X
Mr. Bend Haguen Is not x / dillerent |
From: Sir Arthur Watts
Legal Adviser
from the advices we received from Mr Edwardfate:
Mr Paul
Hong Kong Department
14/12
13 December 1989
Mo Paul
CC:
I understood that Mr Edwardh and Sir A Watts had concocted
the line we wore using. It has not
Coms across clearly in parliament:
PS
PS/Mr Maude Mr Gillmore
Mr McLaren
Mr Colvin, SEAD Mr Brenton, UND Mr Burns, News
Department
Mr Gregson, PRU Mr Edwards
the crisper line, as argued in para 3, is trus Even though scmplian
VIETNAMESE BOAT PEOPLE: INTERNATIONAL LAW
1.
D1412
1412
In the Parliamentary Debates over the last 24 hours I have noticed a number of references by Government spokesmen to the effect that the return of the boat people to their State of origin is in accordance with "the custom of international law", being "customary in international law", and similar phrases which somewhat blur the custom/international law concept.
2.
If I might suggest it, I think our position can be covered much more crisply by simply saying that "under international law" States are required to take back those of their citizens who are not acceptable in any other State. Introducing the element of custom sounds a little weaker than is necessary.
3.
As background, the relevance of custom in this context is that, broadly speaking, international law is comprised of either of customary law or treaties. The analogy with common law and statute law as the law of the UK is close. The point is that both are equally law. We can say so plainly and simply. If we are to use a reference to the customary element, it should be in the form "customary international law" and not in some other form which can sometimes get closer to suggesting something more like a mere practice or usage, which implies that our legal case is weaker than it is.
Alically
A'D Watts
SAWABR
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.