CONFIDENTIAL
"The drafting of this Article does give rise to
problems. We understand that the draftsmen intend it as a guideline and not as a normative provision. If this is so we would have thought that the drafting requires revision and we would hope the Chinese would look at the text again.
Article 157
11
I am not sure that I understand the comment on this Article since the purpose of the 1989 text was to separate those matters which fall within the autonomy of the SAR on the over hand from those matters where the CPG had responsibility and relationship between the central authorities and the SAR on the other. There are different provisions relating to these two areas. Notwithstanding this change, it is the case (as some Chinese legal experts admit) that the Standing Committee is not excluded from interpreting provisions which are within the SAR's autonomy and the first sentence at the top of page 7 is correct. I join issue on the second sentence at the top of page 7 because, although the jurisdiction of the NPC Standing Committee means that the jurisdiction of the SAR Courts is not exclusive, it does not follow that that compromises the independence of the SAR Courts or their power of final adjudication in relation to matters which are within their jurisdiction. The power of final adjudication does not necessarily carry with it a power of comprehensive jurisdiction.
The public line is all right, but those who use it should be aware that the residual jurisdiction of the Standing Committee is not limited.
JD 85
I agree with the public line.
"Part B Basic Law: Satisfactory Provisions"
The first sentence on page 1 is fine, but it must be borne in mind that there are many gaps in the Joint Declaration particularly as regards the structure and composition of the Executive and the Legislature (which in effect are confined to JD 46-50) and the draftsmen of the Basic law have filled those gaps in ways which are not always satisfactory.
CONFIDENTIAL
/(A)
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.