TNAG-2321-FCO40-3365-Human-rights-in-Hong-Kong-1991 — Page 221

irs Glover Legal Advisers

CSCE COMMITMENTS:

RESTRICTED

Reference

Mer Holland WAD

inqve not focussed on thi

Yet but thought you light Like to see any case

DEPENDENT TERRITORIES AND REALMS Clearly a

отанды

1. I apologise for belatedly recording a telephone conversation S

I had on 15 November with Mrs Fletton, A Division, Home Office.

2.

She rang in the context of the UK's problems in bringing the 12/1 dependent territories, and realms such as Jersey and the Isle of Man, to agree to ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. What, she asked, was the position in respect of CSCE commitments? Had we made commitments in respect of eg the Channel Islands? Did we consult them?

3. I said that I did not know. Post-Moscow, I was not keen on having to wait for clearance from eg the States of Guernsey as well as Home Departments. I assumed that should questions arise as to observance of commitments in dependent territories, the response would be that HMG made such commitments for areas under its own jurisdiction; if the matter in question was a matter for a territorial government which was not a participating State, the point could not be pressed. The analogy was with the Soviet Union/Azerbaijan or Yugoslavia/Serbia. There was a nice point for for constitutional lawyers, as to what applied if HMG had authority in foreign affairs to make agreements on behalf of these territories. This depended on the areas covered by the constitutional arrangements, I thought. I also wondered whether a distinction could be made between treaty obligations and political undertakings.

The

4. Mrs Fletton concluded, somewhat hastily, that for the time being there was no need to worry the islands with CSCE commitments, as their observance could not be questioned or enforced. I said I could not support that conclusion. question remained open, and I would consult. In any case, the CSCE acquis represented standards of civilised behaviour which we should surely encourage throughout Europe, including in the territories. We had foreign policy reasons (Serbia, ex-Soviet Republics) for wanting to implicate sub-national authorities in observance of commitments. We were considering how to take this forward; our Ministers would not want our case to be undermined by seamy practices in territories for which Britain was responsible.

5. I would be grateful for your views, and those of copy addressees.

4.7

A V G Tucker CSCE Unit

W116A: 270 2425

26 November 1991

CC:

Mr Watt, UND Mr Pearce, SED

Ms Foulds, RAD

Mr Axworthy, Sec Pol Dept