TNAG-2175-FCO40-3112-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 253

CONFIDENTIAL

21

機密

under international law and could use this as an excuse for

repealing the BOR in 1997. This argues for the deletion of the two provisions. Another advantage of deleting them is that, as they stand, they suggest that other articles which provide that certain conduct "shall be prohibited" create

an obligation to legislate further. Such a construction is not intended (see paragraph 37 above). On the other hand, deletion of Article 17 alongside Clause 13 should not give

rise to doubts about the faithfulness of the BOR in

translating the obligations under the ICCPR as applied to

Hong Kong.

The argument against deleting the two provisions is that might provoke demands for the deletion

of other reservations, such as the one relating to the

establishment of an elected Legislative Council. However,

such demands

demands could be easily countered: the deletion of

Clause 13 (the reservation) is a necessary consequence of

the deletion of Article 17: in the case of other

reservations there is no proposal to delete the relevant

article.

45.

and

On balance we recommend the deletion of Article 17

Clause 13.

This would be consistent with the

international obligation not to

to legislate further in this field and would have the advantage of removing from the bor

the provisions which were the most likely to cause

confusion about the meaning of the "shall be prohibited"

articles.

Avoiding Use of the Term "Reservations" (Part III)

46.

Some submissions are opposed to the existence of

Part III of the White Bill for a number of reasons: that

international agreement should not be

reservations

to

an

CONFIDENTIAL #2

機密

21