TNAG-2175-FCO40-3112-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 130

File No.

111 (89) vii,

Page

M. I

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL DECISION ON 9.1.90

A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR HONG KONG: XCC (90)1 (33) in PF VII

COMMENTARY

(a)

(b)

(c)

(a)

Members agreed that it was important that the Bill of Rights should closely mirror the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as far as possible and that in essence, the Bill should be superior to other local legislation both existing and future. Public confidence would be given a boost if action could be taken, to ensure that as far as possible, the Bill survived intact through and beyond :1997. By mirroring the ICCPR, procedural and political difficulties would be created if the SARG wished to repeal or amend the Bill. Article 39 of the current draft Basic Law clearly entrenched the ICCPR. However, Members noted that in the final analysis, nothing could prevent the SARG from repealing or amending the Bill.

-

Members accepted was unattainable; not be bound other constitutional machinery. concern that the Bill should not be superior to the Basic Law, it was extremely unlikely that they would ever contemplate entrenching the

Bill through their constitutional

that complete entrenchment future legislatures could than through the Given Chinese

machinery.

entrenchment

factor,

an the

Whilst

was designed as inhibiting

nevertheless Administration

the day could deliberately override provisions in the Bill by ensuring that the appropriate legislation was in a form and manner prescribed by the Bill as being capable of prevailing over the Bill itself.

It would be difficult to argue that the ICCPR could only be implemented through enactment of a Bill of Rights given that the provisions of the ICCPR were already, or could in any event be given effect in Hong Kong through existing laws.

G.F 32

CONFIDENTIAL

TOCA