DATE 19th May 1989

Ian Taylor Esq., M.B.E., M.P.,

House of Commons,

London SW1A OAA,

ANGLETERRE.

Dear

Thank you for your letter of 15th May 1989.

I hasten to stress to you that although Article 169 of the second Draft Basic Law has now been integrated into a new Article 157, there still remains two serious problems :

Firstly, there is nothing to prevent the Standing Committee to take upon itself to interpret the Basic Law without an issue arising before the Hong Kong Courts, which would enable it to modify the Basic Law.

Secondly, the new text does not attempt to define the composition of the "Committee" for the Basic Law, which should be consulted before the Standing Committee to modify or interpret the Basic Law.

Indeed, in Peking it appears they consider this "Committee" simply to have been in place during the negotiations and to have no further involvement, and probably be dismissed. The composition of this "Committee" is therefore an open question. It could certainly be defined now to comprise emminent jurists from Hong Kong, the Peoples Republic of China and, why not, Great Britain.

It can also be specified that this "Committee" will act after 1997 as a Constitutional Council on any aspect of the Basic Law requiring interpretation or amendment in this same way and a Constitutional Court, without the proviso that the Standing Committee might only

•